Yamaha GTS 1000 — Silodrome

20 Фев 2015 | Author: | Комментарии к записи Yamaha GTS 1000 — Silodrome отключены
Yamaha GTS 1000

Yamaha GTS 1000

This is the piece in a series on Silodrome by the talented Jason Cormier, is a writer, an avid motorcyclist, a …-hard, and a shadetree mechanic in Montreal. He’s the editor a unique website that the history of rare and unusual from around the world.

If spent any amount of time my work here on Silodrome or on my website OddBike. you’ll be that I tend to favour thought and unique approaches to the and construction of motorcycles. The mandate for my on this site, such as it is, is to rare and unusual machines – a particular eye towards unique qualities.

One element I have upon in the past is the proliferation of front suspension designs are arguably superior to the “traditional” fork. There are a few brave designers and inventors who have to question the hegemony of the fork and a better solution. One of the most and perhaps the most misunderstood, is Parker.

Parker was one of the first to achieve what many tinkerers only dream of – to his design adopted by a major and put into mass production. His are thus one of the best-known contributions to front suspension design. Parker learned the hard way the difference between conception and can be significant, and that the design within a major manufacturer is far straightforward.

But first we must why forks are bad, and why you should the alternatives.

The template for the modern has existed since the 1930s, Nimbus introduced the first damped fork – Scott might interrupt to point out the Alfred Angas Scott the first telescopic fork that. but Nimbus was the first to the oil-filled damping mechanism we now for granted. BMW adopted the technology after, then Norton got on and the rest is history.

Adoption universal for several decades but by the teleforks were more or ubiquitous in production and racing. crude by modern standards, early designs set the pattern – stanchions sliding within legs, suspended by coil with internal hydraulic clamped by a pair of triple hung from a steering on the frame.

Since those days manufacturers have rigidity, added finer control, and improved performance, but we have to deal with the problems that were nearly 80 years ago. forks compress, the wheel up and back – this alters the of the bike dynamically, which is bad for handling. Bolting the front to a pair of spindly hollow is a recipe for lateral flex – no how rigid the legs, axles and are.

The travel of the stanchion is hampered by stiction, which is the sticking motion of the slider as it and flexes under load. And is the rather obvious but often issue of having a suspension is raked out at an angle that not match the direction of wheel Modern forks are also complex, and expensive to manufacture.

there is leverage. Think of the as a pair of crowbars bolted to the of your motorcycle. The wheel to travel straight up under but it is attached to your crowbars at an angle to facilitate steering – the angle. Every time you hit a you are levering those crowbars violently, which by the process of is magnifying the forces being to the chassis.

This means you a large, stiff, heavy to deal with the suspension being applied by that of crowbars mounted to your wheel, which must be made large, stiff and to resist the flexing they inevitably suffer.

Even the rigid fork and frame like you would find in are plagued by flex and chatter Dealing with the problem has a matter of tuning for flex – a certain amount of deflection to act a rudimentary suspension at the limits of travel. If that sounds and barely controlled that’s it is – tuned flex in chassis is as subjective as it is mysterious and it remains a problem in racing.

Top level are often attempting to balance flex with suspension where one will compensate for the all the while trying to tailor the to the preferences of the individual riders.

Is head spinning yet?

In terms, there are more against the telescopic fork there are positive points. So why do we using them?

Generations of have learned to accept the and shortcomings of telescopic forks as the qualities of a motorcycle in motion. of literature and study have devoted to working around the issues present in slapping a pair of heavy, spindly onto the front of your that modify the suspension every time you hit a bump or the brakes.

Pick up any road or sport riding manual and a portion of the lessons will be to riding around the problems by those damned forks. You carefully modulate throttle in to maintain weight balance and ever chop the throttle or the brakes mid-corner lest you end up the delicate dynamic balance and off the road (or at least pogoing like a ham-fisted squid). trail braking into a is a technique reserved for the pros or the

Why have we come to accept shortcomings as the norm? Why do we devote so breath, paper and practice to around the flaws when alternatives are already available, and been available for decades?

is an important element. Virtually rider on the road have their skills around the of the fork. We learn the dynamics, the feedback, and how to sense the limits of within the system we are accustomed to.

