The new 2013 Spyder RT ST and RS

[NancysToy]

.....In fact, count me with those who can't comprehend how any manufacturer can justify simultaneously adding weight *and* reducing HP... it boggles the mind, it does.

Others may look at it differently, since they reduced the weight from the RT, and kept the power the same. The world looks different depending on where you stand.

[MidLifeCrisis]

Others may look at it differently, since they reduced the weight from the RT, and kept the power the same. The world looks different depending on where you stand.

They did? The 2012 RT-S Specs say the dry weight is 929 lbs, but for 2013 it says 955. Probably the bigger breaks and susspension upgrades. Am I missing something?

[daveinva]

Others may look at it differently, since they reduced the weight from the RT, and kept the power the same. The world looks different depending on where you stand.

Now Scotty, you're just being silly.

I know it's just an opinion, but IMHO, the ST should fit the niche of a solo rider wanting a touring RS, not those searching for a sporty RT. It's for we folks who liked all that the RS brought to the table-- the sportier looks, suspension, weight, and most importantly zoom-zoom-- but wanted some of the creature comforts that heretofore only came with the RT.

As you well know, the RT is optimized for the two-up riding experience: more passenger comfort and greater luggage capacity. The ST will surely be more two-up friendly out of the gate than the bone stock RS, but it still seems to me that anyone in the market for a two-up vehicle will still go to the RT.

Which means that we merry band of solo riders will still be primarily comparing the RS to the ST... and wonder why of all things the ST had to compromise on, it had to compromise on HP.

[alajeu]

I have put 2500 miles on my new 2012 Spyder RT and can't imagine how the brakes on the new edition could be any worse than those on my bike. I have owned a 1996 Kawasaki Voyager, and now own and ride a Yamaha Star Stratoliner with complete confidence in their brakes. I hold my breath and cross my fingers every time I hit the brakes on the Spyder.

We've all been waiting on pins and needles to see what BRP had for us in the 2013 lineup. As you can see from the leaked post on SpyderLovers there is a new model Spyder this year but that's only the beginning. The whole Spyder line has been revamped more on the inside than on the outside. I'll go over some of those features with you now.

I was one of the lucky ones that got to ride the new ST and the improved RT before it was ready for primetime. The first ST I rode had all the new features but it was made to look butt ugly so it wasn't noticed as it went down the road. It was pretty cool to know that in a few months this was going to be a real product that would bridge the gap between the RS and the RT. I've always been a big fan of the RS and to be honest it took some time for the RT to grow on me but it did and I got to say I really like touring aspects of the RT and it was hard to jump back on my RS and not have the wind protection, riding posture and the integrated sound system. I guess what I wanted was the sporty feel of the RS with some of the comforts and conveniences of the RT. When I found out that BRP was working on just such an animal I knew I had to check that out and I would most likely be making room for one in the garage.

Before any of us got to ride one of these babies we saw what it was going to look like in it's finished state and I was bursting with excitement. The front looked more like a custom than a RT or RS but if you had to say it was one or the other it was definitely more like an RT but sportier. The 15" front wheels and low profile tires gave it a custom look and also improved riding stability. Added to that they included a larger rotor and much improved Brembo brakes even though the later models had great brakes to start with.

The front suspension has been totally redesigned and that was one of the first things I noticed. They didn't just add better shocks and swaybar (and they did do that) they changed the geometry of the suspension. Right now I have the best aftermarket suspension money can buy and it made my Spyder feel like I was riding in a dump truck compared to the new redesigned Spyder updates. These updates are for all Spyder models RS-ST and RT. When I took my test ride all I wanted to do was go fast and stop, go fast and stop. I've never owned or ridden in anything that stopped as good as the new Spyders do.

The ST has an adjustable windshield but it is not done with a motor or needing any tools, you just lift up and slide it where you want it and it locks in place. It was a very cold day when we did our testing and we had an RS, RT and a ST there at the time and at some point in the ride we got to ride all models including the SM and SE and could compare them to each other. I gave the ST high marks for wind protection, not as good as the RT but real close. I really liked it. The RS pretty much had zero wind protection and nobody wanted to ride it on that cold day.

At that time they were still dialing things in and made some changes for the better. I think they did a great job on the finish product of the ST and I love the improvements on the RT and RS, mostly the handling a braking.

Here's what the press is saying. I'll update this as they come in.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/731/14...irst-Look.aspx
http://www.powersportsbusiness.com/u...ew-suspension/
http://blog.motorcycle.com/2012/09/23/manufacturers/can-am/2013-can-an-spyder-st-roadster/
http://www.powersportsbusiness.com/uncategorized/2012/09/23/new-chassis-for-2013-can-am-spyder-rt/

[Lamonster]

I have put 2500 miles on my new 2012 Spyder RT and can't imagine how the brakes on the new edition could be any worse than those on my bike. I have owned a 1996 Kawasaki Voyager, and now own and ride a Yamaha Star Stratoliner with complete confidence in their brakes. I hold my breath and cross my fingers every time I hit the brakes on the Spyder.

