2011 Suzuki Boulevard M109R - COOL WALL VOTE: UNCOOL

[totalmotorcycle]

Wow, that was a close one at the end with a slew of votes! Seems UNCOOL wins it by just 1 vote! (If you voted "COOL" you should have gotten your friend to vote cool as well to win it for the Cool side, that's why it is important to vote!)

So the Final vote for the cool wall is:

Cool 47%
Uncool 53%

With no one voting Fail or Awesome.

You can of course keep voting, debating and discussing this bike. It will be interesting to see how the vote evolves over the days, months and years ahead.

Next Motorcycle Cool Wall bike now up.

[sunshine229]

I'm bummed! There is no way that bike is uncool... you silly people...

[HYPERR]

I'm bummed! There is no way that bike is uncool... you silly people...

Well technially it isn't. It sort of averages out to neutral. Tell hubby his rating system is flawed.

[Gummiente]

I'm bummed! There is no way that bike is uncool... you silly people...

The people have spoken, ma'am.

[sunshine229]

LOL to both of you!

[QuietMonkey]

Wrider,

It is probably a waste of time replying to your response, but there is so much misinformation in your posting that I s'ppose i should reply to bring some reality into the loop. I'll even use facts unlike your posting. Then I'll remind myself of the time I'm wasting and move on to non-forum related stuff, like life...

Firstly -- The Prologue:

For starters, if Suzuki was so bad in my eyes, it is unlikely I'd have gone to a dealership to look at there bikes recently. It's simply that in the realm of the "Cool Wall" I merely think they failed to make a cool bike... 50% of the voters made the same vote. Is this so hard for you to fathom? I also connected other bits of Suzuki heritage and some Suzuki cons to balance the Suzuki hype. On my visit to the local dealer I actually went to see motocross bikes, and with Suzuki as other things I take my experience and that of other trusted people to form more reasonable and informed opinions about there bikes. I kept in mind bits of Suzuki history, such as there failed engine cases on 2008 RMz450s, and other practical imformation. BTW, the first bike I ever rode solo was a friend's Suzuki DS80. I still remember his RM125 which came later on -- that was a pretty cool bike, even though now I view mx'rs in a more practical way.

The whole *Cool* factor we are talking about here is often not as easily explained as spec sheets, and while I've ridden my fair share of Suzuki sportbikes the cruisers are often pretty lame to us who *really* enjoy pure sport riding. Since I have a racing background I've ridden things like the TL1000S, TL1000R, various GSXR600's, RF600 and RF900, the COOL RG500 Gamma and yes even the GSX1300-Busa - even a nicely modded Busa - ultra fast but still sinfully ugly.

I also have a fine-arts education and several years of work history in visual arts and design, among other things, and many years of riding experience, so doing a little critique of style comes naturally to me. Working in artistic fields actually helped define and change my values more towards focusing on stuff other than "pretty" things. But back to how this relates to my opinion of the M109. All cruisers really have going for them, over any other bike, is the nostalgic/custom styling -- the cool factor. It's that tickling of the ego.

As I said about the M109R -- generally clean lines, but some flaws that ruin it for me. The more experience one has the more refined ones taste becomes. A cruiser is a very compromised design, mechanically, mainly for the sake of style, so to me, it has to be styled very well to get a cool vote. For a power cruiser it is really quite a feminine design -- GIRLY -- it's like a shapely girl with an big head and a pair of crutches her big head detracts from her shape, and she cant dance with those crutches.


Act I:

Quiet I'm going to have to disagree with you vehemently on most of your points...
First off it's a cruiser so it's designed to look like one and use a V-2 engine. As far as sport, well it's designed to look like a sport cruiser, and thirdly, the performance is actually very good, even right out of the box. (Fastest in it's class anyway, as in 2 cylinder cruiser styled motorcycles. Only faster "cruiser" is the Harley V-Rod Destroyer, which is designed for the drag strip, comes with a wheelie bar, and isn't street legal.)