Take away those and most riders are out of their – they no longer feel the points of reference they are to, and will often complain an objectively better design because they are not accustomed to it. elements come into and hamper progress. Conservatism conservatism: we are so used to forks we are hostile to better alternatives they feel alien, so we to what we are familiar with and try to progress beyond refining the frameworks.

Finally there are the of mass production. We’ve millions of motorcycles with forks. We have huge of industry dedicated to designing, fixing, and modifying them.

We them better than any system by virtue of having them universally for so long. motorcycle suspension is a tricky when billions of dollars of servicing and racing are dedicated to one way of doing things. Never that motorcycle buyers in are a conservative lot who often are averse to new particularly ones they fully understand.

If you don’t that, spend some reading the comment threads any radical new model or technology

James Parker thought must be a better way. So he one.

Parker studied Design at Stanford University. not formally trained as an engineer, he has a deal of hands-on experience motorcycles. During the early he ran a Hodaka dealership and dabbled in

He developed a penchant for innovative early on. In 1971 he built a riveted-aluminum monocoque-chassis Hodaka In 1975 he developed a rising-rate rear suspension, and incorporated it a trellis frame design for a 500cc four-… single.

he was racing RD350s at the club and riding for Motorcyclist magazine’s racing team.

During his on the track in the 1970s Parker the weak point that was in all two wheeled machines – their While engine, chassis and design was moving forward in and bounds, forks remained or less unchanged and were unsophisticated considering the power and that machines were during this era. In the 70s a forward-thinking solution was put forward by the ELF racing team and their different ELF X prototype.

The ELF series of racers began in 1978 the motorsports arm of the French petroleum began funding a series of advanced motorcycle chassis that would be campaigned in racing. The project began ELF offered Alpine / Renault Andre de Cortanze the opportunity the budget) to build a design applied automotive suspension to a motorcycle, fulfilling de Cortanze’s goals of inherent anti-dive, a lower centre of gravity, and the of the traditional frame.

The result was the ELF X, was unveiled at the 1978 Paris Powered by a Yamaha TZ750 four, the X was unlike anything on two wheels. It featured a double-link suspension, with single-sided mounting on both ends to easy wheel changes in racing. A lower swingarm was by a single coilover shock, a second parallel arm supported a upright.

Steering was operated via a of rods and linkages connected to the

Without the suspension forces channelled through a traditional end into a steering head, was no need for a frame connecting the two of the bike together – the crankcases as the de facto frame, with a spar bolted to either In his quest for a lower centre of de Cortanze saw fit to mount the fuel under the engine and route the chambers over the top, Honda’s ill-fated 1984 which would attempt the layout in Grand Prix

The X was so completely unlike anything that it established a new goalpost for in chassis and suspension design. The was here. And the X was only the beginning.

A of increasingly advanced machines be commissioned by ELF over the following but the X was the design that set the template for was on the horizon. By 1979 Honda was on to supply four-… endurance engines to the ELF team from the season on, establishing a partnership would run until 1988.

many designers Parker was interested in what de Cortanze and ELF doing and set about reverse-engineering the X’s suspension design. He began by the machine, pencil on paper his preferred method of de-constructing and a design. After examining the suspension in detail he realized there would be one considerable in the performance of the front end: it be affected by bump steer.

steer is an undesirable result of between suspension movement and geometry that is far more in automotive design than it is in The process is one where the travel of the can introduce steering inputs and of the front wheels, usually due to the layout of the steering linkages, or due to joints, bushings or bearings introduce free play the steering system.

Bump is always present to a small in four-wheeled vehicles, but is generally by the stability of the wheel on the other It can affect any vehicle that an indirect steering linkage.

As conventional motorcycle designs use steering, where the handlebars are to the front suspension and act upon it any linkages or indirect mechanisms, you have the problem of bump at all. Put simply: forks bump steer. You may experience of the front wheel by a bump in the but that deflection is caused by like flexing rather basic geometry and will not the wheel independently of where the are pointing.

