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

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Yamaha Announces New Tracer 700 for Europe: Lightweight, Affordable Twin Touring (with video)

042016top-i

042016side1

Yamaha today announced a lightweight, affordable sport tourer based on the FZ-07 naked twin. The Tracer 700 is currently announced for the European market only, but we are hopeful that the bike will make its way to the United States market eventually.

Frankly, we fell in love with the engine and handling of the FZ-07 … enough that we gave it honorable mention in our Bike of the Year Awards. We also rode it through Norway, where we found it a fun, reliable mount … but this touring version with its wind protection would have been welcome as a substitute.

The Tracer 700 has some features unique to its touring purpose, including a larger, 4.5 gallon gas tank (for reference, the FZ-07 is easily capable of 50 mpg) and a longer swingarm. Yamaha will have several touring accessories available for this model, including the optional luggage shown in the top model, larger windscreen, etc. You can visit Yamaha’s UK web site for all the details, but here is a summary from Yamaha of the features and benefits of this new model.

Tomorrow’s memories are shaped by the decisions we make today. So imagine you’re writing the story of your life – and right now the next page is open.

The Tracer 700 is an accessible and affordable Sport Tourer that is built to take you on an exciting new journey every day. Maybe you’re heading out for a quick back road blast after work – or preparing to take a long-distance tour. This versatile and exciting bike is going to be with you when those future experiences are burned into your consciousness.

The new Tracer 700 gives you the opportunity to write a new page for every day. And it can help you to turn your story into anything you want – whether alone or with friends.

042016middle

Details

  • Versatile and exciting Sport Tourer
  • Exciting sports performance with agile handling
  • Accessible and affordable middleweight
  • Adjustable screen and integrated knuckle guards
  • Long-range 17 litre fuel tank
  • Outstanding power to weight ratio
  • Torque-rich, 689cc, twin cylinder, crossplane engine
  • Compact tubular chassis
  • Lightweight 10-spoke cast aluminium wheels
  • Digital instrumentation with full LED display
  • Dual 282mm front discs with 4-pot calipers
  • Wide range of Genuine Yamaha accessories

 

042016bottom


See more of MD’s great photography:

Instagram


181 Comments

  1. Norm G. says:

    per the video:

    buy this bike, you’ll get the girl, you’ll live near the road, and everything in your life will be perfect.

    well, that’s the general gist and not very far from the truth.

  2. Sportourpa says:

    I’d love to see an FJR 1300 styled FJR 900 and FJR 700.

    • Duc Dynasty says:

      Many of us would but the “Adventure” style seems to be all the rage. I have had 2 FJR 1300’s and although I love the bike, I long for a true “FJR” with the 900 triple in a 500lb. package. I don’t think Yamaha has any intentions though.

    • John says:

      Me too or a Sprint 800

    • Snake says:

      “I’d love to see an FHR1300 styled FJR900…”

      I think most of us would.

      The dirty secret of Yamaha America is that the FJ09 was a FLOP. As of December 2015 there were over 950 (!) unsold 2015 FJ09’s still in dealer inventory, as per Cycletrader; as of early this month, April 2016, the were still almost 750. The dealers I spoke to aren’t selling them and people aren’t looking them, regardless the hype. I still think the problem is too tall, the average 900 buyer doesn’t want a 34-inch seat, they are smaller riders looking for a well-sized bike for their needs.

      We told Yamaha what we wanted but they didn’t listen.

      • Curly says:

        Snake it seems like a whole lot of folks think the FJ-09 (MT-09 Tracer) is good enough bike to buy. According to this December article on Visordown it was the third best selling bike in Europe last year with over 10,000 sold. With something like 1100 US Yamaha dealers the 750 in stock here is less than one per dealer. BTW you can get that seat height down by over 15mm with the accessory rear shock links.

        http://www.visordown.com/road-tests-first-rides/first-ride-yamaha-mt-09-tracer-review/26005.html

        • mickey says:

          15 mm is like a half an inch. I think people are more looking for 2-3″ lower..somewhere around 30-31″ seat height.

        • Scott says:

          Both of my local Chevy dealers have literally dozens of Silverado pickups sitting on their lots. I guess that means nobody’s buying Silverados…

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            Correct. They are buying F-150s.

          • Scott says:

            Nope, plenty of those sitting around, too. I guess pickup trucks just aren’t big sellers in the US. In Europe, you can hardly find one in stock at a dealership!

          • mickey says:

            that’s true, when we were in Germany for an Edelweiss tour my wife and I walked into a Ford dealership and I asked a salesman if they had any 5 liter Mustangs or any pick up trucks and the guy looked at me like I had 3 eyes.

        • Snake says:

          I figured it would sell well in Europe – the European market has a younger rider demographic and, therefore along with other aspects such as genetics, taller average height. Their roads are also generally better kept, so the ruts and huge potholes that we have to accept on the miserable things we call “roads” aren’t nearly a large a factor. For many Europeans being on the “balls of [my] feet” is OK, for Americans you put your foot down into that rut…and the bike is following that foot, all the way down to the ground.

          It is a different market: a 34-inch seat 900 is considered acceptable in Europe, as you can note with this new 700’s 845mm (33-inch) seat height. In America a 33-inch tall 700 is not going to be a big seller, so they skipped it.

          • Curly says:

            The correct set height spec for the Tracer 700 is 835mm, (a whole 2.7mm less than a half inch) for 32.87 inches. Even Americans should manage that 😅

          • Snake says:

            I’m not comfortable on 33-inch, you have to experience the things they call “roads” where I live.

      • John says:

        I can only assume that there will be a fix for the seat height. I tried anVersys once and it just doesn’t work for my legs and hips. For me, the Yamaha engine may make it worth lowering the seat. Shouldn’t be hard to do.

        I used to think that the TDM850 was tall in the seat but that is a joy compared to many “roadies” today. The option is the Ninja 650 has a sport tourer but it seems the engine makes this bike. I’m short but in many parts of the world I am average or even taller than average.

      • Philip says:

        I have to say that I passed on the FJ09 and a lightly used FJ09 due to the seat hight. It’s not excessively tall but I just didn’t feel comfortable on it as a street bike. If it were a true adventure bike, I would excuse the seat height, but it isn’t. Bought something else instead.

