StealthAu

If it is due for a service, does it need changing?

19 minutes ago, Wintersdark said:

  @StealthAu has a good point, but I'd counter that how important that is depends really, really heavily on the conditions you ride in.  I know personally I could lose and inch of ground clearance and it wouldn't matter even a tiny little bit.  

You may thing so, until doing it and end up scraping over speed bumps. 

Stock springs were too soft for me, effectively resulting in the bike sitting an inch lower than designed with me on it. Walking speed over speed bumps, the exhaust would touch. A hair lower and it'd be the sump. 

Check out other bikes, as others have said. Lowering the GT isn't a great option, they don't have a great deal of ground clearance to begin with. 

2 hours ago, wordsmith said:

Here’s a summary of my attempts yesterday and today to hook-up with a new Tracer 900 GT. 

1.   Sent on-line website enquiry to the dealer I bought my previous GT from, asking if any GTs in stock.   Reply – nil 

2.   Sent on-line website enquiry to dealer advertising a used GT for sale. Sales guy phoned back when I was out, left 2 x phone numbers (good).   I called his mobile, engaged (fair enough).   Immediately phoned on the business line: told sales guy was out, left a detailed enquiry/ message with the guy who answered my call, told the other sales guy would call me back asap (good).   Result – nil. 

3.   Sent on-line website enquiry to Yamaha Australia HQ asking which SE Queensland dealers have a GT in stock.   Response – nil. 

I guess it’s fair enough, as I only want to spend about $19,000.   Business must be good.

It is the second of January mate. I work in sales, doesn't matter what industry, no one in on their A game today.

Matris have an option with remote preload too. Worth a look. 

There are benefits to be had. Yamaha have to comply with stringent emissions laws, where as tuners do not. 

While improvements have been made over the previous generation, it can be smoother out more so. The ride by wire throttle can be ironed out to improve control. 

To determine if you want a tune, ride and see if there are things you don't like. For me, the low-mid range where it is in closed loop, it doesn't bother me. It could be improved, but this alone wouldn't motivate me to do so, where as on other bikes it has been the main motivation. 

What I do want to change, is the throttle delay. Taking off from a stop in A mode it is noticeable, as well as when giving it a handful anywhere in the rev range.

A lot of people go with canned maps. This refers to generic tunes, mail the ecu in situation. 

I'd recommenced avoiding this where possible. You are better off taking your bike to a specialist and having them tune YOUR bike for YOU.

Woolich Racing have a great interface for tuning our bikes and they are down your end of QLD. Have a chat with them, they are very informative and will be able to point you in the right direction should it be seen as beneficial to you.  

8 hours ago, skipperT said:

Another thought occurred to me: Yamaha’s got you beat mate: it doesn’t matter if you go 1/4 throttle just slightly crack it.... the YCCT programming only opens the butterflies as much as it’s programmed to based on CKP speed, IAP sensor data, and APS data. 
However some bikes are programmed to shut of the injectors when the throttle is held Wide Open, because that’s the correct position for a compression test. Not all mechanics remember to unplug the fuel pump before performing this test. 
 

To get a better understanding of how the YCCT will only perform certain throttle plate movements, try manipulating the throttle control with the engine off, and while cranking with the air box off so you can watch the throttle plates. 
 

-S

I have cold start issues now and then. Results from short rides with a cold engine. 

What I said, works for me in these situations. I get what you are saying though, on other bikes with ride by wire in the same situation required manual opening of the throttle valves.

56 minutes ago, skipperT said:

Yeah, ok - 20 might be a bit long. TBH I haven’t set there and counted while attempting to start a flooded bike, I do it by feel. I was attempting to give guidance to WS, who has apparently succeeded. i disagree with your statement of 5 seconds being enough, because quite honestly sometimes 5 seconds just isn’t enough, BTDT. Usually the battery will get weak before the starter motor goes up in smoke, seen that before too. I also don’t agree 100% with your “1/4 open and go 5 seconds and then pause and try for 5 seconds again” description since we’re getting all technical here... but I’ll let it slide rather then correct. 
 

