MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Yamaha Unveils 2014 FZ-09 850 Triple

When Yamaha displayed the Crossplane Triple concept at INTERMOT last year, it made it clear that a three cylinder bike was headed for production.  That bike was revealed in private to a group of journalists here in Southern California last week (you can see me sitting on the bike at the bottom of this article).  It will be known as the FZ-09 when it hits dealers in the U.S.  late this year (the same bike is called the MT-09 in Europe).

The FZ-09 is a small, light and powerful 847cc three-cylinder with a remarkably low U.S. MSRP of $7,990 ($1,400 cheaper than the less powerful Triumph Street Triple, for instance).

The new FZ-09 engine features even, 120 degree firing intervals, together with unique, unequal length intake funnels.  It has four-valve heads and fuel injection, as well as a relatively short stroke (78 mm bore and 59.1 mm stroke) with an 11.5-1 compression ratio. The transmission is a six-speed.

Ride-by-wire throttle and Yamaha D-Mode, which allows switching between three throttle-control maps for different performance characteristics, is also included. A counter-rotating balance shaft keeps things smooth.

U.S. Yamaha representatives would not give us a peak horsepower figure, but Yamaha Europe is quoting 115 bhp at 10,000 rpm.  We were given a peak torque figure of 65 foot/pounds, which should arrive at 8,500 rpm.

When we sat on the FZ-09, it felt very small and light (see pictures below – for scale, I am 5’11″ tall with a 32′ inseam).  Claimed wet weight (with 3.7 gallons of fuel) is 414 pounds, meaning that the claimed dry weight would be in the neighborhood of 390 pounds, or less!  On paper, this is an awful lot of torquey engine in a lightweight package.

Speaking of torque, as the table below indicates, Yamaha’s technical specifications indicate the FZ-09 will have 30% more peak torque than the Triumph Street Triple, for instance, while the Yamaha weighs just a few pounds more than the Triumph.  Having just stepped off the Street Triple, the FZ-09 should be mighty quick at real world speeds and rpm levels.

Both the fork and shock are adjustable for preload and rebound. The riding position is very upright (very much like a supermoto or dirt bike). I had just tested the Triumph Street Triple, which is a very narrow motorcycle at the footpegs and the knees. The new FZ-09 felt narrower, in part due to deep scallops in the fuel tank.

Yamaha’s FZ8 is being discontinued. Comparing the old 800cc inline four with the new FZ-09, the FZ-09 is less expensive, 53 pounds lighter (with wheels that are nearly a pound lighter) and more powerful. Progress, indeed.

The United States press launch for the FZ-09 will be held in approximately three months. We expect to be there, and we can’t wait. Here are the specs published for the identical bike in Europe, the MT-09, as well as additional photos. You can also visit Yamaha’s web site.

Engine

Engine type

liquid-cooled

Displacement

847 cm³

Bore x stroke

78.0 mm x 59.1 mm

Compression ratio

11.5 : 1

Maximum power

84.6 kW (115PS) @ 10,000 rpm

Maximum Torque

87.5 Nm (8.9 kg-m) @ 8,500 rpm

Lubrication system

Wet sump

Carburettor

Fuel Injection

Clutch Type

Wet

Ignition system

TCI

Starter system

Electric

Transmission system

Constant Mesh

Final transmission

Chain
 

Chassis

Frame

Diamond

Front suspension system

Telescopic forks

Front travel

137 mm

Caster Angle

25º

Trail

103 mm

Rear suspension system

Swingarm

Rear Travel

130 mm

Front brake

Hydraulic dual disc, Ø 298 mm

Rear brake

Hydraulic single disc, Ø 245 mm

Front tyre

120/70ZR17M/C (58W) (Tubeless)

Rear tyre

180/55ZR17M/C (73W) (Tubeless)
 

Dimensions

Overall length

2,075 mm

Overall width

815 mm

Overall height

1,135 mm

Seat height

815 mm

Wheel base

1,440 mm

Minimum ground clearance

135 mm

Wet weight (including full oil and fuel tank)

188 kg / ABS 191 kg

Fuel tank capacity

14 L

Oil tank capacity

3.4 L

Easily flat footed with a 32″ inseam.

405 Comments

  1. BlackCayman says:

    as has been mentioned; I think this could be the perfect motor to build a lightweight SPORT-tour bike (emphasis on the sporty handling not the sporty riding position). BMW has the F800 GT/(ST) but that’s about it for Light-Street-SPORT-tour.

    I think there must be a lot of aging sport bike riders who want a light, nimble powerful “sportbike” but with an “All-Day-Comfortable-Sit-up Riding Position”, some decent wind protection and adjustable suspension. These are riders who just can’t accept 650-750 so called Sport Tourers.

    49 yrs old
    31 yrs riding
    2008 GSX R750 (track days and short hops)
    2003 SV 1000N for everything else

    I like this bike, but as equiped, it doesn’t take me where I want to go. Right now leaning to a KTM SM-T for the next logical bike.

    Report this comment

    • billy says:

      I agree. I very much like my 94 VFR750 which I will always keep, but I have been waiting for something like this with a least half fairing and more modern technology for a while. The BMW F800 GT is pretty close but I trust Yamaha a little more for reliability and I like the triple. Do like the KTM SM-T though I hear it is not the greatest for two up. I ride a friend’s KTM SM sometimes, fantastic suspension. Maybe the 1200 KTM Adventure, a lot of bike (power, $$$) but still in the 500 lbs. range.

      61 years old
      20 years riding
      94 VFR
      06 Ninja
      06 Yam WR250F

      Report this comment

  2. Tommy See says:

    I want this machine in a Small FJR or the Super Tenere.
    Lighter and lots of power wins for me

    Report this comment

  3. 70's Kid says:

    Nice job Yamaha. That’s a lot of bike for the money, especially if they’re manufacturing this bike in Japan. The only real negatives for me are some of the styling cues. The cheesy air scoops in particular and the instrument panel to name another. On the other hand, I dig the exhaust that is nicely tucked up and out of the way with only the stubby can mostly visible (like Honda did with Hawk GT way back when). Hopefully this level of performance at this price will draw more people to the naked style bikes.

    Report this comment

  4. Kurt says:

    AGE: 39
    Rank: Seasoned Rider
    My current rides:
    1998 Honda Valkyrie custom (since 2011)
    2007 Kawasaki ZX14 custom (since 2012)
    2002 Honda VTX1800S (since 2009)
    1995 Harley Heritage (since 2013)
    1976 Honda GL1000 (awhile, stock)
    1977 Honda GL1000 (awhile, heavily modified)
    Honda CB450R (my own creation, awhile)
    1973 CB350T (several years in the making, but a driver)
    2005 Harley XL (owned some time)
    Polini Carena 910 (most fun with 2 wheels, not street)
    And more, but I regularly drive these and I enjoy all types.

