[Larry]

There seems to be some misuse of the term "power-cruiser". I look at it like this:

A power cruiser is a bike like the V-Rod or the M109R. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS A MORE POTENT POWERPLANT THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THAT MODEL.
Bikes like the Mean Streak, the Warrior, and the Hammer are not power cruisers, they are sport cruisers. Why? THEY USE THE SAME EXACT ENGINE AS OTHER MODELS IN THAT MANUFACTURER'S LINE-UP. The Hammer is no more powerful than the Kingpin or Vegas. What makes it a "power-cruiser"?

As an example: If Harley built the V-Rod with the same 96" twin cam engine as every other big twin bike they make, would you call it a POWER-cruiser? No, You would call it a SPORT-cruiser. In order to be a POWER-cruiser a bike must make MORE POWER than that company's regular cruisers.

Bikes that are built as a sportier "crossover bike" to try to tap the aging sportbike rider market, and have a styling that is more "young", like the Mean Streak and Hammer, should be refered to as "sport-cruisers". Since the engines are the same as the Vulcan 1600 Classic and the Kingpin/Vegas models, they obviously are not shooting for power, but for more sportiness.

What do you guys think?

 

[Larry]

I don't think terms like 'sport tourer', 'sport cruiser' 'power cruiser', 'tourer', 'sportbike', or 'dual sport' are difficult to define clearly at all.

Sport tourers: ST1300, ST3, FJR 1300...
Sport cruisers: Mean Streak, Warrior, Hammer...
Power cruisers: M109R, Rocket 3, V-Rod...
Tourer: K1200LT, Goldwing, Vision, Venture, Ultra Classic...
Sportbike: GSXR, CBRR, Ninja, R1...
Dual Sport: BMW GS, DL 650/1000, KLR, Ulysses....

There are grey areas and crossover bikes that blur the lines, but most are easily put in a category once the category is defined.

 

[Larry]

I think the point here is that it's wrong to have a "Power Cruiser Shootout" and include bikes like the Hammer and Mean Streak, pitting them against V-Rods and M109Rs. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight. The same as having a sportbike shootout and including a Katana against the CBRR.

Or doing a comparo between models and including the Hammer "S" model. When you compare pricing and say "The Hammer is by far the most expensive" that's not fair when a base model Hammer would have been much closer to the price of the others. The S model is just paint/powdercoat modified... the rest of the bike is the same as a base Hammer (engine too). It would be like a cruiser comparo with all the usual suspects against a Screamin' Eagle Dyna and saying the SE Dyna was far more expensive than the others. No kidding... But if you used a Superglide instead it would be right in there with the price of the others.

It needs to be apples to apples.

 

[Larry]

No, it wasn't a troll, and no, it's not because the bikes I like don't do well, I just thought it would make interesting conversation.

Guess not.

 

[Larry]

Well, it may be "wrong" but motorcycle mags can only test the bikes that the companies provide. So if Kawasaki will only give a Mean Streak for testing then it's going to get tested along with whatever other bikes the mag can scrape up. I'd love to see a test on the Tiger, but apparently Triumph won't give one to MO to test. There's not much the editors can do.

Well, I guess it would be too hard to break the bikes into 2 categories and compare then that way....

M109 vs V-rod would be a good comparo.
Mean Streak vs Hammer vs Warrior would be a good shootout.

Comparing them all together is fine too, but calling it a 'power-cruiser shootout' is a stretch, doncha think?

I don't ride any of those bikes, by the way. Two of those bikes I find interesting, the Warrior and the Hammer. The MS does nothing for me, the M109R is swell but the swelling quickly goes down, and the V-Rod is gutless until the tach gets to where the Warrior bumps the rev limiter.

This is my junk...