In summary, let’s just say there are multiple ways and techniques to get a flooded bike started. What works, works. YMMV. 

-S

Not holding it at 1/4. open it a crack, hit the crank and if it doesn't fire, roll it on. What I was implying is that it will typically fire before the throttle is at 1/4 open. Not saying to stop at 1/4 if it doesn't fire, just minimise the time on the starter. 

There will be a note in the owners manual referencing not to run the starter extensively. Typically it'll say 8-10 seconds, I say 5 erring on the side of caution.

I've bought cheap bikes in past where the plugs fowling inevitably ended with seized startors. I'm sure it takes a lot of abuse to get there, still, play it safe. 

53 minutes ago, skipperT said:

Great suggestion, stealthau.

wordsmith: no problem, happy to help. and yes, that’s exactly the switch position I was talking about.  I would try stealth’s tip next, crack the throttle just a bit and try cranking for around 8-10 seconds. If the engine doesn’t “hiccup” and try to start, then take a break from cranking over the engine and try this next: Turn the key off, pause, then back on. Hold the throttle Wide Open and attempt to start again. This time go a bit longer than 5-10, try 10-20 seconds. If it doesn’t sputter to life and/or attempt to run then it is probably time to check the spark plugs.

note that sometimes the engine speed will gradually start to increase and it may suddenly roar to life as you’re pressing the start buttons, so be ready to close the throttle almost all the way very quickly. Basically as it begins to catch, you want to be giving it enough gas to run it at a fast idle but not rev it to the moon. 

good luck. The reason for the part throttle and wot suggestions is to try to get some of that unburned fuel out of the cyl’s and allow the spark plugs to fire. (current guess for the no start is the plugs are partly fouled.) starting the bike and moving it to the garage and then turning it off again without a proper warm up can foul plugs like that, and no it wouldn’t be a warranty repair.  Dealership might do you a solid though, you never know  

course it's not running yet either, so obviously can’t rule out that something else isn’t going on - but best to start with the simple stuff.  

-Skip

You're trying to help mate, but suggesting cranking it for 10-20 seconds isn't a great idea. 

They aren't designed to be engaged for that long, they generate a lot of heat. Problems can occur as a result. 

Best to keep it under 5 second blasts with 5 seconds or so in between to dissipate heat. 

If it doesn't fire basically instantly with a little throttle, gently roll the throttle open while holding the starter. This is a process that'll take a couple seconds, throttle will be less than 1/4 open before it fires. If it doesn't fire up with this method within 5 seconds, turn it off for 5 seconds and try again. 

If it still doesn't fire up, trailer to the shop. 

If it is turning over but not firing, open the throttle a little while trying to start it. 

4 hours ago, Dodgy Knees said:

The new rocket looks superb, but I did read there only producing a short run and there all sold.

I think that was the TFC version, the ones above are the production version which follow. 

6 hours ago, Michiel900GT said:

I asked Madstad via their website about this. No response. Maybe they don't want to take responsibility for future claims?

There are no issues mate.

Some of the stock mounting hardware is removed to fit the madstrad. It is quite secure when fitted. High speeds, no issue.

1 hour ago, chesterburnet said:

I had a Ducati and they can't duplicate the reliability or the value for the price point. Ultimately and unfortunately this is a problem for all of the European motorcycle brands. A $500 headlight, a $2400 gas tank that just started leaking ( both of which Ducati wouldn't warranty) and a $560 first service got me to trade in after 1 year on a Yamaha.  Actually I was surprised because nobody wanted to take a Ducati as a trade in and I found one dealer that would. One year in, not a single issue. No warranty claims, just killer performance. But then, that gets called a lack of character. 

That is quite a shitty Ducati experience. Unfortunately, the dealers play a big part in stuff like this, some are good to deal with, others not. Same with any brand. 

Did you drop or crash the bike? If not, there is no reason why it should not have been covered. 

