As a happy suzuki owner its nice to see a great new bike, regardless of the name on the tank. And really a torquey motor is just what I want for the street, Hey I might even be able to pull some mingers during the break-in!!
I agree with your comment about street bikes. I enjoy reading about the latest and greatest speedracer but I also like reading about bikes that I may actually be interested in buying. Of course I understand others want the latest speedracer and more power to them. So to that end I wrote Yamaha to encourage them to bring in the FJR (not sure about these letters) 1300. Now that's a street bike!
but see...that's the problem....these companies keep spending bazillions of dollars to develop these mega-bikes for people in the US, when it'd be to their benefit to do some serious design work on making a new generation of intro-level 400-600 cc sport- and cruising-bikes to get new people into the market! It strikes me that the majority of development in the last 5 years has been on the bikes that you shouldn't tackle until you've got a few solar cycles-worth of motorcycle riding under your belt....yes the pun was intended
Why would suzuki get rid of the 750? THe insurance difference between a GSXR750 and an R1 is quite significant. THere are may potential customers who would choose the 750 for economic reasons, just as many will buy the 600 instead of the 750. Economics aside, the 100o will probably prove to be the best street bike of the three siblings. Its called usable power band folks....
I think you shuold just shut up yer big moth and try to be a little more specific in your statements. I've never heard of anyone more bragging about his skills than you, end whet's the point anyway. Try to grow up, for god's sake.
Glad to see that, after 15 years, I can finally sell my '86 1100 for a new one that's not fat and bloated like they have been for the last few years. It's great to see Suzuki finally go back to their ORIGINAL formula of light=right. Way to go. Just in time, If not for inflated dealer markup and unavailability, I might have bought an R1. Anybody in the market for a used classic?
P.S To you wankers that don't like/are afraid of the BIG BAD SUZUKI; blow me. By the way, who won the AMA Superbike (2 years in a row), Supersport, and 500GP riders championship this year?
This bike and the R-1 before it are incredible machines, but I think your commentary about riding this on the street being like using an Apache gunship for rabbit hunting is accurate.
For example, I have a 5 year old CBR900RR with some suspension and brake mods, and it is more than I need from a streetbike. I have a good friend who is in the motorcycle salvage business, and it seems like he picks up an R-1 about once a month, usually totaled. This is even worse when you consider that I live in Oklahoma, which probably had less than 20 new R-1s for sale in the whole state last year. My point is that there are a lot of street riders out there who buy these bikes without a clue of what they are getting into. The level of the machinery goes up, but the competentcy of the riders does not seem to be increasing.
It is sad that there are riders out there who regard my 95 CBR900RR as if it is a dinosaur. Not to compare it to a new R-1 or Gixxer 1000, but, but the truth is that 95 percent of all street riders probably can not take advantage of a five year old CBR900RR, much less a new R-1 or Gixxer 1000.
I almost wish there was some kind of "expert motorcyclist license" available as a requirement to buy these things, maybe proof of a racing school or something. I am not a socialist or anything like that. I just remember the bad old days in the late 1980s and early 1990s when TV newsmagazines ran stories about "killer bikes" and did negative stories about the sport bike scene in Southern California. That was when the insurance company backlash started. A couple of politicians were trying to further their careers by banning sportbikes and talk of federal horsepower limits was in the air. It was so bad that Yamaha actually threw in full coverage insurance with their bikes for a couple of years.
I just hope we do not shoot ourselves in the foot with these fantastic new weapons.
From what I have seen, neither Suzuki or Yamaha has the market cornered on dependable machinery. The first R-1s had clutch problems, for example. Honda is likely the only manufacturer out there that releases defect-free bikes.
I owned a '97 GSXR600 for 3 years, bought it new, and never had a single problem with it (except for when I dumped it.) Even after that, it ran like it was brand new. I beat the crap out of that thing, running into the rev limiter, countless clutched wheelies, and it never broke. It always fired right up, ran smooth, and never lost any power. I will sell my R1 and buy a GSXR1000 confident that I will never need Suzuki's quality assurance program.
To those that say 99% of the owners will never be able to use more than 75% of the capabilities of the latest-and-greatest sportbike, and that a much better rider on a bad bike will still beat you, I agree. To those that say more squids will now be able to shorten the time between ZOOM! and SPLAT!, I also agree. BUT....having better equipment doesn't make you a better rider per se, but ALLOWS you to ride better, and is a better tool to TRAIN you to be a better rider. Also, for 2 riders of equal ability, the one on the better bike will be faster and safer. And if the riders are of similar talent (one a little better than the other), but differing levels of bike, that may be enough to allow the inferior rider to be faster. I like to ride hard, but for fun, and am not interested in "racing" anyone out in the twisties. I would always like to have the better bike, because, riding within my self-imposed limits, there will be more of a safety cushion if something goes wrong. I suspect most people would feel this way. Besides, riding a bike with lower limits than the rider isn't fun, and doesn't push you to try and become a better rider, to try and fully explore and learn your personal and the bike's limits.
The new Suzuki is the bike to beat, no matter what all these other dingleberries might say. (I own a 2000 R1.) But come on, dude, 3000 miles in 3-4 years? I bought my R1 in July, and quit riding in October with 2600 miles on it.
I would like to be faster, but with the same % of effort and adrenaline. If, on my old bike, I'm comfortable (by comfortable I mean MENTALLY) at a 60MPH average through a certain route, then I would like to be as comfortable doing 65, or 70 with the new bike. The better, easier-to-ride machine leaves more room for error at the same pace, or the same room at an elevated pace. Nobody ever claimed my '86 (with those 18" wheels) steered lightly, unless you compared it with the open bikes of the time. Against today's bikes, it steers as heavy as a truck, but it's stable and solid.
Sorry, things got a bit heated and I don't tend to think through what I say at 2 am.
First of all, I've had the same sort of life-threatening anaphylactic reaction that you describe and it wasn't fun at all. I probably shouldn't have spoken so fliply about it.
Second, the 99 SV review is certainly on par with most other motorcycle reviews, either online or in print. I guess I'm irked by first-ride reviews in general because they tend to all praise the bike and don't address long-term reliability or other issues of practicality. Of course, every first ride on every bike I've ever tried was fun, too. I can't blame the reviewer, I can blame the motorcycle companies for not giving out long-term test bikes to reviewers.
In general, though, I would like to see more tests for streetbikes (I don't like the term budget-bike because it implies that there is no reason to choose an SV over a GSX-R besides money) at MO.
I apologize again for my hasty words last night, and I should mention that your review of the SV is one of the things that keeps the bike on my "Maybe the next bike I purchase" list.
I disagree that there is nothing to write about in the sport-standard category. The most useful thing I can think of would be a shootout between the bikes (SV, ZR7, Bandit, etc) so we can see their strengths and weaknesses relative to each other. A "first ride" review tends to say the same thing about every bike in the genre (cruiser first rides all say they're pretty and torquey, trackbike first rides all say they're darned fast, and standard first rides all say they're practical and kinda fun once you let your hair down). And for someone who is currently looking to buy a bike in that genre, a shootout of four bikes is a lot more useful than four "first-ride" reviews.
Re: Try looking in MO''''''''s bike reviews, jerky!
I agree Cycleworld is a complete yawn.And as far as your review goes it was pretty much on the mark. I got to ride a friends SV the other day and found it to be quite a different experience from my gsxr. Its a great bike that for me would serve as a good compliment to my 750.