  3. Kent says:

    Looks like it could be a great commuter bike. I wonder if it will have optional ABS in the states.

  4. JPJ says:

    Cannot wait to see a comparison against the Kawasaki Versys 650.

  5. John says:

    This looks almost exactly perfect. i’m a little surprised about the seat height. It’s as tall as the NC750X and for no reason. Maybe they’re afraid people won’t buy it if it’s too short? It is a full inch taller than the CB500X which is plenty tall for a roadie. This will leave a lot of people choosing the CB500X, I think. If I wanted a 33″ seat height, I’d just go for the FJ-09.

    It may make sense to grab an XSR or FZ and make it into a sport tourer. Or get a nice used BMW.

    • Tom R says:

      “Almost exactly”?

      Jumbo Shrimp, Sort of Pregnant, Military Intelligence….

    • Sportourpa says:

      Why do most manufacturers offer such tall seat heights as the only option.
      This eliminates a lot of potential buyers.
      It seem easy enough to make adjustable seat heights.
      This was a major reason why I have a BMW F800 GT.

      • John says:

        I looked at the F800ST and the difference between regular seat and low was amazing. The high seat was very uncomfortable for me. But the F700 is perfect for me in the high seat. Ergonomics is a big factor in buying a bike. Or should be.

      • Snake says:

        I was looking at that bike, a lovely size and fits average people. BMW did a great job, I could just wish for the triple of the FJ.

  6. Marty O says:

    Looks great except no centerstand! Guess it’s the under bike muffler.

    • Curly says:

      The centerstand is a $250 aftermarket accessory for the FZ-07 and it looks like this one doesn’t come with it standard either.

  7. Butch says:

    This thing is begging for some wire wheels and single round headlight.
    Great platform for a sawzall freak like myself . . . . . .
    Overall, a nice package.

  8. mickey says:

    this is supposed to be down below where Jeremy Todd and I were talking horsepower vs torque…sorry everybody

    horsepower = torque * rpm / 5252

    Now you know exactly how horsepower and torque are related. There are no exceptions to this rule; they will always be related by this formula. In fact, it might be better to see them as just flip sides of the same coin. One result of this formula is that below 5252 rpm, torque will always be more than horsepower, at 5252 rpm they will be equal, and above 5252 rpm torque will be less. Note that a dyno never measures horsepower; it can only measure torque and then use the above formula to get horsepower.

    so up to 5250 rpms it’s torque that is the driving force, above 5250 rpms it’s horsepower that is the driving force ..right?

    Torque is what makes you go, horsepower is what makes you go really fast.. like I said.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      Sorry to disagree Mickey, but torque is just a variable in that equation. If you use different units of measure, say kilowatts and newton-meters, you’ll see that there is nothing magical about 5252 rpms or where torque exceeds horsepower. You could have units of measure where torque never exceeds hp on a graph. Since a ft-lb and a hp are completely different units of measure anyway, they are not comparable in that respect. That is kind of like saying that you have more lumens of light than you have pineapples. The dyno may measure torque, but it is power that is accelerating the drum.

      Horsepower is the go-go unit of measure.

      • mickey says:

        sorry I just googled torque VS horsepower and that’s where the definition came from one of the experts. what do I know? apparently nothing. lol

        http://www.procivic.com/pages-horsepower_torque/index.html

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Mickey, that article agrees with everything I’ve said, including that engine torque is basically meaningless, so I am missing your point?

          • mickey says:

            Honestly, I have no idea anymore Jeremy. I give up.

          • John says:

            How can torque be meaningless? That makes no damned sense.

          • John says:

            The idea that torque is meaningless is ridiculous. Torque is what creates forward motion and acceleration. Horsepower is just a sum of that over time.

          • todd says:

            Sorry John, you are wrong too. Engine torque (where it’s always quoted) does not directly create forward motion or acceleration. You still need a certain amount of power to move a certain weight or accelerate that weight at a measurable rate. After engine torque goes through a transmission, it is multiplied (in the case of motorcycles) ten to twenty times by the time it reaches the rear wheel. So even though a “50ft-lb” bike can have upwards of 1000 pounds of torque at the wheel it is still going nowhere and not accelerating at all if the wheel isn’t turning at some rate. So a large force applied slowly makes a slow bike. A force applied at a high rate creates a fast bike; it is more powerful. Horsepower is THE number that determines performance. I can’t make it any more simple than that.

          • John says:

            Sigh. Never mind. You are trying to use semantics at this point. Believe as you wish.

          • mickey says:

            Triumph has it figured out, reading a test of the new T120 in Rider mag and it says there is an M button, and when you push the M button, you ” get the same horsepower, but it lessens the torque”. Ahhh variable torque at the push of a button…cool. On other bikes that mode button lessens the HP for say rain, or gravel or darkness lol

            Variable hp and torque at the push of buttons. What a wonderful world eh?

        • Snake says:

          No Todd, not correct.

          Torque is a measure of force, horsepower is a measure of force over time. “Performance” is a loose term.

          The equation of torque versus horsepower works because of engine RPM, which is itself a measure of speed (revolution) over time (per minute). You can create 100 HP from an engine that creates 50 lb-feet worth of torque; you can create the SAME 100 HP from an engine that creates 25 lb-feet work of torque by (all else the same) spinning the engine at twice the RPM. That’s the math.

          The issue is how torque versus horsepower works in the real world. “Torque is off the line, horsepower is (top) speed” is an old enthusiast’s adage that goes a long way to explain how they work versus what you feel. Torque will throw you “off the line” faster, all else being equal, because more torque is *more force applied* to the creation of forward motion. Horsepower will win in the end…because, as a measure of work versus time, the “end” happens after some time has elapsed and the greater horsepower has that time to build.

          You need both because one (torque) creates the other (horsepower) adding in time. The 5250 is the “time” factor, put into a number that is the speed of the crank of the engine as it works.

          • todd says:

            Snake, you are oh so close.

            Everyone seems to forget about the transmission. A bike with 25 lb-ft torque will have a lower gear ratio than a bike with 50 lb-ft at the same speeds. It’s still not torque that launches you off the line, it comes down to how much power you are producing at that speed – and how much mass you need to get moving.

            Torque still does not determine “off the line” acceleration. Have you ever ridden a dirt bike and experienced how quickly those launch off the line with so little torque?

