Looking into the future of the RT

[Bob Denman]

The RT of the future...

I think that I'd like to see the rear luggage compartments made a bit larger, The top trunk in particular needs to be reconfigured so that you can actually put stuff into it. Make it deeper ffrom front to back, and give it a lid that open us to give you full access to the space. Design it to hold one or more full-face helmets.
Same thing with the "saddlebags... make them much deeper, and configure them as toploaders. That way; nothing falls out at inopportune moments along the road! :shocked:
Give us better radio components, with controls that are a bit more intuitive too!

 

[BikerDoc]

The RT of the future...

I think that I'd like to see the rear luggage compartments made a bit larger, The top trunk in particular needs to be reconfigured so that you can actually put stuff into it. Make it deeper ffrom front to back, and give it a lid that open us to give you full access to the space. Design it to hold one or more full-face helmets.
Same thing with the "saddlebags... make them much deeper, and configure them as toploaders. That way; nothing falls out at inopportune moments along the road! :shocked:
Give us better radio components, with controls that are a bit more intuitive too!

:agree:

 

[Deanna777]

A light in the back ( in the Trunk) a storage net, to hold stuff.

Deanna777

 

[Bob Denman]

I stuck a magnetic-mount light in the top trunk for just that purpose.
But being removeable; it also allows me to shed some light anywhere the whim strikes me!

 

[spacetiger]

The RT of the future...

I think that I'd like to see the rear luggage compartments made a bit larger, The top trunk in particular needs to be reconfigured so that you can actually put stuff into it. Make it deeper ffrom front to back, and give it a lid that open us to give you full access to the space. Design it to hold one or more full-face helmets.
Same thing with the "saddlebags... make them much deeper, and configure them as toploaders. That way; nothing falls out at inopportune moments along the road! :shocked:
Give us better radio components, with controls that are a bit more intuitive too!

Bob,

That would be my guess where the next generation change will come from in the RT-S design.

I think the 1st gen RT-S (2010-2012) put the basic 3 wheel touring package out there (I consider the 2013 a 1st gen bike with minor modifications that would be found in the next generation). The 2nd generation RT-S (2014-2017) primarily introduced a significant drive-chain change but no improvements in seating and luggage accommodations. I almost think of the 1st gen Spyders as I would the Honda 4 cylinder GL models and the 2nd gen Spyders like I do the Honda 6 cylinder GL models.

It is my hope when the next iteration of the Spyder comes out, it will have continued refinement of the 3 cylinder engine but add changes to the rear of the bike to accommodate these changes:
1. Longer and wider saddle. Even with the factory comfort saddle which adds about 2" to the primary rider, it comes at the expense of the passenger rider. If you add a seat back for the primary rider, the passenger really gets cramped. They get cramped because the back of the bike didn't change. I would take a long look at the BMW, GL1800, Indian, HD touring model saddles and determine what the seat size should be. The average American adult size is getting bigger, not smaller. If we are to tour with our significant other, we need a seat that accommodates both of us in comfort. Can Am must get this right.
2. Luggage accommodation. Great job in adding a trunk in the original design; its that back packaging that fell short. For some reason, the design team must have felt the luggage space could not extend behind the rear wheel. Then, they added the thought, the side cases should open on the sides. If I led the design team, I would have followed the design of the Honda PC800. That means the rear would extend back beyond the rear wheel. The side cases would not be side opening, but from the top in a 1 piece cap that included the passenger seat (that way it is slightly elevated to help the passenger have a chance to see forward). The top lid would be assisted with 2 struts and could be remote operated from a remote fob like a car trunk. Because of the width of the bike, the side cases could be built wide, long, and deep enough to accommodate airline carry-on [fabric] luggage that we all have. That means they are designed to carry 40lbs each (not 20). There is no standard top case.
edit (like this): https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eQP9GJ2VA_g/TXf1BaB47iI/AAAAAAAAAdU/OzfiW06CsLM/s1600/pc800ja.jpg
The passenger has a backrest standard. There is a factory option for a rear rack and this rear rack can accommodate an optional factory rear top case. The top case has the same features as a Givi 55 liter top case. It can hold 2 full face helmets side by side and then some.. Think of it as the place you use as you ride during the day. The top case has an optional factory designed rack for the top for more storage. The side cases hold your luggage for the night. Your wet riding gear are in the frunk along with other necessities.
3. Gas tank. Its volume is bigger because the saddle is 3-4" longer and the back frame design has been stretched; the gas tank is now 10.5 gals (9 + 1.5 gal reserve). And guess what, the shape of the tank is uniform because of all the extra space, so the gas gauge now accurately reads the amount of gas remaining. At 34 mpg, we can easily cruise 306 miles before hitting reserve.

