FZ-04?

[gregjet]

Rhe VFR/RVF 400 is capable of more than 200kph just not in bog stock form. It was restricted in both top speed and HP via the speedo ( optocoupled ) and the ECU limiter . Both were possible and easy to remove respectively. The ECU was via (depending on which model), unplugging one black wire or cutting a wire to the ECU and giving it 12V ( which is all the very expensive "black box did). The speedo needed the speedo through sensor wire connected straight through to maintain 12v instead of switching in an earth at the designed speed . The same restriction was used on CBR250R/RR's , NSR250's ( all models except the last 25model), CBR400rr's and NSR400's. Probably used on others as well but these were the only ones I have worked on. All were capable of greater than 200kph. All except the vfr/rvf400's were bloody aweful to ride on the street, because they had to be kept on the boil all the time, but pure pleasure on the track which was their natural habitat. You want to know what a motorcycle should handle like ride one of these ( in good condition as they are getting decidedly old now).
 
Part of the reason they could get up to those speeds was because they had REAL fairings , not "style exercises". The biggest restriction on top speed is wind resistance and they were slippery. The racing fairing for them were even slipperier. Naked's may be "current cool" but they are also their own biggest limitation on top speed.
 

[milkman]

Why don't you just put a smaller rear sprocket on the FZ-07 if you already have one? It'd be less torquey and get better mileage. It's not like you have to go over 115mph even if the bike is capable of it.

[gregjet]

I have been trying to find a smaller back for a while. It's a common swap for the european tourers and this bike is pretty common in Europe but still haven't found one for the MT except in 520. I WILL swap to all 520 set eventually.

[sorkyah]

Vortex is thebonly one that currently makes a smaller rear.... i have the second smallest they make... 41t they also make a 40....
 
This is also in 520.... which frees up a bit of revs

[pattonme]

JT sprockets doesn't have a smaller one? If you need to go the custom route, somebody introduced me to http://www.rebelgears.com/. He does one-offs and he either worked for or owned JT(?) till recently.

[level41]

Depending on how you gear it. The FZ-07 is restricted in most cases.
 
In 4th gear it's also restricted due to RPM, but if you re-gear it to 1k RPM every 10MPH, you'd essentially do 100MPH at 10k RPM.
That's about what my carbureted GS500F does in 4th. In 5th it goes 112MPH.

Tall gearing requires power.
 
A 400cc motorcycle is not able to produce the power needed to propel a motorcycle with a high drag coefficient to 200km/h at low RPM. The most powerful 400cc production bike made 57hp. It revved out to 13,500rpm. It was a V4 performance engine. That bike still wouldn't have the power needed to do 200km/h at 7,500rpm. On the same note, to add more RPM and cylinders you lose the fuel economy.
 
You are asking for something that isn't possible.

 
Well, a more modern engine, fuel injected, and liquid cooled. Also lighter in weight.
The GS500f is air cooled, and with carburetor.
 
Just because the bike won't go top speed in 6th, doesn't mean that 6th should be used.
It's just a double overdrive.
If it does top speed in 4th, 5th and 6th are merely to lower rpm on the highway. Enough to go 80mph at a comfy 4k rpm.
Downshift to 5th, and rpm goes up to 6k, and the bike has the power needed to accelerate to higher speeds. Shift to 4th, and reach top speed.
 
Why not on an FZ-07?
Most riding in south Florida is like this:
City:35-40mph
Urban areas:45-55mph
Highways:55-65mph
Interstates:80-85mph
When re-gearing a 250cc to do 3k rpm at 40mph in final gear, mpgs of over 100mpg can be achieved.
A 250cc bike would be perfect in every way, except for the fact that most 250s don't have the power for prolonged interstate riding. Sure, under good conditions it may top out at 80mph, but that same bike under bad conditions would not even reach 70 mph, and at high rpms that is...
The aim is to gear the bike to rev as low as possible, without stalling the engine, or cause it to vibrate more than normal (lugging), at the speeds you're riding it most frequently (see above, city, urban, hwy, or interstate), yet at the same time has the power needed to ride the interstate when needed, without breaking a sweat.
It turns out that the 'sweet spot' is between a 350 and 400cc for a bike to cover all 4 speed zones.
It makes enough power to do 100mph, doesn't have throttle wide open on interstates (thus can be geared to rev lower), and the mpg trade offs from the larger cc engine in city and suburban riding is there, but minimal. It also can rev low, without lugging, in 6th gear, at city speeds, and maintain the speed (and get great gas mileage)
 