            The best way to determine acceleration is to measure the thrust at the rear wheel and divide it by the weight. Dynos don’t measure torque or horsepower, they measure the thrust of the rear wheel. They calculate how much torque is at the crank by measuring the engine RPM vs the drum RPM and by knowing how much thrust it takes at the surface of the drum to spin it at that RPM. Since they know the diameter of the drum they can determine the theoretical distance traveled. Now that they have both thrust (force) and distance and time the direct output is horsepower.

    • Joe Bogusheimer says:

      No.
      Power is power, and is what makes your bike go. Torque is just a twisting force, and can be multiplied or reduced by gearing. But any increase in torque at the rear wheel through gearing is offset by an proportional drop in the speed at which that torque is delivered, leaving HP exactly the same.

      Power is the ability to do work, like accelerating a motorcycle, or maintaining a speed against wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. Strong torque numbers at low RPMs indicate a bike that will have good power at those RPMs. There are different ways to make the same HP – high torque at low RPM, or lower torque at a higher RPM, but they will have the same effect. Most people prefer an engine that has good power at lower RPMs, easily accessible without revving the engine high, at normal cruising RPMs.

      That is not to say that two vehicles with the same peak HP and weight will accelerate equally fast. Since we don’t (generally) have CVTs that allow us to keep the engine at its peak HP RPM, the shape of the HP/torque curve also matter. This can be seen particularly in drag racing, where it is necessary to start from zero speed and low RPMs. If the engine doesn’t start making good torque/HP until high RPMs, it will lose ground to a vehicle with equivalent peak HP at lower RPMs, or more importantly, power spread over a larger range of RPMs. In other types of racing, an engine that is excessively “peaky” (power and torque concentrated in a narrow band of high RPMs) will be more difficult (or maybe even impossible) to consistently keep in the range where good power is produced, than one that produces it over a larger spread of RPMs.

      In short, it’s complicated and neither peak HP or torque numbers provide a good picture of an engine’s real world performance.

    • Grover says:

      A 200# rider on a bicycle that has 8″ pedal length makes 150 ft.# of torque, though he doesn’t accelerate like a Hayabusa. So torque alone means nothing. A 1200 Sportster makes 70# of torque, same as a 1200 Bandit and the Bandit walks all over it in a race, both in top speed and 1/4 mile. So it would seems that HP is the more informative number when considering performance. Carry on….

      • todd says:

        The ZX12R has 98.8 lb-ft at the crank. That’s 986 lb-ft at the rear wheel in first gear – where all torque measurements should be quoted. Fours typically make quite a bit more torque than twins.

      • Dave says:

        Re : “A 200# rider on a bicycle that has 8″ pedal length makes 150 ft.# of torque, though he doesn’t accelerate like a Hayabusa. ”

        The cyclist is geared to multiply his rpm at the wheel because most cyclists only spin 100rpm on top.

        If the cyclist feeds his 150lb/ft into the hyabusa’s gearbox, it’ll accelerate just as fast as the engine would.. For a fraction of a second.

        • todd says:

          The bicyclist would not accelerate as fast as the engine even if for only a fraction of a second. The Hayabusa is producing its peak torque at 7000 rpm (or lets the clutch out at 2000), the cyclist is maybe 60 rpm. 7000 rpm is much faster than 60.

  9. Michael H says:

    Yamaha keeps cranking out interesting motorcycles, and updating older models. Honda should take a lesson.

  10. VLJ says:

    Having spent a couple of days recently on an FJ-09, all I can say is I hope this little FZ-07 doesn’t suffer from the same degree of horrifically annoying buffeting tumbling over that abbreviated windshield. The Paul Bunyan-esque seat height and still-not-fully-sorted fueling were definite issues, but that noisy, headache-inducing turbulence was the real deal-breaker for me.

    Hopping back onto the smooth, turbulence-free XSR was like….ahhhhhhhh!

    • VLJ says:

      Make that “this little FJ-07.”

    • Curly says:

      Did you try the windscreen all the way down? Counter intuitive but that’s where it works best for me with the least turbulence.

      • VLJ says:

        I always set windshields all the way down. The higher they are, the more turbulent buffeting they create. That is, unless it’s so tall that you’re looking through it, rather than over it, which I hate.

        I’ve found that this turbulence issue afflicts every bike I’ve ever ridden that has an upright seating position and any sort of moderately-sized windscreen. Every time I’ve owned one, I spent my entire ownership experience trying different windshields and flips and whatsuch, before giving up and selling the bike.

        Anymore these days, just give me a true naked and no windshield for nice, clean, smooth airflow. I’ll deal with the cold. I can’t deal with the helmet buffeting.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          I’m like you. The less fairing/windshield in front of me, the better the ride. I can’t stand looking through a windscreen, and anything short enough to look over tends to cause too much turbulence unless the bike has a pretty sporty tuck to the riding position.

    • Mark says:

      Madstad cures all windshield issues.

      I won’t ride a bike in Western US without decent wind protection. It’s cold here, and we spend long days in the saddle, and the wind can scream at 50 mph on any given day.

      • KenHoward says:

        I’ve seen Madstad and Parabellum bolt-on replacements that look like they’d be a big improvement over this stock screen. I can’t understand Yamaha’s reasoning for not replacing the worse-than-useless stock screen, especially after all the bad reviews.

  11. rokster says:

    *Sigh* XYZ launches 1200cc touring bike. Commentators cry for 600-800cc version. XYZ launches 700cc touring bike. Commentators cry for 1000cc version. They can’t get no satisfaction, no, no, no.

  12. Mick says:

    I rode a 900 Tracer and a MT-07 back to back in April of 2015. The 900 was, more or less, a Japanese version of my 2003 Multistrada (1000DS), which was also along for the ride. It has all the makings of a good functional bike. The only buzzkill for me was the whine that the engine makes.

    The MT-07 doesn’t whine and has decent power. It actually sounds kind of cool. I found that I had to run a gear lower a lot of the time to get a decent drive out of a corner. But I got used to that very quickly. It was more because of my ear being tuned for what power the Ducati makes at what RPM than is was for any necessity of running a taller gear so as not to be annoyed by a overabundance of engine braking. The engine should work pretty well in an adventure chassis, or whatever they are calling the things now.