You need to see your dealer then because the Spyder stops better than any bike I've owned and I've owned a few.

[MidLifeCrisis]

You need to see your dealer then because the Spyder stops better than any bike I've owned and I've owned a few.

No doubt. This is why I was surprised to see upgraded breaks on the 2013s. Didn't know we had an issue. Squeaks yes, stopping problems no.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[daveinva]

You need to see your dealer then because the Spyder stops better than any bike I've owned and I've owned a few.

That's definite cause for concern-- like the man says, the Spyder's brakes are crazy good compared to a bike (heck, compared to my *car* even).

[NancysToy]

They did? The 2012 RT-S Specs say the dry weight is 929 lbs, but for 2013 it says 955. Probably the bigger breaks and susspension upgrades. Am I missing something?

The ST (with the manual windshield) weighs less than the RT.

[MidLifeCrisis]

The ST (with the manual windshield) weighs less than the RT.

That makes sense. Thought we were talking about the RT weighing less.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[bikeguy]

You need to see your dealer then because the Spyder stops better than any bike I've owned and I've owned a few.

My RT stops okay but just okay. There's no way it will stop as well as my 2000 BMW R1100RT which had Brembo brakes. If nothing else, the weight difference between the two makes a world of difference. I think every bike I've owned except my BMW R90/6 stopped better than my RT. Maybe there's something wrong with my brakes but I don't think so.

Of course the RT stops better than my car but every motorcycle I've ever owned stopped better than any car I've ever owned. I think the Brembo brakes on the 2013 will be a nice improvement.

Cotton

[Sarge707]

The ST (with the manual windshield) weighs less than the RT.

Thats True Scotty But the ST is 160 pounds heavier and 6 HP less than the GS/RS so I think its evident the RS is still the performance vehicle of the Musclecraft division.
In fact, If the figures and Not printed wrong the 2013 RS is 100 (798 vs 698) Pounds heavier than the Old GS/RS??
Whats up with that???

[Lamonster]

Here's one test of the braking of the RT
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/831/10...omparison.aspx

In our braking test the Can-Am stopped from 60 mph in 135 feet—two better than the BMW and six feet shorter than the Gold Wing. The ABS system is well calibrated and the brakes are powerful without being overly sensitive or hard to use.

[NancysToy]

Thats True Scotty But the ST is 160 pounds heavier and 6 HP less than the GS/RS so I think its evident the RS is still the performance vehicle of the Musclecraft division.
In fact, If the figures and Not printed wrong the 2013 RS is 100 (798 vs 698) Pounds heavier than the Old GS/RS??
Whats up with that???

I personally think the old figure was very optimistic...perhaps it was corrected this year. On the other hand, exactly 100 pounds could be a typo. Don't believe everything you read in BRP's specs...they have had scattered errors since the very beginning.


...and of course the RS is the performance version. It doesn't rate "muscle" status, though, and never did. It ain't no Busa!

[Lamonster]

Thats True Scotty But the ST is 160 pounds heavier and 6 HP less than the GS/RS so I think its evident the RS is still the performance vehicle of the Musclecraft division.
In fact, If the figures and Not printed wrong the 2013 RS is 100 (798 vs 698) Pounds heavier than the Old GS/RS??
Whats up with that???

You can read into that what you want but I've never been left behind by an RS on my RT pulling a trailer. Ask Spyderpops or BajaRon if the extra weight and less hp more torque is a factor. I've ridden thousands of miles with both those guys.

[Spyder777]

No disrespect Lamont but,,,,


Most people on this forum think that going over 5,000 rpm is crazy so it shouldn't be too hard to keep up with them.

You can't tell us that a new machine with 100 -160 lbs of extra weight is going to perform better than our now retro 106 hp beasts that BRP used to manufacture.

[Lamonster]

No disrespect Lamont but,,,,


Most people on this forum think that going over 5,000 rpm is crazy so it shouldn't be too hard to keep up with them.

You can't tell us that a new machine with 100 -160 lbs of extra weight is going to perform better than our now retro 106 hp beasts that BRP used to manufacture.

Don't take it from me, take it from folks that have ridden with me.

[Yazz]

No disrespect Lamont but,,,,


Most people on this forum think that going over 5,000 rpm is crazy so it shouldn't be too hard to keep up with them.

You can't tell us that a new machine with 100 -160 lbs of extra weight is going to perform better than our now retro 106 hp beasts that BRP used to manufacture.

Don't take it from me, take it from folks that have ridden with me.

Lamont, haven't ridden with you, but I know what you're saying is true. Followed behind a different RT towing a trailer, and he was slapping that RT through those curves, and was a bat out of h*ll on the straight-a-ways.

Was a hoot keeping up with him. And yes, most of of the ride was over 5,000 rpm. Thats when the fun starts!

It's not about how fast the machine can go, it's about the skill of the rider.

[SPYDERPOPS]

You can read into that what you want but I've never been left behind by an RS on my RT pulling a trailer. Ask Spyderpops or BajaRon if the extra weight and less hp more torque is a factor. I've ridden thousands of miles with both those guys.