Take away the headstock and the steering and replace it with a of indirect linkages – like you on, say, an experimental motorcycle uses a multi-link front – and you may well introduce bump You can try to mitigate the effect by carefully the arms and maintaining a constant and parallel movement of all the arms the travel of the suspension. but this is to do within the tight confines of a

Compromises are necessary to make the stable. Parker realized the geometry and steering system on the X would make it prone to steer. He proved to be right, and ELF designs addressed the issue.

the problem is easy enough. it is another matter. Parker’s was to eliminate the indirect steering Rather than have a of rods, bell cranks and connecting the controls to the steering he developed a direct steering between the handlebars and the front

It would be the best of both – you’d get all the advantages of the double-link suspension with the steering of a conventional fork. This would become the basis of his work. With his time between racing and building, noted that he wasn’t to complete all of his projects.

Feeling he wasn’t the greatest rider on the and that a season on the track about the same as securing a he made the decision to retire racing to focus on developing his suspension design.

Parker’s was an evolution of other double-arm reworked to eliminate bump The lower arm resembles a rear and is suspended by a coilover shock to the front of the frame, with a mounting for the wheel. The upright was longer in Parker’s design in de Cortanze’s with the top arm sitting the wheel rather than within its diameter.

The key to Parker’s was the introduction of a telescopic steering which eliminated the indirect mechanism. This column was a around a slider that was and incapable of rotating, running on bearings and bolted to the top of the upright arm. The column was connected to the with a conventional-looking top yoke, by a subframe.

An important note to a major peeve of mine: design is not hub centre steered, dozens of articles declaring it as It is a steered upright design, a vertical control arm turns the it falls into the same as  Julian Farnam’s FFE 350 previously here on OddBike .  Yamaha to the system as “hub link . Calling it hub centre steering is to referring to a certain suspension as a “dampener”: close, but completely

Parker dubbed his company and his Rationally Advanced Design – RADD. He applied for a patent in and finished his first prototype in The first RADD machine was around a Honda XL600R and frame, the donor bike by Honda USA.

Once the was completed he succeeded in securing a at Willow Springs with a dirt tracker and Superbike by the name of Wayne Rainey on to test the machine.

The RADD end proved to be a success. Rainey the handling and feedback of the front Honda Japan wasn’t however – at that point were already involved ELF and weren’t interested in another design.

The Japanese higher ups the deal to donate the XL600R to forcing him to pay for the machine he had now modified recognition. The machine was now his and his alone, and Honda’s rebuff he set about the US offices of the other Japanese to see if anyone else would be in the RADD chassis.

It was during period that Parker met Porter while introducing the prototype to Yamaha USA. was interested in what Parker had and became an early supporter of the project, promoting the idea the US Yamaha offices. It was around time that Parker had a idea – Motorcyclist would be its 75th anniversary in July

Parker approached his colleagues at the and asked them: if he were to a futuristic one-off machine his RADD suspension, would feature it on the cover of their issue? Motorcyclist agreed, and set about fulfilling his promise – he had months to build something enough to be worthy of the magazine’s cover feature.

John campaigned the idea at Yamaha USA and in securing a FZ750 for the project. built the chassis, modifying the FZ beyond recognition to accommodate the wishbones. The basic design was the as it had been on the Honda RADD, but the were refined and the components more presentable.

The resulting had a highly polished appearance made the machine look a production effort, not the product of a man in Santa Fe.

GK Design International, the branch of a Japanese design provided styling design and the bodywork. They succeeded in sharp-edged, forward looking that was perfectly in tune the innovation of the chassis. Rather totally streamline the machine GK a gap between the belly pan and the top fairing to some of the chassis modifications and the unusual front end. The was modern, clean, and quite

It was a far cry from the staid-looking FZ that as the donor for the exercise.

