Yamaha v-Star 650 Silverado edition

[dhgeyer]

I've been fortunate enough to own both a Vulcan 500 and a Ninja 500. Let's get one thing clear: these two bikes have the same engine and transmission, with slight modification of the cams on the Vulcan for more mid range torque at the expense of a bit of raw horsepower in the high end powerband. In fact, when I tried to get a Kawasaki service manual for the Ninja 500, the dealer found out that one is not available. They use the one for the Vulcan. I once went to pull away from a light real fast on the Vulcan 500, and, being fairly new to my second incarnation of riding at that point, popped a wheelie by accident. Scared the crap out of me! Not too many cruisers out there will get air that easily!

The Vulcan 500 is a cruiser in its body configuration and riding position, and the handling is like a small to mid size cruiser. It has a longer wheelbase than a sportbike, and different steering geometry. But the engine response, powerband, sound, and torque characteristics are still much more typical of a sportbike than a cruiser. So, it's kind of a unique bike. And, yes, it absolutely will walk away from cruisers with much larger displacement engines. Given the engine it has in it, that shouldn't be a surprise. Comparing the Vulcan/Ninja 500 engine to the typical cruiser V-Twin is comparing apples to oranges.

BB, here is some genuine, free, do as I say and not as I did, advice. Enjoy your Vulcan for a few years. A couple of years at least. Learn about, and test ride some bikes that aren't cruisers. Try a few standards and sportbikes. Learn a lot more about what's out there, what different bikes are for, and what you might like/dislike about them. There is so much variety now, much more than when I was in school 40 years ago. You can go through a dozen or more bikes in a few years like I did, but that's an awful expensive way to learn about motorcycles. I should have spent a lot more time reading, test riding used bikes at dealerships, riding friends' bikes, and etc. Buying a bigger cruiser may or may not give you what you really want. Cruisers, as a rule, compared with other types of bikes, look cool, and sound cool. Compared with other bikes, they don't really actually DO anything well. They aren't generally as fast, certainly don't handle as well, have seriously limited cornering clearance, and they aren't as comfortable for touring (as in long days in the saddle).

What I'm saying is, don't just buy a bigger version of what you have without exploring the alternatives. You might find yourself disappointed, as I did when I traded in the Vulcan 500 for a Vulcan 1500 Classic FI. I thought that by going big like that I'd get more long range comfort, and this just didn't turn out to be the case. I tried everything to make the big Vulcan work for me - the Mustang saddle which you describe so well, complete with adjustable driver's backrest, highway pegs, pullback bar risers, gel seat covers. Nothing helped much. The riding position of a cruiser doesn't work for me for long periods of time. That lesson cost me $10,000, and I could have, and eventually did, learn the same thing from books and articles on touring. The first time I got on a standard, it was a revelation.

I've owned a couple of cruisers since then. Have kind of a love/hate relationship with them. They do look cool and sound cool. But, to be honest, I don't consider cruisers to be appropriate motorcycles for serious riders, or at least serious rides.

Free advice, and worth every cent you paid.

Dave is now ducking.

[Sarris]

Dave, I do disagree with your "serious rider" comment. I happen to fit the cruiser style bike much better than a sport bike or standard. Being a large person, I find the humped tank intrusive into my (large) torso and the rear or center mounted pegs with the forward leaning position concentrates my weight directly on my (large) balls and wrists. It also causes me neck strain having to hold my head and helmut (sic) up. I find that position very uncomfortable. I just don't have the need for speed at 3x the legal speed limit. Look at the typical sportbike geek. They either ride in full leathers or in shorts, tank tops, and flip-flops. Most constantly speed and weave in and out of traffic, and a lot die on the highway because they cant "handle" the speed or can't anticipate the traffic because of their speed.

I enjoy the comfort of laid back riding with my fairing, cruise control and CD player. I have no need to look (or for that matter act) like a BOY racer. As far as miles ridden, I'll keep up with anyone.

Please don't assume that people who ride a touring or cruiser bike lack riding skill or seriousness in their focus. That is not at all the case. Just different strokes for different folks.