In city riding, with lots of stops and gos, the larger cc engine consumes a lot more fuel than a smaller one, just idling, and because it's using only a fraction of its power when going 35mph or below. Often in 3rd or 4th gear, on a 6 speed.
A 400cc seems to be on the upper range of being able to hold 35mph in 5th or 6th; however for such traffic (city), a 100cc would be optimal.
Once urban speeds of 45mph come into play, the sweet spot moves to a 200cc; since a 100cc would need to be revving at 75-80% of the rev band to maintain speeds of 55mph there will be a trade off in mpg. Too high revs on a too small engine reduce mpg, just like a too big engine on a too low speed does.
 
The FZ-07 has a great engine, for highway and interstate speed riding (speeds of 60-90mph), as it revs about at 5k rpm most comfortable at those speeds, about half it's rev range.
It does perform rather inefficient at urban roads of 35-40mph compare to a 250cc. You can do the math to realize that an 07 doing 2k rpm at 40mph is going to consume more fuel than a 250 or 400cc doing the same rpm at the same speed.
 
I would consider the FZ-07 if my main speed of riding was at speeds of greater than 55mph (only highways or interstate).
 
The MT-03 might be a solution, since Yamaha uses 21cc more than most other competitors.
Honda uses 286cc on their CB300F bikes, which is a good 64cc too little for comfortable interstate riding.
Sure, the bike can do 80mph, but I wonder when riding with a passenger, and having a 20mph headwind, or riding on an incline with a 10mph headwind...
 
299cc is no joke, is too little, unless it's an efficient fuel injected bike, and you're OK with running a bike in the quadruple digits of RPM for hours on end on the interstate. Not me.
The MT-03 has the 21cc advantage over competition, and comes closest to the 350cc needed, save for the KTM Duke or RC390.
My only concern is that most of that power comes at high RPM on the MT-03/YZF-R3, so it's a lot harder to gear well for lower rpm.
Changing engine design to a bit more of a long stroke engine would increase efficiency and low end torque, to cruise at 80mph @ 4.5-5k rpm comfortably.
Current engine design probably will be restricted to 6k rpm @80mph.
Since we don't have an MT-03 over here, I'd have to base those numbers off of the performance of the R3.
 
But the numbers here work well for a commuter bike.
If your aim is to roll on the throttle at 80mph in 6th (at 5k rpm), you're not going to feel the G-forces drag you oit of your seat. But for a commuter, MPG beats performance.
 
The difference between the 321cc engine and 350/400cc engine, is that with the latter, more power can be shifted to lower RPM, and top RPMs somewhat restricted to 9 or 10k, for better efficiency. The bike should still easily surpass 110mph, albeit not in 6th, nor 5th.

[pattonme]

Commuters who care about mpg buy a 200cc scooter and are content to do 55 or stay the heel off interstates.
 
If you are getting 35 mpg or more just ride the damn thing.
 
Otherwise i suggest you cut your own transmission gears and otherwise change your moderately rev happy engine into a hardly.
 
No one in industry thinks the idea has merit so you're on your own.

[gregjet]

I appreciate level's well argued position to a fair extent. Coming from racing mostly small bikes I love them. To me the perfect size for a 4 stroke do it all is 350 to 650cc twin, preferably v twin or v4, but I can live with a good smooth single ( my husky 650 and the KTM390 and 690).
Done multi thousand km tours and NEVER on a bike bigger than a 650 and NEVER felt I needed a bigger bike. If you want to ride bike heavy bikes feel free. It is a personal choice not a necessity. The venerable GS500 is a perfectly good tourer. Neither big nor powerful but easy riding all day. NOTE: I don't speed ( much). If you want to cruise at warp speed you will need a bigger bike. At my age with not a lot of years of riding left I don't want to spend any of it without a license. ( twisties that are unpoliceable excepted)

[pattonme]

When re-gearing a 250cc to do 3k rpm at 40mph in final gear

 
You do realize you need 3000 RPM in FIRST gear to even pull away from a stop, right? Fine, if you slip the snot out of the clutch and have all day to get moving you can do it for less.
 