    Was a MC dealer in previous life…

    Report this comment

  5. Bob says:

    63 yrs. old
    52 years riding
    2005 Yamaha FJR 1300
    1996 Ducati 900SS SP

    Report this comment

  6. Tom says:

    42 years old
    Been riding for 32 years
    2000 Suzuki DR 650 modded for adventure touring

    Report this comment

  7. JasonB says:

    I really dig this bike. Would I buy one? Probably not. Not because it has a small tank. Or because it missed the mark on some styling cues. And not because it’s a naked. I won’t buy one because it’s just not for me.

    I think that what most who post here haven’t realized or accepted yet is that they are not an accurate representation of the majority of consumers in the market for a new motorcycle. A very small percentage of the riding population are as knowledgeable or passionate about this consumer good with two wheels sitting in their garage. For most it’s a toy, something to take out on a nice day during the summer months and head to the lake or the coffee shop on. They’ll ride very few miles a year, their average trip will be well under 40 miles and they likely won’t compare four to five different models before they buy. They’ll walk into a dealership, say they’re thinking about getting a bike and put their money/credit down on the first bike that looks decent in their eyes and fits in line with their budget.

    If you’re posting here you’re likely a “core enthusiast” and represent a VERY small percentage of motorcyclists. We like to think the industry revolves around us but I’m here to tell you that’s a very incorrect assumption. There’s nothing wrong with that, we’ll all still end up with several motorcycles that float our boat and continue to enjoy riding. What MOST call a hobby we know to be a lifestyle.

    Bottom line, we don’t know better than the manufacturers. And although they all put a foot wrong now and then, in the end they manage to keep their doors open because above all they run a business and are profitable. If you actually knew what went into the creation, launch, marketing and retail of a single motorcycle model you’d likely do what I do; post rarely and enjoy the many options available on the market today.

    Report this comment

  8. Peter D says:

    This looks to be about my perfect street bike. Lightweight, lots of torque and comfortable riding position. Too bad I just bought a Super Tenere. But the Tenere is a great jack of all trades.

    Report this comment

  9. Colors says:

    Age 29
    Years Riding 13
    Current Ride 04 Superhawk

    That bike is hideous. That gas tank is pathetic. It’s not a Honda.
    All of that and if I can scrape the cash together next year without selling my Superchicken, I’ll probably buy one. You can’t beat that price. I just hope its got decent suspenders.

    Report this comment

  10. John Howerton says:

    I like this new Yamaha. Been looking for something lite and powerful with a “standard” style ridding position. Great price for this day and age.
    47yrs old. Been ridding for 35-36 of them years.
    First street bike- ’75 Honda 550 Four.
    2nd- ’77 Yamaha RD400 Daytona Special (in white & red)
    3rd- ’85 Yamaha RZ350LC (in Kenny Rogers yellow & black)
    4th- ’87 Kawasaki Ninja 750R (the green & white one)
    5h- ’85 Honda V65 Sabre in mint condition. Standard style no fairing.
    Had three super close calls with blind automobile drivers on Central Blvd in ABQ, NM a couple of summers ago. The last one changed lanes right on top of me and took me to the curb. Took the joy out of ridding and was then ridding “scared” so I traded my cherry V65 for a boat.
    Bikeless for the past two years and am once again looking and am impressed with the new Yamaha triple. Also been looking at Honda’s new CB1100 but this Yamaha is stealing that bike’s show in my mind.
    Lots of folks don’t realize that Yamaha has made main stream triples before back in the late 70′s with their XS750 and XS850. Had a ridding buddy with the XS750 and that machine would flatout walk away from my little 550Four back when I was a freshman in High School. Changed that all around in the twisties on the RD400 and he quite ridding with me… lol.
    Seriously thinking about plopping down a deposit at one of our Yamaha dealerships for a September gift to myself. The black one… I like it. Light weight, powerful, modern, different and $8K… way to go Yamaha!!! (just might have to powdercoat the wheels and some other bits and pieces Yamaha yellow)

    Report this comment

  11. Rocky V says:

    55 years old
    45 years riding
    03 ZRX 1200
    99 Honda Super Hawk 996
    1975 Kawasaki H2 750

    thumbs up on the Yamaha

    Report this comment

  12. Al T says:

    How about a quick survey? Your age, years riding, and bikes you now own that you can sit on, start, and ride today, and how long you’ve had them. No projects.
    I’ll start; 61 years old, been riding 47 years, have been building and restoring bikes for the last 40 years.
    1984 Vespa PX125e, own for 12 years
    2007 Suzuki DR650 set up for adv. touring (oversize gas tank, bags, etc. Bought new in 2007
    2009 Harley Road king, bought new
    1978 Triumph T140 I finished last year. Owned it for a couple years earlier.

    Report this comment

  13. Al T says:

    How about a quick survey? Nothing big, your age, years been riding, and whats in the motorcycle garage right now. I talking bikes you can sit on, start up, and ride away today. Not the project you’ve had too long.

    Report this comment

  14. Rocky V says:

    Norm
    my question had to do with street bikes — i thought Yamaha made a 1000cc sport bike called an R1 sorry if i got that wrong –

    Report this comment

  15. Gronde says:

    815mm seat height? You sure this isn’t a “pocket-rocket”? :)

    Report this comment

  16. Motorhead says:

    Sweet! With a price of only $7990 the prices of used motorcycles just plunged. Why buy used when one of the nicest rides ever is only $7990?

    Report this comment

  17. Gronde says:

    I didn’t consider the Honda 996 Superhawk because of the small tank and limited range. That was the deal breaker for me and probably will be for a lot of riders when it comes to choosing this bike. It’s not that hard to add a little more fuel so we don’t have to go on reserve @ 80 miles when ridden aggressively. Maybe next time YAMAHA will include a few actual motorcycle riders when designing a bike.

    Report this comment

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “I didn’t consider the Honda 996 Superhawk because of the small tank and limited range.”

      re: “add a little more fuel so we don’t have to go on reserve @ 80 miles when ridden aggressively.”

      (cough)CARBURETED…!!!(/cough)

      Report this comment

      • Dave says:

        I haven’t seen any evidence that f/I has improved fuel economy on sport bikes. I have a Super hawk and get 40mpg, mid 30′s if riding a little harder. That gives me 110-130 miles before reserve, at which point I’m ready for a break.

        Report this comment

        • Jim says:

          And the RC51 wasn’t any better for range and it was (cough)Fuel Injected…!!!(/cough)

          Report this comment

          • Norm G. says:

            guy… RC51…? really…? when trying to make a point about fuel economy, why would you reference a homologation special, purposely built for racing…? why not cite the fuel mileage of an R7…? or hell, a desmosedici…? LOL

            in 1999, you think HRC boffins figured “fuel economy” a strategy for beating ducati at world superbikes…?! or was it, how do we make 180 HORSEPOWER…!?

