Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
My member is not Junior!
Joined
·
114 Posts
Read more closely!

Why compare the CVO in this group? Why wouldn't you compare apples to apples and put in the Ultra Classic without all the bling in this comparison?
I figured this would happen sooner than later. Seems a fair question, and it's surfaced a couple times already. But I thought maybe the title might have indicated the general theme, as well as the teaser text on the homepage, and in this para:

"Because touring is such an important part of the U.S. bike market, we wanted to get the best of what of each manufacturer had to offer. In light of that we went with a trio of luxury liners that are made in America, and we ordered them as loaded with options as we could get them."

:roll:
 

·
My member is not Junior!
Joined
·
114 Posts
From the article:
"then again the Vision doesn't offer ABS, let alone linked braking."

The Vision comes standard with linked braking. The front brakes have a six piston caliper system The front control operates four of the pistons. The rear brake pedal operates a linked system consisting of the rear caliper and two pistons of the front caliper. It has a pressure valve, so that if the rear brake pedal is gently applied, it operates the rear only. As firmer the pressure applied to the rear pedal, more braking force is allowed to be applied to the front brakes.
That would probably explain the writer's comment:
"quick stops are only made when activating the rear brake pedal".
We're hesitant to refer to what you've indicated (with detail rarely seen anywhere, btw!) on the Victory as a linked system in the sense of Honda's LBS or CBS (Combined Braking System) as they now refer to it. With the Honda system (a system most people reference when discussing linked braking and what has unofficially become something of a standard), the rear brake is applied when applying front brake and vice versa, though full front isn't applied via the rear brake. Ergo, a truly linked system.

Also, I'd be cautious in the way you've phrased the Vision's brake system as a "six piston caliper system." Victory only refers to it as a three-piston caliper. Likely you're thinking but not stating that you included both calipers. Seems trite to point that out, but you'd be surprised how many people would misinterpret that as six pistons per caliper. :rolleyes:

The process, or rather amount of pressure needed to activate and then applied by the rear brake is somewhat vague, even by Victory's own words from our First Ride of the Vision: "... Under mild to heavy rear braking, a "slight degree" of front brake is hydraulically activated..."

What do you suppose Victory meant when they told the press a "slight degree" of front brake is applied, and how many different ways do you suppose different people, including yourself, would define "mild to heavy?"

Finally, though this "integrated" systems exists, Victory does little if anything to promote it. Honda on the other hand...

Thanks for bringing this up for a good discussion! :D
 

·
My member is not Junior!
Joined
·
114 Posts
Er... okay?

"• Feels top-heavy, due largely to fuel tank placement high on the frame. "

Uh, the aluminum fuel tanks(s) are mounted low and forward under the fairing panels on each side.
Guess we have a different opinion on the location of, and what those two large aluminum pods at the top of the frame just below the handlebars are in the attached pics.

This isn't some inherently flawed design; Victory's designers and engineers are highly skilled and experienced. But our impression of the Vision, primarily during slow speed maneuvers, was that of a top-heavy feel. The most obvious contributor to that seems to be the location of the fuel.
 

Attachments

·
My member is not Junior!
Joined
·
114 Posts
Poor wording, perhaps?

In the article, regarding the Harley, you say "However, at over 35 grand this bike blows the other two out of the water, but for the wrong reason. The Ultra is over $11,000 more than the second next expensive Gold Wing. Yet clearly it doesn't offer that much more in terms of engine, handling or anything else for that matter."

What do you mean when you say that it doesn't offer "that much more..."? This implies that it does offer more than the GW, but yet, the evaluation doesn't seem to indicate that it offers anything more, unless you happen to just like Harley's...which I can certainly understand. But your evaluation of the various aspects of the bikes, doesn't seem to indicate any real advantages at all, other than styling which is a matter of taste.
I guess if you're confused then I didn't do as good a job with that sentence as I could have. I was attempting to point out that at a premium of $11K more than the next most expensive bike, the GW, it doesn't offer more engine or overall performance than what the other two offer for that extra cost.

Make sense now? :confused:
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top