A 250cc bike would be perfect in every way, except for the fact that most 250s don't have the power for prolonged interstate riding.

 
You've ridden say the Ninja 250? I know a guy who did an Iron Butt on one. Won the "hopeless" class trophy for obvious reasons.
 

The aim is to gear the bike to rev as low as possible, without stalling the engine, or cause it to vibrate more than normal (lugging), at the speeds you're riding it most frequently

 
What you are describing is a gasoline-powered constant load generator. Nobody has any expectations of ever applying such criteria to automotive pursuits on public streets. You don't even get such a policy from cars, and they have torque in spades. Why does my Nissan 4L rev to 2000 at 65MPH when it could (theoretically) tick over at say 1200rpm and maintain equilibrium against air pressure? Because it would have to shift at least once or twice to effect any kind of acceleration out of it. And nobody in their right mind thinks such a state of affairs is reasonable or safe. Plus a faster spinning engine with a lower throttle opening is I'll bet more efficient both in emissions and fuel usage than low RPM with big throttle openings in a constant load scenario. Sure there is a cross-over point but unless you have the numbers, you're just guessing.
 
Are you a GA pilot? Because that's the only environment I can think of where the operator has the luxury of constant speed and can tune for max efficiency be it EGR or other means.
 
There's a very simple answer to radical MPG pursuits, a bicycle.
 

It does perform rather inefficient at urban roads of 35-40mph compare to a 250cc. You can do the math to realize that an 07 doing 2k rpm at 40mph is going to consume more fuel than a 250 or 400cc doing the same rpm at the same speed.

 
I dare you to ride a 250cc bike at 2000 RPM at any gear or speed and get back to us on drivability.
 

Changing engine design to a bit more of a long stroke engine would increase efficiency and low end torque, to cruise at 80mph @ 4.5-5k rpm comfortably.

 
The R3@5K puts out ~15HP and 17'ish lb-ft at wide-open throttle in presumably 4th gear. I expect you have the calculations to show that is sufficient motive force to get a 370lb cycle and 160lb rider with a coefficient of drag of N and wind force present at 80mph? And you've taken dyno measurements at various other throttle openings and gears to calculate minimum throttle to achieve said steady state?
 

[thomascrown]

I wish the fz07 was 800ish cc, and 100hp. Don't care for triples. Waiting on ktm's duke 800, though I suspect it will be incredibly unreliable.

[pattonme]

KTMs are perfectly reliable. they just need a steady diet of loving attention and care - you can have a mistress or you can have a KTM. Same level of expenditure and emotional commitment.

[gregjet]

KTM has been fuelling it's road bikes very badly of late. Took us months to get Sally's Duke 690 so it wouldn't hesitate in the middle of corners. Very scary. The word is that they improved the new model and the twins don't suffer as badly as the single. The problem lies in the two open and closed loop fueling and the interaction between as well.
At least you don't have to fix the suspension immediately.
 

[level41]

Commuters who care about mpg buy a 200cc scooter and are content to do 55 or stay the heel off interstates. 
If you are getting 35 mpg or more just ride the damn thing.
 
Otherwise i suggest you cut your own transmission gears and otherwise change your moderately rev happy engine into a hardly.
 
No one in industry thinks the idea has merit so you're on your own.

You must be kidding? My CAR (Chevy Cruze) gets 35MPG AVERAGE (not peak)!
I expect at least double on average for a motorcycle.
It's not impossible.
I've been able to reach upto 120MPG on perfectly rideable motorcycles (125cc and 250cc).
Though they were a bit sluggish, current bikes don't have to feel sluggish to reach an average of 80MPG US in final gear.
 
