A new 2014 DL1000 article

[Jacko]

I do around 16000 miles a year, so by your calculations that would be £400, £40 a month if you take into account around 8 weeks of the year the roads freeze and I don't ride during that time. £40 a month is a lot of money.

Also, better mpg increases my range. My Glee has a range of 270 miles at 13.5 miles per litre, which I often get. I've never had a bike that can do anything like that on one tank. My 636s official range figure is 148 miles (19 litre tank), I regularly get to 160 before turning it to reserve, then have another 43 miles on reserve. I get satisfaction from making fuel go further without impacting on the fun.

MPG is a top 3 priority for me, and it seems increasingly for others too. When I bought my 636 no one gave a stuff about MPG, manufacturers didn't even have figures it was that unimportant, how things change.

[mr_diver]

Yes there are a few of us that do care about fuel economy... and fuel is just getting more and more expensive.  So the longer you you keep a bike that gets less mpg the more it's going to cost you.

[loggamatt]

That's fair enough... Of course, the higher the mileage you do a year, the more important fuel economy becomes. But I'd say most non-commuters don't do 16k per year... And if I was doing that sort of commuting mileage, I'd probably have a bike for commuting (like my DL650) plus a big capacity bike for other things... Then I'd get even better mpg on my commute by having a smaller bike.

Personally, I couldn't see me putting much more than 8000 miles per year on a big capacity bike, and I'm not sure the £200/year saving is worth making sacrifices in other areas.

[frez]

25k miles a year and I'm considering a DL1000 because those 25k miles are now 90% A and B roads and the extra power will make those miles easier for overtakes and also the traction control will be a handy safety feature when the roads start to get cold.

Two years ago it was 90% motorway travel and the wee was perfect for that.

Fuel economy is important to me, but its not the only thing or I'd be on a 250.

[Strombone]

The MCN article was very positive. It does sound like it's going to be a great bike.
They also  focussed on the weight which was about 228 kg fully fuelled up, I think.That sounds good for a big bike.

They also said it beats the Versys 1000 hands down in the looks department. A personal choice I know but I am far from convinced on that one. I like the Versys 1000 look

[Abercol]

Have to agree with Matt, fuel economy matters if you do the miles, but for the bulk of riders, the savings just don't really make much difference. I'd be happy its better than the old Vee, but the fuel consumption is just a trivial thing for me, after all, I'm very happy with the consumption on my Vee (I did have a CB900F in the 80's - a hard riding thrash would see a 20l tank empty in under 100 miles!).

[Jacko]

Everyone has a limit. Mine has been reached, I now care about consumption. For those that still don't I envy you.

[Abercol]

Don't get me wrong, fuel is ridiculously expensive here thanks to the fuel duty escalator, but since most of my mileage is in the car and that's getting an average of 59mpg, getting 45-50mpg from the bike is plenty enough for the fun it delivers.

It is, however, one of the reasons I want cruise control, it is easier to keep me restrained at [s:7x9x2vwl]80[/s:7x9x2vwl] 70mph with it than relying on my brain to do so and not to see if the Vee will weave today as it cruises over the ton.

[sharealike]

Cruise control does not save fuel. There are tests and you will note manufacturers never advertise it as a fuel saver.
It keeps the throttle open down hill when if you were in control you would shut off completely some of the time.
Up hill cruise control opens the throttle to maintain the set speed. With a man (sorry ladies) in control there is a tendency not to try and hold the speed all the way up. Most allow it to slow a little because they realise the throttle is/would be so far open it must be drinking fuel and putting more strain on the bike.

Its only safe to use it in the UK and mostly on Motorways when you get north of Kendal, and that has to be on the right day at the right time. Roads too busy most other places at most other times.

[sharealike]

Have I missed this or been dreaming?

NO LONGER A THOUSAND cc's?