Since you are "going to vehemently disagree" with things someone says, in the future try quoting some specific "points", since you type your way through this whole posting without referring to anything I've actually said it's sort of redundant. But I'm going to play along anyway. So, point out where I said I didnt like the engine? In fact I said it had clean lines, "including the engine". As for engine performance, I didnt really care, it probably has enough, although as Markg1 points out you dont need a race-only V-Rod to top it in a quarter-mile time -- a nice measure of performance. Try checking your data before spouting off. And when you talk "fast" it also helps to give real, tested specifics and comparisons. These heavy beasts need A LOT of engine to really perform. In a day when 600cc sportbikes are down in the 10s I dont expect miracles from these behemoths, but torque is usually the way to impress the power hungry cruiser crowd. Anyway. I didnt have problems with the motor. So try reading next time.

The fender is designed to be tire hugging and keep mud/dirt/water off of the bike and the rider.

No way!? you're kidding, really?? duh...

My opinion is the STYLING MISMATCH of how a "blatantly-GSXR" fender doesnt belong on a cruiser. Simple. If that fender design was the only way to keep dirt and water off a rider and bike i think we would have stopped discussing motorcycle styling 100 years ago. The whole front-end is very mismatched compared to the rest of the bike, therefore tasteless. Like I said, at best it's 3/4 nice, and 1/4 ugly.

The two piece break is in fact a cowl hiding the pillion seat.

Again, I am left to wonder about your reading comprehension. Since I was again referring to the STYLING flaw of the (also plainly written) "solo seat cowl" (a commonly used term to refer to a cowl hiding the passenger seat to show-off a "solo" seat). It's the visual quality issue that even in the photo I can see the break separating the parts, whereas they couldve designed the fender differently to eliminate that issue (as others have done). Have you seen the bike with the solo seat cowl removed? It ruins the look further. Other bikes and manufacturers, like Harley (the most experienced and longest standing designer of nostalgic/cruiser motorcycles) has found ways around this, as they have with designing different front ends that make the bike look as one whole complete design. Suzuki took the practical route, as I alluded to, and it compromises the look of the bike when it's both on and off the bike.

The gauges are designed to give you as much information as possible with a relatively cruiser-ish look in a minimal amount of space. If you look closely you'll realize you have just as much information as an average sportbike rider does but in less space and without the centralized cockpit.

Again. I didnt say the gauges were impractical. They are STYLED contrary to the rest of the bike... the SHAPE of the gauges need correcting as I plainly stated for those who take the time to read. This really makes me wonder about your reading comprehension.

Do you understand the idea of the "TOTAL MOTORCYCLE COOL WALL" as compared with the "TOTAL MOTORCYCLE PRACTICAL WALL". I think it's more likely that Consumer Reports has the second one coming soon to the newstand. This isnt Moto Rogers Neighborhood. Most of us understand the function of the various components of the motorcycle, it's you, the mechanic, who isn't keeping up with subject of the discussion.

These aren't cheap bikes, and Suzuki in general is just as refined as any other brand.

Yeah, well that's a pretty "general" statement there. If you state specifics then perhaps you could make a valid point. In my experience the main thing making Suzuki's less cheap lately is the Yen vs Dollar these past several years. Suzuki's are historically cheaper to purchase in North America than the other Japanese manufacturers' bikes. It's a VERY common situation in Canada and the U.S.A.. They are the bargain bikes of the Japanese brands. And having worked with them in different environments my personal experience attests to this savings coming across in build quality and there reduced ability to service the dealers and end customers. This cost saving ranges from there internal workings and end product such as paint quality, parts supply, and overall build quality. American Suzuki may be better in the customer service aspects than Suzuki Canada but I cant see there having been any difference in the end product. The M109s flaws look like a prime example of building to a budget. A significant example of Suzuki's weaknesses can bee seen in both ends of the failed "production sharing" partnership between Suzuki and Kawasaki which began about 10 years ago. Both the need to do it, and then Kawasaki ending the partnership because of Suzuki's inability/circumvention to deliver as per the agreement. Suzuki is a small manufacturer compared to Honda and Yamaha and they are rarely innovators. Signs of there weakening ability, in this recessive economy are very visible. One such example which is highly visible and that I am keeping in touch with is within there racing programs on the world stage. If you havent noticed, the current sales numbers are down by WHOPPING, amounts and Suzuki is bleeding at the head and heart.