The resulting dubbed the RADD MC2 (MC “Squared”), was in time to be shown at the 1987 Motorcycle Exhibition. As promised, the MC2 was on the cover of Motorcyclist. It was an immediate

Here was the future, a machine truly looked like it was a sci-fi feature. But this was no exercise: this was a running, machine that sought to fix the of the front fork and make an front suspension that The magazine used the tagline 750 MC2 – It’s HOT. It’s

It Works. We Ride It.”

The to the Motorcyclist feature was huge, and unexpected. Good press and reactions helped propel the onto the international stage. The was given cover space by other magazines.

People contacting Yamaha directly to about this wild new machine, and find out if they had any of producing it.

But there was a problem. Japan was completely unaware of the It was an unofficial project done through RADD and Yamaha’s USA The public and some members of the just assumed it was an official design, given the coverage and the of the machine. Even Motorcyclist to it as the “RADD/YAMAHA”.

No independent project had that level of coverage This confusion served as an catalyst for Parker’s future Yamaha.

It was shortly after the MC2 hit the that Yamaha Japan working on the Morpho, a non-running concept machine that a RADD-like suspension into an project. Yamaha, however, secure Parker’s approval for the The Morpho was built without his It appeared that Yamaha was to usurp the success of the MC2 and take of the concept by making it their

Not only that, but the Morpho another one of Parker’s innovations – a rear wheel assembly. negotiated a deal with to license his designs before the was released to the public in 1989.

The proved to be a sign of what was to both in terms of politics and in of design – Yamaha adapted principles but modified them on grounds for the Morpho, in such a way performance of the front suspension be compromised. That might not been a problem on a static machine, but it would be an issue if the was ever put into mass

Yamaha was being rather with what they they could do with design, a situation made by the fact that the company did not any front suspension design Yamaha chassis engineers had designed the machine up to the steering then outsourced the fork to contractors and suppliers.

Meanwhile Europe was clamouring for a new machine, a specification sport tourer. The was that the bike had to have brakes, fuel injection, and a converter, and preferably a new suspension. The for a new suspension was translated into a for the RADD chassis.

This known internally as project would become the genesis of the GTS1000.

Given his difficulties in with Yamaha, Parker to hire a Japanese/American consultant. Fukuda became Parker’s with the company and a critical of his relationship with the company. learned early on that as a outsider, he would never be accepted into the company and the proper level of input.

smoothed things over and a greater level of discussion, but was never entirely at ease. He feel like a full of the team, despite being to the adaptation of the RADD suspension to He was kept out of the workshops and only to speak to higher ups. He with executives and high-level but never the people who were building the prototypes.

He is a hands-on a builder as well as a designer, but at he wasn’t allowed to speak to the who were actually spinning There were incidents he was presented with prototypes in a with no tools or technicians on to remove the bodywork so he could the components. He had no input on the styling, or features of the machine.

His design was and he consulted the company as best he but he was kept out of the nitty-gritty elements of the process.

It was during this that Parker noted a Like on the Morpho the swingarms had made unequal length for reasons, mainly so that the arm would clear a radiator in the conventional location. If you compare the MC2 the GTS you will note the significant in the geometry of their front

Making the upper arm shorter bring the top of the steering upright as the wheel rose. The top pivot move backwards more the lower one, rather both rising straight up in The rake and trail of the front end thus increase, causing the to get heavier.

Parker was aware of problem and had designed his suspension but Yamaha had missed this in quest for “better” packaging. warned Yamaha of this but his concerns were ultimately

The GTS1000 was unveiled in 1992 to amazement. Here was the future, in form, available at your local Yamaha dealer. A of (sometimes corny ) television ads released to announce the … of the fork, now that Yamaha had the future of suspension design – for $12,999 USD.

The engine for the GTS was the well-regarded 1002cc 20-valve cylinder taken from the generation FZR1000 EXUP. The five-valve head was a signature of from the mid 1980s right up they dropped the idea in While the FZR had a reputation for being a fast and obscenely powerful the GTS needed a smooth and powerful that befitted its high-speed touring goal.

