Yamaha XV1000 / TR1
File:Yamaha-XV1000-TR1 2.jpg | |
Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 | |
Manufacturer | |
---|---|
Production | 1981 - 86 |
Class | Cruiser |
Engine | Four stroke, 75°V-twin, SOHC. 2 valve per cylinder |
Compression ratio | 8.3:1 |
Top Speed | 184 km/h |
Ignition | Transistorized |
Transmission | 5 Speed |
Frame | Pressed Steel Spine Type |
Suspension | Front: Showa leading axle. adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping Rear: Monoshock single damper, adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping |
Brakes | Front: 2x 267mm discs 2 piston calipers Rear: Drum |
Front Tire | 3.58-19 |
Rear Tire | 120/90-8 |
Wheelbase | 1540 mm / 60.6 in |
Seat Height | 770 mm / 30.3 in |
Weight | 220 kg / 485 lbs (dry), |
Recommended Oil | Yamalube 10w-40 |
Fuel Capacity | 19 Liters / 5.0 US gal |
Manuals | Service Manual |
It could reach a top speed of 184 km/h.
Engine[edit | edit source]
The engine was a Air cooled cooled Four stroke, 75°V-twin, SOHC. 2 valve per cylinder. The engine featured a 8.3:1 compression ratio.
Chassis[edit | edit source]
It came with a 3.58-19 front tire and a 120/90-8 rear tire. Stopping was achieved via 2x 267mm discs 2 piston calipers in the front and a Drum in the rear. The front suspension was a Showa leading axle. adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping while the rear was equipped with a Monoshock single damper, adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping. The XV1000 / TR1 was fitted with a 19 Liters / 5.0 US gal fuel tank. The bike weighed just 220 kg / 485 lbs. The wheelbase was 1540 mm / 60.6 in long.
Photos[edit | edit source]
Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 Yamaha XV1000 / TR1 Yamaha XV1000 / TR1
Overview[edit | edit source]
Yamaha XV 1000 TR1
An oddity in the Yamaha line-up for 1981, the TR1 was only the second or third, if the same company's 750cc version is counted as earlier vee-twin to be ported since the war by a Japanese manufacturer. (The CX500 Honda of 1978 ranks, of course, as the first.) Designed to appeal to those iconoclasts in the USA and Europe unmoved by the in-line multi, it was not expected to sell in vast numbers. End-of-1981 figures were to prove this marketing projection well founded. There always has been a market for the vee-twin in motor cycling. It is a very suitable engine for a single-tracker the best of all, according to some authorities. Narrow and not over-tall, it can be slotted into a conventional loop frame or conveniently form part of a structural whole. It offers good balance, minimum vibration and, at a large capacity, the potential for plenty of fuss-free power, ideally suited to high gearing. A vee-twin's cylinders are best angled at 90° to each other, as on the Italian Ducati. On the Yamaha they are set at 75°, which precludes the ultimate in smooth running but improves on the standard of a narrower-angle design, such as Harley-Davidson, and still permits largish carburettors to be positioned in the vee and the wheelbase to come out at only a fraction over 60in. Having the engine as a stressed part of the frame, in the manner of the postwar Vincent, helps in keeping the wheels comparatively close together. The frame is a pressed-steel spine to which the engine is attached by long through-bolts; at the rear it carries a sub-frame supporting the seat and pivoting from the gearbox centre against a monoshock suspension unit bolted at its forward end to the main frame. Springing is air-assisted and there is a multitude of damper settings, with any one of six being fairly readily selected; to arrive at one of the remaining 20 involves a lengthy dismantling job in the region of the dualseat. The air setting can be varied between 7 and 57psi. The TR1 has rear drive by a totally enclosed chain running in lithium-based grease. This arrangement is claimed to keep the chain in good condition for upwards of 30,000 miles. On the road the TR1 has proved to have neither the speed and agility of the Ducati nor the sheer power of the Harley-Davidson. What it offers reasonably enough is a Japanese interpretation of what a vee-twin should do: which is (apparently) to transport a touring-orientated rider at an effortless 70mph or so, with a further 30-40mph available, though not too quickly. Its biggest asset, pace the CX500, is its novelty value among all the faster, better-handling inline multis that have dominated Japanese thinking in recent years.