If you want cheap go take a look at Lifan, or Hyosung. Even the first attempts from the Japanese makers were better put together than the modern Korean stuff.

Now you've gone on to making generalized statements to specifically stupid comments. Hyosung contracts to use the Suzuki SV650 engine in a couple bikes, and it seems they managed to improve the styling a little too If anything Hyosung is simply overpriced, and Lifan has one of the best reputations of the any Chinese brand -- a pretty decent Chinese manufacturer from what friends close to them in the industry have told me. Overall your claim that Japanese "first attempts" (that'd be 1965-ish) are better is completely ABSURD. Holy dream sequence --- WAKE UP DUDE. WAKE UP. Your 1960's hallucination is over. You're in Korea 2011 now. Toto's dead and the tin man has access to Auto-CAD, ProEng, CNC, (heavy-duty CAD/CAM: computing power and machinery) and at worst, a cluster of Linux boxes running 4GHz CPUs with 8GB RAM. A modern country can do things like finite-element analysis, physics modelling, etc.... some Japanese invented a game called Pac-Man back in 1979 and the trickle-down of that technology transferred to China and Korea as well... even to North America... it led us to fuel-injection and thousands of other advances in manufacturing and productivity. Even some of the copy-cat bikes manufactured in China for North American consumption right now are 20 years ahead of 1965. i.e. Konker KSM200 (Suzuki DS200-based). This posting reminds me of High_Side's comment in the dirt-bike forum regarding a Chinese mini-bike and a Suzuki JR50 he bought. The Suzuki was more of a problematic machine then the off-brand thing. Such was competition in the mini market, and it keeps moving up stream. The main reason the Chinese bikes arent on every corner yet is that it takes time. Time to gain acceptance within the marketplace, create a recognizable brand name, and earn profits to build a full dealer infrastructure in each country... much more so than the quality of the Korean and Chinese product.

If you'll look back in the GSX-R design history, you'll see that Suzuki and Honda started almost all of the design trends we see today in sportbikes and cruisers.

Another one of your general statements with no foundation. Do you think there were no sport bikes before the 1985 GSXR? You must be absorbed in Suzuki propaganda. Bimota made the SB2 back in the late 70s and it would be recognizable to many as a predecessor to sport bikes of today... and there were many sporting bikes decades sooner. The British and Italians raced them for years. That's were this term "sport" comes from - racing. While the 1985 Suzuki GSXR750 used air-cooled engines with "advanced" oil cooling, others benefited from liquid cooling and the reliability and horsepower of modern day technology. But that's not a Japanese innovation. I've mentioned the Scott Flying Squirrel before, circa 1929 with a liquid cooled engine. I've seen a couple in person. Neat bikes. While Yamaha developed the twin-spar aluminum frame design, Suzuki stayed with small diameter square tubing. Let's throw this in: Nikasil bores --- that was Kawasaki who started the production japanese bike trend way back in the 1980s as well. And if you think other features of the M109 are innovative like the Suzuki Advanced Sump System (SASS) this dry-sump lubrication system in the M109, well they've been around for decades too... even my 1986 SRX600 was a dry-sump design. So I can think of a much better acronym for SASS.

So as with the rest of this posting, your points dont stand up to even gentle scrutiny.