I have to say that you will have be on your toes just to keep up. What amazes me is he pulls a trailer and probably overloaded still pulls away from me at the lights.
I keep thinking he is trying to race. It he's not, just moving out.

It must be the low end torque as I have to reall get with the program to catch up if I snooze.

[MidLifeCrisis]

I have to say that you will have be on your toes just to keep up. What amazes me is he pulls a trailer and probably overloaded still pulls away from me at the lights.
I keep thinking he is trying to race. It he's not, just moving out.

It must be the low end torque as I have to reall get with the program to catch up if I snooze.

Torque makes a huge difference when launching out of the hole. The only downside to the Spyder engine is needing to rev it to get out of said hole. My biggest gripe loaded down is it's tough to get started in traffic, especially when the car in front has all day to get to speed. You just tend to sit and ride the clutch with the RPMs high till you finally get enough speed. Not as much of an issue with the SE5. I think most will agree power at lower RPMs would be nice, when getting rolling. I think the new RS owners will end up pleasantly surprised with the trade off. The extra torque will make it a real rocket, even if you lose 1k RPMs at the top end. I personally feel the current RS will be dropped with the introduction of the new ST. There just isn't enough difference between the two, unless the RS is redesigned as a lighter, faster rocket.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

[Bob Denman]

No disrespect Lamont but,,,,


Most people on this forum think that going over 5,000 rpm is crazy so it shouldn't be too hard to keep up with them.

You can't tell us that a new machine with 100 -160 lbs of extra weight is going to perform better than our now retro 106 hp beasts that BRP used to manufacture.

I wouldn't go there...
Trying to judge Lamont's riding skils based on what you think "Most people..." think is kind of foolish!

It's never the ride... it's the rider!

[pickelhead]

I wouldn't go there...
Trying to judge Lamont's riding skils based on what you think "Most people..." think is kind of foolish!

It's never the ride... it's the rider!

Lamont is the SPYDER MASTER, the SPYDER GURU, the GRAND PUBA of the SPYDER COMMUNITY! He has magical mystical powers over the SPYDER!

[IWN2RYD]

I am trying to better understand exactly what the ST seat angle is. I read in this thread it sits more like and RT, OK fine. What does that mean? They cut the tail/suspension movement and lowered the entire seat? Extended the chassis allowing for lowering the seat? Raised the front of the seat/handle bar area to create a flatter position? What?

And what about the Handle bar on the ST. Will it be the same adjust-ability as the new RT is or is that an RT only option?

Please forgive me if I missed this information. I skimmed through the posts looking for those offering info over opinions... Not that I do not have any of my own or enjoy reading them of course, just not my objective at the moment is all

Thank you in advance for your assistance...

P.S. I want the performance of an RS and missed the comfort of the RT-S. And why we are even considering learning more about the ST. We plan to ryde again in 2013...

[NancysToy]

I am trying to better understand exactly what the ST seat angle is. I read in this thread it sits more like and RT, OK fine. What does that mean? They cut the tail/suspension movement and lowered the entire seat? Extended the chassis allowing for lowering the seat? Raised the front of the seat/handle bar area to create a flatter position? What?

And what about the Handle bar on the ST. Will it be the same adjust-ability as the new RT is or is that an RT only option?

Please forgive me if I missed this information. I skimmed through the posts looking for those offering info over opinions... Not that I do not have any of my own or enjoy reading them of course, just not my objective at the moment is all

Thank you in advance for your assistance...

P.S. I want the performance of an RS and missed the comfort of the RT-S. And why we are even considering learning more about the ST. We plan to ryde again in 2013...

The RT seat is not lower than the RS, it is higher. It sits farther between the pegs and the seat, and because the handlebars are higher but farther back, they are higher from the seat, too, so you don't seem to reach. That may be why you get the impression that the seat is lower. The biggest difference is that the footpegs are farther forward on the RT, making the legs bend less. The ST appears to have many of these same attributes. The seat appears to be thicker, raising it slightly. The pegs are forward and lower, and the console and handlebars are higher. These all add up to a more relaxed seating position, similar to the RT.

[IWN2RYD]

^^^ Ok... Now that makes perfect sense thank you Proff

I think we will stick with the RT-S... I did at first become really intrigued with the ST and why all the questions came up... That said, all these improvements on the Chassis and Brakes and geometry of the suspension looks to possibly eliminate and or reduce the few things we did not care for...

[SpyderGirl]

Since I have all the money, time, and effort invested in my 2008 GS, I don't envision I will ever own a ST. My biggest reason for not wanting the ST, putting all that stuff aside, is that I don't like the GIVI saddlebags. Never have. When the RT came out my first complaint was the way the saddlebags open. And since I can't put my Corbin saddlebags on a ST because of the change in the footpeg supports (I'm assuming of course), I doubt I'll ever even consider the ST. I am, however, looking forward to seeing it in person and taking it for a test ride. I am curious about the suspension upgrades made.

When I first saw the pictures of the ST, I wasn't impressed.... it's growing on me.