2013 FJR1300 - Shuey's Farkles

Roman numerals on the top case clock create an intriguing nod to the analog world and a nice design element. :rolleyes:

Overall, beautifully conceived and executed. My hat is off to you and Kreis.
 
Shuey, congrats on the setup and kudos to Kreis. To clarify the fuel odo count-up, similar to GenII, last fuel bar will start flashing first, then the fuel odo kicks in when you have 5 litres remaining, and it starts counting up the mileage on that 5 litre reserve. Your test of 48 miles to zero fuel would be about right (mine does 100 km or 60 miles, but I don't push it past a safe margin). So, this to me is the most accurate way of estimating remaining fuel. It is not based on average consumption like the ST, which is I believe based on average fuel economy since it was last reset, and has varied results all over the place (To help this, I used to reset the avg. fuel economy when I first got the warning). It does not make sense (to me) that you ran out once after 8 miles, unless somehow the fuel odo got reset. You did not burn 5 litres in 8 miles..... What I don't know is if the fuel odo can be reset, I think on my GenII it is not, but I can't say I've tried that (I will when I can). Your Gen III may be resettable (accidentally?) with all that electronic display gadgetry, while toggling screens perhaps, but I would look into that....... might be in the owner's manual?
 
RaYzerman said:
It is not based on average consumption like the ST, which is I believe based on average fuel economy since it was last reset, and has varied results all over the place (To help this, I used to reset the avg. fuel economy when I first got the warning).
Click to expand...

:th1:

I don't mean to derail a most interesting thread but I thought some clarification is needed here. The ST's travel distance and fuel remaining value is first calculated based on the amount of fuel remaining and the fuel consumption for the 20 minutes immediately prior to the fuel reserve sensor turning on (5 liters by the way). According to the Service Manual, the possible travel distance is recalculated every 15 seconds using the fuel pulse signals sent to the ECM. I have plenty of experience in noting the behavior of the ST's fuel system since I almost always refuel my tank well after the blinking last segment comes on (to date, over 450 tankful's of gas). I find, that the miles remaining is very accurate with the only exception being if you happen to turn off the bike. This is not a problem for me when I am on a trip since I am not planning on stopping the bike except when I am at a gas station.

I also agree with Shuey on this one. It seems more intuitive to me that the system counts down toward zero as you approach an empty tank. When the FJR's fuel counter starts counting up from zero, how is one to know how much gas you truly have in the tank unless you do what he did and actually run it out? I suppose you should always read the manual first. I would hope that they would give you some guidance in this...
 
Scooter said:
I don't mean to derail . . .
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Ray and Scooter . . . it isn't a hijack, it's more info in the comparison. Thanks. You beat me to the response. This (for me) is one key difference between the two designs. The ST with constant consumption checking is great, and like you, I habitually rode into the gas station with 3 dashes showing. (Once the 8th bar starts to flash I also discovered the miles remaining estimate became worthless if the bike was turned off and restarted.)

As soon as I get the aux tank installed, I'll get serious about finding the limits of the fuel and mileage on the FJR. It's just a learning curve and . . . I'll adapt, and . . . I'll be . . . riding!

Life is great and keeps getting better.
Shuey
 
Last edited:
dmcleane said:
Great thread, both questions and responses.
I'm curious about Erica and Krista, the auxiliary LED lighting. How are they aimed, and their different intended purposes?
Click to expand...

Really good question Dave, thanks for asking.

The Kristas (2,400 lumens ea.) are on with the bike lights; run all the time the bike is on to increase my visibility to traffic ahead of me. They make the bike lights nearly invisible on low beam. I aim them similar to the bike's low beams but a little wider for better evening visibility of road shoulders . . . grazing deer, whatever. They have a dimmer switch for low beam and I dim them down to about 15% as they are really bright even at that setting.

