Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Tonight I went to Barnes & Noble and I must have looked through 25 different MC mags and not a single one of them had a test of the 109. You'd think with this bike scheduled to hit the showrooms sometime this month, the mags would be chomping at the bit to test one. You'd also think Suzuki would want them to test one, you know for the free publicity and all. Why isn't anyone testing this bike?
_________________
recession history

Thanks!
_________________
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Forum

Well, time to chime in. I actually own one of the bikes being compared.

I have a 2003 VTX1800S

Its the best bike I've owned so far.

Your comparing it to the m109...it will come down to what you really want, a more sporty looking cruiser, or a more comfortable cruiser. Their both 1800CC, and the performance, while I'm assuming the m109 will be a hair quicker, the VTX will be right on its "O Ring", able to contend for sure when you factor in the rather "average" racing abilities of most actual riders you will meet on the road.

However, When looking for my bike a year ago, I looked into a lot of the sexier looking cruisers, but none were as comfortable and stable for 2-up long distance riding than the VTX.

The VTX has a more retro look, the M109 does not.

Keep in mind that the VTX has been around already for 4 years and already has a very strong aftermarket going for it...while the Suzuki is just releasing their contender. The 240 tire on the Suzuki while looking cool does make the handling a little bit harder than the VTX, but when your talking about big cruisers, handling isn't a strongpoint for anyone.

All in all, if I had to go for one right now, I'd go for the M109 if I just wanted sporty looking, but I'd go with the VTX if I wanted comfort or custimizability. Also, the VTX has a shaft drive which is much less matainence to deal with when compared to the M109.

But, if I could, I would wait for another year or two and see Honda's new news. Think of it, Honda seems to always be the mark that the other metrics try to hit. Honda introduced the VTX in 2002, and then Kawi rushed and put out a lower quality but higher cc bike (that handles like a wheelbarrow and is slower from what I've read and seen on the road), and then finally 4 years later Suzuki and Yami come to the table with their 1800 counterparts.

Honda is 4 years ahead ladies and gents. News is that they are going to be releasing their next thoroughbread next year in 2007, and while the roadliner and m109 will be hard contenders for the VTX, and maybe even outshine them in one thing or another, they are all great bikes that I would consider in the same catagory. (I wouldn't even consider the vulcan if I were you...uggghh)

But, I'll bet you that Honda's new scheme will again put their metric competitors to shame.








Thats not how my bags actually sit, it has a heavy ball of metal in the back of the bag, and its opened so it looks like it sits funny...I'll get better pics eventually

Venarius

The 109 is also shaft drive. Also, just because the 109 has a 240 rear tire doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a poor handler. The bikes that handle poorly due to a having a 240 rear tire are those that were designed with narrower tires and were then fitted with aftermarket 240 kits. I'd be willing to bet that since the 109 was designed with the 240 , it will probably be a better handler than those bikes with the 240 kits installed.
_________________
causes of recession

grampi wrote:Venarius

The 109 is also shaft drive. Also, just because the 109 has a 240 rear tire doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a poor handler. The bikes that handle poorly due to a having a 240 rear tire are those that were designed with narrower tires and were then fitted with aftermarket 240 kits. I'd be willing to bet that since the 109 was designed with the 240 , it will probably be a better handler than those bikes with the 240 kits installed.

I'd bet it still doesn't handle as nice as a bike with a "less fashionable" tire. There is a comparo in a mag I have (I'll have to dig it out) where they compare two similair factory Victories, one with the 240 and the other with a 190 (I believe). Not much good was said about the one with the 240 other than "looks cool"......

High_Side wrote:

grampi wrote:Venarius

The 109 is also shaft drive. Also, just because the 109 has a 240 rear tire doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a poor handler. The bikes that handle poorly due to a having a 240 rear tire are those that were designed with narrower tires and were then fitted with aftermarket 240 kits. I'd be willing to bet that since the 109 was designed with the 240 , it will probably be a better handler than those bikes with the 240 kits installed.

I'd bet it still doesn't handle as nice as a bike with a "less fashionable" tire. There is a comparo in a mag I have (I'll have to dig it out) where they compare two similair factory Victories, one with the 240 and the other with a 190 (I believe). Not much good was said about the one with the 240 other than "looks cool"......

Same thing with that 2005 Power Cruiser shootout I linked to. They start off by picking on the Streak for having a "small" 170 series rear tire, then in a small appendix at the very end they praise the handling and say it's "thanks to the thinner rear rubber". There's no doubt fat rear tires look cool, but the cool factor ends once you reach the twisties.

ZooTech wrote:

High_Side wrote:

grampi wrote:Venarius

The 109 is also shaft drive. Also, just because the 109 has a 240 rear tire doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a poor handler. The bikes that handle poorly due to a having a 240 rear tire are those that were designed with narrower tires and were then fitted with aftermarket 240 kits. I'd be willing to bet that since the 109 was designed with the 240 , it will probably be a better handler than those bikes with the 240 kits installed.

I'd bet it still doesn't handle as nice as a bike with a "less fashionable" tire. There is a comparo in a mag I have (I'll have to dig it out) where they compare two similair factory Victories, one with the 240 and the other with a 190 (I believe). Not much good was said about the one with the 240 other than "looks cool"......

Same thing with that 2005 Power Cruiser shootout I linked to. They start off by picking on the Streak for having a "small" 170 series rear tire, then in a small appendix at the very end they praise the handling and say it's "thanks to the thinner rear rubber". There's no doubt fat rear tires look cool, but the cool factor ends once you reach the twisties.

Which if you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense. You'd think the bike with the widest tire would handle the best because it has a larger contact patch with the pavement.
_________________
Mercedes Benz W136

grampi wrote:Which if you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense. You'd think the bike with the widest tire would handle the best because it has a larger contact patch with the pavement.

Been there done that. As true radials came out around '90 everyone wanted the bigger-look on sport bikes. As rear tire sizes grew to 190s bikes started to get heavier steering even when they were designed for it. The hot set-up quickly changed to changing back to 180s and ditching the 190s as soon as you picked up the bike. Sport-bikes had become vicitims of fashion but they always evolve back to function over form. Cruisers tend to be more about the bling. It's about alot more than contact patch. Profile and the relation of rest of the chassis to the road are critical.

A wider rear tire has more shoulder real-estate than a skinnier model and, therefore, in order to get up on said shoulder (which is much further from the tire's centerline than on a skinny tire) a lot of the bike's weight must actually be picked up causing the "weeble wobble" effect. The bike's natural tendency at that point will be to get upright again, and that's a force you'll have to contend with throughout the entire turn.