            Report this comment

          • Jim says:

            “why would you reference a homologation special, purposely built for racing…?”
            Because it was available to the general public for no more than an the price of the other liter bikes? Because you could get one from any Honda dealer in the country? because they were available for several years? Because they are dropping in price like any other bike of similar year? You act like the “RC” initials really meant something like they did in the past. Not like it’s a HD VR1000, now THAT was a homologation special (50 built). And the RC51 didn’t make anywhere near 180hp in street trim…

            Report this comment

        • Norm G. says:

          re: “I haven’t seen any evidence that f/I has improved fuel economy on sport bikes.”

          just means you haven’t seen it, that’s not to be interpreted as it doesn’t exist. I owned one of those too, also a ZX9 C1. same deal with the kawi. despite a tank roughly the size and shape of a pack elephant, I was always the one to trigger the fuel stop. not so with any of me FI kit. but whatever, everybody needed gas anyway. it’s not like the fuel companies purposely accounted for the limited range of motorbikes when they chose distances between their filling stations…? breaking news, they don’t give a rat’s about us or our motorbikes.

          it’s not MAD MAX WORLD, but why play a guessing game on a petrol station that may or may not be there…? even on familiar routes with KNOWN stops, one week it could be open…? but the next week you could coast there on E, only to find the ground tanks had been dug up…? YIIKKEESS…! (i’ve sat through this movie)

          Q: now who’s fault is that…? is it mine…? or is it the manufacturers…?

          A: it was MY dumbass fault. there were 2 other stations 10 and 15 miles back that i CHOSE not to stop at. that’s not a manufacturer’s defect…? that’s a defect in THE “NUT” CONNECTING THE SEAT TO THE HANDLEBARS…!!!

          Report this comment

    • GuyLR says:

      80? That’s a bit pessimistic don’t you think? Even if the bike only gets 35 mpg ridden hard and the low fuel light comes on at 3 gallons used that’s 105 miles. You’d still have at least another .5 gallon before dry and that would get you another 17 miles or so. Id say this bike will go 120 miles minimum between fill ups.

      Report this comment

    • Michael H says:

      People said the same thing about me, back when I was dating. Turned out okay, though.

      Report this comment

  18. Rocky V says:

    Do you think this motor will be used in the R1 @ 1000cc’s or would they need to build a new one ?

    Report this comment

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “Do you think this motor will be used in the R1 @ 1000cc’s or would they need to build a new one ?”

      not unless ‘renzo or ross thinks it can beat Honda’s RC213 (which it can’t). from your question, I assume you’re not a consumer of grandprix racing…? no worries, you don’t have to be and the vast majority of motorcyclists aren’t.

      Report this comment

    • todd says:

      The R1 already has a 1000cc motor.?.

      Report this comment

    • Dirck Edge says:

      The bore of the FZ-09 is identical to the current R1 engine. Think of it as 3/4 of an R1 block with added stroke. The replacement for the current R1 may well be a triple, but it would displace more than 1000cc. Final displacement (if it is a triple) would be based on the rules governing displacement for triples in WSB in effect at the time (somewhere between the displacement allowed for twins and fours).

      Report this comment

      • Dirck Edge says:

        I should add that this engine could not be used as the basis for a triple Superbike. It would not allow a competitive bore/stroke ratio.

        Report this comment

        • Norm G. says:

          (holy smokes I was just commenting on the r1 bore size below, what are the odds, LOL)

          I would just like to add the replacement for the current R1 will NEVER be a triple. never not ever.

          Report this comment

          • Dirck Edge says:

            I wouldn’t be so sure, but the engine bore would have to be much bigger than the FZ-09 block will permit. The engine would have to be an entirely new design.

            Report this comment

          • sl says:

            Why not go triple. I4′s are cookies cutters. Aprilia was smart with their V4. It is distinct. Horsepower has reached a ceiling. Now Yamaha can build a unique triple with unique power delivery.

            Report this comment

        • Tom K. says:

          Does anyone else think the forks appear to be a tad on the spindly side? I know the bike is light and all, but the more I look at them, the more I’m reminded of the time I took a peek up Olive Oyl’s dress. Also, any idea of suspension adjustability fore and aft?

          Report this comment

  19. Rocky V says:

    Dirck
    Thank you for posting that link — i never read your report – but it is everything i feel about my Zrx — it’s a shame they stopped bringing them here– a great motorcycle at a great price –

    If Yamaha steps up to a 1200 triple – i would give it a try

    Report this comment

  20. bagadonitz says:

    Love this bike but Yamaha made the triple/small tank mistake before, on the snow.

    My 2008 Nytro RTX with its 28L tank was great if you were trolling around at sedentary speeds on a groomed trail, not what it was made for. At that kind of operation it still came up short on range with 38L competitors two stroke model tanks.

    If you used the machine for what it was made for the fuel consumption increased significantly and the range suffered terribly once the 1000 cc 135hp triple woke up. Aftermarket tanks sprung up to solve the issue at ~$400 each, a little easier on the snow than the road.

    That said, it was very good and installing grins on my face and I’m sure this would too.

    Report this comment

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “Love this bike but Yamaha made the triple/small tank mistake before, on the snow.”

      omg, did you just bring a SLED into this conversation…?

      re: “a little easier on the snow than the road.”

      MORE than a little easier finding gas on the road than on the snow.

      Report this comment

  21. Motorcycle Extremist says:

    The red version looks a bit better for the US, but the grey/graphite version is far far better for Europe! How can anyone in their right mind think that mixing a grey colored body with gold colored fork stanchions, and then for some ungodly reason slapping on a pair of freaking “blue” colored rims is a good idea? It looks absolutely horrendous! Gold forks on a bike not otherwise color matched is as ugly as sin to begin with, but mixing that up with grey and blue is beyond all sense of visual appeal, quite the contrary, it’s plain revolting! Beyond that the “micro” gas tank is a huge mistake, no center-stand, and not even offering the “option” of ABS in the states is unforgivable.

    Report this comment

    • todder says:

      The graphite and blue rims combination was done on the 2007 Aprilia Tuono. At the time, I didn’t think it looked too bad at all. The only common problem I’m hearing is the small tank which is the bummer.

      Report this comment

  22. Yoyodyne says:

    No centerstand lugs is a minor bummer.

    And we have 300 posts!

    Report this comment

  23. Lloyd says:

    Not sure about the blue wheels on the black model. But I like it! 414 lbs sweet. Yamaha now get to work on a light weight 6 spd 650/700cc dual sport motorcycle!