Let's seee... what else could i mention... hmmm... oh as for your statements on Suzook and Honda starting almost all the cruiser design trends: what like the 1980s when they still used in-line fours in there cruisers?? Yamaha designed the XV750 and XV920 with v-twins looking like earlier Brit bikes... then the 1984 redesign of the Virago went on to being a mainstay in the industry... unique among the Japanese cruisers, the Virago 750 and 1100 were only recently discontinued, selling side by side with newer V-Star (with Harley RoadKing/Heritage and other copy-cat designs) -- so that's about 25 years of production (and it's also before Harley designed there Dyna series) (and BTW, even Harley steals designs, mostly from there own customers who made customs for years from hard-tails and Sportsters). Kawi and Yam also made performance cruiser's with there inline-4s, 1985 FZX750 Fazer, XJ750X Maxim-X, and Kawi's 900 Eliminator, and, oh yeah, remember the 1985 V-Max another bike that Suzuki didnt make or start a trend with... Suzuki has been a follower among many... like Mazda was for years up against Honda, Toyota and Nissan, with the exception that Mazda worked tirelessly on the Wankel rotary.

In the early days Suzuki used 2-stroke engine designs taken as "goodwill" from a defecting communist Czechoslovakian who raced for MZ's race team. But hey -- all the Japanese copied designs. From BMW, DKW, etc. It's part of human nature. But let's look at other bits. Fuel injection -- BMW K-series for sure, and Kawi 750 turbo, and I see the GPz900 also had FI. This was mid-80s. And really the aluminum perimeter frame was showcased by Bimota even before Yamaha. But Yamaha did use there twin-spar frame in a production bike very early on: the 1986 FZR400 (I even raced a Canadian model 1988 FZR400 which is basically identical to the 1986 Japanese bike - phenomenal! - rated #1 handling bike by many journos and racers in the 1980s). It took Suzuki until 1996 to adopt this now-standard frame style. And I'm sure you dont want to hear about the recall on the 1996 GSXR750 -- with it's engine related problems. Let's see now, what else... hmmmm.... Yamaha developed the monoshock for there dirt bikes long before it was ever used in sport bikes. Really so much came before the 1980s, with the brits, italians and germans. BMW, Norton, Triumph, Harris, Spondon, etc... those thoughtful Europeans. There are videos of Harley's and BMWs involved in the advent of production-based "superbike" racing... the XLCR, and some R-series bimmers.... guys like Cal Rayborn, Mert Lawwill, Reg Pridmore... try watching "On Any Sunday" for starters, or read some old books with great historical references. Nowadays even youtube is loaded with examples.

Ironically Suzuki did have that Endurance racing *STYLE* twin-headlight design with the 1985 GSXR. Yahoo! One vote for style to Suzuki. Plus the impressive RG500 (despite gearbox problems), and those "anti-dive forks" that everyone soon learned to disable cuz they sucked. BUT, the story is a little different than people might often think. The best thing Suzuki did for sportbikes was they paid people: Suzuki had great contingency pay-outs to privateer roadracers on the GSXR750 way back when, and that was a nice bit of marketing. Privateers like Doug Polen can attest to a healthy income.

Oh, and yeah, Honda created some good things for sure, (but so did kawi, etc)... but I am focusing on what Suzuki didnt innovate, but merely copied. And because I like good chassis designs, I should mention Yamaha's more recent development of aluminum extrusion techniques used on the R1 and R6 designs allowing for complex chassis shaping which improved chassis tuning and dramatically reducing the number of parts and thus welds in a frame and swing-arm. Innovations that improved performance while lowering the cost of mass production. A double-whammy. Innovations that pay dividends.


OK... onto Act II:

Not to mention a LOT of thought went into this bike. First off look at the tank. No not there, the one under the seat. Why's it there? Because they wanted to give you a decent fuel capacity and knew that the engine, frame, fuel injection system, and air cleaning system would take up too much room to do that, so they put it under the rider's seat to give them decent capacity, and make the whole "tank" into a storage unit for the other necessary systems. Not a new idea for them either.

um, yeah, "a LOT of thought".... but not the smartest people doing the thinking -- just your type. So, again, let's stop for a second here and use our heads... hmmmmm... ohhh... 1985 Yamaha V-Max with the fake fuel tank for styling and that sneaky fuel tank under the seat trick. shucks Suzuki, that's more than 25 years ago... a belated Happy Silver Anniversary to all you V-Max owners. Even Suzuki is "thinking" of you.

