Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Quit giving verm a hard time about this, because we all know that logically, he's right. That's doesn't mean that test wasn't real, it just means there are probably other factors involved.

JCS wrote: Yes, the new bikes are better. But the differences can be very small. It might surprise many of you just how competent some of the older bikes were.

i have no doubts that older bikes can be competent.

im just saying... i think the gixxer would have done better than a 1½ sec lead if given to a rider that can handle the bike better.

The Crimson Rider® wrote:

Sevulturus wrote:
How do you know it's better?

and you're telling me i don't know anything about bikes.

technology is way better on new bikes.

the hardware is better. perhaps the tester needed a software upgrade.

I think its illogical to say the tester isn't a skilled rider, he must have been doing something right for awhile to be paid to do what he does, everyday. I don't think you should underestimate him so easily. There is alot of competition in almost any job field, and much more so in journalism... and with monthly periodicals it can be like waiting for a new seat in the Supreme court to open up so that you can become the newest Supreme Justice. I think we all agree the older bike isn't nearly as advanced as the newest race replica... and yes 1.5 seconds can be an eternity out on the circuit... but really, in real life situations... are you gonna jump off that older bike and start throwing your helmet into the curb in anger because you arrived at the local hangout 1.5 seconds behind your friend? Comeon... if someone at that level isn't extracting enough out of a bike to rightly shut out a decades worth of less advanced "junk" with shotty suspension... who are these bikes really made for and who could really shine on one?

I think a very good point was made earlier, the media can get caught up in specifics and claim quantum leaps, but really are just tweaks over the years that might not add up to what we think it does. And whats the deal with the weight between the triumph and your bike... is that really THAT large of a difference? If so, wouldn't the lightest "jockey" out on the field be the big winner in all the races? Heck depending on what you wear can add up to the same difference of weight between the two bikes... or what you eat/drink in the comming days before the race... your weight even changes throughout the day... thats why most say you shoul weigh yourself in the morning for your true weight...

Sorry but you are all wrong. My buell blast would totally beat the suzuki 750 at the race track. My bike is the best.

CNF2002 wrote:Sorry but you are all wrong. My buell blast would totally beat the suzuki 750 at the race track. My bike is the best.

Foiled once again! You sir, I am proud to have been bested by the... uh... best of 'em.

Koss wrote: I think its illogical to say the tester isn't a skilled rider, he must have been doing something right for awhile to be paid to do what he does, everyday. I don't think you should underestimate him so easily. There is alot of competition in almost any job field, and much more so in journalism... and with monthly periodicals it can be like waiting for a new seat in the Supreme court to open up so that you can become the newest Supreme Justice. I think we all agree the older bike isn't nearly as advanced as the newest race replica... and yes 1.5 seconds can be an eternity out on the circuit... but really, in real life situations... are you gonna jump off that older bike and start throwing your helmet into the curb in anger because you arrived at the local hangout 1.5 seconds behind your friend? Comeon... if someone at that level isn't extracting enough out of a bike to rightly shut out a decades worth of less advanced "junk" with shotty suspension... who are these bikes really made for and who could really shine on one?

I think a very good point was made earlier, the media can get caught up in specifics and claim quantum leaps, but really are just tweaks over the years that might not add up to what we think it does. And whats the deal with the weight between the triumph and your bike... is that really THAT large of a difference? If so, wouldn't the lightest "jockey" out on the field be the big winner in all the races? Heck depending on what you wear can add up to the same difference of weight between the two bikes... or what you eat/drink in the comming days before the race... your weight even changes throughout the day... thats why most say you shoul weigh yourself in the morning for your true weight...

im not saying the tester wasn't skilled. im just saying he could have been not skilled enough for the new bike.

that's why im asking what level he races. or maybe just give me some other credentials of him so i can have a better idea of how he is.



oh and i gained 2.5lbs. and yes, i weigh myself at work in the morning but i had breakfast so that weight is probably a little off.

weight is just one of things better on the gixxer750 K6 than the daytona 675... and im talking about objective things and not subjective things.

http://www.motorbikes.be/en/compare/5661/5717/

filling in the blanks...

bhp, 750 K6 is rated 150bhp.

torque, let's just say it's a little better than the K5's 63.7 ft lbs.

daytona 675's weight is 363lbs.

K6 750 rules all! JK! (or am i?)

The Crimson Rider® wrote:

Sevulturus wrote:
How do you know it's better?

and you're telling me i don't know anything about bikes.

technology is way better on new bikes.

the hardware is better. perhaps the tester needed a software upgrade.

But that's the point I'm making here, all you have is a couple of numbers and you're saying "it's better."

I'd also like to point out that those numbers come, for the most part, from the manufacturer. How much HP does your gixxer produce again Verm? Wasn't it something like 120hp? And Suzuki claims... 150? *Note* these numbers are pulled out of my head and are probably wrong, no offense intended on this.

Dry weight measurements also vary from company to company. For some it's the weight of the bike without fuel, for others it's the weight of the bike with no fuel, no battery, no oil, and in some cases even missing bits of the bodywork.

If you think about it, the competition between the big four is so high that dry weight would probably be the lightest they could possibly make the bike. The only way to actually tell which is lighter would be to fully PDI the bike and throw it on a scale.

Big numbers and big specs don't necessarily mean that it's a better bike. While it is very true that newer bikes are better built and have better specs, the ways of measuring those specs have also changed. The need to be the best has resulted in some optimistic measurements.

I should go out and test ride a 675 and a 750 and settle this stupid argument once and for all.

If a journalist with known credentials can't "settle" the argument I don't see why the word of someone on 'teh innernets' would be either.