    Report this comment

  24. Sean says:

    Likes: motor, weight, quality components, PRICE!
    Needs: half faired version, fuel capacity
    Dislike: narrow pillion seat, fake vmax intakes, blue wheels(who wants to clean those), digital display looks very dated.
    Looks: 8/10 in IMO.
    Overall looks like a winner. The performance categories are all checked(for the price) few nags here and there that would be solved if they made a half faired version with bigger tank and seat for people like me. I don’t need off road capability but that’s the trend oh well.

    Report this comment

  25. Hefner says:

    HotDog got it right, the more I look, the more I love that frame… But I still say the tail looks like it came off a Buell (And it’s too thin). Still, this is the most interest I’ve had in a bike since the first Triumph 675, or maybe the new Ninja 300. I think all are cool bikes that will go on to do very well in the showroom in their respective areas.

    Report this comment

  26. Provologna says:

    Dirck and readers,
    Please forgive my multiple posts. I rode my friend’s Ducati Hypermotard 1100 with modifications, pipe, ECU, suspension, etc. It was the most inspiring street bike I’ve ridden, CA Highway 17 through the Santa Cruz mountains, fit me like a glove, perfect except for the limited range, roll on power and handling to die for.

    It just hit me that this Yamaha is darn close to the 1100′s performance if not better, for about $3k less than the Ducati when it last sold a few years ago. Wow!

    Report this comment

  27. Provologna says:

    Sorry, one more thing. If/when Yamaha installs this motor in an appropriate dual sport/adventure package, every other maker can start over because Yamaha will make them instantly obsolete. The only exception would be persons attracted to BMW’s aura, dealer quality/atmosphere, after sale support, and long term parts availability, which still generally defines the state of the art (IMO).

    Report this comment

    • Al T says:

      So after coping the Sptreet Triple they should copy thr Tiger 800?

      Report this comment

      • John M says:

        Yamaha made a DOHC 750/850 triple starting in 1977. They didn’t have to copy Triumph. More like Triumph copied Yamaha when they re-emerged in the modern era mid-nineties. Yamaha is drawing on their own history, and their reputation for innovation and new ideas. Good job Yamaha! I think I’ll buy one.

        Report this comment

    • Michael H says:

      Not sure that the Yamaha triple in an adventure package would make the Triumph 800XC “instantly obsolete”…..

      Report this comment

      • Provologna says:

        I’m sure, with the big “if” being whether or not the as yet non-existent Yamaha DS undercut the Triumph XC800 price with the same vigor as this naked Yamaha undercuts the Street Triple (looks like Yamaha owns the performance per dollar ratio vs. all comers including Triumph).

        This opinion worth exactly what it cost anyone reading it.

        Obviously some naked bike owners read this blog. I’m highly sympathize with their reaction to this new Yamaha.

        BTW, where I earlier mentioned Honda CB900 I of course meant the 919 (realized this on my mountain bike ride when I passed one parked).

        Report this comment

  28. Provologna says:

    From images and description this may be the most interesting and desirable street bike I’ve seen. I don’t know what to critique. Even the price seems amazingly reasonable. Yamaha looks to have hit the proverbial “bulls eye.”

    With all due respect to owners and lovers of so-called “naked” liquid cooled models by Ducati and Triumph both: looks wise this Yamaha just blows them out of the water. I’ve read and studied the performance of the above described Ducatis and Triumphs, test ridden them, and studied them up close and personal. Frankly, I can’t get past how ugly they are regardless how well they perform. The plumbing is beyond awful. IMO the professional reviewers obviously overlook this glaring defect in their reports because it’s the pink elephant in the room. They look hideously awful from most angles.

    Conversely, this new Yamaha is looks wise the polar opposite. I don’t know how they did it, but they did, and I congratulate them on it.

    The closest naked I can remember looks wise is Honda’s long gone CB900. But Honda chose to endow that bike with, by comparison, totally useless suspension components, a mistake Yamaha chose to avoid, to their great and eternal credit.

    I too love the good-looking Kawasaki ZRX1200 ELR replica. But I still rate this Yamaha looks wise a few clear steps above the ZRX. Performance wise I’ll more than gladly trade away the ZRX low mid torque for this Yamaha’s 75 to 100# weight savings and world class (by comparison) brakes/suspension. It’s not even close.

    Report this comment

  29. Ferenc says:

    caught my eye!
    however, the small tank limits the range (compared to the 2012 f800r) and i wonder if there is room for a center stand (given that it’s a chain drive).
    not ready for my prime time, but intriguing,
    ferenc

    Report this comment

    • VLJ says:

      What with the location of the exhaust system including the catalytic converter, not to mention the conspicuous absence of any threaded holes showing anywhere down there, I don’t foresee Yamaha offering an option for a centerstand. Perhaps the aftermarket will come up with something, but with the size and shape of that exhaust system they’re going to have their work cut out for them. I would imagine that any centerstand application would be dependent on ditching the stock exhaust for a slimmed-down version minus the converter.

      Report this comment

      • Ferenc says:

        as i recll, centerstand was the issue with the 2012 stripler (but not with the 2011?).
        i just came back from a 3600 mile ride in the southwest, and the f800r did great.
        sure missed not having a shaftie, but the centerstand was hugely useful in the daily chain maintenance, andespecially on the chain sag adjustment.

        enjoy,
        ferenc

        Report this comment

  30. Multimad says:

    I sold my 1200GS and 1050ST two years ago to buy a Multistrada 1200. Happy as Larry – there’s nothing out yet that vaguely tempts me to put my bum on anything else. 150hp, mega torque, sweet handling and under 200kgs puts a smile on your dial every time you ride it!

    Report this comment

  31. WaynoJ says:

    Very nice! At that price, I may have to trade in my ’05 FZ-6 when this comes out …

    Report this comment

    • todd says:

      Those first two years of the FZ-6 are really the next best thing to this bike. Too bad they got such mediocre reviews when all the testers insisted on short shifting them. This bike will satisfy all those motor-lugging, shifter-avoiding, rpm-fearing riders out there that didn’t understand the sensational, nearly equal power that was in the original FZ-6.

      Report this comment

  32. Rocky V says:

    Dirck
    i would still think the Zrx would have a better street engine ( for two up around town type of power)– even if torque is the same — i would think the Yamaha would come in higher.

    Anyone who has had a Zrx 1200 at 6000 RPM’s knows how hard they pull

    And yes you can’t compare an 800 to a 1200 —

    That said a 600 Ninja will beat my Zrx in out right speed–i had two of them

    As i got older 55 — i’m much happier with the low end of the Zrx — i wish they would make them again with the 14 motor

    Report this comment

  33. soi cowboy says:

    Maybe enough underseat storage for a pack of gum and sunglasses.

    Report this comment

  34. todder says:

    Yup, I like it!