The Ericas (6,000 lumens ea.) are wired into the bike light system, like the Kristas, but also have a separate custom on/off switch and an added dash LED power on indicator light (otherwise, from the saddle you can't tell if there on or not until you get off, go around and look). I aim them for distance down a travel lane's edges and also have them dimmed down to about 15%.

When the high beam switch is pressed, any Clearwater lights that are on go to 100% along with the stock headlights. When there's no oncoming traffic, with all 4 Clearwater lights on I'm an artificial sunrise. There have been 3 incidents so far where I've seen deer on the shoulder facing the road and they were BACKING UP! I hope this benefit continues . . . indefinitely.

Another feature I like about both sets is the max brightness is centered, but there is a significant flair or halo for each light that has proven very beneficial. When cornering sharply on a dark back road, the flair will light the way around the bend as well as increase my visibility to oncoming traffic. When going down a steep hilly trough, the flair will light up the other side of the valley while the stock lights stay buried at the bottom of the hill.

I hope that helps.

Shuey
 
Prior to owning the ST1100 I had a Suzuki Madura...pass anything but a gas station. I fabricated a tour tank of sorts that held 12 litres of fuel (3US gallons) The fuel tank on the Madura was 13 litres. I would run the tour tanks first and note the trip meter when I ran out of fuel gave me an idea how much further I could travel on the main tank.
How much extra fuel do you plan on carrying with the aux tank and what is the relationship to capacity? Half the size a third? Just curious on the expected range between fill-ups.
 
One question...how much would it cost me to pick up the identical bike from Kreis? I LOVE it! Well set up, but very clean looking. And everything is positioned where it would make sense. Very nice and well thought out.

Hopefully now that I have a much better income, my next bike will get a similar treatment all at once, rather than piecemeal as finances allow. I tried to wire my ST up planning for future upgrades, which has worked pretty well, but with ongoing use I've changed how I wanted to mount some things, but the wiring is in place for a different setup. Not a big deal, I'm still glad I planned ahead, but being able to set everything up at the same time would work much better.

Great bike, and I appreciate the report of how you like it so far. While I absolutely love the ST's V-4, Yamaha really came through on the factory equipment, such as cruise. I might look beyond the ST for the additional goodies Yamaha puts on.
 
Scooter, thanks for clarifying..... my memory is bad and it's been a while since I had my ST..... I should clarify my suggestion for Shuey to keep it simple.... Running out of fuel at 48 miles is probably a good FJR average. Pick a number, let's say 48 miles for the moment. All you have to know is that counter is going up and when it reaches 48 you're close to being out so that gas station better be there along the way somewhere (like you have a choice). You only have to remember that number. There is no variable consumption calculation like the ST does, you don't have to be constantly fretting and guessing at what the next calculation is. FJR's are pretty consistent at fuel consumption, i.e., you'd have to flog it pretty bad for your number to be 40. So, yes it is an adaptation in thinking.
But do test that 'run out' mileage a couple more times to verify your 48 number. I suspect it isn't going to be much different. I personally use 50, knowing that I'll likely run out at 60 (miles).
 
Hi Shuey, I am considering an FJR as a replacement for the ST and yours looks sensational. Maybe you can help me with a query. I have seen on the Yamaha website and noticed in the FJR blog site that Yamaha recommend that you do not use the pannier bags and the top box (trunk) at the same time. There is a suggestion that the rear frame is not strong enough to support both when loaded. As most of my riding is done with the pillion in a million this is a great concern. We always have the panniers and top box (and the rack on top of it)fully loaded when we travel. Have you (or have you found it necessary) to strengthen the frame to support the additional weight of your pelican case and its contents?
 
Aussieboy said:
Hi Shuey, I am considering an FJR as a replacement for the ST and yours looks sensational. Maybe you can help me with a query. I have seen on the Yamaha website and noticed in the FJR blog site that Yamaha recommend that you do not use the pannier bags and the top box (trunk) at the same time. There is a suggestion that the rear frame is not strong enough to support both when loaded. As most of my riding is done with the pillion in a million this is a great concern. We always have the panniers and top box (and the rack on top of it)fully loaded when we travel. Have you (or have you found it necessary) to strengthen the frame to support the additional weight of your pelican case and its contents?
Click to expand...