THAT'S JOHN HUNTER'S CONCLUSION AFTER ROADTESTING JAPAN'S 1000CC V-TWIN.
WAY BACK IN THE SWIRLING MISTS OF motorcycle history, in those heady pioneer
days when major manufacturers operated from a small wooden shed at the bottom of
their Mam's garden and new models rattled their way on to the market a mere two
weeks after Willy, Alf or George had sketched out the basic concept on the back
of a penny postcard, somebody somewhere had the bright idea of converting a
single pot thumper into a revolutionary V-twin.
Aye, the notion has been around since Albert Tatlock were a nipper, by gum,
and beer were thruppence ha'penny a gallon. V-twin Harleys and Indians were
plying the streets of Milwaukee and Massachusetts before the first war. Brough
Superior's 980cc SS100 first hit the road in 1924. And Moto Guzzi started
producing bikes with in-line 120° V-twin motors as long ago as 1933.
The reason for the early popularity of this engine configuration is that the
conversion from single pot to V-twin was a relatively simple matter of grafting
another cylinder on to the same crankcase and fitting the new motor into the
same bicycle-type frame. The result was a machine with twice the capacity and a
good deal better performance.
Contrary to initial impressions, however, Yamaha's new one litre entrant into
the V-twin stakes, the TR-1, is not simply two SR500s spliced together but is a
completely new machine designed from scratch.
There are two stories concerning the origin of the Yamaha V-twin concept. The
official US version of events has it that the company's US subsidiary, Yamaha
Motor Corp, identified a market need in the States for a big V-twin (what on
earth gave them that idea?) and commissioned the XV750 from the design
boffins back in Hammamatsu. Europe then got a sawn-off version of this factory
chopper the TR-1.
The other tale the official UK version is that Paul Butler's
Yamaha NV in Amsterdam identified a market niche in Europe for a big V-twin
tourer, pointed it out to Japan and got the TR-1. According to this story, the
poor little XV750 is an emasculated version of the Euro-tourer a sort of
V-sign to the States, if you get my drift.
Whichever of these if either is true, it should be pointed out
that there are in fact three, not two, Yamaha V-twins in production.
The TR-1 or XV1000 has a 980cc motor, was designed for Europe's high-milers
and is on sale only on this side of the Atlantic.
The XV750SE was designed for America's boulevard cruisers and is on sale in
Europe and in the US, where it is called the Virago. The XV920 is a smaller
capacity version of the TR-1 and is on sale only in the US, where apparently it
falls into a cheaper insurance category than would a machine with another 60
cubes.
Now motorcycle history remember those swirling mists has largely shown
that if you don't change with the times you don't survive (BeeEmdoubleWho? The
Triumph upright Twhat?), however, as acutely highlighted by the miserable
failure of the rotary Suzuki RE-5, you need to get it right before you get
involved in mass distribution.
Yamaha, unlike certain other manufacturers, don't tend to sit on their
collective backside and copy Honda, and this has resulted in the past in such
radical departures as the XS750 triple, the SR500 single and the watercooled 250
and 350LCs, and in the present in the new V-twins.
So what of this super-spiff TR-1, this 'big road sports model' as the
publicity blurb puts it, with added 'super quiet accurate operation'? Is it a
BeeEm? Is it a Harley? Or is it SuperYam? And whatever it is, have they got it
right? You only have to turn the ignition on and start the engine to discover
how superficial is any imagined resemblance to the big Harleys. Gone is the
familiar vibro-massage, whump, whump, whump, of the big American, as if they've
excised its dicky iron heart and replaced it with the muffled rattle and gentle
undulations of an efficient alloy pacemaker. It's not a Japanese Harley and it
doesn't try to be one. What it does attempt, I think, is to challenge the
domination of the sports tourer market by the likes of the big BMWs and the
CX500. Yamaha have given the basic V-twin engine design a projected useful life
of ten years into the 1990s! and that's a long time in terms of modern
motorcycle design, a time that it will attain only if it can succeed, if it can
out-BeeEm BMW, if it can out-CX Honda, if it can find, or has found, that
elusive ideal combination of flexibility, handling, safety, comfort, reliability
and economy that makes long-distance riding a pleasure rather than a chore.
