Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2001, 06:16 AM   #151
BigGit
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 164
Default Re: Being strictly logical about that statement...

It's probably a good thing that I didn't include the punch-line of the "strictly logical" post, because I was going to end it by making an inference from those three deductions that would probably have been considered a flame.



No hard feelings...
BigGit is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 11-27-2001, 02:24 AM   #152
caderider
Registered Member
 
caderider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 261
Default Re: Is the Warrior THAT ugly?

As sick as it may be, I actually like the entire package including the exhaust can - nothing else like it I've seen...



B
__________________
Pressure cookers have a relief valve for a reason!
caderider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2001, 09:13 AM   #153
zootsuit
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Default Re: more SV vs Kwaker ZR-7

For what it's worth, my Suzuki dealer told me that the factory doesn't give him demo models or reimburse him for demo costs, so he doesn't allow test rides.
zootsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 01:38 PM   #154
captainwhoopass
Founding Member
 
captainwhoopass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,670
Default Re: Rob, you need counseling

Adding to that, it's damn hard to put many miles on a bike riding at 40 mph. Anyone who does serious touring (500+ mile days) knows that you need to cruise 70mph+, where you need wind protection, and bikes like the Bandit or SV650S with a frame-mounted fairing are far superior to a cruiser with a handlebar-mounted windshield.

And for low speed riding, there are few bikes that are less of a handfull than a Sabre at parking lot speeds, a necessity of street riding.
__________________
<blockquote>
\"I knew it. I\'m surrounded by a$$holes.\" [b][i]Lord Helmet, Spaceballs
captainwhoopass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2001, 03:53 PM   #155
Rob-SV650
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re: Definition of Hooligan Bike

You have to smoke a lot of crack to call the Speed Triple an upright bike. Not one of those bikes is upright, nor comfortable in traffic, though the Bandit comes closest. I've owned several bikes and the SV is by far the least comfortable in traffic. More upright than a GSX-R doesn't make an upright bike.



Hooligan bikes are fun when you're getting on it, but if you ride like that all the time you better like jail and/or hospital beds. They suck almost as bad as true sportbikes for putt-putting around on, which as I mentioned elsewhere, will be like 90+% of your riding if you're a daily rider unless you're independently wealthy and don't need to work or something.



And not that you said to the contrary, but bikes like the Warrior and Mean streak will not do stoppies, although they have brakes right off the R1 and ZX-9. Stoppies are a byproduct of a short wheelbase, which is NOT advantageous for safe stopping - strong brakes, long wheelbase, sticky tires and chassis stability are. Any 80's semi-sporting standard will lock it's brakes without a problem as well, which obviously means the brakes are not the problem.



Have to agree about the engines and exhausts though, however they are available on far less extreme toys if you're willing to go back a bit (V-Max, V65). FYI if you know anything about any of those engines, you know they were absolutely over-engineered bleeding-edge engines when they came out, and they are not outdated in the slightest even today.
Rob-SV650 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2001, 11:46 AM   #156
Rob-SV650
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re-read the original post...

1. Re-read the post you're refering to. I talked about being able to do all types of riding reasonably well, not just touring. If 500 mile days are your primary riding goal, you would certainly want a bike biased toward that.



2. Why on earth would you want to tour on something as uncomfortable as the SV650S? It's too leaned forward, the seat sucks, though that could be remedied, and the buzz at 75 will have your hands tingling after 45 minutes (it spins 5K at 70). The Bandit is better, but it's well known for its buzziness.



3. If touring and 500 mile days are what you mainly do, you'd really want an ST1100 or its BMW equivilant, or a new Wing. An ST can cruise happily over 100 MPH and keep the rider comfortable. Personally, I don't like fairings and prefer the wind, and I'm in good shape so I can ride my Sabre or non-S SV for long distances.



4. Lots of Harley guys tour on their bikes. They mount a huge windshield and get one of those bags that has a sleeve which slips over the sissy bar, load the bag up with gear or even a pillow and they might as well be in a vibrating easy-chair.



5. Have you much experience on a Sabre? It's easier to ride at parking lot speed than an SV650 due to it's upright position and tendency to stay neutral rather than fall into turns, and it's infinitely less scary when breaking or turning on questionable or uneven pavement. The weight isn't something you even notice once you get used to it, which takes a few rides. Only if you have to pick it up - then you and the people you'll need to help you will notice - mine blew over in a storm so I found out!



I never said the Sabre was a perfect bike - just that most bikes made today are designed to be the best they can be at one particular aspect of riding (generally strafing or posing), and as a result suck at other aspects. The Sabre fits a forgotten design philosophy - it is pretty good at everything though not the best at anything.



I can feel some flex in it, which is not present in the SV. The SV's brakes feel more solid. However, the when it really comes down to it, the flex doesn't hurt any aspect of the bikes performance and the Sabre's brakes stop it almost as quickly as the SV's (the main difference being the SV has much better tires, not some big technological improvement, and I can always put Azaro II's on the Sabre as well). Meanwhile, the SV makes major compromises in all-around capability to be better on a racetrack, compromises which do me little to no good as a street rider.



I am not a commuter, a strafer, a cruiser, a drag-racer, or a long-distance tourer - I am all of these at times, and I want a bike that can do all of these aspects reasonably well. It doesn't have to be the absolute best at any of them, because I don't do them competitively, but it cannot suck in any area either. Why is this so hard for some people to understand???
Rob-SV650 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2001, 04:46 AM   #157
triumph900
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 183
Default Re: Not bad...