You're a good man Dave, but you sound like the typical high brow BMW rider who thinks their shit doesn't stink. And you're flat wrong about cruiser/ touring bikes and cruiser/touring people.

Soooooo........ :fu: (I mean that in the nicest way. LOL)

[primal]

Originally Posted by Sarris

Dave, I do disagree with your "serious rider" comment. I happen to fit the cruiser style bike much better than a sport bike or standard. Being a large person, I find the humped tank intrusive into my (large) torso and the rear or center mounted pegs with the forward leaning position concentrates my weight directly on my (large) balls and wrists. It also causes me neck strain having to hold my head and helmut (sic) up. I find that position very uncomfortable. I just don't have the need for speed at 3x the legal speed limit. Look at the typical sportbike geek. They either ride in full leathers or in shorts, tank tops, and flip-flops. Most constantly speed and weave in and out of traffic, and a lot die on the highway because they cant "handle" the speed or can't anticipate the traffic because of their speed.

I enjoy the comfort of laid back riding with my fairing, cruise control and CD player. I have no need to look (or for that matter act) like a BOY racer. As far as miles ridden, I'll keep up with anyone.

Please don't assume that people who ride a touring or cruiser bike lack riding skill or seriousness in their focus. That is not at all the case. Just different strokes for different folks.

You're a good man Dave, but you sound like the typical high brow BMW rider who thinks their shit doesn't stink. And you're flat wrong about cruiser/ touring bikes and cruiser/touring people.

Soooooo........ :fu: (I mean that in the nicest way. LOL)

+1

I, for one, find my Marauder to be far more practical than any of my previous bikes (GZ, Kawasaki KZ550, and Suzuki Katana). With the Mustang seat is is also the most comfortable bike I've had, though I do have to give credit to the Katana's seat, which for a stock seat was amazingly comfortable as long as you ignore the nut-crunching ergonomics of the bike itself.

Standards are nice, but my KZ wasn't great on the interstate. Talk about wind buffeting! Sure, you could add a windshield, but my Marauder cuts through the air at 70 MPH with surprising ease, so easily in fact that I think I'll only NEED a windshield if I actually do any significant amount of touring. For my daily 15 mile trek on the interstate I'm content with my bike as it is.

Just goes to show that everyone is different, with different preferences. I'm quite content with the performance of my 800cc cruiser. Considering I had to keep the RPMs on my Katana down in 1st and 2nd gear to help preserve the tranny, my Marauder is nearly as quick as the Kat up to about 45 MPH. It won't leap ahead at interstate speeds like the Katana would, but the family jewels are thanking me now that each bump and seam in the road isn't being directly transmitted to my crotch like it was on the Kat.

[dhgeyer]

Hey, guys, check out the results of the 2009 Iron Butt Rally. It's a PDF file - just so you know. Scroll down to page 3 for the results of all finishers, and non-finishers. The only Harley mentioned was a DNF (did not finish). I didn't notice any other cruisers among the finishers anywhere. They may be in there, I just scanned, but looking at the results, I think you'll get the point.

http://www.ironbuttrally.com/IBR/2009/2009IBRfinish.pdf

I'm not a huge fan of the Iron Butt Rally, or Iron Butt riding in general. But it does separate what works from what doesn't for the ultimate touring experience. Most of the finishers, and all of the winners and placers were on touring or sport touring bikes. These machines have about the same riding position as a standard, with the sport touring bikes leaned forward a little, but not a great deal.

Overweight people look better on cruisers, and maybe are more comfortable on them. That I can't say, not being overweight. Overweight people don't tend to be the best riders, either. And I mean that in the nicest way.

And don't assume that all BMW riders are snobs. People have the same impression of Harley riders, and that's not true either. Also, don't assume that all sport bike riders are squids. Sport bikes handle better, and some people just enjoy that. You don't have to be a speed freak to enjoy good handling. It just feels better.

[primal]

Define "ultimate touring experience." Honestly, the whole Iron Butt thing would be pretty dull for me, and not my idea of what touring should be, i.e. spending so much time on the road that you don't actually get to see anything.