Out of curiosity, why are you comparing GSX-R styles to someone who buys a Harley? They're completely opposite kinds of bikes. And who's to say a Harley is beautiful to every eye? Personally I don't like them much, as I'm sure Gummi will attest to.

Strange -- Suzuki has self-proclaimed GSXR styling in there ad copy for the M109, which you now say are "completely opposite" to a Harley V-Rod power-cruiser. You are contradicting the very essence of the Suzuki M109 styling. The thing is that Harley fits the power-cruiser genre without going to some mismatched sport-bike styling. It's like you have now forgotten that Harley builds a V-Rod even though you said (again, wrongly stated) that a (race) V-Rod was the only faster thing than the M109 in the class. They have been making bikes for longer than ANY current manufacturer. Stooopidly long, like over 100 years now. There must be some things to learn from Harley even for non-Harley guys. I know I can learn something from Harley and Harley-riders even though I'm not one of them. There weakness is maybe that they are a little too STUCK in nostalgia, but it happens to be a great strength for them. So, you conveniently forget half way through your response that the M109 is a power-cruiser with GSXR styling and that Harley builds one too. weird.

tick-tock-tick-tock --- brrrrrrrring.... "I'll take Power-Cruisers for 300 Alex"......... Name an American motorcycle with power-cruiser traits built in the last 10 years?.... BING-BONG..... is it "What is a Harley V-Rod, Alex?" Good answer, now I understand why the monkey specifically stated V-Rod in his posting.

So instead of getting all delusional you might sort of get the idea that I am just throwing some opinions out there... it's all opinion based upon ones experience. I dont give a rats azz if someone likes a bike that I dont, I do care if they use there brain though, and present valid information, or if they try to argue a point that it actually has some foundation. But dont go all mentally challenged in your responses just to protect some fantasy of Suzuki superiority. Really all the Japanese companies have copied over the years. They all make "good" bikes, but there are many valid gauges for measuring there success and Suzuki is what it is, not what you are claiming. Clearly your misunderstanding within your own small view of Suzuki is just a sign of how little you know about the bigger picture.

And where is the bigger is better mentality specifically in Suzuki? I'm not sure if you noticed, but Kawi is the one that came out with the (arguably slower) 100 cc bigger sportbike almost 10 years after Suzuki came out with the Hayabusa. Kawasaki also makes the Vulcan 2000, which is 200 ccs larger than the M109R, which is the largest engine in the Suzuki lineup. Then we've got Triumph with the Rocket III at 2300ccs, Boss Hoss has their big block Chevy motors, Honda has an 1800.

I said Suzuki knows there market (for this power-cruiser, muscle bike thing), not that it was an exclusive market. (They could only hope for such luck.) The North American market has been fed the "bigger is better" mentality for a long time, from the super-sized fast-food to the big-block Chevy.... and... the bigger (more powerful) it is the more people are forgiving of it's styling. And of course, in some ways bigger can be better, but everything in moderation is much more true. The bigger thing started long before Japanese motorcycles arrived on the scene and will continue long into the future, even if there are changing values all around us, because lots of people want power.

ACT III, i guess (since your errors run on with each sentence you write):

OK. Next on your ongoing list of errors: regarding the inferiority of the Kawi ZX-14 that came "10 years after", you seem to have a history of motorcycles in your head with highly questionable validity --- it's not very impressive that you conveniently forgot the ZX-12 which came one year after the 1999 Busa. But the story of these faster-is-better production motorcycles has little to do with displacement and everything to do with politics. One magazine up here in the great white north, Cycle Canada, tested them side by side and despite a clear horsepower advantage to the Kawi ZX-12 on the dyno, they both topped out at about 300 km/h. Wondering about the questionable aerodynamics of both bikes, and other influences on top speed (i.e. Kawi's ram-air system ---oops another first in moto innovation which isn't Suzuki's) they discovered both bikes were electronically limited to 300 km/h (just like the euro spec bikes were reported to be for the 2000 model year). Once these electronic limiters were located and bypassed the Kawi was indeed faster despite what you perceive as "aerodynamic looks" of the Busa. So, the Japanese voluntarily limited there bikes to about 300 km/h to keep from being banned by the EU, and we instead see more impressive top-speeds in the smaller engined bikes nowadays.

