If I had designed the Spyder

[challman]

I preface with. I like my spyder. But. as a long time Biker there are some things I would have done WAY differently, and I am surprised CanAm didn't

1. Seating position. I know that CanAm thought they would be selling these to kids, but. They don't sell that many that way. The seating position on the RS is horrible and hurts me no end. I can't see why they think I should pay $24,000 to get a touring model when all I really want is to put my feet in a place that Doesn't hurt my back

The biggest problem is that the Spyder is so wide and there is no place to put forward controls because they decided to mount the radiator, and oil cooler on either side of the engine.
Why bother with a VTwin if you aren't going for narrow?

I believe they should have put these one in front of each other up front and then made some sort of air ducts to put the hot air in back of the driver.

The front profile of the is just plain ugly and makes the fuel economy horrible. The front should have covered both the Wheels AND the trunk sloping up to create a slippery shape. PERIOD

What no @#!@%& hand brake? This not only scares the hell out of us X motorcycle riders, it exacerbates the riding position issue, because it keeps you from being able to find good foot positions because you have to make sure you can cover the brake quickly.

If they wanted this to have the feel of a Vtwin they should have put a real one in there. This could have been really cool with something like the Big Inch Honda V twin. But instead they put in a vtwin that has NO power at 1000 rpm and very little until 3500 or more. If I were going to design something that needed that kind of rpm range, I would have put a 4 cylinder with 160+ hp

I feel like canam was scamming when they built the maintenance schedule, and decided what to charge for their service I mean a water cooled engine running synthetic oil needing changes at 2,500 miles GET REAL!
A secondary drive belt that is supposedly only able to be adjusted by the dealer and pulled so tight that it destroyed bearings... ANY harley owner could have told you better.
Flanges on only one side of the drive pulleys outside on front inside on back? And no curve in the middle to keep it centered. Who thought up this crap?

A gas tank vent that vents IN Front of the driver???????

I know they have fixed some of these issues including the oil change frequency But

This could and should have been SO much MORE than it is.. ANd they have made no effort to fix the basic seating flaw.

My 2C

 

[Bob Denman]

Yet you'll also see some folks in here mentioning the Beemr or 'Wing engines as being much better choices... How wide would the bike have been with one of them stuffed in the frame? :shocked:
It's all about designing the best compromise that you can get away with! (by getting it out of the meeting room where everybody wants to change it)
You did buy the RS... that's the seating position that you chose. :dontknow: I don't mean to sound cute; but, "you could have had an RT"...

 

[daveinva]

I think there were two main considerations in designing the Spyder: what it HAD to look like, and what it COULD look like.

The first determined by the need to safely operate a reverse trike managed by the VSS, the second determined by what was made possible by the architecture needed to satisfy the first (with the corollary that both were dictated by the cross-availability of the BRP parts bin, i.e. Sea-Doos and Ski-Doos).

Thus...

The biggest problem is that the Spyder is so wide and there is no place to put forward controls because they decided to mount the radiator, and oil cooler on either side of the engine.

Why bother with a VTwin if you aren't going for narrow?

Look at it the engineer way: the bike *already is* wide because it has two wheels up front. If you have that much room, why not use it? Hence the odd engine/hose/frame layout underneath the tupperware. If you were building a two-wheeler, you wouldn't lay out stuff that way-- but it's not a two-wheeler.

Plus, putting stuff to the side allows you to free the front-- for the frunk. Want to give up your frunk?

The front profile of the is just plain ugly and makes the fuel economy horrible. The front should have covered both the Wheels AND the trunk sloping up to create a slippery shape. PERIOD

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm struggling however to see how a giant bow covering everything looks any better than what we have now. :dontknow:

As for mileage, aerodynamics or not, you're not getting two-wheeler mileage out of a pure ICE vehicle with three wheels touching the asphalt. It certainly *could* be better than it is, but by 5-10 mpg at most-- you're not getting a 60 mpg let alone 90 mpg trike with a conventional engine.

What no @#!@%& hand brake? This not only scares the hell out of us X motorcycle riders, it exacerbates the riding position issue, because it keeps you from being able to find good foot positions because you have to make sure you can cover the brake quickly.

It's been long assumed that the design choice was consciously aimed at novice riders who, coming from driving a car, would be intimidated by the need to use the handbrake. I can see why that choice is standard, although I admit it'd be nice to have an affordable OEM option for a handbrake (versus the only aftermarket option out there, the too expensive ISCI handbrake).