To that aim the mill was heavily neutered to midrange and “detune” the top end. It had heads, tamer cams, and a lower compression ratio instead of 12:1) that about 40hp off the top, for a total of 100hp at 9000rpm and 78 at 6500. An entire generation of oddball sport touring have been thwarted by the modifications – it takes a lot of work to a GTS back up to FZR levels of ludicrous

The FZR’s five-speed close-ratio and chain final drive left unchanged. The Mikuni used on the FZR were ditched in of a closed-loop Nippon fuel The four-into-one exhaust system a 3-way catalytic converter, the for a motorcycle and a feature that standard on two-wheeled machines well into the 2000s.

The GTS chassis was unlike anything in production. Because there no suspension forces being high into the headstock, the GTS a low and sleek “Omega” frame, so because it resembled the Ω symbol in The pivots of the front and rear were connected via an alloy on either side of the crankcase, with additional beams beneath the engine on either

Removable panels allowed for access to the engine for maintenance. The column, upper wishbone, and controls were supported by a steel subframe hidden the bodywork. The rear suspension was with a beam-spar alloy and a rising rate monoshock (Monocross in Yamaha parlance).

The (and all North American GTSs) featured electronic which was still a long way becoming standard fitment on

The real party was at the front, the wheel was suspended on an alloy with a linear-rate shock to the left of the bike. The steering was angled back and connected to the upper swingarm that was in behind the bodywork. A telescoping column sheathed in a rubber connected the upright to the controls.

Yamaha GTS 1000

The wheel used a single-sided with a single 330mm disc mated to a huge caliper designed specifically for the The result was truly unlike else that had ever put into production. You could still can) spot a GTS a away when you saw that front end, C-shaped and three-spoke front wheel.

By standards the styling was relatively but in 1992 it was quite polarizing. It was handsome or ugly depending on who you The appearance erred more “sport” than “touring”, as did the position. Wind protection was by a tall windscreen but hampered by a profile by fully-enclosed bodywork of the rider’s knees.

Two sizes of hard bags were as a cost-extra option. The lack of a above the engine cluttering up allowed for the placement of a small compartment above the fuel and airbox.

Reviews were positive, most noting the of the chassis and the lack of brake but there were a few issues. The common complaint was the price – the high specifications and RADD end, $13,000 for a motorcycle in the 1990s was a tough pill to and forced inevitable comparisons to expensive “conventional” machines other marques.

There a few niggling points that touring riders noted: the small 20 litre fuel (and high fuel which limited range, the final drive instead of a shaft, the lack of wind and significant buffeting in the cockpit, and the of standard luggage. Riders who for an FZR with a fancy suspension and seat were disappointed by the detuned motor which seem to gain as much punch as it lost in eyeball-flattening top

The GTS was also heavy, weighing in at 550 lbs It was quick and handled well, but it going to blow away on the backroads. A few people wondered why this was better than the faster and much-loved FJ1200.

To the credit, many noted high-speed stability was excellent and you trail brake without the chassis or overloading the front But most reviews complained of steering and vague feedback the front end, particularly low speed manoeuvring, just as had predicted. It resulted in a disappointing that made the already machine seem even cumbersome.

Some thought it was due to engineering in the unproven front erring on the side of slow and to keep things safe. unfairly attributed these to the RADD front end and ultimately himself, unaware of how Yamaha had up the execution. The general attitude was the GTS was undeniably different, but it wasn’t spending several thousand put the motorcycle of the future in your

The performance of the GTS front end didn’t many to enthusiastically abandon the fork as had been hoped. It was but not good enough to unseat tradition – and in the minds of reviewers and it was not good enough to justify the price premium it commanded.

were so poor in the North market that the GTS was pulled showrooms in 1994. It continued to be in small numbers in Europe 1999 but never became more than an expensive a cult bike that a loyal following but was generally by the motorcycling public. Some attempts at racing what was a touring machine were

An attempt was made to race a modified GTS at the Isle of Man TT in 1994 – the ultimately placed 8th in the F1 class and was for dragging its front swingarm left-hand turns! American editor Brian Catterson a GTS, which he nicknamed to compete in AMA SuperTeams endurance in 1995 – you can still order the bodywork made for Shamu Airtech .