The TR-1 is built around a comparatively small and therefore lightweight
pressed steel spinal frame which Yamaha designates 'monococfc' design, to
distinguish it from monocoque (which it ain't), to which is bolted a
sub-frame at the rear which supports, inter alia, the battery, seat and
grab-rail. The engine is a stressed frame member, replacing the entire lower
part of conventional frames.
Each highly oversquare pot breathes through a single inlet valve operated by
a single overhead cam, and the mixture is sucked through two 40mm Hitachi CV
carbs with SU-type butterfly valves, which nestle in the 75° angle between the
pots. Air is ducted to the carbs through the interior of the spine frame from an
air cleaner beneath the seat.
Exhaust gases are chuntered out of the pots, again through a single valve per
cylinder, into at the front a thick header pipe double-skinned to prevent heat
discolouration and at the rear a narrower single-skinned pipe more or less
concealed behind the side panels, and thence into the open air via long conical
mufflers.
Power is transmitted from the crankshaft via a spiral geared primary drive
and a conventional wet multiplate clutch to a 5-speed gearbox whose constant
mesh is sweet enough to make clutchless changes at least in the upward
direction all but effortless. (So much, in fact, did thr; bike enjoy these
shifts that once or twice it tried to do them itself, but managed to get no
further than halfway, leaving us coasting along in neutral.)
Final drive is by fully-enclosed chain which runs in a grease-filled
enclosure with expanding rubber bellows to allow for chain adjustment. Cush
drive arrangement is normal for chain driven bikes, operating through five pairs
of opposed rubber blocks in the hub.
The motor fires up easily from cold, heats up very quickly and won't idle
when warm unless the handlebar mounted choke is fully off. Yamaha claim to have
solved all the overheating problems often associated with upright in-line
V-twins simply by offsetting the cylinders slightly, attaching a black air scoop
to the right-hand side panel and cunningly ducting the hot air past the
monoshock unit behind the rear cylinder where else would you expect it to go
anyway? to exit just for'ard of the back wheel.
Despite this and a couple of very convincing infra-red photos that
Yamaha have produced to prove that heat build-up is no greater in the rear
cylinder than in the front I remain, yours truly, unconvinced. When I had
possession of the test bike, it seemed to me that the rear cylinder was running
considerably hotter than the front, and after one particularly gruelling spell
in slow city traffic the rear pot cut out entirely in a flurry of pops and bangs
and would not consent to fire up again until it had been allowed a ten minute
cooling-off period. This only happened the one time, though.
Once in motion, the engine displayed an admirable ability to rev effortlessly
through the gears, reaching its 7000 red line with deceptive ease and no
complaining. Maximum torque occurs at 5500 and maximum bhp at 6500, and the bike
will pick up from very low revs, with no detectable power bands or flat spots.
The cast italic rear wheel is mounted on a tubular section swinging arm which
pivots on the rear of the engine casing. This is suspended on a monoshock unit
derived from the Monocross system used on Yamaha's motocrossers and the 250 and
350LCs.
Like these, it incorporates a temperature compensating device designed to
accommodate for those changes in operating temperature caused mainly by the
unit's proximity to that hot rear cylinder. This works by using an expanding
magnesium rod to restrict the movement of the damping oil as the unit
heats up and the oil thins, the rod expands and cuts the size of the opening
through which the oil moves, thus maintaining even damping.
Damping is remotely adjustable in six stages from a knob attached to the
subframe below the seat which is connected to the De Carbon type monoshock unit
via a cable. The cable can also be adjusted at the other end, though the men
from Mitsui say this is not the official company line and is therefore
inadvisable.
There is no spring preload; instead springing is air assisted and the air
cushion is adjustable from a valve beside the damping knob. Pressure can be
increased using a garage air line or a foot pump, and can be set at anything
between 7 and 57psi at the back, the 'standard' being 14. We found that pumping
it up to 17psi improved the back end for solo high speed travelling.