These numbers aren't for people racing their bikes on the tracks, or riding it in the city only.
But then again, I think there are better bikes out there to ride on the tracks than a 400cc.

[level41]

When re-gearing a 250cc to do 3k rpm at 40mph in final gear

You do realize you need 3000 RPM in FIRST gear to even pull away from a stop, right? Fine, if you slip the snot out of the clutch and have all day to get moving you can do it for less. 

A 250cc bike would be perfect in every way, except for the fact that most 250s don't have the power for prolonged interstate riding.

You've ridden say the Ninja 250? I know a guy who did an Iron Butt on one. Won the "hopeless" class trophy for obvious reasons. 

The aim is to gear the bike to rev as low as possible, without stalling the engine, or cause it to vibrate more than normal (lugging), at the speeds you're riding it most frequently

What you are describing is a gasoline-powered constant load generator. Nobody has any expectations of ever applying such criteria to automotive pursuits on public streets. You don't even get such a policy from cars, and they have torque in spades. Why does my Nissan 4L rev to 2000 at 65MPH when it could (theoretically) tick over at say 1200rpm and maintain equilibrium against air pressure? Because it would have to shift at least once or twice to effect any kind of acceleration out of it. And nobody in their right mind thinks such a state of affairs is reasonable or safe. Plus a faster spinning engine with a lower throttle opening is I'll bet more efficient both in emissions and fuel usage than low RPM with big throttle openings in a constant load scenario. Sure there is a cross-over point but unless you have the numbers, you're just guessing. 
Are you a GA pilot? Because that's the only environment I can think of where the operator has the luxury of constant speed and can tune for max efficiency be it EGR or other means.
 
There's a very simple answer to radical MPG pursuits, a bicycle.
 

It does perform rather inefficient at urban roads of 35-40mph compare to a 250cc. You can do the math to realize that an 07 doing 2k rpm at 40mph is going to consume more fuel than a 250 or 400cc doing the same rpm at the same speed.

I dare you to ride a 250cc bike at 2000 RPM at any gear or speed and get back to us on drivability. 

Changing engine design to a bit more of a long stroke engine would increase efficiency and low end torque, to cruise at 80mph @ 4.5-5k rpm comfortably.

The R3@5K puts out ~15HP and 17'ish lb-ft at wide-open throttle in presumably 4th gear. I expect you have the calculations to show that is sufficient motive force to get a 370lb cycle and 160lb rider with a coefficient of drag of N and wind force present at 80mph? And you've taken dyno measurements at various other throttle openings and gears to calculate minimum throttle to achieve said steady state?

I'm not going into this debate, because you're either: 1- A troll
or 
2- Someone who can't understand 'commuter' and 'eco riding' (aka ride to save $$$).
And yes, there are a lot of us out there that don't buy a bike to be hooligans, and race the crap out of it.
 
We can all enjoy a fast paced, fast accelerating bike from time to time; but some of us enjoy the slower rides as well.
As a matter of fact, I like my engine bopping or humming at 2k rpm, hardly audible, while I coast 35-40MPH past the scenery.
I know my engine is going to outlast me riding like this (if only the rest of the bike could handle the elements as well).
 
Oh, and yes,
 
1- You don't need 3k RPM to depart, you can easily depart at 1,5k rpm if you know how to handle a throttle,
 
and 2:
 
I have ridden a 250cc at 2500RPM quite often! In fact, on a Honda Rebel, it's the most comfortable RPM range (2250-3300RPM) to ride at. Re-geared, that translates in 30-45MPH.
 
Last point:
You only need 12HP to reach 75MPH. So 15HP at 80 is perfectly possible. I'm sure an FZ-04 will have more HP than an R3 across the entire rev-range.

[pattonme]

2- Someone who can't understand 'commuter' and 'eco riding' (aka ride to save $$$).

 
I ride 15-20K miles a year (did 35k once) and more than half of that is commuting. And no, motorcycling at any displacement north of 250cc is orthogonal to this 'eco riding' nonsense. You want to free wheel or maximize your greenie-ness as an apology to the ecosystem for the irresponsible conversion of hydrocarbons into CO2, NO2 and sound pollution, lots of scooters to pick from.
 