And for the record, #14 was a Victory Vision.

[dannylightning]

well dave, you find one bike that works best for you. dont say things such as cruisers are not for serious riders, come on those are some words you should eat cus that is your opinion. and when you say (cruisers look cool and sound cool but don't do any thing) you should really add a FOR ME to the end of that sentence.

feel free to state your opinions but don't do it in such a way that's gonna get every one else worked up or offend people.

i have a 800cc cruiser, it looks cool and it sounds cool but does it have power, yes it does. when i get on it and look in my rear view the guy behind me is in the dust and it will do 100mph easy, i cant see any reason i would need any more power than my 800 has. sure it would be fun to have a sports type bike but excessive speed is not a necessity nor in my opinion is it safe and me personally, i don't like going fast most of the time, i like to cruse around and enjoy the ride

one problem i have notices with sport bikes is that they all have a seat height that i consider to be too high. plus i find them to be extremely uncomfortable. a lot of people also do stupid things on them and end up in bad shape from it. like the guy that came up next to me on his crotch rocket looked over at me on my bike and sped away on one wheel while looking back at me to see if i was paying attention to how cool he thought he was while i just shook my head and thought what a idiot.

however i have no problem with any one who wants to ride that type of bike, im sure they can be quite fun and i understand not every one who owns one acts like the idiot i ran across yesterday. do i think sport bikes are cool, no not at all but that is my opinion but im not gonna tell any one that there crap or make fun of them for riding one unless they act like a idiot on the thing.

it's fine if you like sport bikes better but please don't set here and try to say cruisers are crap especially when most of us ride one, that is basically what you just did, it is disrespectful and its not appreciated.

[burkbuilds]

Dave, thanks for the good input, not many here have actually owned the Vulcan 500 before, so it's nice to hear what you found out about yours when you had it. I've got several physical "characteristics" that don't work well on a sport bike for me. One, I've got several bad disks in my lower back and leaning forward, even a little just doesn't work for me, also having my legs up under me in a sitting position hurts so my feet really need to be out in front of me if I'm gonna be able to go for more than just a couple of minutes. The cruiser seating position seems to work best for my situation except that I can't take that little "turn up" right at the lower back that almost all the seats seem to have, so I always have to modify my seat so that it doesn't put any pressure on that part of my lower back. The back rest, which sits up higher, allows me to press back and get a little arch in my back which helps a lot with the comfort level in my situation. The mustang seats that I've sat on gave great "butt" support and that seemed to take some "pressure" off and let me relax my hip flexors a little more than my current seat which I may modify again to be just a little wider like that Mustang seat I tried out on the 650. A slightly higher seat height compared with most cruisers I've sat on, also helps my comfort level, I think mainly because I've got pretty long legs and it gets my thighs more parallel to the road and me in a more "upright" seating posture which works pretty good for keeping my lower back from getting "irritated". I found that floor boards made a big difference for me as well, probably just a little less tension in the legs vs foot pegs. So, in a lot of ways, my "position" requirements are very unique and probably don't fall into any of the stock categories in the bike design world. The standard seat height is better for me, but the foot position is not and the cruiser seat style seems to be the closest to comfortable for me, but it's almost always to low and seems to always have about a 4-5" turn up at the back which puts pressure where I can least take it. I always have to mod my seat for comfort and that doesn't really look as good as the stock "lines" for a cruise or a standard. That may just be the price I have to pay to be able to ride, my ride is never gonna look cool with the seat mods I have to make but at least I can ride that way. Right now I'm trying to design a new seat configuration for my Vulcan that might accomplish both comfort and "style" but I haven't gotten it figured out just yet, but I'm still in the design stages right now. Anyway, thanks for the input!

[dhgeyer]

Originally Posted by primal

Define "ultimate touring experience." Honestly, the whole Iron Butt thing would be pretty dull for me, and not my idea of what touring should be, i.e. spending so much time on the road that you don't actually get to see anything.

And for the record, #14 was a Victory Vision.

