|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
02-09-2012, 02:13 PM
|
#1 |
|
Administrator
  Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On My Bike
Posts: 0
|
2012 Suzuki GSX-R1000 Review
Original Article: 2012 Suzuki GSX-R1000 Review Please discuss the Motorcycle.com article 2012 Suzuki GSX-R1000 Review in our Motorcycle Forums below. Use the reply button to let others know your comments or feedback on the article. Constructive criticism is always appreciated, along with your thoughts and personal opinions on the bikes and products we have tested. |
|
|
| Sponsored Links | Remove Advertisements |
|
Motorcycle Forum Advertisement |
|
|
02-09-2012, 06:08 PM
|
#2 |
|
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 254
|
Nice bike
But let's be honest here. Suzuki, like Honda, just doesn't have a traction control system sorted for production for this bike. They are using the claim that it is not needed because the interface is so great etc just as an excuse cuz you'll see the next gen one will have it. Actually (arguing with myself) it most probably is ready but they want to bleed as much out of this current platform as they can before releasing it with an all new GSXR. Just like Honda. |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2012, 07:22 AM
|
#3 |
|
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 705
|
I bet Suzuki went back to the single can exhaust with no box under the engine as the usual customer (me included) with this type of bike adds an aftermarket free flowing can and a power commander. It is good Suzuki recognized that.
Suzuki has a concept bike out there called the "Virus". Not a great name perhaps (competiton for the upcoming Kawasaki Chlamydia perhaps?) but it looks like a great bike. Basically a GSXR1000 factory set up as a standard with no BS added, and no power taken away. Now that is a bike I could get excited about. Spent a lot of time and money on the FZ1 to take it in that direction. My only misgiving is the Virus might be a pretty small package as it is based straight off the GSXR1000. I need some room baby... Last edited by Duken4evr : 02-10-2012 at 07:26 AM. |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2012, 12:03 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Motorcycle.com Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,062
|
Quote:
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the Stupid are c0cksure and the Intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2012, 12:16 PM
|
#5 |
|
The Toad
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,395
|
I just with they made a sportbike that a 6 footer could ride on any more. They lost me around the time of the CBR954.
__________________
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/deadalive/ I kick @ss for the Lord! |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2012, 12:47 PM
|
#6 |
|
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 1,224
|
Well beyond my ability
I like the new tweaks on this bike. The Brembo upgrade and the new exhaust by themselves are enough to make me to want it. However my advanced age and accumulated wisdom tells me my sportbike days are behind me. I still want it regardless.
__________________
Secede. |
|
|
|
02-10-2012, 03:39 PM
|
#7 |
|
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
|
Gday,
Good review (as always), but I have to take you to task for complaining about the tall gearing: you yourselves upset the gearing by sticking in a 190/55 in place of the 190/50! Sure, you get quicker steering due to the "sharper" profile, but according to the numbers, your rolling radius will increase by 9.5mm - 3/8in! My working: 190/50 is a 50% aspect ratio on the 190mm width. 190 x 0.5 = 95mm. 190/55 is 55%: 190 x 0.55 = 104.5mm. Difference: 104.5 - 95.0 = 9.5mm I'll let you calculate what that means in terms of actual gearing... and the difference to handling thanks to moving the CofG forward and "pulling in" the front end etc. It would be interesting for you to compare both side-by-side, by the way. Regards, Pat Heuvel |
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