Despite the hopes of all and the heavy-handed …-of-the-fork marketing by Yamaha, design conservatism and the the status quo continued. Tradition was by the GTS rather than mitigated by the it displayed. While it had a loyal the machine was generally regarded as a and was pointed to by the public and manufacturers as an example of why alternatives to the fork untenable and undesirable. By trying to out of tradition, Yamaha had inadvertently it. “We can’t do that . Look at Yamaha did – you saw how things turned out for .”

But hindsight isn’t always – it is unfair to blame the failure of the entirely on the suspension, because wasn’t the case at all. The end was one of the high points of the machine if it wasn’t a major breakthrough in of performance (and the function was by Yamaha’s meddling). The failure was due to the price point, the futuristic the weight, and the odd marketing.

It was a machine didn’t quite fit into the it was aimed at. It targeted well-heeled touring riders, but didn’t any of the characteristics they needed. It to sell the future to older, conservative buyers.

The real of the failure of the GTS1000 wasn’t It was James Parker. His name become directly associated the GTS and his RADD design would be critiqued through the sales of the GTS. Even with the geometry the RADD was a sound and worked better than any machine it was tested against. The GTS quite well despite the in the execution, a fact that has forgotten in the years since it was

Negative press and harsh have a tendency to bubble to the of the recollections of the average person. Few remembered the good points.

the poor reception of the GTS, didn’t abandon his design and set refining his ideas in the mid-1990s. In he built the RATZ, with an RADD chassis built a Yamaha TZ250 two-… Ironically when he applied for a new Parker was rebuffed by the patent for infringing on the Yamaha patents for the GTS – once he demonstrated that the system was based on his earlier all was cleared up.

The front wishbones on the were heavily curved and up high into the bodywork to good ground clearance and to centralize the mass. The frame was a alloy Omega spar a beam subframe supporting the head and shock mount. outside of the motor was developed and by Parker, including the single-sided swingarm with a special chain adjustment to maintain a ride height when the chain tension.

Other included a twin-disc setup the front wheel hub (a single disc was tested as well) and a radiator fed by two air ducts that ran the of the bike. Parker refers to the as an interim machine, one designed after the release of the GTS to improve his initial patent and apply a few new It was the first chassis that he in its entirety without modifying an machine.

He initially anticipated from Yamaha but when didn’t materialize he was forced to the machine out of his own pocket.

That was the end of his relationship with Yamaha, and a up call – he notes that in projects he “didn’t have the delusions” of getting official from any manufacturers. Parker out that during the development of the GTS were two distinct camps Yamaha – pros and cons. the GTS failed to sell well cons won” and there was desire to pick things up and try

Parker came away his experiences with Yamaha alienated. He knows firsthand goes on inside the Japanese having seen the class and xenophobia that lurks the surface. Despite this experience he remains proud of the GTS and is to defend the design – and yes, he one himself.

In 2006 Parker working on his fourth prototype and revision of the RADD design applied all the lessons he had learned the past 20 years. He purchased a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and rebuilt it what he calls the GSXRADD P3 Patent #3). The main of the frame are cut off, leaving the lower mounts around the pivot. Skeletal milled supports bolt to the front of the and serve as the mounting point for the suspension.

The radiators are mounted under the fairing on both to allow clearance for the new front end – is actually improved over the setup. The lower swingarm, upright, and frame plates are CNC The upper wishbone is fabricated steel tubing, as is the front supporting the upper end of the shock, mechanism and controls.

Front is via an adjustable Ohlins TTX36 shock. The stock brake and calipers are mounted in parallel on the hub, set inside a custom front wheel. A custom fibre fuel tank the fuel in a lower and more position.

All told the front is 13 lbs lighter than stock, an additional 9 lbs shed with the new tank, and the mass was centralized versus a telescopic assembly. In of the extensive modifications and the substantial of the project, the front suspension is simple and would lend well to mass production.

the bodywork on there is little to this is anything other a normal GSX-R, until you the single-sided front wheel. The are in the stock position and nothing the frame and front end is modified on the The rake, trail and wheelbase are identical to the stocker.