    Major buzzkill for me on this bike is that it the word “Tracer” seems to weigh in around 35 to 40 pounds. Or about 10% more than an MT-07. An MT-07 and a case of beer in glass bottles. They weigh about the same as a 2003-7 Multistrada 1000/1100.

    • Selecter says:

      The old MTS was 430 lbs *dry*. This one is supposedly close that ready to ride. Remember the 2000s, when all bike weights were listed without gas, oil, a battery, a chain, or maybe a seat? 😉

      The old MTS would clear nearly 500 lbs. wet.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        Man, those dry weight figures from back in the day were so laughable.

        • Selecter says:

          I owned a Triumph TT600 for a short while. Great bike, by the way… handled superbly and looked great… anyhow… Triumph claimed that bike was something like 375 lbs. dry. I have no idea *what* they had to take off that bike for it to weigh in at 375 lbs. or whatever, but on an actual gigantor shipping scale, it was 455 lbs. with a freshly-filled tank, ready to roll.

          Even Wikipedia says it’s 413 lbs. wet. Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Where do people get this garbage?

      • Mick says:

        They were 196 Kg (432 pounds) including oil and other liquids, but without fuel. Even so, there are a lot of crazy heavy blobs of plastic on the bike. You have to pull a lot of that stuff of to do the valves. It’s air cooled. There is a reason that NCR uses the engine.

  13. mmytacist says:

    Is it wrong that the first thing I noticed was an easily accessible oil filter?

  14. Kent says:

    Nice and it hits the sweet spot in size. Plenty of power with today’s fuel injected and high voltage ignition engines, less weight, more mileage, less cost. You don’t really need a 200 mph motorcycle unless you have something to prove and the big touring bikes have become 2 wheeled SUV’s.

  15. Sam says:

    That’s 3 words:)

    I like the idea that more choices are becoming available in the mid-size engine category.

    This looks like another nice choice.

    I just bought a brand new 2016 Suzuki DL650 to ride when I feel like a sedate ride in the Rural area where I live. It is light, proven and economical. My main ride is a 2012 Triumph Rocket 3 Roadster and I also enjoy my Suzuki Burgman 650.

    • mickey says:

      lol it’s more like 7 or 8 depending on whether you count hyphenated words as one word or two

  16. James says:

    One word: cruise control, self-cancelling indicators and heated grips.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      That’s a big word.

    • Curly says:

      Cruise control for this one will be tough as it has a regular cable operated throttle body assembly. Part of keeping the price down I suppose. It would be easy on the FJ-09 because it uses a servo stepper motor to open and close the TB butterflies.

      On the heated grips I’d bet they will be an accessory on this bike.

  17. Dave Joy says:

    Why oh why do nearly all bikers this side of the pond think you need a large capacity bike to tour on? I toured most of Europe in the 80’s on a Honda CBX 550 (2 up with camping gear)
    and a good portion of North America (4 Provinces and 10 States) on my Triumph Bonneville or my 650 Burgman. A lot of these tours have been with buddies on their big cruisers and never have I felt the need to up-size! In fact, when we have hit the mountain twisties there is always someone asking “fancy swapping for a while?” This looks like a great bike and would certainly be on my list when looking for a new bike!

    • GearDrivenCam says:

      Dave – I whole-heartedly agree. I was just perusing another prominent U.S. online motorcycle publication and they refer to the new Tracer 700 as a “small displacement” bike, and suggest that it will appeal mostly to beginner riders. When it’s seen in that kind of light – or promoted in that kind of way (the words “beginner bike” have such an unappealing connotation) in the U.S. – these bikes can be a tough sell. Why not promote it as a light-weight (431 lbs wet), good handling, affordable, fun bike, with excellent fuel economy, and an engine that exudes plenty of character? While this isn’t an adventure bike, for comparison, this bike is lighter than a KLR650 single, and produces 30 more rear-wheel horsepower.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        “Beginner bike” is a terrible label, and I think it is irresponsible for motojournalists to push that. Not that it wouldn’t make a good beginner bike – it certainly could for a mature rider – but as you said the label seems to completely turn the American ego off to the possibility that it might just be a great motorcycle, faster than most things on four wheels and faster than at least 50% of the other motorcycles on the road.

        What statistic do they have to presume that the bike would appeal “mostly to beginner riders?” The FZ-07 has become pretty popular around here, and I’ve met four people that have one now. None are beginners, and all but one came off of much faster machines.

        • GearDrivenCam says:

          I just took another look at the article and they refer to it as a “commuter bike” that could be used for “weekend-long adventures” and suggest that it’s made more for “newer riders”. No mention of “beginner bike” specifically on second glance. So I stand corrected. Still – the mention of “commuter”, “weekend-long adventures” and “newer riders” sounds more like they are describing a CBR300R to me and doesn’t conjure up the most flattering depiction either. Only weekend-long adventures? How is this bike not suitable for longer adventures? Not enough power?

    • BillW says:

      “Why oh why do nearly all bikers this side of the pond think you need a large capacity bike to tour on?”

      I can answer that. I tour a fair amount by motorcycle. Far less important that horsepower (to me) is how often I have to stop. I like to stop when I need to pee or to take a photo. I almost never need to take a picture at the gas pump. If I can travel 700 miles and stop no more than twice, I’m a happy motorist. That means I want a large tank or good fuel economy… in an ideal world, I’d have both.

      • tdh says:

        With a 4.5 gal. tank and 50 mpg, you’ll see over 200 mi. As another example, this bike is a direct competitor for the Kawasaki Versys 650LT, which has a 5.5 gal tank and also does 50+ mpg. Seems like that should be large enough capacity for a longer range tourer.

    • Mark says:

      I don’t need a big capacity bike. But I do like to go FAST and that’s what I buy.

  18. todd says:

    I would sell a half dozen of my bikes to own this.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      It looks like a great formula. Light, inexpensive, spacious ergos, flexible, efficient engine, not trying to look like an adventure bike, not over-styled… I hope it sells well here. It deserves to.

      • Selecter says:

        It looks like a pretty fantastic package, doesn’t it? Judging by the UK’s pricing of 6500GBP, one can estimate that minus VAT and at current exchange rates, this should be in the $7500-$8000 range here in the US. Which is a pretty solid buy for what it is.