Air cushion adjustment at the front was a much more tricky and annoying
business. Whoever it was who decided to put the valve nipples in such a position
that you have to remove the handlebar before you can fit the line on ought to
have his bottom smacked. Even with this done we found it very difficult to get
the footpump nozzle on securely and even more difficult to get equal pressure in
each fork. And another thing, Yamaha, the dustcaps over the nipples kept falling
off . . .
The TR-1 handled reasonably well in dry weather. The low centre of gravity of
the engine/frame arrangement means that there's a low moment of inertia about
the roll axis and therefore that keeling over to corner is a pleasantly
effortless business. In fact, the Yamaha launch publicity blurb makes much of
the fact that the bike's 'light' weight 4851b compared with 467 for the
Honda's CX500 and 485 again for BMW's R100/S and consequent deeper lean
angle 'helps to increase the pleasure of sport riding'.
Ha so? Seems to me that the handout should also warn unwary journalists that
finding a deeper lean angle is severely hampered by the bike's aggravating
tendency to ground its centre stand rocker lugs.
If the story that traces the origins of the TR-1 back to Yamaha NV in
Amsterdam is the correct version of events, there must surely be more than a
grain of truth in the rumour that Japanese bikes are no longer designed
according to the dictum that 'It never rains in Southern California'. Can the
same be said of the tires?
A tire dealer told me that though once upon a time Japanese tires were
designed only with the Great American Marketplace in mind that, is they
were very hard wearing but had poor grip in the wet nowadays the Japanese tire
designers work with an eye on the World's Second Greatest Motorcycle Market
(Europe, don'tchaknow?), the consequence of this being that current Japanese
covers are almost as good as their European-made counterparts.
Oh, really? Well if the Bridgestones on the TR-1 were anything to go by and
I suppose I ought to point out here that the company makes a vast range of
different motorcycle covers my dealer was talking through a hole in his crash
helmet and the Japanese tire designers have one hell of a lot to learn.
For though the TR-Ts brakes were excellent wet or dry (twin discs front, drum
rear, no wetlag anywhere), the rear cover simply refused to stick to the road
even under comparatively mild wet weather braking, an opinion confirmed by one
of my colleagues who found himself in the most alarming Brakin' Quandry (geddit?)
when the rear wheel locked up and the tire lost its grip.
This all came to a dangerous head when I took the bike out on the
poorly-surfaced narrow high-speed test circuit at MIRA. It was raining heavily
the day I went, and at high speed on the uneven bumpy surface the bike wobbled
insanely, uncontrollably. And when all that's keeping you upright at plus-ton
speeds is the gyroscopic effect of all those spinning bits and the fickle finger
of Lady Luck, it's time to quit. That's what I did. My top speed was a mere
106mph, and though the bike, must be capable of a good bit more I wouldn't
chance it.
Not on those tires.
At MIRA.
In the wet . . .
An unf aired bike no matter how spacious the seat or how relaxed the
seating position will never be as comfortable on long trips as the same bike
with a fairing, however comfort can sometimes be pretty much a matter of what
you're used to, what you prefer and how tall you are. Editor Dave Calderwood,
who tops off at 6' 2" found the TR-l's seating position fairly tiring at
80-90mph cruising velocities, while I (5' 10") found it no bother. Then again
some commentators have found the front foot pegs a few inches too far forward
for long distance. Not me I found them ideally located.
The slightly stepped dual seat is soft enough and spacious enough to make
two-up riding more than tolerable, and there's a heavy box-section grab-rail for
the passenger. Instruments and idiot lights are clear and easy to read, and
switchgear in all the normal places is as convenient for operation (or as
inconvenient) as is usual.
The only thing the bike lacks for comfortable long distance touring is a
fairing, and I'd place a bet that that'll turn out to be the purpose of that
suspiciously vacant extra lug at the front of the engine. Any takers?
There have been one or two gripes in the motorcycle press so far about the TR-l's
fuel economy or the lack of it. I find this surprising. We got 4S.2mpg under
fast, hard riding and a normal riding average of 46.S. This compares with 45-46
for the R100/S and a miserable 44 for the CX500, so the bike seems to be well up
with the competition.