oh, look, 5-seconds of effort to find reference to it on wikipedia - this motorcycle you forgot about. Not that wiki is the most accurate info always, but it gets one pointed in the right direction; an email to the editors of Cycle Canada would allow you to learn something; and it's probably in the totalmo bike directory too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ninja_ZX-12R

With you being so far off on the facts it's no wonder that you get all cranky and dragged further astray (that's what your ego does Wrider). I find it interesting what people see as reality when they have narrow focused tunnel vision. Thus I tend to keep conversations simple with people to avoid all the chaff. I'll write MUCH shorter posts here in the future and focus on more important things rather than misguided Suzuki fans.

Suzuki also came out with their TU250, which is a fuel injected, air cooled 250cc standard. That DEFINITELY screams "I'm a power hungry tasteless freak" doesn't it?

Speaking of chaff... I hate to mention the obvious, but Suzuki sells the TU250 to a completely different market, but I think you may have caught on to the fact that the bike we're talking about by now, the M109R with GSXR inspiration. If you are so easily confused that you go hopelessly off-topic there's really no way to take any of your statements seriously.

And I personally love the looks of the Hayabusa. I like how it looks aerodynamic, how it performs well (yes I'm a power monger, but how am I tasteless exactly?) I don't need the bike to feed the ego. I bought a Bandit 400 to ride around recently. I'm 300 lbs and 6'2" tall. That would feed NO man's ego. Also if you'll look at my sig (which hasn't changed in probably a year now) I'm also looking for a dual-sport. How is that power mongering? How is that tasteless?

Love any bike all you want, just get the facts straight when you make such bold statements about them. Your ego is caught up defending an entire brand. You've already shown how your mind-set has made you completely miss important details about all these Suzuki models and other Japanese brands. Spouting completely unreliable pure propaganda is ridiculous. You are in fact the sort of person I described at the end of my post, one who might not notice the styling mismatches on the bike and actually like the bike for other reasons. I won't comment on the Bandit 400 and your dual-sport desires since you're still running off a cliff thinking my comments on the M109 represent Suzuki's entire model line-up.


ACT IV --- gawd-awfully long --- and not exactly Shakespearean either...

I seem to remember you saying you have a 250 dirtbike in your profile picture, right? And something about you checking out 600s and 750s for a daily rider? Why do you need that power, besides the ones you were checking out are no longer in style, absolutely tasteless!

You might want to point out this whole posting thing you're referring to, since *some* reality and context would actually give some shred of meaning to your response, but this statement of yours is perfectly in keeping with your emotional whining and this part makes even less sense than the rest of what you're posting. What 600's and 750's was I checking out as daily riders exactly? and what does this have to do with (having owned a few) motocrossers? BTW, I owned three other smaller displacement dirt bikes before my YZ250, and your posting still has nothing to do with the motocrossers I've been posting about. Some of us follow natural progression, and purchasing for it's intended use. Some of us actually have ridden and raced bikes for many years.

As a point of interest, for anyone who cares about this novella, does the age of a bike automatically make it "no longer in style, absolutely tasteless!" ? hmmm... I think not. I am reminded that Hyperr or someone mentioned the original 1982 Katana 1100 in a "Bike Lust" posting (although I think the 1985 Katana 750 was cooler), but Hans Muth did some interesting things for the 1970s and 80s era. I'd say the age of a bike is often part of it's style. But did I even say I was purchasing some bike because of it's coolness? and also does the displacement of an engine automatically dictate power? Let's see... I've owned a couple 600cc bikes with about 35 HP, at least three 750cc bikes with horsepower as low as 60-80 HP, and then three 600cc sportbikes ranging from 80 to 100+ HP. So nope. Your thoughts on power are completely skewed too. I thought you were a mechanic, yet you dont seem to understand such a basic concept. Man - WTF. It's pointless to talk with someone who has learned so little, despite advertising there credentials of an education. This posting shows more of what you havent learned because you're too busy being an reactionary Suzuki Fanboy to benefit from following one of the fundamentals of education: following a critical thought process.