7 hours ago, Burley said:

Is it just me or does the new BMW 900 XR look like another Tracer copycat?  Between that and the Ducati Multistrata 950, it seems like the Europeans have realized that Yamaha is on to a good thing.  Their models will still be 50% more though.  Granted the Ducati is a good bike with some features the Tracer doesn't have, it would have come out around $21k compared to $14K (Canadian) to be similarly equipped.  

The BMW styling does seem to take some ques from the Yamaha. 

Saying the Multistrada is copying the Tracer might be a bit of a stretch. Ducati created this market some 15 years ago.

The Yamaha is the cheaper option, and it shows. Budget brakes, budget suspensions, electronics, etc. It is a good bike for the price point, one of the reasons I bought it. Though, a higher priced version with brembo brakes, ohlins suspension and a more refined electronics package would be appealing. 

That little filling tube thing is pretty cool. 

My other three bikes do not have this, filling them up I need to squeeze the trigger gently, a little too much and fuel splashes out. 

With the GT, stick the nozzle in past the plate a couple inches, fill at max flow rate for most of the tank and drizzle in the rest. 

It is a quicker process. Thought it was odd the first fill up, but realised the advantage of having it pretty quickly. 

On 10/15/2019 at 10:39 AM, Wintersdark said:

I've got a 2018 MT07 right now, and love it desperately.  Amazingly fun bike to ride, and I ride it year round, around 15k per year.  

However, I'm a 6'4" 300lb guy.  It's got a 364lb weight limit, and this rules out riding two up - I'd like to take my wife out from time to time.  I'm happy with the MT07 on road trips, but it would be nicer to be more comfortable and have carrying capacity, and the significantly higher seat height would be very welcome.

As well... I push the MT07 to its limits every day.  I could use a little more umph.

I considered the base Tracer 900 with a set of bags (significantly cheaper) but tbh, I really want the whole add-on package - quickshifter, color TFT, heated grips, etc.  

Being a big guy, a fully adjustable suspension is very valuable as well.  

All that said, anything I should keep in mind here?  Reviews online are basically just the Yamaha press boilerplate and specs readouts.  As owners, any pros and cons I should be aware of, particularly for someone coming from an MT07?

I  weigh 220lb. With stock suspension setup as best as possible, I was bottoming out the forks and shock frequently. I never took a passenger on stock suspension, was bad enough riding it on my own. 

I've since upgraded the springs, front and rear. I can now ride as aggressively as I like with complete confidence in the bike. 

I've taken passengers, had the bike loaded up to 420lb without an issue. I upped the preload front and rear to suit and it handled fine, even under hard acceleration and braking.   

For yourself, at 300lb, I'd suggest if you purchase one of these, upgrade springs before even riding it. 

I wouldn't be too concerned with the max capacity rating, I would think this figure relates to the stock suspension more so than the chassis. 

Still, at your size, I would think there are probably going to be other bikes that would be a better choice. 

At times I do. Pillions rave about comfort, though I hate having them on this bike. The passenger pegs are too close to mine, my feet end up much further forward than I like. 

I usually take my cruiser if I'm taking a passenger. The peg positioning on the GT is a shame, as with the hydraulic preload on the shock, it is much more convenient in setting up for passengers. 

23 hours ago, wordsmith said:

dazz - to answer your PM question, the following settings are on the job notes given to me:

Rear shock upgrade:

• compression - 16 clicks out
• rebound - 8 clicks out
• rider sag 51mm.   

These may well change when Joe at Ride Dynamics does his final fettling and fine-tuning next week, but might be a useful starting-point for you as we are of near-identical weight.   I'll let you know.   But beware the added weight of those GT stripes...

That seems a little excessive for sag. Was it set as such to get the seat lower, easier for you to get your feet on the ground, or is there another reason they set it there?
What was the sag the set on the front?

It will fit, same travel. Though, not worth getting one. They have remote preload, but are otherwise as equally shit to what you have. 