    Report this comment

  35. Ross says:

    Completely useless with a 14L tank

    Report this comment

    • GuyLR says:

      I dunno. If it really gets 48 mpg then you could easily go 153 miles and still have close to a half gallon of fuel left. That’s enough to get me from my home to Barber Motorsports park and that’s about as far as I like to ride before a leg stretch. A 17L big tank version with a real pillion seat would be nice though.

      Report this comment

      • Norm G. says:

        re: ” A 17L big tank version with a real pillion seat would be nice though.”

        they’ll look to sell you that in the “junior tenere”. with an increase in price naturally. this here’s the austerity model.

        Report this comment

      • goose says:

        Guy,

        And what if it doesn’t get 48 MPG in the real world? What if it gets 48 MPG at 65 MPH and you get the 30 mile per hour head wind I got on part of my last long ride? Out in the west gas stations are far apart, once you get out of the city.

        A few years ago I got a chance to go to the World Superbike races in Salt Lake City. The route that I wanted to take had a stretch well over 160 miles without a single gas station in central Nevada. Do you really want to run out of gas a few miles short of people, water, gas and shelter? The is a long walk in 105 degree heat.

        Or how about not having to waste my limited free time sitting in gas station very few days or every day if I had a long commute?

        I’ve had bikes ranging from a 2.2 gallon tank (Honda SL350) to over 9 gallon tank (R100GS-PD). There is a sweet spot in the 5 to 6.5 gallon area that just works, freedom without excessive bulk. It is shame that a lot of bikes, no just this Yamaha, are gelded by small tanks.

        Goose

        Report this comment

  36. Gronde says:

    You can save another 10 pounds by eliminating that ugly cat. converter! What other colors is YAMAHA going to offer it in?

    Report this comment

  37. HotDog says:

    I think the “Controlled Flow” casting process of the frame and swingarm is beautiful! This looks like a great all round bike for just about everyone. Yes, it doesn’t have a bladder busting fuel tank but I don’t think it was designed as cross country missile. Our Leader should’ve had a pie eating grin on his face, when he had his picture taken on it.

    Report this comment

  38. Gary says:

    Look at all that empty space beneath the seat. Easily enough for two additional gallons of fuel. Pity that it wasn’t used. That way it might have decent range. As it is, fuel capacity is awfully little.

    Report this comment

    • soi cowboy says:

      Not a good idea to put a fuel tank on top of the cat con. Pinto anyone?

      Report this comment

      • goose says:

        He said under the seat, not under the swing arm. Not as close as most fuel tanks are to the much hotter headers tubes when they exit the head.

        Goose

        Report this comment

      • Gary says:

        There are lots of bikes with underseat fuel reservoirs. It is a fairly simple engineering exercise. That way you preserve the bike’s slimness but increase its utility. I love the way the exhaust is tucked in and low, allowing plenty of room for saddlebags. I’m sure the engine will be stellar. This bike could be made into a superb sports tourer. But not with that tiny fuel cell.

        Report this comment

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “Look at all that empty space beneath the seat.”

      from a perspective of engineering and design, I do see gary’s point. was looking at an FZ8 yesterday and naturally the much wider engine and frame of the i4 has a much wider tank sitting atop it all. so if you’re chopping off a cylinder and narrowing the chassis to create a triple…? logic dictates, the only way to have fuel capacity remain constant is to spread it’s volume lengthwise.

      these are yam boffins, so I have no doubt this version exists as a catia or solidworks file on a harddrive somewhere. but then they still had to factor for the battery, and then along came the UK mandate for ABS. aargh, where are we going to put this modulator…? but wait there’s more…!!!

      once the marketing department weighed in about how they wanted to crow about how light the thing was in the eventual press releases, it’s real easy to see how restoring fuel capacity (since it adds weight/occupies space) wasn’t going to get a look in edgewise. also, by not including it now, it gives them something to do in the future and give the “illusion” that they are improving/updating the bike. for reference, the outgoing FZ8 specs out at 4.5gal and 467lbs wet.

      Report this comment

      • VLJ says:

        And yet the Street Triple sports a 4.6 gallon tank despite having ABS, a narrow triple engine, a similar frame design and exhaust system, and very low weight.

        I’m not sure why Yamaha didn’t grace this thing with greater fuel capacity (increasing the tank size by 4/5ths of a gallon would only add roughly six highly welcome pounds to the overall wet weight) but yes, they easily could have.

        Report this comment

        • Norm G. says:

          re: “I’m not sure why Yamaha didn’t grace this thing with greater fuel capacity”

          I just explained why. weight. the bike is already 14lbs heavier than the trumpet they’re gunning for. and this with almost a gallon less.

          re: “increasing the tank size by 4/5ths of a gallon would only add roughly six highly welcome pounds”

          welcome…? who you kiddin’, the complaints would then shift to crying about how much it weighed. all this talk of tank size, centerstands… curious why is everybody hellbent on “tourifying” a motorcycle that has CLEARLY been designed to be a cheap, fun, backroad carver…? if interstate is what you’re looking for…? then by-golly does Yamaha have a bike for you. see entry for the 630lb FJR.

          Report this comment

          • VLJ says:

            Adding six pounds of precious fuel to a 414 wet-weight bike would not inspire any real hue and cry of poutrage among the pitchfork-wielding villagers. It would still be a very light bike and well within shouting distance of the wet weight of the pricier/significantly smaller displacement Trumpet.

            We’re only talking six pounds here, not fifty-six, and it’s not as if Yamaha would be slapping a six-pound bag of steaming afterbirth on the triple clamp. It’s just fuel. People like fuel.

            Report this comment

          • Gary says:

            Not so much “tourifying” as making it more practical. Many of us, including yours truly, have favorite roads that are several hours away. I’d love to take a good-handling sports tourer to the high Sierras. I prefer some gas capacity for such a trip. But that’s just me … nothing if not pragmatic.

            Report this comment

        • Norm G. says:

          ps: if you notice, dirk even posted some Yamaha supplied action photos showing you in no uncertain terms the pure “sporting intent” Yamaha has for this model. I fear the next complaint will be about it not being fitted with proper set of knobbies.

          Report this comment

          • VLJ says:

            That pure sporting intent provides even greater incentive for a larger fuel tank. The harder I ride, the poorer my gas mileage. Many of my favorite sportriding locales are more than 100 miles from start to finish without a gas station in sight, which can easily polish off a 3.7 gallon tank.

            Report this comment

  39. goose says:

    This bike seems to have generated a lot of interest, I guess I’m not the only one looking for a versatile, midsize bike.

    Dirk, where does it stand in the all time number of posts list?

    Goose

    Report this comment

  40. Max Frisson says:

    @ Hefner – Why is there no place on the public roads for the S1000RR? Are you suggesting a horsepower limit for bikes? And Corvettes and Camaros too? Are you in the US?