Another note: since you have demonstrated a multitude of poor assumptions and a further lack of understanding of motorcycle history and how bikes are used by riders... I raced a pair of 600cc motorcycles. A CBR6 as a back-up bike and a YZFR6 as my mainstay bike. So I actually have a reasonable level of experience and respect for these machines, from using that engine horsepower, chassis and suspension technology. I wont even mention my other racing background other than to note I've worked and played side by side with mechanics who actually know what they are talking about from years of experience in repairing, building, and tuning motorcycles. Some with school credentials and some without.

Yes I'm taking your comments a bit personally mainly because I feel you are stereotyping Suzuki the company as everything you see as "bad" about motorcycles. I'm also taking point on this because it's kind of the "tipping point". A lot of your posts are very highly opinionated, and you seem to think that most everything needs to be your way or it's wrong, plus your command of the English language kind of makes me want to hit block, which I've never done before, so that's saying something.

You're taking the comments a bit personally... Noooo, really?! I could hardly tell except for the fact your brain disconnected and you ventured off into me stereotyping Suzuki as everything that I see as bad about motorcycles. (rolling eyes). So your "feel" about my thoughts on Suzuki is hopelessly narrow and basically out to lunch. This brain disconnect of yours is why I'm giving you such a hard time in return. My opinions come from a variety of experience and time spent learning. If you want to disagree, go ahead, but use your head instead of throwing out misinformation, assumptions and bad guesses. I don't come here to work with the mentally challenged, because for one thing, it's too time consuming. Take your mental problems elsewhere.

THE EPILOGUE

And so to wrap this up, Suzuki has built it's reputation over many years. Tidbits such as the recently resurfaced news of them "inheriting-through-nefarious-means" 2-stroke engine designs from MZ many years ago, to having a rider winning the 2010 Supercross season but missing out on repeating that feat for 2011. If you want to believe the propaganda from sales brochures and press releases, go right ahead. The reality behind every company is very rarely so beautiful as what the ad copy states, be it Honda, Kaw, Yam, Duc, BMW, KTM, etc., but all you've done is work yourself into a frothy rabid lather because you dont see the same things i do in the bike. Big Deal. I could care less if 90% of voters like this bike. I dont, and thought I'd state some specifics because for one, Mike found it wierd that the votes were split. What you've shown to me is that as someone who likes the bike your brain is suffering a disconnect because someone else doesn't. You meet the Suzuki marketing credentials. You're perfect for the M109R. Hoooray Suzuki. Maybe I'll even buy a Suzuki motocross or dualsport bike because I dont want a cool bike, just a dirt bike.

Simple. Not cool. But if you want to play in the "Cool Wall" bring it on.

Time for me to hit the beach

[edited to fix a quote and some spelling]

[sunshine229]

QM - you've just won the "longest post of the year award" on TMW

[HYPERR]

QM - you've just won the "longest post of the year award" on TMW

Wow I'm amazed! Even for QM, that's long!

Definitely the winner of the Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace Award for forum posting of epic proportion!

[sunshine229]

Wow I'm amazed! Even for QM, that's long!

[Wrider]

As for defending a brand, it's because I like the brand, whereas reading your posts (go back and read them again from another's perspective and you'll see what I'm talking about) you do single Zuke out as being what's wrong with bikes.

Oh and as for the ZX-12 comment, they later went back and figured out that the 12 Kawi sent them had been hopped up. They got one off of a showroom floor and it didn't even hit the 300 km/h that they're all limited to (which you seem to think I don't know for some reason).

Would I ever own an M109R? Very doubtful. Too fat of a rear tire, too plasticky for me. If I'm gonna ride a cruiser, it's going to be a cruiser.

Oh and feel free to say whatever you want about the Bandit 400 and the large dual-sports in my sig.