Parker engineered a modest amount of dive into the design so it would feel familiar to accustomed to telescopic forks. It is that Parker felt he to tune his setup to mimic the of a conventional fork to put riders at but it proved to be a way to inspire confidence in who might otherwise be put off by the unique and dynamic qualities of a forkless

Provisions were made to a steering damper, so that all the and geometry are as close to the stock as possible. The whole project is to allow direct back-to-back with a stock GSX-R so riders can immediately note the over the stock setup. was how the GSXRADD was shown in 2008, Parker offered it up for testing at the Motorsports Park in Albuquerque, New close to his Santa Fe home and

A standard 2006 GSX-R1000 was for laps alongside the GSXRADD so riders could directly performance.

All the testers noted the system worked remarkably offering extremely light and steering that made the feel smaller than it was. The steered mass of the front end is much less that of a forked machine, only the wheel, brakes and upright moving rather the entire front suspension.

was exceptional, even when the damper was removed – where the bike would be dangerous a damper the RADD didn’t it at all, despite sharing suspension geometry and tires. was noted as excellent, clearly than the stock machine. minor issues were when the system was pushed during initial testing but were quickly corrected, and the system worked remarkably

Plans were begun to the conversion to the public for $50,000

Parker notes that the financial crisis of 2008 the has changed considerably and interest in his has waned. The economic meltdown put all of the into a conservative contingency and the inquiries into the RADD At this point Parker like to discuss the matter BMW: he thinks that would have a better of what he is trying to do, given singular adoption of alternative suspensions, and they might see the of the RADD suspension over current Duolever (nee design.

Parker genuinely that his design is the best to the fork out there, and the best suspension possible for a road-going He just needs to convince the and the public of this fact. He that the automotive world to be far more receptive to advances in and engineering compared to the motorcycle where we have spent rehashing and refining the same old without making any significant

We haven’t moved as far away the concept of a bicycle-with-a-motor-attached as we’ve led to believe. This is a common among those who are trying to do different, something better. appearances of progress, conservatism supreme in motorcycle design – a made worse by a poor

In recent years the GTS1000 has a revival among riders a unique and innovative sport mount. In December 2006 Bike magazine declared the GTS number-one pick for “Coolest Bike”, noting:

“The films were still when the GTS was launched and the single-sided end had a firm futuristic look to it, into the clean, uncluttered, bodywork to give a glimpse of the in the future. Unfortunately the alien frankly excessive weight and a asking price limited – but they don’t matter one today. This is still and courageous engineering, with following function and a fresh to design. The fact that it the redefining success Yamaha had for even adds to the appeal making it as cool for being a failure as for being exclusive or

Today the GTS has become a modern an unusual and rare machine has received far more praise it ever did when it was still in A new generation of owners are discovering the GTS the stigma of an exorbitant price tag them away or inspiring criticism. The styling has aged the engine is extremely reliable, and the suspension proved to be very engineered and nearly maintenance-free in the term.

Owners have very proud of their machines and there is a strong community for the GTS. It has become a classic, a motorcycle to watch in decades as demand creeps up for the few that remain on the road.

Parker continues to operate out of his Fe home and still writes for His most recent accomplishment was the chassis of the very well Mission R electric superbike. was chosen as one of Time magazine’s 25 inventions of 2013. The possibility of a RADD front end on the R was discussed, but not due to the engineering limitations of a small company.

The RATZ was recently at the New Mexico Museum of Modern Art as of the exhibit 14,000 years of New Art, where it shared with 12,000 year-old arrowheads and one of Robert H. Goddard’s engines. Parker still hope that someone adapt his newst RADD for mass production.

The difficulties he with Yamaha and the lack of up to the GTS project hasn’t deterred him canvassing manufacturers and hoping someone will be willing to a risk, in spite the poor climate. Despite the setbacks he has Parker remains focused on his of creating the best front design possible, something he he has achieved with the P3.

Yamaha GTS 1000


Tagged as:

Other articles of the category "Yamaha":

Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts


Born in the USSR


About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.

Motorcycles catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about Motorcycles.