They increased the bore by 2mm. Now a 1037 cc. WOW? Should it be a VStrom 1050??

http://issuu.com/globalsuzuki_motorcycl ... 36/4917007

I see the clutch had a total re-think. Perhaps down to past owner complaint but also because of the higher torque at just 4,000 rpm. We now get the back torque limiter bit like a racers slipper clutch and the forward torque increaser of the SV1000. That's serious innovation. Thank you Suzuki. This will lighten the Stroms relatively heavy clutch lever and at the same time reduce the risk of rear tyre chirps on spirited down changes. If it makes the change and clutch as easy as the SV it will improve the bike no end. Calling it Suzuki Clutch Assist System. SCAS.



Showing us the same old problematic clutch basket though. I have a little inside information about that.

[mjc506]

ooh, that looks much nicer. Shame about the old basket. reckon the SCAS will help at all?

[Jacko]

Cruise control does not save fuel.

No, I had a Renault 18 many years ago that had cruise control, it drank fuel with it active, manly because it opened the taps like fuel was free on uphill sections, I never used it for that reason. I kept quiet before as it seems to be 'call Jacko a nobber' week, however I'm happy to pitch in and back someone else up with my experience.

[sharealike]

ooh, that looks much nicer. Shame about the old basket. reckon the SCAS will help at all?

SCAS should improve the bike no end in the way I stated above.

It's not likely to make much difference to the performance or more importantly the durability of the torsion damper in the clutch basket. BUT I have recently had a few brand new 2013 made (May to be precise) baskets here for modification. Owners having the mod done before fitting them (only cost effective for US owners). These baskets were significantly improved in the two problem areas, yet the part numbers and even manufacturer codes were not changed. I took it that this was down to a review of the complete unit by the suppliers getting production ready for the new bike. Time will tell if they are truly better in the long term. Might be some changes to spring rate to cope with the larger capacity and heavier flywheel. From what is visible of the new basket it looks identical so modification would be the same if required in future.

[mjc506]

yeah, sorry, I meant to the life of the stock basket.

Improvements are a good sign! If nothing else I guess it means they've considered the problem.

[loggamatt]

I don't think the cruise control argument is so clear cut... I think it depends a lot on your application. Yes, I agree that a human being concentrating hard on maintaining a steady speed while allowing the speed to alter slightly on gradients will probably achieve better fuel economy than cruise control.

However, after a day in the saddle, having done hundreds of miles, sitting on an empty motorway in the middle of the night it is very easy to let your mind wander and see your speed increase or decrease by 10mph or so without you noticing. Or it is for me anyway... if you're able to maintain an exact speed mile on mile for hundreds and hundreds of miles then well done, but I'm not able to do that. In those situations, I suspect cruise control would improve my fuel economy.

But also, it's more about comfort anyway... it's more relaxing to sit on a bike on a motorway for mile after mile not having to concentrate on the throttle. Or at least, it makes motorway miles a lot easier in a car, which is my previous experience of cruise control. I suppose you could argue that having to concentrate on the throttle keeps you more engaged and thus safer, but I could also argue that it is more likely to mentally tyre you out which is less safe.

Another personal preference thing really... I know plenty of motorcyclists who love having cruise control and plenty of others who hate it. But I just know that getting a car with cruise control really improved my driving experience when it came to doing high motorway milages, so I anticipate I would feel the same about cruise control on a bike.

[Firestorm]

Best use for Cruise Control is through Roadworks, where no-one is working, that are traffic free during the wee small hours yet are still festooned with active speed cameras. Set to 50 (or 40) and save a fortune in fines. Otherwise, forget it and use your right hand for something other than ............!

[loggamatt]

Ha... what can I say, the Glee is so sexy... I get overly excited on those long, lonely midnight motorway rides...  

[hookie]

Yet more information.....
      http://rideapart.com/2013/09/with-2014-v-strom-1000-Suzuki-finally-adopts-traction-control/

[geekay]

Hands up who will be the first to buy it in diarrhoea brown?  

ahem... I erm, actually quite like this colour scheme...  

[rockingdave]

Frasers Gloucester Having new 2014 DL1000 for the day on the 17th October if anyone is interested, if as good as they claim and it looks good will probable order one, finger and bits crossed. )