Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-25-2009, 12:27 PM   #11
Kevin_Duke
Motorcycle.com Staff

 
Kevin_Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlynch001 View Post
I don't seem to see the need for a gear position indicator? ? ? If you can ride at the level that these bikes perform, is a gear position indicator really needed?
Is it needed? Nope. But even with a combined 150 or so years of riding experience among our five test monkeys, we referred to them quite a bit, even on the racetrack. And since every modern bike has a circuit that tells the ECU which gear the bike is in anyway, an indicator for gear position isn't too much to ask. And if a rider doesn't use it, it's not like it carries a weight or cost penalty.

It's like a clock. Does a literbike need one? No, but it's easy to add to a set of modern instruments, so each of these bikes have one.
Kevin_Duke is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 04-25-2009, 01:54 PM   #12
mscuddy
MODERATOR X

 
mscuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Next to my still checkin the temp.
Posts: 5,447
Default

But Mr. Duke, while the factories have gone nutz on different firing orders, re-mapped ECUs and better phorks & shocks, why oh why do they all still tip the scales at around 500 lbs, soaking wet?

One would think better handling and performance could be gleaned from drastic weight reductions. I'm sure a 400 lb. R1 would handle better, and be faster than a 500 lb R1. Even better a 350 lb. R1.

Maybe they've reached their respective lowest weight beacuse of DOT & EPA rules and regs? If not, that would seem to be the next big leap in performance, i.e. getting the weight down around 400 lbs, wet.

Clue me in here oh wise one...
__________________
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.
mscuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 02:42 PM   #13
Duken4evr
Founding Member
 
Duken4evr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 722
Default

Put a Bazzaz box and mount a slip on to the CBR, get rid of the top end restriction and optional traction control to boot. Hmm... As scary fast as these things are stock, there is quite a bit more available. Even my "old tech" FZ1 is testment to that. Like I need that much power. Oh well. We live in an age of excess. Who am I to go against the trend

My personal choice would be the last place Yamaha though, because I like how it sounds, especially uncorked with some proper cans on it. The R1 has a coolness and a fun factor the other bikes simply don't have. That, and I am just partial to sport bikes wearing the tuning fork I guess.

Last edited by Duken4evr : 04-25-2009 at 02:44 PM.
Duken4evr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 04:09 PM   #14
Kevin_Duke
Motorcycle.com Staff

 
Kevin_Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscuddy View Post
But Mr. Duke, while the factories have gone nutz on different firing orders, re-mapped ECUs and better phorks & shocks, why oh why do they all still tip the scales at around 500 lbs, soaking wet?

One would think better handling and performance could be gleaned from drastic weight reductions. I'm sure a 400 lb. R1 would handle better, and be faster than a 500 lb R1. Even better a 350 lb. R1.

Maybe they've reached their respective lowest weight beacuse of DOT & EPA rules and regs? If not, that would seem to be the next big leap in performance, i.e. getting the weight down around 400 lbs, wet.

Clue me in here oh wise one...
Good question, Cuddy. First off, tho, let's be accurate and say these literbikes average about 450 lbs, not 500. And that's full of fuel, which adds nearly 30 lbs to a bike's weight. Kudos to Honda for getting the CBR's weight down to 439 lbs with fuel.

Now a little historical perspective. In 1997, Honda's CBR900RR weighed about 455 lbs full of fuel, pretty close to today's average weight of a literbike. So, one might say, that's no progress in 12 years. (Although, a ZX-9R of that era scaled in wet at about 530 lbs.)

But consider that 900RR produced only about 110 hp at the wheel, and this low output in todays terms has major ramifications on weight.

First, the more power a bike has, the more it wants to tie itself into knots under acceleration, so frames and swingarms have to get stronger and, hence, bigger, which means heavier.

Also, consider that the more power an engine has, the greater the amount of cooling capacity is needed. Take a look at a 900RR's radiator, then compare it to a current literbike. You'll see a huge difference. Not only does a big radiator weigh more than a small one, it also carries a lot more coolant - again, more weight.

And then we get to catalyzers and tighter noise restrictions, which dramatically increases the weight of the exhaust system.

The R1 engine has its own issues with weight, as its cases have to be built stronger (and heavier) to withstand the crossplane's unique vibration.

Hope that helps ya!