        At under 435 lbs. soaking wet (about what the SV650S used to be), I would figure nearly anyone here would be thrilled to see this one!

        This looks like what the FZ6R/Diversion -should- have been all along. This one makes more power everywhere, a LOT more power down low (if tuning is identical to the FZ-07, that is), is 45 lbs. lighter than the FZ6R, and at the very least looks like it’s roomier as well. If Fuelly is any indicator, one is likely to get 5-10 MPG more with the 700 than the with the FZ6R, as well.

        This from a guy that actually *likes* the FZ6R! It’s a great daily hack and budget do-all standard bike with wind protection. But, this looks to be simply more of all the good, and none of the bad. I couldn’t imagine that bike staying in the lineup if this gets imported stateside.

        I think its biggest problem will actually be the FZ-09. Aside from touring and commuting riders, lots will find the 09 much more appealing, simply because of the engine output… there aren’t so many “practical” riders over here.

        • todd says:

          I’d rather compare it to the FZ6 which has 30 percent more power and a center stand. Given the fact that changing a FZ-07 to an FJ-07 will add about 45 pounds then they are on equal standing weight wise. Plus the FZ6 just looks cleaner…

          Shoot, I can go and pick up a perfect condition FZ6 for $3500 tomorrow. I’m not even sure I can ever get a FJ-07.

          • Curly says:

            The FZ6 was a cool good looking bike that missed on the details. Great frame, good but sort of gutless engine in traffic, mediocre 2 piston pin slider calipers without ABS and a 468 pound wet weight. That 30% extra power was there but you had to rev the snot out of the engine to get to it. Not so for the FJ-07 which has a great engine for traffic and back roads. It also has great brakes and will come in at 432 pounds wet (just 38 pounds more than the FZ-07). A missing centerstand is the only flaw I see in it but that can be added for about $250. You’ll probably have to wait ’til this time next year to get the FJ-07 here but I bet we’ll get it.

          • todd says:

            I’d hardly call the FZ6 gutless, it accelerated much harder than my 900 Ducati. Sure that’s at a higher RPM but the gearing is lower and the thing is already spinning at highish RPM any way. I don’t tend to short-shift motorcycles. I thought the FZ6 was perfect but I didn’t like the massive rear tire. It made the steering a little slower than it needed and the thought of replacing an expensive tire a few times a year changed my mind. I went with a K75S instead (skinny, inexpensive tires that last longer and extremely smooth engine) even though the BMW is comparably gutless.

          • Selecter says:

            My last bike before my current one was a 2004 FZ6, so I can chime in on that, as well, lucky us!

            Gutless in traffic? That bike did nothing but made me want to speed. It was a frenetic engine to be sure… but you don’t ride a 600 inline-four in sixth gear at 40MPH. If you do, any negative effects from doing so are strictly the fualt of the rider NOT using the machine as designed or intended. I still think my 600cc inline-fours have been the most fun motorcycles I’ve owned, period (Triumph TT600, 2011 ZX-6R, FZ6), and still can’t see it from the eyes of those that say they make terrible street bike engines.

            AS for ABS, the FZ6 was a budget bike built for the market for the, what, 2004 model year? Nothing but BMW tourers had ABS at that time, and nothing but race bikes had radial-mount calipers. Given, I did not like the FZ6’s brakes that much, but they were effective.

            I did adore my FZ6, but I did like the FZ6R’s “feel” better (demo rode one last summer) overall – less buzz, lighter handling, easier clutch in slow stuff… but, I still would say that the Tracer 700 here is *likely* to be superior to both of those in most facets, peak HP of the FZ6 excepted.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            I recently acquired a clean 2008 FZ6 with the intent of stripping it of mirrors and lights and using it as a track bike. But it is a great overall machine. It is very fast – much more so than an SV650 or FZ-07 – so I don’t get the gutless part either. The front brake is a stout 4-piston caliper (maybe the older models used the slider) – all it needed was a steel line and more aggressive pads to really wake them up. It stops brilliantly, now.

            I thoroughly enjoy riding it. The FZ6 is still going to be a track bike, but it will get to keep its mirrors and lights as I intend to enjoy it on the street as well.

          • Curly says:

            Jeremy, the “gutless” term is an old one that describes a bike that doesn’the pull strong off the bottom. I liked the FZ6 but I remember my disappointment the first time I rode one and came back to the shop with a frown on my face. The bike was brand new to be fair but it just had nothing much under 4500 or 5000. That made it not so much fun in traffic. The first test on an FZ-07 on the other hand brought a big smile to my face because the bike did have a flexible engine with good power down low but a nice free revving top end too. I Remember thinking how close the character was to an RD350 or 400. You know, instant fun. So I can see how the FZ6 would be a fun track day bike but that’s not what the FJ-07 is meant to be. For the FJ the power character should be just right.

          • todd says:

            How hard do you need to accelerate in traffic? Like Jeremy said, if you find yourself in too high of a gear for the speed you’re going, that’s your fault, not the bike’s.

            I just wish the FZ6 had shaft drive (like my 74hp, 1982 Seca 650 and my K75S) and a skinnier rear tire then I would no longer need to look for the perfect bike.

  19. skybullet says:

    How about solving the abrupt throttle issue on the FJ-09 and offering Cruise Control? Too expensive you say? Then you could pick up a used FJ-09 add new software and enjoy the extra power.

    • Neil says:

      I rode the 2016 FZ09 at Daytona and the fueling was still not smooth off the bottom but that’s the EPA. TRULY remap and open it up and it should run fine. Even my CB500F has EPA fueling.

      • Scott says:

        I rode an FJ and an FZ back to back, and while the FZ did have a sensitive throttle at low speed in A-mode, the FJ didn’t have a problem at all. You could ride an FJ-09 in A-mode all day long. The FZ, not so much. If you’re riding around town on an FZ, just switch to Std. mode. It’s easy enough….

        • mickey says:

          My son just bought an FJ09 last weekend. We went riding all day Sunday. He says A mode is still too twitchy for him and he much prefers std or B mode, mostly std.

          • VLJ says:

            Yep, the FJ’s fueling is still too abrupt in A-mode, and it’s not perfect in Standard, either. B-mode works just fine, but at that point the bike merely oozes power, and most of us want that Yamaha Triple for the fun of that right-now punch. B-mode saps too much of that killer hit.