2 closing thoughts.
- Direct fuel injection gets introduced further increasing the HP to offset the additional weight gain.
- For God's sake, with the weight changes the Can Am guys finally get the suspension right by getting the proper rate spring front and rear. By getting the rear correct to include remote preload adjusters, they can ditch the faulty air suspension on the current bikes. The additional weight shifts the bike from a 55/45 weight distribution to a 50/50 so it has more balanced/neutral handling characteristics.

I know I am rambling, but I do think the next big change in the RT-S will be in these areas, so i am holding onto my 2012 RT-S and will wait for the 2017 model to roll out.

Jerry

 

[NancysToy]

I would hope they do not widen the seat, and I'm sure many short riders would prefer it were not lengthened. If they widened it my physical makeup would make it impossible for me to ride. The current comfort seat doesn't really address your needs, so I would say extend the seat area but keep the ergonomics the same. That would allow space for a comfort seat that would work better...at least for the passenger. Just my thoughts on the subject on an ancient thread.

 

[spacetiger]

I would hope they do not widen the seat, and I'm sure many short riders would prefer it were not lengthened. If they widened it my physical makeup would make it impossible for me to ride. The current comfort seat doesn't really address your needs, so I would say extend the seat area but keep the ergonomics the same. That would allow space for a comfort seat that would work better...at least for the passenger. Just my thoughts on the subject on an ancient thread.

Scotty,

An old thread, but relevant to where the future RT-S may go. Can Am needs to move to where the market is going if they want to expand their sales base. To be competitive, they have to pay attention to their competition. I don't count out that future 2 wheel tourers as competition in the future because they could add gyro stabilizers like the one Lit motors is working on (http://www.tuvie.com/c-1-gyroscopically-electric-motorcycle-stays-balance-at-a-stop/). That would keep them upright all the time except when the handlebars are turned. At stop, they stay upright. Even in slides, they stay upright. They become as safe as 3 wheels bikes.

On the seat, I hear you. But I also see a lot of big (tall and size) people riding bikes into the future. The room I speak of is for the passenger as there are options for the primary rider. I would rather them make the comfort seat the primary and offer an option for the shorter rider. I am only 5' 10"+ and I need the room. I have to believe there are more riders at 5' 10 than under.

But, we shall see. I bet rumors of the next big change will surface in a couple of years, say between the 2015 and 2016 models.

Jerry

 

[bikeguy]

I agree with Scotty. I don't want to the seat to be wider and I sure don't want it to be further back from the bars. We're not all 6' 4" and 300 pounds and it seems like most touring bikes are built for those tall, heavy riders. That said, I understand that bigger riders need more room than I do. I've often wondered why 2 or 3 different seat options aren't offered and I don't mean as an extra cost option. It would seem to me that the manufacturer could design 3 seats; 1 for small riders like me, 1 for average riders up to, say 5' 11", and 1 for large riders. When a customer buys a new bike, he or she orders whichever seat option fits.

Spacetiger, I think one reason that BRP hasn't gone with bigger and longer seats like many other manufacturers have is the large number of women who ride Spyders. Sefishly, I hope they continue to build with smaller riders in mind but it seems to me that they might consider no cost options for larger riders.

Cotton

 

[spacetiger]

I agree with Scotty. I don't want to the seat to be wider and I sure don't want it to be further back from the bars. We're not all 6' 4" and 300 pounds and it seems like most touring bikes are built for those tall, heavy riders. That said, I understand that bigger riders need more room than I do. I've often wondered why 2 or 3 different seat options aren't offered and I don't mean as an extra cost option. It would seem to me that the manufacturer could design 3 seats; 1 for small riders like me, 1 for average riders up to, say 5' 11", and 1 for large riders. When a customer buys a new bike, he or she orders whichever seat option fits.

Spacetiger, I think one reason that BRP hasn't gone with bigger and longer seats like many other manufacturers have is the large number of women who ride Spyders. Sefishly, I hope they continue to build with smaller riders in mind but it seems to me that they might consider no cost options for larger riders.

Cotton

Cotton,

The longer seat is to give the passenger more room. The front of the seat accommodates a short or taller (via comfort seat option) rider. When the taller rider chooses a comfort seat, it solves the problem at the expense of the rear rider seat room; it shrinks. Throw in a primary rider backrest, and there is less room. By extending the seat a bit at the back end, it solves this problem. If you look at other touring bikes, you can see how much room they are accommodating both riders.