Shoot, I pollute the environment something fierce just with all the oil and tire changes I do. Even a 15yr old car in fine fiddle has a fraction of the operating costs and environmental impact of a motorcycle.
 

As a matter of fact, I like my engine bopping or humming at 2k rpm, hardly audible, while I coast 35-40MPH past the scenery.
...
In fact, on a Honda Rebel, it's the most comfortable RPM range (2250-3300RPM)

 
My CB750 would start to seriously protest dropping below 2500 RPM. Even MSF students rev their Rebels higher than that out on the range. Nobody buys a motorcycle to putz around at 2-3K rpm nor to pat themselves on the back for getting 70+ MPG and managing not to get splattered across the road.
 

[level41]

2- Someone who can't understand 'commuter' and 'eco riding' (aka ride to save $$$).

I ride 15-20K miles a year (did 35k once) and more than half of that is commuting. And no, motorcycling at any displacement north of 250cc is orthogonal to this 'eco riding' nonsense. You want to free wheel or maximize your greenie-ness as an apology to the ecosystem for the irresponsible conversion of hydrocarbons into CO2, NO2 and sound pollution, lots of scooters to pick from. 
Shoot, I pollute the environment something fierce just with all the oil and tire changes I do. Even a 15yr old car in fine fiddle has a fraction of the operating costs and environmental impact of a motorcycle.
 

As a matter of fact, I like my engine bopping or humming at 2k rpm, hardly audible, while I coast 35-40MPH past the scenery. ...
In fact, on a Honda Rebel, it's the most comfortable RPM range (2250-3300RPM)

My CB750 would start to seriously protest dropping below 2500 RPM. Even MSF students rev their Rebels higher than that out on the range. Nobody buys a motorcycle to putz around at 2-3K rpm nor to pat themselves on the back for getting 70+ MPG and managing not to get splattered across the road.

 
No one you know perhaps.
A lot of people enjoy riding without the noise of the engine being heard.
I don't pat myself for getting 70mpg. That would be extremely poor mpg for a 250cc. I pat myself on the back for continuously getting 100+mpg. That's $2 on gas nowadays per 100 miles, more felt when gas prices where double in 2013, where as a car does it with $8-10.
 
A scooter is an even greater polluter than a motorcycle, because it uses a CVT that has more friction than a manual transmission bike.
Seeing that I can get upto 120mpg US out of a Honda Rebel, I see no scooters keeping up with me.
Both in MPG as Top speed department (save for larger than 300cc scooters in top speed only).
 
The reason why for so long eco-commuters (visit ecomodder.com) have not used anything bigger than a 250cc, is because the next step up, for a decade or two, was a 500 or 650cc. Motorcycle development is seriously lacking between 300 to 500cc.

[Beemer]

[attachment id=1284" thumbnail="1]
 
You mean to tell me that after all this time if Captain James T. Kirk had only dropped down to warp 7 Scotty wouldn't have had to bust his arse trying to get more speed out of the Enterprise?! This is why I hate Hollywood. Their consultants suck, especially for war movies. (E.G. grenades that produce a huge fire-ball)
 
 
 
 
 

[gregjet]

" Motorcycle development is seriously lacking between 300 to 500cc." I agree but would make it 300 to 600. That is the range where it is possible to make smaller frames and motors especially it you leave inline 4's alone.
 
 
 

[level41]

Yup,
A Honda CB305 with 334-349cc, or an MT-04 would be quite a fun performer!
Most companies aren't as efficient in weight, and power, as Honda is; so any bike under 400LBS with 30HP or more; could be quite a fun ride!
 

[gregjet]

You might have a look at the KTM390 rc...
The CBR500 was a wasted opportunity. Weighs a ton. Could have been so much more with that little gem of a motor. Especially if you made it 90/270 like the MT07 yammy.
 