Hi. I've always wondered, if you're "down under" what's that make where I live? Just curious.

Ah, yes, your question. FYIW. First, I'm not a real technical or engineering type guy, but can share my thoughts on the matter. I don't think it's a problem, or at least it hasn't bitten me yet. I have had 3 ST1300s ('07, '08, '10) with approx. 50K, 100k, and 100k miles racked up on them. I never had a pillion rider, but always had both hard side bags, a top box (first a Givi V46, then Pelican Case 1040) AND an aux fuel tank mounted under the Pelican top box. Never had a problem.

Looking at the many stickers that came with each new bike, including my current one, this FJR, all the manuf. recommended weight limits are REALLY low. On the ST, the weight label for the side bags was 20# each and the rear deck is only 10#. I just looked up the limits on the FJR and . . . WOW: Rear Deck - 7#. More important possibly are the Max Loads: ST 459#; FJR 472#.

I'm unaware of anyone having a structural failure due to load position and weight issues. In general I've made an assumption that these limits are a liability and legal issue to take manufacturers off the hook for any problem which might occur and not based on actual material strength limitations. Maybe I'm right . . . maybe Im not.

Anyone else have information to add? Feel free to chime in for all our benefit.

Sorry I don't have a more definitive answer Aussieboy.

Shuey
 
Shuey said:
Hi. I've always wondered, if you're "down under" what's that make where I live? Just curious.

Ah, yes, your question. FYIW. First, I'm not a real technical or engineering type guy, but can share my thoughts on the matter. I don't think it's a problem, or at least it hasn't bitten me yet. I have had 3 ST1300s ('07, '08, '10) with approx. 50K, 100k, and 100k miles racked up on them. I never had a pillion rider, but always had both hard side bags, a top box (first a Givi V46, then Pelican Case 1040) AND an aux fuel tank mounted under the Pelican top box. Never had a problem.

Looking at the many stickers that came with each new bike, including my current one, this FJR, all the manuf. recommended weight limits are REALLY low. On the ST, the weight label for the side bags was 20# each and the rear deck is only 10#. I just looked up the limits on the FJR and . . . WOW: Rear Deck - 7#. More important possibly are the Max Loads: ST 459#; FJR 472#.

I'm unaware of anyone having a structural failure due to load position and weight issues. In general I've made an assumption that these limits are a liability and legal issue to take manufacturers off the hook for any problem which might occur and not based on actual material strength limitations. Maybe I'm right . . . maybe Im not.

Anyone else have information to add? Feel free to chime in for all our benefit.

Sorry I don't have a more definitive answer Aussieboy.

Shuey
Click to expand...

There have been reports (on fjrforum.com) of the rear sub-frame cracking on pre-2013 FJRs. I don't think that part of the structure has been updated for 2013+ so whatever the cause was still applies. That being said, who knows how much weight and how often the victims were subjected to?

I ride with both side bags and trunk attached all the time, and no issues so far. But they are very lightly loaded.

I think Yamaha's admonition not to do it is because people who do so would tend to overload them...

There is a GIVI rack available that mitigates the rear subframe weakness problem SR357 or 657 or something. It replaces the rear rack and side grab rails and attaches in a way that spreads the weight of the top box out better. I don't have one.

Don't get the OEM trunk. The inside is much smaller than the outside due to it's double wall construction. I chose the Shad 50.
HTH
-STeve
 
Shuey, great pics great detail and great info.

If/when it's convenient could you provide brand names for all the items shown on your pics? Some of them are obvious but some have multiple brands available so it would be nice to know exactly what make/model you used.

And thanks for your insights regarding the two bikes. Very helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom