What a troublemaker!!! I agree, however, the XB9S seems destined to be a classic. Kinda' like T-Rex. While the SV/Monster have both become me-too kind of things. I wonder what the 'S is like at 10 or 20 k miles?
The perfect article to answer the question posted a week or two ago. Now, if only the Buell had a larger fuel tank! JB....you poor old sod. Your daddy wouldn't buy the hot rod, eh? So that's why your hooked on motorcycles......hmmmmm.
How about an article on singles? A Supermotard comparo?
I totally agree with Burns. You can go the "safe and practical" route and park your Suzuki next to your Camry OR defy convention and get yourself something really special that you will remember forever. Life is short, enjoy the ride.
Speaking on the looks of the SV650, they made it angular to complement the bikini fairing's looks on the SV-S. Those angular lines do not carry over and look good with a round headlight. I would definitely take the first style of the SV over the new one, but if i had the choice between the first and second SV-S, i'd take the angular styling of the new one. On the ducati, beautiful. That's all you have to say, the designers at ducati are great except for the multistrada, what a flop. The XB9S is great looking, though funky, it's cool. **The opinions expressed in the above post are owned by me, they don't necessarily reflect the views of any motorcycle publications, online or print, by the way, this is kwayne_406's son, posting w/ permission from kwayne.**
The obvious response here, considering the price and displacement of the Ducati and Buell, being that M.O. chose the wrong naked SV for this comparo.
Make it the $7999 SV1000 with the fully adjustable suspenders and 111 rwhp and this one's over before the first shot's fired.
Also, hey, Burnsy, since you brought it up and all, care to factor in overall reliability and motor/ancillary component longevity when the subject's "20 years from now, yada, yada!" and we're including the word..........."Buell"?
Bold words from J.B.... Thank God someone had the balls to say it. Now my question: Is there any hard-and-fast rule of physics or design preventing the VRSCA engine from powering some Buells? Why would H-D spend all that money to design its only reasonably high-performance engine, just to use it in one model, while Erik Buell is forced to contend against Japan with such an ancient powerplant? Imagine what Buell could do if he had some tools, fer crissake.
I haven't ridden the Duc, but I have ridden the SV650, the XB9R and S and I couldn't agree more. The SV650 is certainly competent and amazingly inexpensive but about as exciting to ride as a Western Flyer scooter. It hops up well, but that's beside the point.
The Buell's are amazing bikes: unique but cool styling, powerful enough (watch thay flywheel effect if you like your rotator cuffs intact), flat out fun to ride, and endowed with far better handling than I would have ever imagined without riding them. I have to hand it to Buell - they have forced me to respect them with these two bikes.
Thank you JB, for being the first paid journalist to actually come out and say the new SV's frame looks like crap. The tube frame on the first SV was beautiful, and IMNSHO really made the look of the bike.
I do have to agree with some of the other posters though, the 650 was kinda outclassed in this comparo - the 1000 would have been a better fit based on price and displacement, although no one in the print mags seems to think that highly of the S models they're testing either (although a lot of that seems to be because it has the same ergos as a GSX-R1000 which is kinda ridiculous for a non-superbike).
One more thing, *****ing about the SV650's stock suspension is like complaining about the stock horsepower of Harleys - sure it sucks, but no one in the real world rides 'em stock for long. $200 for Race Tech springs and cartridge emulators, or about $350 including labor at a dealer, will fix the SV's front end which goes a long way toward fixing the handling on less-than-perfect roads.
i may not agree with the article, nor its slant (who advertises here?...hmmm), BUT it was well written, pulled no punches, and went against the grain. good definitely outweighs the bad in this article.
can we have more of THIS please? then maybe ill keep my subscription going to next year...?