          • Scott says:

            I suppose when I get my XSR, I’ll be able to see the difference. But I thought the FJ’s fueling was just fine.

            Apparently, my XSR is in Yamaha’s SoCal warehouse and ready to get loaded onto a truck, so any day now I should get that phone call!

        • Scott says:

          Speaking of which…

          My dealer just sent me a pic of my bike, just about to come out of the crate. It’s go time! 👍

          • mickey says:

            Congrats Scott. My dealer told me he has had one in a crate for a week. I told him to put that thing together! Geesh. No fun looking at a box.

        • Curly says:

          Exactly, A-mode is supposed to have sharp response. You know the old Henny Youngman joke about the guy who goes to the doctor and says “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” and the doctor says “Then don’t do that!” Don’t put it in A, just ride around in standard or B-mode and there’s nothing to complain about with the FZ (after free dealer re-flash) or FJ-09 throttle response.

  20. Duc Dynasty says:

    Meh.

  21. Dave says:

    A little busy with all the superfluous bits and bobs all over it but functionally, just about perfect. Hope it makes it to the US.

  22. Sentinel says:

    I would not want to do any two-up riding, let alone touring on a bike of this displacement, suspension, and brakes. Now for riding on it alone, this would be my pick for a middleweight bike right now.

    • todd says:

      Why? I’ve done two up on bikes with less power. They were more than capable of keeping up with traffic. I did 100+, two-up, on my 33hp GB500. I don’t quite understand what experience drives your opinion.

      • Tom R says:

        Masochist.

      • Sentinel says:

        Because acceleration and braking capability are important, and I bike of this displacement and with these brakes is going to be stressed beyond what I’d feel comfortable with from a safety standpoint. I wish they made this exact bike, but only with better brakes and a 1000cc version of this engine. That I would buy and use for two-up riding.

        • Austin ZZR 1200 says:

          I think because most Americans are now obese (or very overweight) so they need supersize bikes to haul themselves and their amply-sized pillions. I’m 5’7″, 160 lbs and a V-strom 650 with luggage, two-up is fine for the wife and I to tour anywhere. Acceleration in 6th on the superslab…not a problem

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          The FJ-09 and Versys 1000 don’t qualify?

          • Sentinel says:

            No they don’t, I dislike them both. The engine in the FJ suffers from failing CCT, that last I heard was on the third revision from Yamaha and “still failing”. Beyond that it’s ugly. As for the Versys 1000, it’s a bit heavier than I would like, but worst of all is that buzzy engine getting through to the rider. That’s something I can’t tolerate. So this is why I said I wish they made a bike exactly like this Tracer 700, but with better brakes and a 1000cc engine. That is the bike I want, but it doesn’t exist.

      • mickey says:

        Personally I have been riding basically liter bikes or larger for touring two up since 1977. You get used to power.You get used to being able to power up a mountain pass or rip across a desert flat with some back up power in reserve. I am, at my advanced age, considering dropping to a lighter smaller bike for my touring but am having trouble wrapping my head around a 650 or 700 getting the job done. That would be like lopping two cylinders off my current ride, or basically cutting it in half. I certainly wouldn’t consider it for two up touring (for one thing I’m sure the average man/wife combo today would exceed the meager GVWR that manufacturers put on their bikes…I know my wife and I do on our ST 1300 and we are relatively small people comparatively speaking) but for solo touring I might consider it.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Mickey, unless you spend a lot of your time at 110+ mph, I can’t imagine any of the current 650+ machines not doing a satisfactory job for you. I know how you ride, man! While they might pale in comparison to your ST, all of them are as fast as (or faster than) your CB1100.

          • mickey says:

            lol I have only been to 110 twice in the last 20 years. I know what you are saying is probably true, as others have told me the same thing. I am just having trouble wrapping my head around that. Old and stubborn I suppose. The last 650 I owned had about 40 hp and vibrated so badly parts regularly cracked and fell off. I need to get an extended ride on a modern 650/700 sometime. I did ride a nephews NC700 for a day in Nevada/California and it was alright I guess. Can’t imagine riding it from Ohio to Cali and back though, (especially with my wife on back). Been trying toget a look at the Versys 650. None of the dealers around here stock them.

          • VLJ says:

            Mickey, my little SV650 took my wife and I (plus a crap-ton of luggage) up to and across Canada, no problem. We had plenty of power for passing, going fast, you name it. And, like you, I was used to ST1100s, ST1300s, V-Strom 1000s, etc.

            My SV650 had a Yosh pipe and dyno’d at 72 rwhp, so it was right about the same power as Yamaha’s small Twin.

            Point being, don’t sweat it. I guarantee you, this FJ-07 will handle you and your wife just fine out on the superslab.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            An NC700 isn’t comparable: it is just one of those odd Honda experiments. All of the other Japanese 650+ twins make 40% – 50% more power. That’s a big difference.

            I like the Versys a lot, though you might find it to be a bit on the tall side. The Kawi dealer closest to me said he could barely sell the Versys prior to the redesign. Now it is one of his best sellers.

          • Dave says:

            Re: “my little SV650 took my wife and I (plus a crap-ton of luggage) up to and across Canada”

            If she didn’t leave you after hundreds of miles on an SV650 pillon, you’ll never get rid of her. lol

        • Sentinel says:

          I ride an SFV650. I can tell you unequivocally that it is not sufficient for two-up riding, let alone being a torture rack for the passenger, and very cramped. Also the strain on the engine, the suspension, and the brakes is a safety concern. And no, I am not a “fat-ass”, nor my passenger.

          • VLJ says:

            In no uncertain terms, the strain on the brakes is not a “safety concern.” That’s utterly ridiculous. You aren’t riding two-up with luggage on the track. Unless you are doing just that, the brakes are always well up to any job you will ever ask of them on the street.

            Are they as sharp as some other sets? No, they’re not, but are they absolutely safe? Yes, always.

            The same goes for the suspension and motor.

            I’ve never ridden an SFV650, which, I presume, is the Gladius. My SV650 was lighter than the Gladius, and that motor had no problem pulling 100+ mph two-up, any time, anywhere. It was more than sufficient for two-up riding plus luggage on a 4,500-mile trip, never mind being a safety concern.