    I have a Hayabusa, I’ll assume you have something safer like an Enfield Bullet?

    Report this comment

    • Hefner says:

      Yes, I am in the US.

      Comparing a car to a bike is a little flawed. If I spin my tires in a car, the repercussions tend to be far less than if I do it on my bike. Likewise if I lock the front brake on my bike, the outcome is likely to be much worse than a similar action in a car. The point is, bikes are inherently less stable than a car, so these factors become much more significant, so I believe greater care needs to be taken when building motorcycles that so easily surpass the abilities of those who buy them.

      Tiered HP Limits == a good idea
      Handing the keys of a liter-bike to an 18 year old male full of hormones and aggression is something akin to handing a loaded gun to someone suffering severe depression. They are going to hurt themselves. An experienced rider with tens of thousands of miles and track experience? Okay, it’s a different story. The middle ground is filled with lots of grey.

      And don’t get me wrong, I totally get the thrill of big engines, but the S1000RR was built to do one thing: Win World Championships. It is an inappropriate tool for the street.

      And you sir assume wrong. I am a 20-year riding Veteran with thousands of miles spent racing in the Canyons of SoCal, with the road-rash and suspended licenses to prove it, who put my money where my mouth was and took it to the track where I raced primarily 600′s (with a few outings on an R1 superbike that scared the bejeezus out of me) and earned my CCS Expert license in the middle of my second season. And before you ask who I am, I’m nobody you need to know. I flamed out in season 3 with dwindling cash supply affecting my fear of crashing, and therefore my riding. My weapon of choice is my trusty CBR600F4 with a Penske triple clicker, Traxxion front end, GPR damper, 520 (-1/-1) gearing, Erion Comp Exhaust/Jet Kit (love carbs!) and custom rearsets I designed and machined myself. My only concessions to style are a smoked windscreen (because I don’t need to go into a full tuck on the street and the smoke matches all the other black on the bike), and a fender eliminator kit because the stock stuff was just too dorky. I even run full size stock turn signals for visibility. It’s a wicked streetbike, with all day comfort!

      So… What’s your ratio of go versus sho?

      Report this comment

      • Ralph says:

        The biggest reason I bought my S1000RR is, get this, safety? Safety? Yes. safety.

        Last summer I had two bikes, Multistrada 1200S Touring (my main commuter, love it, still have it) and a Triumph Street Triple R. The trip never really talked to me (ready for hate mail from Triumph fan boys) and I was thinking of another bike.

        I happened to stop by the BMW dealer, and Nate Kern was there talking about the S1000RR. He wasn’t talking speed, HP, handling, etc., he was talking about the rider aids. THAT is what convinced this 50yr old ex-sportbiker to get back on a nice ride.

        Experience? Riding since 1985, stopped counting total miles years ago at 300k. Gotta be 400k+ by now.

        BTW, Hef, I owned a 600F2 and then 600F4. That whole series of GOOF bikes were fantastic motorcycles.

        Report this comment

  41. Ryan M says:

    when someone claims to have a “game changer”, I expect a game changer…this is just following the sales of other similar bikes.

    Report this comment

    • Tom R says:

      Although the bike is quite interesting…I agree that the Yamaha press release engaged in a bit of hyperbole in using this term.

      What characteristics in a motorcycle would constitute it as a “game changer” anyway?

      Report this comment

      • Austin ZZR 1200 says:

        I think the game changing element is the (relative) price point. I do not remember seeing this level of equipment a this relative price point. The intangible game changing quality, of course, could be the riding experience…

        Report this comment

        • todd says:

          at least not since the SV650

          Report this comment

          • Dave says:

            This has shaped/cast swing and frame, 115hp, ride-by-wire, upside down fork, what should be excellent brakes (i they’re the same as what FZ-1 and 8 have). The SV650 does not approach this bike’s spec. It had damper rod fork, 65-ish hp, box-section swing arm, mediocre brakes.

            It’s a fair comparison but relative to the economies that the two bikes were released into this Yamaha is pretty remarkable.

            Report this comment

          • Hefner says:

            +1 what Dave says about the SV. It was definitely a great bike, and a game changer in it’s own right. But it had crap brakes, and crap (initially) nonadjustable suspension. As for the engine, the SV’s was sweet. 65 wasn’t much, but it wasn’t too hard to get more, and the bike was light.

            This Yam is selling for almost the same price as the SV a decade later, with much higher spec running gear, and with an engine that instead of being described as sweet, may turn out to be a monster.

            Game changer.

            Report this comment

          • todd says:

            The 1969 CB750 was a piece of ####. It also changed the game. The SV is now 15 years old. Cut it some slack.

            Report this comment

  42. Ryan M says:

    I like it…but I really was expecting something Different. Everyone has a naked upright bike, an “adventure” bike, etc..

    Would love some new thinking in the industry

    Report this comment

    • Norm G. says:

      oops, you’ve accidentally clicked on the Yamaha FZ9 thread. you’re looking for the thread on the fully faired CTX twist-n-go.

      Report this comment

      • Hefner says:

        I actually lol’ed, so kudos Norm!

        Everyone says they want new-think, then they poo-poo on things like the NCX/CTX. I agree that some new ground needs to be broken, but that doesn’t mean we need to get rid of tried and true! You can have my fully faired sportbike when you pry it from my cold dead hands…

        Report this comment

  43. Gary says:

    I wrote this yesterday: “There will be a triple cylinder bike in my garage in the near future. I look forward to a shoot-out of the Street Triple and the FZ-09″…but after thinking about this bike a bit (which I find myself doing a lot in the last 24 hours) I’m really starting to dig it. Yamaha really is going for the throat of the Street Triple. Just look at the photo’s of the bikes side-by-side and you do see that Yamaha isn’t trying to create a market, but steal one. The extra power, low price and damn-near weight make this a very compelling alternative to the Street Triple. I really can’t wait to see the comparisons of the two bikes on the road. If Yamaha has gotten the details correct (which they usually do) this might be the greatest street bargain since the original SV650.

    Report this comment

  44. Bones says:

    OK, Yamaha, starting with the basic platform you’re introducing with the FZ-09, I’m envisioning the following offshoots:

    Tenere 847 adventure tourer
    Fazer 847 half-faired street sport bike
    FJR 847 fully-faired sport tourer

    Keep me posted.

    Report this comment

  45. Gary says:

    Dear Yamaha. THANK YOU!!! Your timing is exceptional. The tables have finally turned as European brands have become totally uninspiring and bikes like this, and the CB1100, are springing forth from Japan. Please keep the momentum.

    Report this comment

    • stratkat says:

      really, uninspiring?? the new Hypermotard?, the Panigale?, the new batch of KTMs out and soon to be out?
      i mean i think this Yamaha is great, im really liking it, but come on man!