Why do any of us care about what Rob rides? I guess I don't get the "if you think THIS about THAT bike you're an moron" mentality. I really HATE this whole bent of riders who want/mandate others to share THEIR opinions about bikes. Ride the Sabre, have fun, and classify bikes as YOU like. What YOU consider a standard, a race-rep, a cruiser, a retro doesn't matter ONE IOTA in how I, or anyone else classifies bikes. Again, WHO **C**** CARES!!! And if the Sabre was such a fabulous bike, it would still available...
triumph900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2001, 06:09 AM   #158
Lateshow
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 65
Default Warrior, up close and personal

I just saw a Warrior in the flesh. Its long and low and the rear tire is a FATTY!!!!! The look from the rear is wide and strong. The stock can is bigger than it looks, like nothing I've ever seen on a motorcycle. The entire front end of the bike is awesome, from the beefy forks and brakes to the tire and fender combo. Its definitely communicating its potential. The straight on view at the left and rear is a mess. The front pully cover, and lower belt guard just look, well cheap. I congratulate Yamaha on keeping the price down, but owners will have to "clean" up the bike with some better looking components, voila! profits for the dealers in the parts dept.



From sitting in the saddle for a few minutes my impression is that the riding position is very similar to the Victory V92SC, with the feet being a little further forward (to increase cornering clearance). The reach to the bars is a little to far for my tastes, with the feet that far forward (I have a 34 inch sleeve). Just about two more inches of pullback would make it perfect, more profits for the dealer.



As is typical, the salesman didn't even know if the bike was carbed or injected. He has been there for atleast three years, so he has no excuse, except for the fact that its the middle of the snowmobiling season.



All in all, I think that the bike will be a hoot for the cruiser faithful. I will not be an early adapter for this bike, but might consider it next year. I want to see how the bike holds up and what kind of mods will be available. With all that torque, if the H.P. can be tweaked to comfortably eclipse the 100 mark, it should be a monster of a cruiser.



I smell a head to head shootout with the V-Rod...it should be interesting
Lateshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2001, 03:04 PM   #159
Rob-SV650
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re: SV vs Kwaker ZR-7

OK, I rode my Suzuki for the 1st time in over a month yesterday - it was raining and the Sabre's gauges are broken. I decided to take it joyriding afterwards, and actually ended up having a pretty good time (OK, a damn good time actaully). The falling feeling while turning wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered and I ended up kinda riding like a squid after a short time - for whatever reason my confidence level on the SV is suddenly way up.



So while I still think the SV is biased toward hooliganism (really, you can't not ride like a juvenile deliquent on it), I can also say it is without a doubt the best cheap sportbike money can buy. Also, Avon Azaros rule on it.
Rob-SV650 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2001, 11:12 AM   #160
Lateshow
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 65
Default Halleluyah!!!! Rob

Rob, congratulations on coming out of the clouds on confusion you've been in recently concerning the SV verses the aging Sabre. While I could always understand why you liked riding the sabre, with its super comfy ergos, big torque hit, and stable platform, I couldn't understand how you could log so many miles on an SV and not be converted. Three years ago I was riding a Honda CB1000 (I loved the look of the bike and got a screaming deal). It was comfy and stable to be sure, but the heavy weight just seemed to squash most of the fun of motorcycling. When I got my first ride on a 99 SV, it was as thought I had seen the light. Sure its not as fast etc. etc. But the "Fun" factor was so high that I sold the CB1000 and picked up an SV. True enough is the fact that I motorcycle for the fun of it, and only commute on it when I don't need to take alot of stuff with me. I live 6 miles from the mouth of a canyon that has alot of 3rd and 4th gear sweepers (80 - 100 mph) and numerous 2nd and 3rd gear turns. I usually ride up the canyon, through a valley then meander around a lake with many 1st and 2nd gear turns, up another canyon to a lookout. Then reverse the whole thing. The trip is 162 miles, and thuroughly satisfies my cravings for two-whelled action. There are times when I wish I had an SV1000 and times when the 650 is perfect. If there were such a thing as an SV1000, it would be mine. For longer trips or sustained higher speeds, the SV would not be that the best ride.



Next year if there is no SV1000, Honda Hawk GT 998, Cagiva Raptor etc., I will break down and get an Interceptor. I will need to get some new bars to bring the grips back about two inches and up one or two. In that case, I will also keep the SV for quick juants.



I will also be looking to acquire a "Big Twin" cruiser. I have a bunch of friends that only ride cruisers and I've had the hankering to cruise around on an obnoxiously loud V-Twin cruiser. The problem has always been too much money for a bike with 0-100 mph times measured by a calender instead of a sweeping second hand. One of my frineds has the most beautiful Fat Boy. It looks great, sounds rich and full (quite loud too!!!) but roll ons from 50 - 80 (i.e. passing) are painfully slow. So now with all the hub-bub about "power cruisers" it seems like I might be able to satify my desire to have a cruiser that can actually Boogie!!! and not have to spend 30K on a custom ride.



From everthing I've read about the Road Star Warrior, it seems like a bike I could live with (as long as I've still got my SV or Inerceptor for fun). I am waiting to hear about factory engine mods and build quality before I jump in on one.



With all the snow on the ground here in the mountain west, I'm already starting to get "Cabin Fever". Not a good sign. For those of you in the sun belt, Enjoy!!!!!!
Lateshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off