T'ain't possible to say much about reliability after a two week roadtest of a
brand new model for that we'll have to wait however Yamaha have ensured
that periodic maintenance, that bugbear of high mileage tourers, shouldn't be
too much of a problem.
The final drive chain enclosure incorporates a small window through which you
can check chain tension the recommended adjustment interval is 4000 miles with
an anticipated chain life of 30,000 miles. Oil changes should be done every 3000
miles, the left-hand crankcase having a small window to check the level.
Ignition is of the transistorised electronic advance variety and as such should
not require adjustment.
Yamaha have made a ten-year prediction of model Life for the TR-1 and its
derivatives, though it has been produced to a deadline of only two years. The
owner's manual disclaimer takes on a mysterious significance 'Some data in
this manual may become outdated due to improvements made to this model in future
You bet it will. And fast. Like all new models it will be so much better
after a couple of years' refinement that early buyers will wish they'd been a
bit more patient. Or maybe not. After all, the bike is a real traffic stopper at
the moment and if you want to be a flash poseur for six months or so go out and
get one right now. Kids on push bikes will stop and stare. Taxi drivers will
hang out of their windows for a chat 'Is it really lOOOcc, mate?' Old
gents with eyes misty for their long-gone Vincents and Zeniths will tell you
it's the bike of their dreams, son, but I don't think I could manage the weight
anymore.
There are some neat touches to the big V-twin for example, like the
XS1100 tested elsewhere in this issue, it comes complete with a safety chain and
padlock.
However there are some nasty bits too. What about that ugly back end, for
instance, with the mudguard clipped to the swinging arm? What about that
plastic. . . er, thing, beneath the steering head which has no discernible
purpose other than concealing the engine mountings?
And then there's the whole question of engine cooling and that cheapo black
air scoop glued to the right-hand side-panel. These quirks of Japanese
technology run to overtight deadlines surely won't survive for as long as the
model's projected useful life.
Will the model itself last that long? Only time will tell the answer to that
question. It's worth noting, however, that though when I was in Germany recently
I saw more than a few of the big Yamaha V-twins, most of them were 750s and only
a smattering were TR-ls. The bike is an ugly beast when compared with its
smaller stablemate, but that shouldn't bother all those sporty tourers or they
wouldn't buy CXs and Bee-Ems, now would they? ■
Source Bike 19981
Make Model | Yamaha XV 1000 TR1 |
---|---|
Year | 1981 - 86 |
Engine Type | Four stroke, 75°V-twin, SOHC. 2 valve per cylinder |
Displacement | 981 cc / 59.8 cu-in |
Bore X Stroke | 95 x 69.2 mm |
Cooling System | Air cooled |
Compression | 8.3:1 |
Induction | 2x Hitachi Carburetors |
Ignition | Transistorized |
Starting | Electric |
Max Power | 69 hp / 50.4 kW @ 6500 rpm |
Max Torque | 81 Nm @ 5500 rpm |
Transmission | 5 Speed |
Final Drive | Chain |
Frame | Pressed Steel Spine Type |
Front Suspension | Showa leading axle. adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping |
Front Wheel Travel | 140mm / 5.5 in |
Rear Suspension | Monoshock single damper, adjustment for air pressure and rebound damping |
Rear Wheel Travel | 105mm / 4.1 in |
Front Brakes | 2x 267mm discs 2 piston calipers |
Rear Brakes | Drum |
Front Tire | 3.58-19 |
Rear Tire | 120/90-8 |
Wheelbase | 1540 mm / 60.6 in |
Seat Height | 770 mm / 30.3 in |
Ground Clearance | 140 mm / 5.5 in |
Dry Weight | 220 kg / 485 lbs |
Fuel Capacity | 19 Liters / 5.0 US gal |
Consumption Average | 16.0 km/lit |
Braking 100 Km/h - 0 | 34.8 m |
Standing ¼ Mile | 13.2 sec / 158 km/h |
Top Speed | 184 km/h |
Review | Bike Reviews |