Last edited by Kevin_Duke : 04-26-2009 at 07:30 PM. Reason: Forgot to add something about exhaust
Kevin_Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 04:16 PM   #15
HornHonker
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9
Default

I would have been very interested in seeing an ABS CBR tested with this bunch given it's greater weight/price.
__________________
05 Ducati DS1000 SS,
HD 2010 Ultra Limited 110
HornHonker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 10:29 PM   #16
aretheregods
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Default strange "shootout"

As much as I enjoy reading motorcycle.com's articles usually, I have to be honest in saying it's more than a little bit strange that you would do a test of what are essentially 4 race bikes without actually doing any times at the track... I mean... it's completely counter-intuitive to what any normal magazine would do.
I don't even understand how you could possibly judge whether a bike's engine or transmission or etc. is actually "the best" without seeing if it actually makes a substantial difference in measured times at the track. Seat of the pants is one thing but if that's all your going for then "fun factor" is all that's important really.
I don't care one bit which bike wins, it just seems like you guys wasted a lot of time without any track times to show for it.
Hmmmm
aretheregods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 02:56 AM   #17
newagetwotone
Registered Member
 
newagetwotone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,302
Default

No its not, lots of people ride these on the street. Not to mention did you notice that MO is not a normal magazine?

There is a different "best" on the street than the "best" on the track. I bet most people with half a brain that are riding on the street don't care about what is "best" on the track.
newagetwotone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:12 AM   #18
aretheregods
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Default Of course...

I know lots of people ride these bikes on the street, that's obvious I suppose.
I wasn't saying that people don't ride these bikes on the street just that there are also people, like myself for instance, who ride their bikes on the track. I think it's clear that a large # of people who own bikes such as these or the smaller engined 600's or pretty much any high capacity sportbike will track their bikes.
I am certainly not saying that track times should be the only consideration just that for this class of motorcycle it really can't be argued that "most" riders don't care at all about track times. If we were talking about cruisers, streetfighters or something of that ilk then of course that would be the case... but for a sportbike that is essentially a homologation model for suberbike racing it just seems like testers would at least fulfill the curiosity of readers who want to know the times, even if they don't put them into the final tally.
aretheregods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:45 AM   #19
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aretheregods View Post
I know lots of people ride these bikes on the street, that's obvious I suppose.
I wasn't saying that people don't ride these bikes on the street just that there are also people, like myself for instance, who ride their bikes on the track. I think it's clear that a large # of people who own bikes such as these or the smaller engined 600's or pretty much any high capacity sportbike will track their bikes.
I am certainly not saying that track times should be the only consideration just that for this class of motorcycle it really can't be argued that "most" riders don't care at all about track times. If we were talking about cruisers, streetfighters or something of that ilk then of course that would be the case... but for a sportbike that is essentially a homologation model for suberbike racing it just seems like testers would at least fulfill the curiosity of readers who want to know the times, even if they don't put them into the final tally.
Sadly the % of race replica owners who ride their bikes on the track is quite tiny. There are hundreds of thousands of these things on the road, yet go to a track day and you won't see many people. My local track (Millers) canceled their bike track days this year due to lack of interest, for example. How many people show up at Willow Springs? A hundred? There are a million of these bikes in LA. Well, maybe not quite a million but there are a heck of a lot. They are all posing at the Rock Store or Newcombe's Ranch apparently.

However you are right about the lack of track times in this test. These bikes are essentially race machines and which is REALLY the fastest one should be determined objectively.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

Last edited by seruzawa : 04-26-2009 at 07:47 AM.
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 08:40 AM   #20
Kenneth_Moore
Registered Member
 
Kenneth_Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VIsiting the GIft Shop in the Pit of DIspair
Posts: 7,118
Default

A few questions, Mr. Duke:

What percentage of sales does the liter-bike catagory represent to the manufacturers? The standard line is that cruiser sales subsidize the high investment in technology and engineering on the superbikes, is that really true?

You made it clear that the difference in capability of these bikes is negligible, and that all of the bikes are vastly more capable than almost every rider. So the question is: does the investment in technology and engineering pay off on the street? In other words, say, for example, the bike today is 30% "better" than the same model 5 years ago. Will the average buyer get a "30% better" ride because they have cross-plane cranks, radial mount brakes, inverted forks, unobtanium fasteners? Or is this all about homologation and "win on Sunday, sell on Monday?"

The text material in your article is at least as good as anything I've seen in the printed media. But you guys have a huge edge with multi-media. Seeing and hearing the bikes run really sets your comparo above what C/W or M/C can do. It's cool you're getting the factory support you deserve.
__________________
www.kennethmoore.org
Kenneth_Moore 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 On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off