As for wider seats, that's a reference to the Corbin seats and their effort to shape a saddle to the riders bottom side. I am not advocating just a wider seat, but one shaped to our human shape for longer ride comfort - for both primary and passenger. When you shape that saddle that way, it is wider.

I say these things because there is an aftermarket out there "fixing" things on the RT-S that enough customers want. When you are trying to survive/grow in a competitive market, it can pay big dividends to roll in changes the future market will appreciate. Who wouldn't want a more comfortable saddle, longer range, and more luggage capacity in a touring bike...? In fact, I think the RT-S is on the lower end of the scale compared to other major touring bikes (range, seating comfort, and luggage capacity). That's why I think these are the things that may get addressed in the next major change in the RT-S.

Jerry

 

[bikeguy]

Spacetiger, you may well be right that BRP will go in this direction in the future. As a matter of fact, I sat on a 2014 RT at the International Motorcycle Show in Dallas and realized that I would probably have to buy an aftermarket seat to be comfortable on one for a long trip. It had the adjustable bars but even with them pulled all the way back it was a bit of a stretch for me to reach them. Not that I couldn't reach them at all but just that I would be leaning forward enough that it would be uncomfortable over a long trip. My 2010 RT is the first touring bike I have owned that I could ride comfortably all day long. Again, that is based on my short legs and short arms and I've wondered how larger folks were able to ride all day with ergonomics that suited me. I'm not against increasing large rider comfort by changing the total seat length, I just don't want it to happen at the expense of smaller riders' comfort. I've lived with that problem as long as I've been riding.

I have so much more storage capacity with the RT than I've ever had before that I haven't been concerned about adding more but I wouldn't be against it, either. BRP may feel that the 622 trailer adequately addresses any need for additional storage. I'm in favor of increasing the fuel range whether that's accomplished by better mileage or a larger tank. I don't really have a problem with stopping for fuel every 100 to 125 miles or so since that's a pretty good time to stop and stretch the legs as well. The worst problem I have with the limited range is traveling with riders on other brands who don't want to stop as often as I have to.

I'm not really arguing with you. Your ideas are well thought out and valid. I'm just expressing a little different viewpoint based on the needs of smaller riders.

Cotton

 

[NancysToy]

Cotton,

The longer seat is to give the passenger more room. The front of the seat accommodates a short or taller (via comfort seat option) rider. When the taller rider chooses a comfort seat, it solves the problem at the expense of the rear rider seat room; it shrinks. Throw in a primary rider backrest, and there is less room. By extending the seat a bit at the back end, it solves this problem. If you look at other touring bikes, you can see how much room they are accommodating both riders.

As for wider seats, that's a reference to the Corbin seats and their effort to shape a saddle to the riders bottom side. I am not advocating just a wider seat, but one shaped to our human shape for longer ride comfort - for both primary and passenger. When you shape that saddle that way, it is wider.

I say these things because there is an aftermarket out there "fixing" things on the RT-S that enough customers want. When you are trying to survive/grow in a competitive market, it can pay big dividends to roll in changes the future market will appreciate. Who wouldn't want a more comfortable saddle, longer range, and more luggage capacity in a touring bike...? In fact, I think the RT-S is on the lower end of the scale compared to other major touring bikes (range, seating comfort, and luggage capacity). That's why I think these are the things that may get addressed in the next major change in the RT-S.

Jerry

I would run the other way if they made the seat dished like the Corbin, too. Corbin seats and many of the other aftermarket seats are actually painful to me. Seats are a very individual thing. Every person seems to need and want something different in both shape and firmness. Maybe a partnership with a seat rebuilder is in order...buy a Spyder and get a custom-built seat at a discount.

I didn't realize until your additional post that we were on the same wave length. The seat needs to be longer overall, to accomodate more passenger room for larger passengers, a rider backrest (which should be adjustable both up & down and fore & aft, BTW), or an optionally longer rider section.

 

[Bob Denman]

They will always design the basic ergonomics to fit as many people as they possiby can... :thumbup:
It'll always be up to us to, "Season it to taste"
Don't worry about the seats; they won't do anything too drastic in any direction with them.

 

[Deanna777]

I bought a 2012RTS-SE5. Deanna777

 

[mtdoragary]

AIR CONDITIONING!

 

[Dragonrider]

F3 forward pegs!! Oh, & top loading side bags!!