If they wanted this to have the feel of a Vtwin they should have put a real one in there. This could have been really cool with something like the Big Inch Honda V twin. But instead they put in a vtwin that has NO power at 1000 rpm and very little until 3500 or more. If I were going to design something that needed that kind of rpm range, I would have put a 4 cylinder with 160+ hp

They wanted to use the engine they had available, given BRP's long relationship with Rotax. Saves money, AND it's a very reliable engine. Noting the forums here, how many people have trouble with the engine? Exceptionally few, you have to shoot the Rotax to kill it. All the bugs in the Spyder are in the gizmos, thank goodness.

As for a high-revving engine, eh, it's a personal preference. Some people prefer low revving high torque engines, some people don't care. I'm in the latter group-- just twist the throttle and spool up the engine, big whup to me.

I feel like canam was scamming when they built the maintenance schedule, and decided what to charge for their service I mean a water cooled engine running synthetic oil needing changes at 2,500 miles GET REAL!

I recall the original schedule was 3,000 miles :dontknow:... like the manufacturer's recommendation for practically every other ICE vehicle on the road today. BRP recently upped the interval to reflect real-world experience, but I can't blame them for being conservative in the beginning with a new product.

A secondary drive belt that is supposedly only able to be adjusted by the dealer and pulled so tight that it destroyed bearings... ANY harley owner could have told you better.
Flanges on only one side of the drive pulleys outside on front inside on back? And no curve in the middle to keep it centered. Who thought up this crap?

Any Harley owner could have told you about a lot of things... a lot of things that appear poorly designed to them. Compromises, ancient choices, etc.

A gas tank vent that vents IN Front of the driver???????

Yeah, that one's dumb.

This could and should have been SO much MORE than it is.. ANd they have made no effort to fix the basic seating flaw.

What basic seating flaw? The ergonomics is a choice, a compromise. It's not ideal, but I'm assuming you've sat on plenty of other motorcycles in your life... which one has a perfect factory seat again? Which bike has perfect ergonomics for every possible rider again? :dontknow:

 

[ARtraveler]

Interesting post! I can agree with a lot of items being said and disagree on a few also. It will be interesting to see what changes may be made for the 2013 year. The sixth year of the Spyder.

 

[Bob Denman]

:bbq: September 23rd... :bbq:

 

[mooneych]

Please excuse me for sounding grouchy: If you have so many complaints, buy and ride something else! :gaah:

Buying a product, and wishing it was different, is ludicrous!

Am I overreacting??? :shocked:

 

[Bob Denman]

Overreacting?? :dontknow:
You bought the RS with the seating position that it still has now. Did you try it out first?
I am absolutely not an enigneer; about the only thing that I can build is one killer peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I can't begin to speculate about why they had to build what they did, but these things are often designed by committees... Nothing ever comes out of a committee quite the way that it should!
Perhaps a little more research before the checks got cashed might have saved you a lot of pain.

 

[mooneych]

Exactly. I hope you did your homework before buying the bike.

Please don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues with vehicles in general, and the Spyder is not without its "challenges".

But we all decided to purchase these, because the benefits outweigh the hassles.

Bob bought a Spyder so that he could cruise this wonderful website. I have to admit it's pretty cool also.

 

[Kinderhook]

Why buy it?

I preface with. I like my spyder. But. as a long time Biker there are some things I would have done WAY differently, and I am surprised CanAm didn't

1. Seating position. I know that CanAm thought they would be selling these to kids, but. They don't sell that many that way. The seating position on the RS is horrible and hurts me no end. I can't see why they think I should pay $24,000 to get a touring model when all I really want is to put my feet in a place that Doesn't hurt my back

The biggest problem is that the Spyder is so wide and there is no place to put forward controls because they decided to mount the radiator, and oil cooler on either side of the engine.
Why bother with a VTwin if you aren't going for narrow?

I believe they should have put these one in front of each other up front and then made some sort of air ducts to put the hot air in back of the driver.

The front profile of the is just plain ugly and makes the fuel economy horrible. The front should have covered both the Wheels AND the trunk sloping up to create a slippery shape. PERIOD

What no @#!@%& hand brake? This not only scares the hell out of us X motorcycle riders, it exacerbates the riding position issue, because it keeps you from being able to find good foot positions because you have to make sure you can cover the brake quickly.

If they wanted this to have the feel of a Vtwin they should have put a real one in there. This could have been really cool with something like the Big Inch Honda V twin. But instead they put in a vtwin that has NO power at 1000 rpm and very little until 3500 or more. If I were going to design something that needed that kind of rpm range, I would have put a 4 cylinder with 160+ hp

I feel like canam was scamming when they built the maintenance schedule, and decided what to charge for their service I mean a water cooled engine running synthetic oil needing changes at 2,500 miles GET REAL!
A secondary drive belt that is supposedly only able to be adjusted by the dealer and pulled so tight that it destroyed bearings... ANY harley owner could have told you better.
Flanges on only one side of the drive pulleys outside on front inside on back? And no curve in the middle to keep it centered. Who thought up this crap?

