Yamaha 950

[Mike in Virginia]

Anyone have a Yamaha 950?  If so, what can you tell me about it.  I'm looking at a new tourer model, but a little worried about the performance.  I've never had a bike smaller than 1100, and never had a belt driven bike.  Never had one that was air cooled.  Any particular downside to the 950?

[Mike in Virginia]

I meant to say that a local dealer has a 2012 in the crate for $8767. 

[hillbill]

i dont have the yamaha but i do have a belt drive harley. its a 97 model with 40 k on it and has a thumpin 96 inch motor.its also a dresser so its pretty heavy.
 
i was worried about the belt when i purchased it.i was old school and had ridden chain drive bikes all my life. im not worried about it any more.it aint broke in 15+ years and i dont always ride it easy like.it even has some nice holes in the belt from rocks that have been there for years.

[Dee]

950 might be a little small for a long trip. I ride a 1600 classic but a friend rides a Vstar 1300 and he likes his. The belt drive however shouldn't be an issue.

[Old Syko]

Mike it ain't about CCs nowadays and hasn't been for a long time.  Nobody is going to run away from you on this thing unless they just want to ride stupid.  I'm riding a 903cc Vulcan with some performance mods and the only difference in it and a bike with a bigger engine is the amount of fuel it uses.  I rode this fall with guys on 100 and 125 inch bikes and didn't feel shorted in the least, especially during fuel stops.    Traded off with some of these guys and they seemed to share my opinion even though it was hard for some to admit. 


As far as long rides go, once you get it set up to suit you 5 or 600 mile or more days are no big deal.  Check out the link below for an example.  Again this is a Kawasaki and not a Yamaha but still roughly the same size bike.  I won't be going bigger any ways soon and I'm planning a 6 to 8 week tour for this spring.  http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=708032&highlight=vn900


BTW once you experience a belt drive you'll likely never want to put up with a chain again.    I know I won't.

[yellowtail3]

Mike it ain't about CCs nowadays and hasn't been for a long time. Nobody is going to run away from you on this thing unless they just want to ride stupid.  I'm riding a 903cc Vulcan with some performance mods and the only difference in it and a bike with a bigger engine is the amount of fuel it uses.

True. I've only got 998cc, and I don't feel disadvantaged against... anything.

[Ditchdigger]

You might look at a used 1800  Goldwing with tless than 100K for about the same money,are even a BMW K1200LT. If you're going to do some 600 to 700 mile days,it would be the best way to fly.Both are good for 200K miles or more. Digger

[buck460XVR]

A bike is a bike. Get what trips your trigger. That's what it's all about anyway. But like guns and gun dogs, don't feel the need to trash others that are different from your own. If you feel that need or the need to justify your own choice, you are insecure about your choice.  Just shut up and ride.

[Dee]

A bike is a bike. Get what trips your trigger. That's what it's all about anyway. But like guns and gun dogs, don't feel the need to trash others that are different from your own. If you feel that need or the need to justify your own choice, you are insecure about your choice.  Just shut up and ride.

Huh?

[Cheesehead]

I love the belt drive and have experienced many clutch snapping redline burnouts with no problems

Cheese

[Empty Quiver]

You may find yourself down shifting more often. You will probably not notice it if you are not around the very big twins. My buddy has the next bigger one. He says it has a stupid amount of power, but he likes that .  He grew up on a Wide Glide and traded a Road King for the Yamaha. He hasn't mentioned Harleys for a couple of years now.


Have you compared rear wheel horsepower and torque figures to a bike you are familiar with? CC's are not the only measure of an engines drivability.

[FPH]

Rode a 900cc Kawasaki in the 70s.........ran like a scalded ape. 

[Empty Quiver]

Rode a 900cc Kawasaki in the 70s.........ran like a scalded ape.

I rode a '76 KZ 900 through college. A big twin is different, but 35 years of technology can change lots of things. I don't think that old 900 could stay in sight of a good 650 these days.

[FPH]

Rode a 900cc Kawasaki in the 70s.........ran like a scalded ape.

I rode a '76 KZ 900 through college. A big twin is different, but 35 years of technology can change lots of things. I don't think that old 900 could stay in sight of a good 650 these days.

You are probably right.....but what memories.

[yellowtail3]

Rode a 900cc Kawasaki in the 70s.........ran like a scalded ape.

I rode a '76 KZ 900 through college. A big twin is different, but 35 years of technology can change lots of things. I don't think that old 900 could stay in sight of a good 650 these days.

The Z1 was THE THING TO HAVE when I started riding in mid-seventies. I wanted one so bad. First four for me was a GS750E; last one before the current FZ1 was an '83 GS1100E. I agree with FPH - an orig Z1 in  903cc prob couldn't keep with a modern 650, but it wouldn't have any prob against a modern air-cooled Harley V-twin. But then, you don't get club membership with an old Z1 (well, you do, but diff club).

A few weeks ago I was riding, ran into a guy with a mid-70s Water Buffalo. I'd have been more jazzed, if he'd had an old H-2 or Mach III...

[Old Syko]

Absolutely nothing but nothing could outrun the H2 Kawasaki in the 70s and that includes the Z1 even with a 1200 kit installed.  I started in 72 with an S2 350, transitioned to the H1 500, and then to the H2 750. In comparison, the 900 was a real let down for those of us who had gotten used to the triple screamers.  When some of the local tracks closed over the last 20 years or so, one thing they all had in common was the fact that many track records were still held by the old triples.


That being said, they would be no match for todays twins for setting on the road for long periods no matter the manufacturer.

[yellowtail3]

Triples were fun - I grew up around them, though never owned one - but they weren't very good. Sucked fuel like crazy, didn't last, rotten handling. A pal had a Mach III - one of the green ones, about a 73 or so. And I very nearly bought an H-2 rode. Dad wouldn't co-sign, in retrospect I'm glad he didn't... I had no business, as a testosterone-laden kid who thought he was invincible, on an H2 at age of sixteen. Ended up with a KZ400.
On H2 vs Z1... I'd definitely opt for latter. No, it won't wheelie with that peaky powerband, but was far more streetable and long-lived. Plus, the first couple years Z were beautiful.

[Old Syko]

Had no problem getting the triples to last.  Strengthened the bottom end, raised ports, etc, etc, etc.  We raced them on the track and the streets with little regard for life or limb.  Gas was cheap and not an issue and after all, after the mods and the way we rode them they used even more.  Compared to bikes of today, nothing handled worth spit back then, including the Z1 That was known for high speed tank slappers you couldn't ride out of, err-go the steering dampers of the day.  Been there done that too many times.      No doubt the Z1 was a better all round ride but it couldn't hold a candle to the big triple for performance.  Kinda like comparing a Busa to a Wing in todays market.