I agree with you 100% about "the Iron Butt thing". It's not something I would ever attempt, or want to do. It's an extreme behavior. However, the point I was making is that, like many extreme behaviors, what people learn from doing it can be instructive to us all. Another example, totally unrelated, is what the bench rest rifle shooters of the late 1940's and early 1950's learned and taught us about what makes a rifle accurate. Up till then there had been a lot of misconceptions about that, but those guys pushed the envelope way out there, and we all benefited and learned, including today's Joe average hunter. Rifles, even hunting rifles, are made differently in some ways than they were before the early bench rest shooters did what they did. So is ammunition. Same with the Iron Butt riders. They have learned a lot the hard way so that we don't have to. If a style, or set of styles, of bike is overwhelmingly proven to be the best for 1000 mile days, there's a good chance that it will also be best for non-fanatics who want to do 200 to 400 mile days, which is a fair daily average for touring, or even extended day rides. The last two rides I did were 219 miles and 275 miles, two days apart, In 35 to 55 degree weather, and one of them was about half in the rain. For that kind of riding, especially at my age, I need something that works, and I'm not too concerned about image.

I got an opportunity to look at a Victory Vision recently, by the way. It's not a cruiser. It's Victory's version of very highly stylized touring bike. If you see one, you'll either love it or hate it. It's a pretty "out there" design. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Danny,

I don't recall using the word "crap" once. What I said was that, performance wise, handling wise, control wise, and long distance comfort wise, cruisers are not the most functional motorcycles, and are not, for the most part chosen by knowledgeable people who care most about those parameters. That's not opinion. Statistically, it's provable fact. That's not to say that you or anyone else shouldn't ride a cruiser if that's what you like to ride. I like cruisers. I've owned several of them, and will probably own others. I own one now - the GZ250. I love it. I don't think it's crap at all. But if I want the best handling and the most comfortable long distance ride, I'll choose something else.

My comments were addressed originally to a rider who is relatively new to riding (the original poster in this thread), and who has only owned cruisers. All I really said, or intended to say, is that he should look at some other options. Looking at, and learning about, other options is generally a good thing to do before spending large amounts of money. Something I learned the hard way.

[dhgeyer]

BB,

OK, I understand why a sportbike won't work for you. You seem to have the right idea, in terms of modifying something to fit your needs.

I'll just make one more suggestion. If you ever get a chance to ride a standard style, something like a Honda Nighthawk 650 or 750 (both out of production now for years), or something like a Suzuki SV650 (the naked version, not the sport version), or a Suzuki GS500E (not the GS500F sportbike), or a Kawasaki Versys (newly introduced, and the first standard to come on the market in a long time), you might want to consider them as a starting point for your project. Or even, dare I say it, a BMW Roadster (I got my '96 R850R for under $5000.00). In BMW model designation language, a roadster is a model that ends in "R". The current version is the R1200R. Based on what you say, you would need to make a few mods to these bikes also. You would probably want pullback risers for the bars to get you even more upright, and definitely highway pegs to get your feet out for longer stretches. But, with their higher seats and more upright seating position to start with, the standard style might give you a better starting point. All the mods I mention are either factory or aftermarket options, so you wouldn't have to fabricate anything. The standard style bikes also don't generally have that thing at the back of the seat that gives you trouble, so you might not have to rebuild it. Just an idea - might work for you or might not.

In the meantime, the Vulcan 500 is a great bike. I wish I still had mine.

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by dhgeyer

I've owned a couple of cruisers since then. Have kind of a love/hate relationship with them. They do look cool and sound cool. But, to be honest, I don't consider cruisers to be appropriate motorcycles for serious riders, or at least serious rides.

I gotta agree.......but I thought the pegs on the Vulcan 500 were somewhere in between a true standard and forward stretch cruiser.

I would consider it closer to a standard than a cruiser but my memory is weak and I've never been on one either. :roll:

At my age, I'm not sure the riding comfort difference is all that important.......as I find I must stop about every 90 minutes or so to stretch the cramps and for "relief"....... regardless of what I am riding in or on.