Is the F3(t)Limited the new RT?

[Bob Denman]

I would buy an RT again, because of the storage compartments, and comfort. Deanna

:agree: :clap: :2thumbs:

 

[WellsboroSpyder]

:agree: Hopefully a longer wheelbase will give us more rider/passenger space...
But that should also require a reconfiguration of the rear driveline: perhaps a driveshaft??? :dontknow:
More luggage space can also be added: make the saddlebags deeper and longer, and the top trunk can also be made longer and wider!
This is just my wish-list: what's yours?

I don't know about a longer wheelbase Bob. I kind of like the snuggling, especially when my wife drives and I ride. Just saying

 

[blacklightning]

As a touring bike: I've never felt the need for more power...
But I'd never refuse it!

I know it isn't adding power, but after 3 days of riding my F3T, I was wondering if anyone has made a rear wheel and pulley swap from a f3 or f3t into a RT, RS, GS, or ST? I think it would make it really interesting. It would be kind of like in the late 80's and early 90's when everyone was swapping out the rear end gears in their mustangs. By simply doing this, it would make the off line acceleration seem a lot greater.

 

[JP58]

I would like to see the RT remove the lower panels and foot deflector and move them forward and in like the f3. But then have longer floorboards that are straight not angled down. So we can have multiple for position. Also move brake pedal forward. Shaft drive would be nice. And more passenger room.

 

[Peter Aawen]

.... I was wondering if anyone has made a rear wheel and pulley swap from a f3 or f3t into a RT, RS, GS, or ST? .....

It doesn't work!!

Doing that is basically akin to the concept of swapping the pulley from an Aus/EU spec Spyder onto your North American spec Spyder or vice versa, which has been tried... & I'm more than pretty sure it was tried unsuccessfully! :sour:

Without changing ALL the settings in the ECU etc (aka 'the Nanny') to match the International Region that the Spyder was delivered to & sold in, the Nanny gets all upset & starts throwing codes because all of the safety features don't match/can't match the wheel rotational speeds to those expected by the std wheel/pulley combinations in your Region, so the Nanny pretty much decides you've got a major safety issue & spits the dummy, thereby rendering your Spyder un-useable... :gaah:

Good thought tho, it's just that no-one's been able to re-flash the electronics to accept any of the disireable variations!! You basically have no choice but to stick with the OE configuration. :lecturef_smilie:

 

[DJFaninTN]

As a touring bike: I've never felt the need for more power...
But I'd never refuse it!

but I'd love an 8 speed transmission for those long trips and talk about increasing your MPG's :shocked:

 

[ARtraveler]

If there is another :spyder2: in my garage, it will have to be the touring platform. But, I am waiting for the next iteration. Three that look alike with one having a bigger engine is not enough incentive to spend another $35K plus. And yes, they will be at least that. :bbq::bbq::bbq:

 

[Fat Baxter]

I think it would be a fundamental mistake to kill the RT line in favor of the F3 line. Even with U-Fit, the "feet forward" riding position is not for everyone.

Let me explain: I came from 30+ years of riding BMWs, so I was used to a "sport riding" position where your feet are placed directly below your hips. I bought an RT-S new in 2014. The RT's "sit up and beg," upright position (with your feet positioned more forward, under your knees) took a bit of getting used to, and I still find myself unconsciously moving my feet towards the rear of the floorboards during twisty maneuvers.

With either the sporty, BMW-like layout (as found on the GS and ST lines, BTW) or the more upright RT layout, you can still stand up on the footpegs/floorboards and use your legs like shock absorbers (as you might do when crossing some railroad tracks). This is very much like riding a horse with an English saddle; you stand up in the stirrups when the horse gets busy.

I've sat on some F-3's and noted that there's no way (for me anyway) to stand up on the pegs. This means my butt will have to absorb the bumps (and said bumps may be transferred to my spine). I hope the F3 series has a very plush seat -- otherwise, I'd be looking for an aftermarket solution PDQ!

This line of thought occurred to me when I was first thinking of getting off BMWs and I was looking at Harley (rationale: there's a Harley dealer in every town over 50 people, whereas BMW *might* have one per state). The upright position of the touring bikes was do-able, but the more extreme "feet forward" models turned me off, per the rationale above.

I mentioned all this in a previous thread, and that since got me to thinking: I believe BRP is missing out by dropping the V-twin platform and not substituting a sporty-oriented machine using the 1330 engine, with a lean-forward riding position.

So my logic goes the other way -- keep the separate RT and F3 lines, and create another one, recreating the ST riding layout. I don't think a single model will appeal to all riders, so BRP ought to have several variants to cover all the riding style preferences. I think you'd suck in more customers that way.

 

[loisk]

I agree - a single style will not appeal to all.
We all have our favourites - let's keep it that way.

 

[CA Railwhale]

dislike

I think it would be a fundamental mistake to kill the RT line in favor of the F3 line. Even with U-Fit, the "feet forward" riding position is not for everyone.

Let me explain: I came from 30+ years of riding BMWs, so I was used to a "sport riding" position where your feet are placed directly below your hips. I bought an RT-S new in 2014. The RT's "sit up and beg," upright position (with your feet positioned more forward, under your knees) took a bit of getting used to, and I still find myself unconsciously moving my feet towards the rear of the floorboards during twisty maneuvers.

With either the sporty, BMW-like layout (as found on the GS and ST lines, BTW) or the more upright RT layout, you can still stand up on the footpegs/floorboards and use your legs like shock absorbers (as you might do when crossing some railroad tracks). This is very much like riding a horse with an English saddle; you stand up in the stirrups when the horse gets busy.

I've sat on some F-3's and noted that there's no way (for me anyway) to stand up on the pegs. This means my butt will have to absorb the bumps (and said bumps may be transferred to my spine). I hope the F3 series has a very plush seat -- otherwise, I'd be looking for an aftermarket solution PDQ!

This line of thought occurred to me when I was first thinking of getting off BMWs and I was looking at Harley (rationale: there's a Harley dealer in every town over 50 people, whereas BMW *might* have one per state). The upright position of the touring bikes was do-able, but the more extreme "feet forward" models turned me off, per the rationale above.

I mentioned all this in a previous thread, and that since got me to thinking: I believe BRP is missing out by dropping the V-twin platform and not substituting a sporty-oriented machine using the 1330 engine, with a lean-forward riding position.

So my logic goes the other way -- keep the separate RT and F3 lines, and create another one, recreating the ST riding layout. I don't think a single model will appeal to all riders, so BRP ought to have several variants to cover all the riding style preferences. I think you'd suck in more customers that way.[/QUOTEI sat on a new RT yesterday at the dealer while my F 3 was being serviced. I immediately disliked both the riding position as well as the marshmellow suspension. Some people might like them, but I'd guess they are smaller than my six foot two 280 pounds.