      Report this comment

  46. Ken says:

    I love this bike (or, at least, the stats, at this point). But, I wanted to give a big Thanks! to Dirck for adding useful photos showing a “rider” with foot-on-peg, foot-on-floor, and reach to the handlebar, in addition to the “glamour” shots. Many/most publications seem to ignore these basic perspectives. Now, back to the bike lust…

    Report this comment

  47. Hefner says:

    Finally, a new bike design that I don’t instantly hate, or have to justify liking!

    If I had to criticize, (and I must…) I would say that the tail section just looks a little too thin, and a little too wide. The design could have certainly taken a little deeper seat, which could have provided some functional storage, and to my eyes at least, would have resulted in a slightly more balanced look. And is it just me, or does the seat look like it came off a Buell?

    Anyhow, I’m liking the design, power, and the fact that for what seems to be a somewhat budget bike, the fact that they included adjustable suspension! Sure comp damping would have been nice, but it’s certainly far better than the much more commonplace “rear preload only” most budget bikes get.

    I wonder what the fuel economy numbers will look like…

    Report this comment

    • jake says:

      I’m betting it gets at least 50mpg. Yamaha would not have put such a small tank on it otherwise.

      Report this comment

      • goose says:

        Jake,

        I hope you are right. This is so close to what I’ve been looking for but at 40 MPG it just doesn’t work for me. At 50 MPG (real word, ridden semi-aggressively) I could work with a 3.7 gallon tank.

        Fingers crossed,

        Goose

        Report this comment

        • Norm G. says:

          re: “I’ve been looking for but at 40 MPG it just doesn’t work for me”

          it’ll work just fine for ya goose. throw caution to the wind already. call up your local dealer with a credit card on Monday, and leave ‘em a deposit. and if they’re not open…? call ‘em Tuesday. :)

          Report this comment

      • Ferenc says:

        well, what do you want to bet?
        the stripler does not get 50mpg (whereas the naked f800r gets 50+) :-)
        ferenc

        Report this comment

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “I wonder what the fuel economy numbers will look like”

        re: “I’m betting it gets at least 50mpg.”

        the outgoing FZ8 is spec’d at 39mpg, so i’m betting 39 mpg +/-3. sure one less cylinder, but it’s still 50cc more displacement. the tenere for example has 2 less cylinders, but it’s 400cc more and still get’s basically the same 40mpg. personally, I don’t give a rat’s about the fuel mileage on a motorbike (but that’s just me). but here’s why, the btu’s contained in a gallon of gas are the btu’s contained in a gallon of gas.

        there are so many other factors that have far GREATER influence on fuel economy of a motorbike. ie. aerodynamics, big American vs. a tiny Japanese, are you a throttle jockey? etc. unlike car world, the mass of the rider/driver here is a MUCH greater percentage of overall combined vehicle weight. the fuel gauge of a Honda accord (that already weighs 3500lbs) doesn’t see the difference between a petite 105lb female driver…? and the 250lb construction worker who’s never met a beer he didn’t like.

        so, given the state of 21st century technology, the only way to get any appreciable increase in range out of a motorbike worth wasting the precious minutes of one’s life worrying about is to A. significantly REDUCE the size of the engine, B. carry significantly MORE fuel on board (see entry for the tank on a GS adventure), or C. DON’T burn gasoline at all, ie. change to a more energy dense liquid fuel like say diesel.

        again, the energy contained in a gallon of gas is still the same energy that was in it when it was first discovered. what we have simply witnessed over that past 50 years is technology advancing to the point that ICE automobiles now get roughly the SAME economy that motorbikes have always enjoyed. 40 miles from a gallon of gas on average seems to be “nature’s plateau”. one either accepts this number…? or chooses to cheat death riding a 250 something on the 880…? come hell or high water though, free lunch is not getting served.

        Report this comment

        • jake says:

          Honda’s NC’s and CTX’s get as good or better mpg than their CB 250, so no higher MPG is not always about smaller displacement. And if autos can now get 40 mpg, how in the world can bikes which weigh so much less not get more. It’s called progress. Surely bike makers can wring out more mpg from their bikes, and if they can do so without too much of a dent in performance, then this sort of progress will change the biking world, as Yamaha has claimed.

          We all have to wait to see, but most likely this bike will get 50 mpg or just a shade under in slightly relaxed, real world riding. Those 3 ECU maps might have something with do it, with one of them designed to maximize fuel economy.

          Yamaha knows gas prices will increase and on this new and important model of theirs, they would not have missed the boat and ignored the mpg issue, which will become and more of a selling point to buyers.

          When Yamaha promoted this bike as a world changer, I’m sure it also had class leading mpg in mind as well as class leading value and performance. Hooligan and sport bikes being socially responsible with fuel economy, that’s a new thing. Otherwise, their promotion is way overblown. I doubt if Yamaha would be so flagrant with a model which they see as so important to their future prospects.

          Report this comment

          • Dave says:

            This could go 50mpg if the rider tip-toed everywhere. I hear of plenty of guys going better than 60mpg on SV650′s. Something tells me that most of this bike’s owners will have a hard time not playing with it’s engine and seeing something closer to 40mpg.

            There are plenty of highway capable 250cc scooters that go 60-70mpg but nobody is talking about those here. We must face it, this bike is not meant for marathon riding. Maybe the next model using this engine will be..

            Report this comment

          • Norm G. says:

            re: “Honda’s NC’s and CTX’s get as good or better mpg than their CB 250, so no higher MPG is not always about smaller displacement.”

            breaking news, 670cc’s across only 2 cylinders IS small displacement. anyone who thinks SV’s had a serious case of the “slows”…? don’t know from slow until they’ve ridden one of those.

            re: “how in the world can bikes which weigh so much less not get more.”

            did you not read a word I said…?

            re: “Surely bike makers can wring out more mpg from their bikes, and if they can do so without too much of a dent in performance”

            sorry sir, the “free buffet” is closed. please try back tomorrow. we reopen at 10am.

            re: “most likely this bike will get 50 mpg or just a shade under in slightly relaxed, real world riding. Those 3 ECU maps might have something with do it, with one of them designed to maximize fuel economy.”

            full naked bike, ZERO wind protection, aerodynamic c/d of a washing machine, snarling triple begging one to feed it the berries…? you’re living in a dream world neo…!!! (morpheus voice)

            re: “they would not have missed the boat and ignored the mpg issue”

            not only have they deliberately missed the boat, they were waving at it as they flew overhead in a JET PLANE, which is what riding this triple is intended to be like.

            Report this comment

          • jake says:

            “did you not read a word I said…?”

            You mean about how a 100lb big butt can adversely affect mpg but not a 4.000lb car, or how displacement is what matters for bikes but is irrelevant when it comes to 3.5 liter car engine, or how 670cc’s is small displacement but not 850cc’s, which is only 200cc’s more?