On 10/2/2019 at 9:03 AM, FJ29ER said:

Doing my valve adjustment at 20k and it has been kind of a PITA. But all the intakes measured at .152. So a little snug. Except 1.. the closest one to the cam measured a snug .102.

Question..Any theories as to why that one was tighter? Maybe just a fluke from the factory. I put a 185 in it and it is a loose .203 so I might put a 190 in. And.... Would you adjust the other ones? My math measured to do 190 but the kit only came 3 so that will be a pain finding 2 singles.

If you are adjusting one, adjust them all. 

I'm not a fan of electronic controlled throttles and the delays programmed into them. 

This is least noticeable in A mode, so that is what I use. It is still noticeable though, I'll have to get it tuned one day if I keep it long enough. 

In rain, or stop go traffic, I retain A mode and adjust throttle input to suit via my right hand.

With the 200+hp sport bikes out today, I understand the need for throttle delays and riding modes.

The implementation on an 850cc triple seems unnecessary.  

I like quick shift. Not a determining factor in buying a bike, but it is nice to have it. Auto blip is pretty gimmicky, if it had it I'd probably use it,  but it is still gimmicky. 

I own 4 bikes, the GT being the only one with ABS. Though, I've ridden older bikes with ABS and current ones with more refined systems.  

While the system on the GT is better than earlier iterations of 2 wheeled ABS, there are other bikes manufactured in the last 5 years that are miles ahead. 

When coming to a hard stop, it'll kick in well before it is necessary, increasing braking distance in an emergency stop. Probably, not by much, but I would like to be able to dial it down, or turn it off. 

On dirt roads, I feel a lack of control as a result of the fixed abs system, not being able to lock up the rear wheel is a hindrance on dirt. 

It isn't a huge gripe, but there are better systems. 

On 9/26/2019 at 5:30 AM, OLD DVB said:

Very good point!  The answer is that it is a pointless sales gimmick.  It's a road bike!  You are almost never going to need a full throttle up-shift.  In any case, the time saved even on a track day compared with no clutch/dipping the throttle (that's how we raced for twenty years before they invented quickshifters) is insignificant.  There are an increasing number of gimmicks like this that sound impressive and are cheap to implement.  Multi-level ABS and traction control for example.  I prefer they spend the money on a proper fully adjustable rear shock.

I wouldn't consider multi-level abs and traction control as gimmicks.

abs on the GT is excessively intrusive and cannot be turned off. 

Both traction control settings are overly excessive. At least this can be turned off. 

I think a lot of people would welcome improvements on these systems. 

16 minutes ago, tktplz said:

And I check mine sitting on the bike reaching down with my left hand. Been doing it that way since I was a kid. It was nice those 15 years or so when i owned VMaxes. Shaft drive and all. Change the rear end gear oil once a year, oh that's tuff! 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 when it's on the center stand might work out to 1 to 1 1/2 when sitting on the bike. That's how you're measuring the slack correct? Sitting on the bike? Seems like you won't get the correct slack on the center stand. That's been the chain slack I've used on all my bikes since i was a kid. 1 to 1 1/2 inches. More like 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches. Pretty standard I think. 

You can get correct slack on a centre stand, side stand or sitting on the bike. Required numbers between all three will vary, but anything can be used as your reference point, as long as you know what it equates to. 

As mentioned before, engineering requirement is 1 to 3% slack at tightest point. 

Tightest point is with centre of front sprocket, swingarm pivot and rear sprocket all in a straight line. 1 to 3% of distance between centre of sprockets. 

2 hours ago, wordsmith said:

A 'titch' - now there's an Olde Englishe term I've not heard for a very long time!   

25mm probably suits the Tracer - my 30mm is possibly a titch more betterer for the longer swing-arm on the GT.   Whatever, you can't go wrong.

You can go wrong. 

35mm freeplay on the centrestand  provides 1% freeplay at it's tightest point in suspension travel. this is less than 7mm.

I wouldn't recommend tighter than factory specifications. You'll chew through chains quicker and risk breaking them.