A gas tank vent that vents IN Front of the driver???????

I know they have fixed some of these issues including the oil change frequency But

This could and should have been SO much MORE than it is.. ANd they have made no effort to fix the basic seating flaw.

My 2C

Point one, its a SPORT bike; if you wanted a tourer you should have purchased one. I like the leg position.

Point two, putting the radiator and oil cooler up front would have compromised the front trunk space. Heat is not nearly as big an issue as this forum would have you believe.

Point three, a fully enclosed front would have little positive impact on drag, but a lot on weight. As to ugly, that is a matter of opinion.

Point three, a hand brake is not really needed in a fully integrated system. Even if you add road pegs, the time needed to brake is about the same as moving your foot from the throttle to the brake in an auto.

Point four, it takes a little time to get used to a Spyder and the comment about the machine scaring old motorcyclists is very telling. It is not a motorcycle.

Lastly, if you dislike it so much, and many others would agree with your opinion, why did you purchase one?

 

[steve635]

I concur with the handbrake issue, as regards the seating position a BRP 1" riser did a world of good for me. Everything else I like as is, I find the engine peppy, and the look distinctive. Overall I am very impressed with my RS (However, I did change the shocks to improve handling).

 

[MarkLawson]

It's easier to understand why the Spyder is how it is, if you consider from where it came. From the plaque posted behind the 'R3R Mule Concept' Spyder display at the Owners Event in Durango:

'Following a couple of bad winters, the mandate was given to our Advanced Concepts team to expand the REV chassis to other applications aside from snowmobiling.'

(can't quite make it out, but i believe the date of that mandate was either 1998 or 1999.)

The only reason I can think to not have a hand brake lever might be because I understand there are two states that do not require a motorcycle endorsement. I've heard that is because it lacks that particular lever. If that is true, and I cannot vouch for it, it might have been a bean counter decision that they could sell more without than with.

 

[boborgera]

The ''HOMER''

If BRP could /would implement all the changes most people seem to want and add them to one Trike, Then it will end up like a,
''HOMER''. :yikes:

 

[Bob Denman]

But we all decided to purchase these, because the benefits outweigh the hassles.
Bob bought a Spyder so that he could cruise this wonderful website. I have to admit it's pretty cool also.

I actually bought it because the Missus said I could... :shocked: nojoke


Is the bike perfect?? Oh Hell no! But if it was; there'd be nothing that I could have fun tinkering with to make it work better for me. I added floorboards, the ACS, LOT'S of cool graphics, etc... That's just one of the benefits of owning one. :thumbup:

But it had to meet certain criteria before it was even considered for purchase; just as an RS was...

 

[Dizneyman]

Please excuse me for sounding grouchy: If you have so many complaints, buy and ride something else! :gaah:

Buying a product, and wishing it was different, is ludicrous!

Am I overreacting??? :shocked:

:agree:

 

[dliszews]

I'm no kid and like the RS riding position quite a bit. I can always go for more power and
would have liked the Rotax version that goes into the Aprilia liter bike(I believe 140 bhp).
Given all the moaning and groaning about the belt, shaft drive would have been nice and
would really suit the RT version. The spyders are unique and different, and if that does
not suit you buy something else.

 

[grumpybob]

Over the winter I decided to make my '09 GS more compatable to me. Now it looks like my 1969 Honda 350. Easier to check the oil to. :yes:

 

[asp125]

Hmm...

would have liked the Rotax version that goes into the Aprilia liter bike(I believe 140 bhp).

Now there's an interesting thought. Can Am ought to throw out the Rotax twin and stuff the new V4 from Aprilia's RSV superbike in it. I mean, who doesn't want 180Hp?

 

[daveinva]

Hmm...



Now there's an interesting thought. Can Am ought to throw out the Rotax twin and stuff the new V4 from Aprilia's RSV superbike in it. I mean, who doesn't want 180Hp?

If people thought the RPM curve on the Spyder was too high revving, I'd hate to hear what they say about the RSV's engine. :shocked:

That, and the amount of air needed for the sucker is tremendous. Buried back there behind the frunk, the RSV's engine would likely starve.

(Good technical write-up here: http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/motorcycle-reviews/aprilia/2007-aprilia-rsv-1000-r-ar14303.html)

 

[LorneD]

Changes that I would like to see

1. Spin on oil filters.
2. Reroute the front cylinder exhaust pipe. This would allow for a cooler engine compartment, larger fuel tank, and 'maybe' a better location for the battery.

Doable?? I don't know.

 

[jScotD]

I put on the ISCI handbrake, because my lower right leg is gone, so it becomes a guessing game with foot brake only. After reading other posts, I'm inclined to tie into the brake wiring with an led on the dash. so I will know if the artificial leg is riding the brake.