Yamaha Vision--what design feature/flaw frustrates you the most?

[carotman]

Did Yamaha test the carbs on the vision so they could build the V-Max? They obviously changed the design for the V-Max.

[VisionMeister]

Re: Cycle magazine article from April of 1985.
After doing a riding comparison of vee twin motorcycles including Cagiva Alazzurra, MotoGuzzi 850 T5, Vulcan, Virago, Shadow and Sportster, the editor saw fit to write an article about the Yamaha Vision, which had been discontinued by this time and was being cleared out at bargain prices.
All the desing flaws are mentioned, but it is still noted as their favorite in this class.

[George R. Young]

Cycle is now defunct but it was my favourite motorcycle magazine.

That being said, the magazine testers get to try pretty new, well-prepped examples of a bike.

They do not keep the bike and evaluate it long term as a purchaser would.

They don't mention the stators dying, the starter flooding with oil and the exhaust pipes rusting out that virtually every Vision owner ran into.

[Rikugun]

Despite handing over well prepped examples, some testers did encounter problems.  :o Cycle World tested "The Four Sporting" 550's" in August '82 and the Vision had carb issues during the testing. It developed a "flat spot off the line and an irregular idle". They had the idle jets "blown out" (I'm guessing what they were told by the local dealer doing the repair) but the same problem later emerged.  Additionally, the bike exhibited handling woes they didn't encounter in tests from May of that year. They don't say if it's the same bike but from the way it's written it may be. They conclude it's a result of the tire being squared off from drag tests although all the brands endured the same tests and no others exhibited the handling phenomenon. In retrospect, I'd think it was the awful rear shock that came on the '82. What little rebound damping the thing had was probably used up by the time that example was tested with likely just a few thousand miles accumulated by then.  :(

The test wasn't completely fair as the Vision wasn't as "sporty" as the other three models but that was the crux of the problem. By this time, 2 paths had emerged with the lion's share going to cruisers and the smaller balance to a dedicated sport segment. The Vision fit neither category. That combined with it's reputation from early problems set it's fate. Neither rock bottom prices nor reinventing the '83 as a sport tourer couldn't salvage interest in the model.

There have been plenty of threads extolling the virtues but I think it's refreshing and honest to examine it's foibles a bit too.  :D If not for these minor character flaws the bike would not be nearly as interesting as it is and this forum may not even exist or certainly not have the same dedicated following that it now enjoys.   ;)

As a final note I own 2 of the bikes from the August '82 test - the GPz and the Vision. From a pure performance standpoint the GPz was and is superior. The only thing is, my amateur road racing days are long gone and I only enjoy street riding now. More often than not I'll throw my leg over the Vision before the GPz. The Kawasaki has accumulated relatively few miles since owning the Vision simply because the Vision is more fun on the street. Just my 2 cents.  :)

[VisionMeister]

If tests were performed "as delivered" the Vision had many flaws to contribute to bad handling. The stock front tire was pathetic. You could put handles and foot pegs on the stock shock and use it like a pogo stick. The forks flexed the brakes were weak and mushy. Some of these items you could address others not. When dialed in they were definitely a fun ride.
I put 10,000 miles on my first one, which I bought at the closeout sale in 84, without any issues. I sold it to pay for my tuition.
I bought a low mileage used one in 1988, which I have owned since, and had all the issues. I have done the starter once, and the stator three times. I have chased alot of gremlins (such as carb tuning) which turned out to be something other than what I thought, such as vacuum leaks, oxidized connectors etc. I put about 60,000 miles on it and have always made it home.
It's down now with a broken cam drive (didn't make it home with that, but I was only about 6 miles away) . I will probably repair it later this year since I stll enjoy it.

[tmyth79]

though i love riding this bike and will most likely never part with it, i feel they missed the mark on alot of things, yes it should be a 750cc, yes i would preffer a chain final drive, and most importantly, the helmet lock should've been put somewhere that doesn't keep the helmet so close to the hot exhaust, or gone with a single rear pipe.

[QBS]

From what Treedragon has reported, more displacement isn't needed, just proper cams and carburation.  For 90% of my riding, the shaft drive is the only way to fly.  Chain maintenance is a pain.

[jefferson]

The shaft drive was one of the deciding factors in my purchase of the Vision. The one thing that has been the major bugaboo for me is the rod bearings.

Jeff

[Rikugun]

From what Treedragon has reported, more displacement isn't needed, just proper cams and carburation.  For 90% of my riding, the shaft drive is the only way to fly.  Chain maintenance is a pain.

A larger displacement engine in stock trim might produce similar HP as Treedragon's but would be less stressed and subsequently longer lived. I do agree whole heartedly with the shaft drive love though.  :)

[QBS]

An overbore to 650cc would do the trick,  add in modest cams and joy would abound.  750cc would probably overwhelm the stock chassis and most likely render the bike less safe than stock.  If the bike were designed to be a 750 from the outset it probably would weigh more than one of our bikes.  For me, anything over 500 lbs. is bad Ju Ju.

[Rick G]

I would not have bought the Vision if it had chain drive. I bought the VX 800 because it had many of the same features as the Vision. Liquid cooled V twin, shaft drive , under 500 lbs,