            Besides, if you need much more than 100+ mph two-up, you aren’t the least bit worried about concepts such as “safety.” Get real.

          • todd says:

            Sentinel, get real. I think there must be something seriously wrong with your bike if a two up ride on the highway is straining your engine. You should have it looked at right away. You do realize that you should be running both cylinders. The rear one isn’t there just in case the front one fails.

          • Sentinel says:

            Actually I’ve been riding and maintaining my own bikes for well over 30 years. I know bikes and mechanics quite well. I’m “very” experienced. Now I don’t mind you not seeing things my way and having a different opinion, but save the trolling and snide remarks for someone else.

          • VLJ says:

            Okay, so in what possible way do you see any real safety concerns with an SFV650 or any other modern Japanese bike of a reasonable displacement, ridden on the street? The brakes won’t stop the bike in a predictable, repeatable manner? The motor won’t make it up a hill or easily pull around a big-rig? The suspension will collapse and throw you into a ditch?

            I’m curious as to your definition of “safety concern,” since people rode cross-country two-up for years and years on far less powerful, far less competent bikes than an FJ-07 or SFV650.

          • Sentinel says:

            I never said you “couldn’t”, I said “I wouldn’t”.

          • VLJ says:

            You said you wouldn’t, based on safety concerns. You said the stress on the brakes, suspension, and motor are all cause for concern, in terms of safety.

            I’m asking you to define it. In any way, shape, or form, how does a modern 700cc Japanese Standard-style motorcycle give you cause for concern that its motor or chassis components are not entirely safe when ridden two-up on the street?

          • Sentinel says:

            Very simple really, I’ve done it, so I’m speaking from personal experience, and this is my conclusion. Obviously the more weight added to a bike, the more power needed and the more breaking required for operation. That equation with a bike of that power and breaking rating doesn’t meet my personal standards of acceptability.

          • VLJ says:

            Then how did you manage to ride for well over thirty years, considering the fact that no bike from that era had brakes or suspension that were anywhere near as effective as those on any modern Japanese middleweight multi. For that matter, back then there weren’t all that many motorcycles, period, that made more power than an FJ-07.

            Man, how did you manage it? How did any of us manage it?! We all must have been Superhero Riders!

    • todd says:

      Consider that the most popular, two-up touring motorcycle has less or maybe as much power but certainly lesser brakes and suspension – not to mention that it weighs twice as much. Yes, I’m talking Harley FLs.

      • mickey says:

        those have like 100ft lbs of torque..made for moving big loads not very fast (not much HP)

        • todd says:

          You can crank out 150ft-lbs of torque on a bicycle. That still doesn’t allow for any greater performance or load pulling ability. Don’t be mislead by the whole “torque” marketing scheme.

          • mickey says:

            You keep referencing that torque on a bicycle thing, but it has no bearing on riding a motorcycle. I’m guessing the torque on a bicycle is in the first few pedals getting going in low gears, but once you get up to 30 mph in what 15th gear there is substantially less torque being applied with each push on the pedal. I’m not mislead by the torque thing I’m going on 50 years experience of riding a motorcycle on the torque thing. There is a reason many believe the ideal combo to be 100 HP and 75 pounds of torque, it provides pulling power for moving from a stop or slow speed and acceleration capability for high speed travel. Nobody says they want 100 hp and 15 ft lbs of torque, or 25 hp and 100 ft lbs of torque. I’m also not mislead by the HP thing, motorcycles used to get up to 100 mph with 3 1/2 hp, it just took a long time. Having enough of both to satisfy the rider, and get the intended job done is what it’s all about.

          • mickey says:

            100 ft lbs of torque is what allows a 950 pound motorcycle with a 275 driver and 200 pound passenger with 50 pounds of gear on an FL Harley to ride up the Mt Washington Auto Road or Pike’s Peak for example. A lack of torque is what prevents the same combo from riding up those same mountains on a 300 Ninja. A lack of horsepower keeps that same combo from running 160 mph across the plains. 200 hp is what allows a Ninja H2 to run 160 mph across the plains.

            Torque is what makes you move, horsepower is what makes you move really fast.

          • todd says:

            on a bicycle, the faster you are going, the more torque is required – same as a motorcycle. Go hop on your bicycle and see how much harder it is to pedal at 30mph than at 1mph. I have a few decades of experience too but apparently on a more broad range of bikes. Have you ever wondered why a bike with twice the torque can accelerate less that half as hard as a bike with half as much torque?

            The very definition of power is the ability to move (lift) a given weight in a given amount of time (33,000lb in one minute). More power means you can move more weight or move the same weight faster. Torque is a force acting against a mechanism – in this case it’s the crankshaft. It does not ever account for it’s ability to actually move any mass at any rate of speed or acceleration. It’s more like “effort” and we all know that someone putting more effort into something than someone else does not always get more work done.

            Think of it this way. Would you want a handful of 50 dollar bills or a handful of 100s? If you’re thinking the same way you do about torque then you would take the stack of 100s. Well, power wants to know the value of that stack because there might be a stack of 10 fifties but only two hundreds.

            Show me a 3 1/2 hp motorcycle that has ever gone 100mph. In a vacuum, yes…

          • mickey says:

            1913 Indian Board track racer, a 1000cc Vtwin would average 100 mph on the boards and had less than 10 hp. (but not 3 1/2 lol)

            So you are telling me these bicycle racers I see on TV are using as much effort to pedal along at 30 mph as it does for them to go from 0 to 15 mph at the start of the race?

            “Have you ever wondered why a bike with twice the torque can accelerate less than half as hard as a bike with half as much torque?”

            Show me that motorcycle

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            The word “torque” has become synonymous with “horsepower at low rpms.” I know that must really rake at the nerves of an engineer like Todd (heck, it bothers me and I’m not even an engineer), but that is what people are saying when they say they like torque regardless of what they think “torque” means.

            To Todd’s point, torque doesn’t mean squat to hustling your bike anywhere. You can apply 10,000 lb-ft of torque to something and produce no work. A 70hp HD can’t move itself up a mountain any better than a 70hp FZ-07. (We’ll pretend they weight the same here, otherwise the 400lb FZ would crush the HD up the mountain.)

