Inconsistencies between Part 1 and Part 2?
Basically, Part 2 concluded that the 636 is inferior to the R6 based on its ergos and nervous handling. Fine, but those comments appear to contradict some statements in Part 1, such as:
From Part 1 of the 600 shootout, re the 636's ergos and handling: "Don't let my description scare you away though, the bike is actually surprisingly comfortable in EVERY DAY LIFE and doesn't feel like it is going to bite you ... That seat may be too steeply raked, but it's still comfortable to your tailbone after OVER AN HOUR on the freeway." (emphasis added)
From Part 1 of the 600 shootout, re the 636's ergos: "The riding position feels natural, could even be OK for DAY-LONG sport touring." (emphasis added)
Re R6 vs. 636 ergos from Part 1 of shootout: "Overall, aside from the ultra steep seat on the ZX-6R, the Yamaha feels quite similar to the Kawasaki in ergonomics. The funny thing is, in the real world, even with a flatter seat, it doesn't seem to be quite AS COMFORTABLE to ride." (emphasis added; presumably comparing the R6 to the 636)
Also, there were comments in Part 1 about the R6's seeming tendency to tuck.
So, MO, pls. explain these the apparent inconsistencies between Part 1 and Part 2.