· Premium Member
The only thing that seperates these bikes is the rider. The only difference is prefrence.
You should be reading RoadracingWorld, they do much more than just test ride them. Its much more in depth. Besides I prefer a Roadracers perspective rather than a journalist opinon. I never read too deep into a journalists write-up unless they've had alot of race experience under their belt, no offense to them.c'mon duke! Two new bikes from Suzuki and Yamaha and you have two bikes that were new LAST year ahead?! I am afraid it is hard to take your opinions seriously after this, given the fact that Suzuki alone has had the best Liter bike since 2001..or is it just not as good this year?
I'm gonna have to wait for motorcycle-usa's shootout to compare to yours...
WOW? You take these articles too seriously, The bikes arent that much different unless youve got the capability to notice the difference, on a track."Sliding a literbike's rear tire isn't difficult. Doing it without highsiding is the difficult part. Most highsides result when a a rider backs off the throttle during a slide. The R1 does a better job at translating the feel of grip at the tire to what the rider is feeling at the throttle."
As you say, the key to not highsiding is not to jump off the throttle in the middle of a slide. So, there's "sliding" and "not sliding"...and all of these bikes can probably easily slide the rear. So what's the difference? Without the cross crank it's much harder to know when the rear end is sliding?!? Or just harder to keep it sliding without getting totally sideways?
I have to echo an earlier comment: if this is such a big deal then the R1 should have rated much higher. If it isn't...then why make a big deal out of it? Not posting track times was a big mistake. If it can't be quantified objectively then it's all a matter of feel, and if it's just feel then it's a matter of how the bike feels when ridden at the limit...and maybe the limit is higher because of the better feel.
but then again you have a great-feeling bike which apparently doesn't give enough feedback, allowing the rider to ride it into the dirt...
"As for the CBR, I rode it at its press intro at Laguna with race-compound tires, and it was a very solid package. Gardiner's crash had nothing to do with any limitations of the CBR."
so ok what did it have to do with, then?
I'm not getting much out of this review, really. Ok some of the bikes are more comfortable than others, the exhaust sounds better on some than others, and some have more power above 10k than others, and the engine buzzes more on some than others, and the GSX-R1000 has a cable clutch. That's about it. You guys wrecked a bike and can't say why, and a bike which has the engine specially modified for better handling, you refuse to quantify how that improved handling helps performance. I could have done this myself. And better tires, apparently, would just have meant that it would have wrecked at a higher speed. While probably not providing any feedback that the rider was getting into trouble. Unless the bike is only safe to ride fast on race tires.
By the way the next time that you guys publish a "shootout" like this without lap times? Why not make it an open shootout. If lap times don't matter, then why not throw in some 600s and 250s? Sure they will make less power, but they will also be lighter and cheaper too, and when all that is factored into your rating equation they might even beat the literbikes.
Also what I think matters a lot but is entirely ignored here is how easy these bikes are to maintain and how well they hold up under sustained riding. What tires work well on them and what don't and what sort of performance changes are seen across the range of suspension settings. The CBR supposedly has a problem with leaky fork seals, is that still an issue? What about the transmission...hopefully the R1 has left the old fJ 2nd gear problem well behind...what are the mechanical disadvantages of the cable clutch vs the hydraulic clutches on the others? Ok so they all have fuel-injection now, but what about the valve adjustment procedure? Are we looking at cap and shim adjustment or do any of these have hydraulic valves? And why not test the ABS model CBR? Just too many holes here. I couldn't even tell from reading this which one of these bikes I *would* want to ride and which one I *wouldn't* want to ride for more than an hour or two on the highway. I'm sorry, I'm not going to spend $13k on a bike and leave it at Willow Springs and only ride it there, and at some point it has to be maintained, and that's just as important as anything else. If it's going to cost me $2k every 5000 miles to keep it running, it's not a good bike. I will trade 25hp at the top end for a hydraulic valve train. Happily.
Although I dont agree that its that small of a percentage, people do read way too deep into some write-ups on new bikes. Just ride the dam thing, come to your own conclusions.You nailed it MOKE. And the percentage of guys that can actually notice the difference is about .00001% of the riders in the whole world. Most people like to argue the theoretical differences, because they could come nowhere near their capability on the track, and we won't even talk about street riding. Just read a view from someone that rode em all, and take it at that.
I cant wait to ride the new track at Moroso. I hated it before, more of a point and shoot track when I rode it. And they have retained the same layout as the old one pretty much. Looks nice on the site. You'll have a blast.The old Moroso Motor Sports Track has been completely rebuilt and is now the Palm Beach International Raceway. They are doing "Motorcycle Mondays" which appears to be a track day every week. I'm going to see what that's all about; I have no idea if it's something I'd really pursue, but who knows. I'm going by on Sunday for a Superbike event and I'll see what's up with that while I'm there.
Ah I think you better take a closer look brother the bikes of today don't turn? At speed? Are you kidding me, no disrespect but check the weight of a gs1100 versus a Gsxr1000? The bikes are much much lighter now a days? Thats not even mentioning the 600 class?Hey, a little on-topic for once. I know, here he goes again about liter bikes weighing too much, but holy cripes, looking back at open class street motorcycles over the last 20 or so years, they seem to have gained a lot of weight. Some of which can be removed with common sense engineering and design.
Yes, I know, water cooling, black boxes, bigger brakes, forks, frames to handle all that power, etc. etc.. add weight and all that, but we have TECHNOLOGY that can lessen the impact on the environment when your Gixxer thousand falls over in a parking lot, and you have to call three burly homeboys to help you right it, or risk wearing a truss.
I had an '81 Yamaha Vision touring rig based on the XS1100, and with all that touring crap, the bike still tipped the scales at 550 lbs. (weighed it at a scrap metal place). How can the big four justify foisting 500+ lb. rockets on an unsuspecting public?
And yes, I've ridden some of these bikes, and under power they don't want to change direction all that well, and resemble more a missle than a good handling street bike. Making a hard transition from a right-to-left hand tight corner at speed, due to mass in motion, almost highsides the damn things anymore. I cite the bikes tested in the '04 MO liter bike shootout, when Sean ate it into his brother, in that corner right up from the Rock Store (hard blind right handed sweeper).
My Buell had that lump of a Sportster motor, and still came in at just over 400 lbs, and as a result could out handle most anything Japan had to offer in the tight stuff (and the fast sweepers too).
Maybe I should start a company that removes unsightly pounds from 1000cc Japanese repli-racers..might be big.
What's your spin on the weight issue? Is it a necessary evil, what with all the technology, or can it be solved with better engineering/materials?