            But to Mickey’s point, the difference is that our hypothetical Harley will be in full thrashing mode at 3000rpms while the FZ might be at 7500 rpms for a given road speed to make the same spank. To get the power at those lazier rpms requires that the engine be much larger (and therefore heavier.)

            Some people don’t realize that the bikes can’t be ridden the same way and will say that the FZ-07 doesn’t have enough torque or power (because they are trying to get on it at 3000 rpms like they would the Harley.)

            And then some riders just have a preference to one flavor of power production over the other. Engineers have to consider this with each application and choose the engine’s sweet spot accordingly.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            “Show me that motorcycle”

            Oh come on Mickey! Any 600cc supersport vs. any “big twin.”

          • mickey says:

            here’s where I got the 3 1/2 hp figure

            http://www.realclassic.co.uk/1913indianboardracer.html

            Apparently you guys have never seen the youtube vid of the old guy on the Harley chopper spanking the CBR 1000 out of the hole? It would work until the CBR builds up some HP and then walks away. I’ll see if I can find it.

            found it

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeC7g6_40

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            Mickey,

            If the Harley were geared to go 100mph in first gear like the CBR, it would get left behind like a brick. Same if vice versa the CBR were geared like the Harley to introduce its powerband early. Or if the CBR rider knew how to use his clutch to properly launch the bike. What we see here is a function of gearing and rider skill, not torque. I won’t even get into why the long wheelbase of the Harley helps launch the bike more easily than a steep-geometry sportbike. I watch nearly stock 600s and 1000s dust pretty modded Harley’s all the time on the 1/8th at the local strip. With the exception of a few built Harleys, I’ve never seen one beat a 600 or 1000 cc sport bike. And the built Harleys win with horsepower, not torque.

            All top fuel dragsters are tuned for peak horsepower, not torque.

        • MGNorge says:

          Oh god, who left the gate open again?

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            Another article that backs up what I am saying. I don’t get what you guys are trying to tell me with this stuff. Maybe its because the conversation was split into two threads and we are not all following each other?

          • mickey says:

            personally I am just going to admit I am not an engineer, know nothing about what I’m talking about, but know what I like, or how I like a motorcycle to perform. That’s it, I’m out of the conversation lol

          • MGNorge says:

            I’m responding to the notion that torque is some irrelevant number hung out there and that horsepower is of main concern when choosing an engine or mount.
            Look, one can cruise the Web at their leisure and find any number of definitions and explanations put out their for the relevance of both torque and horsepower on the performance of a vehicle and seemingly no two sound exactly alike.
            But Mickey, if you’re still responding, I think you and I were both stating that an engine’s max torque, torque spread, are of importance. That’s why in this regard we have some bikes tuned for more outright horsepower and vehicle performance and others taken back a notch or two, losing some ponies on the top end so as to fatten the torque curve where those riders want to be. There are many variables of course.

  23. azi says:

    Looks like Honda is the odd one out of the Big Four in this market segment. The rest have stellar bikes – this bike, the Versys and V-Strom. Honda has made me scratch my head a lot in the last few years.

    • mark444 says:

      Don’t forget the little CB500X. Maybe alittle low on CC’s, but compared to my Vstrom, the “X” is a Hoot to ride. And there is a Rally-Raid Kit in 3 Levels to bring it up real dirt capabilities. I suspect Honda might bump the CB’s engine displacement in the future, IF the other Big 3 make a dent in its sales……..

      • Stuki Moi says:

        And Honda has the NC. A bit less traditional than the others, but certainly in the same class. And in Europe, where this thing is being launched, I believe Honda has a VFR800 based ADV bike as well.

  24. ABQ says:

    They claim “Long-range 17 litre fuel tank”

    Would somebody please inform these guys what long range is, please.
    We have to go long distances out here in the west. It’s longer than 17 litres.

  25. motogrin says:

    I’d be stunned if this made it to the US market. The Euro market loves middle-weights but I just don’t see them putting this on US showroom floors next to the FJ-09 and expecting to sell sustainable numbers of both models.

    • pacer says:

      I think your right. If you are looking for something in the middle weight range and I were your salesman I would push you to an Fj-09.

  26. bmbktmracer says:

    I thought it was cool until I watched the marketing chick-flick. Now I just want my blanket and a hot chocolate.

  27. steveinsandiego says:

    i test rode the original 07. hated the fly-by-wire’s delay.

    • Curly says:

      Well that would be odd because this one is still a cable operated throttle body. I’ve ridden three and they all had great throttle response. Are you sure you’re not thinking about the first year FZ-09 triple?

      • steveinsandiego says:

        oh, crap, you are correct. i slink off, embarrassed. i tested a slightly used one offered by a one-man “dealer”. i mentioned the throttle delay. he blamed fly by wire. i did not do the research. egg on face.

      • VLJ says:

        “Well that would be odd because this one is still a cable operated throttle body. I’ve ridden three and they all had great throttle response.”

        ~zing!~

        LOL!

  28. Jeremy in TX says:

    Looks like a winner. I like it.

    • SeTh says:

      Love the skinny fork tubes.

      • Tim says:

        They do look especially thin. Will they be able to stand up to wheelie prone riders?

        When I think of thin forks I’m always picture the early Kawasaki triples. I wouldn’t want to hit a big pot-hole with those things.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        I think they are 41mm. That should prove plenty stout for a 430 lb bike. But yes, not having fat-looking USD forks these days is kind of like sporting a mullet.

      • Curly says:

        They are 41mm which is the same size as the ones on my TDM 850 which weighs about 70 pound more wet than this bike. They do just fine on the FZ-07s I’very ridden.

  29. mickey says:

    Nice looking bike, will certainly give it a test ride. Hope it’s shorter than the FJ-09. My son just bought one and it’s a tall drink of water for an munchkin like me. Luckily my son is a bit taller, but he’s still tippy toed on it.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      I read that the seat height is 32.9 inches… better than an inch taller than FZ-07. I think the FJ-09 is 33.4 inches in the lowest setting.

      • Curly says:

        Same height as the Suzuki V-Strom 650. The seat does look narrow at the front so it may be OK in real life vs the online spec world.

  30. drassif says:

    Nope, we still want the xt700z!

  31. Scott says:

    There you go. Next year’s FJ-07 in the US. Happy now?