            Yea, I read all that, and I sort of get what you are trying to say, but even you have to admit your claims are sort of lacking in internal consistency…well, maybe not you.

            In 2013, Triumph improved the mpg of the Street Triple by 30% with simple, minor engine changes. It now gets 43MPG compared to 33MPG before. Tell me again how bike manufacturers have hit the wall and can’t squeeze more efficiency out of their engines?

            Report this comment

          • Dave says:

            re: “In 2013, Triumph improved the mpg of the Street Triple by 30% with simple, minor engine changes. It now gets 43MPG compared to 33MPG before.”

            33mpg on a 675 is *shameful*. Improving it to where it should’ve been in the first isn’t applause worthy.

            Report this comment

        • todd says:

          Diesel has exactly the same energy density as gasoline. Diesel’s efficiency comes from its high compression ratios, constant full “throttle” (diesels don’t have an air throttle, maintaining high cylinder pressures), variable fuel rates based on power requirements, and narrow – focused power band.

          Report this comment

          • Norm G. says:

            re: “Diesel has exactly the same energy density as gasoline.”

            no it doesn’t.

            re: “Diesel’s efficiency comes from its high compression ratios, constant full “throttle” (diesels don’t have an air throttle”

            sayeth todd to the owner of a p-pump’d 12v with compound turbos.

            Report this comment

    • drassif says:

      I myself miss a flater seat like this bike has. It seems like most of the new bikes lock you into one positon. I like to move around. In fact it definitely seems like they ended up coming closer to a supermoto with this design almost like the new Hypermotard which also looks like a smokin bike except for being alot more expensive. I hope the suspension and mpg numbers hold up well.

      Report this comment

  48. Al T says:

    Is this Speed Triple copy supposed to be what’s going to change sport bikes? I like the look of it, but it’s already been done by Triumph.

    Report this comment

    • Ken says:

      Yamaha beat Triumph to the punch, selling an inline triple in the late ’70s.

      Report this comment

      • Ken says:

        Oops! I just remembered the Triumph Trident.

        Report this comment

        • soi cowboy says:

          The xs750/850 sold for a decade in respectable numbers. The 69 trident was a T U R D and sold virtually nothing. Matter of fact, Yamaha should have kept marketing the xs850 instead of the maxim 750, which was ugly and ran shiiit due to lean tuned cv carbs. AND ANOTHER THING…..

          Report this comment

          • Al T says:

            You missed the point. This Yamaha game changer is a Street, Speed Triple copy. It certainly looks like one. I think the Yamaha faiyhful would eat a T U R D, if served with a tuning fork.

            Report this comment

          • Hefner says:

            Al T, your comments come off like someone who owns and loves their street triple, and just realized it’s no longer the cool “it” bike, but is desperately trying to convince everyone else that it still is. You also sound like someone who has a deep hatred for Yamaha, or at least those that like the brand. Reminds me of the Android/iOS nerd wars to be honest. Maybe I’m wrong about this, it’s just my impression… But why can’t you just appreciate it for what it is? After all, Imitation is the biggest form of flattery (and Triumph should feel flattered for their recent triples).

            Report this comment

          • Al T says:

            I don’t own a speed triple or street triple, but I see what is there. Had you read my original post you would know that I like it. I can appreciate the bike for what it is, but it’s not the game changer Yamaha touted. Ive been riding for 47 years, impressing you or anyone else must be your deal.

            Report this comment

          • Hefner says:

            Fair enough, your original post doesn’t really come off all that snippy, and you do say you like it. In my opinion this bike is no more a copy of a street triple than the Ducati hyper-motard is a copy of a KTM Super Duke. They both use twins and have an upright riding position.

            Report this comment

          • soi cowboy says:

            ya see I was following too closely behind this horse trailer and…..

            Report this comment

    • Hefner says:

      From a design perspective I wouldn’t consider this a copy. Certainly the engine format is similar (do Triumph use the same 120 deg. firing order?) but to call it a copy simply because it has 3-cylinders is being a little unfair IMO.

      I also applaud the engine size. A 675 is nice, don’t get me wrong, I like 600-fours, and the 675 is like a tourqey version of that, but it is still high-strung none the less. On the other side, I personally find the liter-bike madness irresponsible. Flame me if you want, but there is no place for the BMW S1000RR on public roads, period. Sure the speed triple doesn’t put 180HP to the ground, but it is still more powerful than 90% of riders buying one should have. I won’t go so far as to say that it shouldn’t be allowed on public roads, as I don’t consider it in the same category as the S1000RR in that regard, but Triumph has definitely left a gap in their lineup, and Yamaha just took it (Arguably MV is already a player

      Report this comment

      • Ralph says:

        Sorry, Hef, but I love my S1000RR, the 1st sport bike I’ve owned in years. Great fun and pretty damned comfortable for a full on sport bike. Just because the loud handle “goes to eleven” doesn’t mean you have to be doing that all the time, or even rarely, to enjoy the bike.

        Report this comment

        • Hefner says:

          I am glad you like it (I lust for one myself as a track toy), but even more happy to hear that you understand that it doesn’t always have to go to eleven!! (I’m being sincere here)

          See my retort further up the page.

          Question: Comfortable compared to what? an R6? Not actually trying to be (too) snarky, just trying to gauge the context.

          Report this comment

          • Ralph says:

            My typical day ride is 250-350mi of mostly twisties, with a stop every hour or so. I am 50, and previously had been riding sport tourers the last 10 years or so. Previous to that, I rode a whole list of mostly Honda sportbikes, but it was in the mid 90′s thru mid 2000′s.

            Report this comment

      • Al T says:

        From the side views you can’t tell if it’s 3 or 4 cyl, I was referring to the styling.

        Report this comment

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “but it is still high-strung none the less.”

        don’t poo poo that just yet. that’s where the magic is. the higher revving nature of the smaller displacement is what brings out the character. it’s not like triumph is new to making triples, yet the larger displacements never struck gold like the D675. the bore/stroke ratio of this new 850 has it in between a gsxr1k and a zed-10, and it’s 78mil pistons are identical to what’s used in their own R1 (and the RSV4) if that tells you anything. :)

        Report this comment

    • Dave says:

      re: “I like the look of it, but it’s already been done by Triumph.”

      Not for this price (relative to the market) they haven’t.

      Report this comment

  49. Agent55 says:

    Honestly, it looks like the best new Yamaha street bike in years. I never expect much from Japanese motorcycle aesthetics, they’re generally too safe, or outright tone-deaf (hello Suzuki Gladius!). This is clean-looking, has good components, an exciting powerplant and a killer MSRP. For the usually-conservative Japanese bike makers, this is a win in my eyes.

    Report this comment