 

[level41]

You might have a look at the KTM390 rc... The CBR500 was a wasted opportunity. Weighs a ton. Could have been so much more with that little gem of a motor. Especially if you made it 90/270 like the MT07 yammy.
 

I hear you! 
Some weight can be saved on the exhaust, but I don't understand why even the CB500F weighs more than an FZ-07 wet. Don't tell me it's all in the fuel tank?
 
 
 

[Guest 2wheeler]

I would love to see an FZ-04, with a small wind breaker for the highway rides, and a place to mount some trunks on. 
I think a FZ-04 would hit the sweet spot on what people in USA need for longer rides, and to have power enough to ride at the legal upper speed limits (unlike a 250 or 300cc bike, that I'd have to wring the throttle in order to keep the needle above 85MPH).
 
I love the FZ-07 in every aspect, except it's too much bike for me (too fast), and gas mileage isn't that great on these bikes...
I know some might like the speed; I'm more into finding a comfortable, quality, affordable and lightweight bike to do longer trips with.

So, here's a different twist.... 
Years ago Honda came out with an economical, long distance, super reliable bike that to this day has quite a cult following - plus it is really different! I would be talking about the Honda CX500 and GL500 series. For the serious touring types, they had the GL500 Interstate/Silver Wing.
 
The bike looks like a Jap Moto Guzzi, and has plenty enough power to get the job done. They have a long life, reliable engine like that of a boxer twin. Without the luggage, they look like a classic bike of the day which ain't all that bad considering they brought back the CB1100 and the SR400.
 
Just a thought.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series#GL500_and_GL650_Silver_Wing
 
 

[robborboy]

Bad gas mileage? I never get under 45mpg. And that is when we gunning it from every stop and keeping it in moderate to high RPM.
 
I can jump to 6th gear on the highway and see MPGs in the 60s.
 
Not as good as say a modern 250. But still very nice.

[e30kawi]

Bad gas mileage? I never get under 45mpg. And that is when we gunning it from every stop and keeping it in moderate to high RPM.  
I can jump to 6th gear on the highway and see MPGs in the 60s.
 
Not as good as say a modern 250. But still very nice.

That was the best part for me. I was on a 2011 Honda cbr250 and wanted more power since my wife decided she didn't want to ride anymore, I got the 07.  Giving me the same gas mileage. I was getting 54 mpg on the CBR and 54 mpg on the 07. I was getting 52 mpg after the Akra Ti and 2WDW tune.

[Beemer]

I would love to see an FZ-04, with a small wind breaker for the highway rides, and a place to mount some trunks on. 
I think a FZ-04 would hit the sweet spot on what people in USA need for longer rides, and to have power enough to ride at the legal upper speed limits (unlike a 250 or 300cc bike, that I'd have to wring the throttle in order to keep the needle above 85MPH).
 
I love the FZ-07 in every aspect, except it's too much bike for me (too fast), and gas mileage isn't that great on these bikes...
I know some might like the speed; I'm more into finding a comfortable, quality, affordable and lightweight bike to do longer trips with.

So, here's a different twist.... 
Years ago Honda came out with an economical, long distance, super reliable bike that to this day has quite a cult following - plus it is really different! I would be talking about the Honda CX500 and GL500 series. For the serious touring types, they had the GL500 Interstate/Silver Wing.
 
The bike looks like a Jap Moto Guzzi, and has plenty enough power to get the job done. They have a long life, reliable engine like that of a boxer twin. Without the luggage, they look like a classic bike of the day which ain't all that bad considering they brought back the CB1100 and the SR400.
 
Just a thought.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CX_series#GL500_and_GL650_Silver_Wing
 

I kinda liked those bikes. I used to see those around back in the day, only the ones I saw had pull back handlebars which made them look like cruisers. Were suppose to be like a mini Goldwing. They were never wildly popular where I lived. Most guys I knew back then were into speed and buying Kawasaki 650's and slapping big bore kits into them. They called them "Giant Killers" because they could outrun the 750's and other bigger bikes in the 1/4. I understand the cult following, though, there is one for my old Yamaha XZ550RJ or "Vision" that never caught on or sold for long.