Nobody builds the bike I want
Discussion
Neal H said:
black-k1 said:
my H2SX is around 265kg but the Kawasaki is much easier to handle at slow speeds as the seat height is a lot lower allowing both feet flat on the ground.
I find the weight isn’t a huge issue when riding the bike, particularly, as you say, if it’s easy to get your feet flat on the ground. It’s more manoeuvring it around in a gravel car park or up a slope that’s literally a pain - adding a pair of panniers will easily add 30kg which is why 230kg (before luggage) is my limit.
The perception of issues around the weight of a bike can often be much worse than the reality.
Killboy said:
I can't think of a time we've had more choices than we have now. Perhaps it's not the bikes?
I don’t think so. Before spending £20+k on a bike and keeping it for 10+ years I want it to tick all my boxes 
Both my Tiger and Speed Twin weigh in the order of 220kg. The Speed Twin is relatively easy to move around because it’s physically quite small and carries its weight low down. I do struggle with the Tiger though because it’s a tall bike that carries its weight quite high up which is why I won’t consider any of the full-fat adventure bikes.
I have the KTM Superduke GT.
Looks aren't everyone's cup of tea but you can't see it while you're riding it.
It's blisteringly quick, comfy enough for a whole day in the seat and has loads of electronic wizardry to keep me pointing in the right direction. I can't fault it, even if it's a face only a mother could love.
Looks aren't everyone's cup of tea but you can't see it while you're riding it.
It's blisteringly quick, comfy enough for a whole day in the seat and has loads of electronic wizardry to keep me pointing in the right direction. I can't fault it, even if it's a face only a mother could love.
OutInTheShed said:
Plenty of big, top heavy bikes get dropped.
Also more weight means you use more power, tyres don't last so long etc
Modern engineering should be designing lighter bikes.
Plenty of light bikes get dropped tooAlso more weight means you use more power, tyres don't last so long etc
Modern engineering should be designing lighter bikes.
If you're worried about using more power or tyres not lasting as long then I'd suggest the 150+bhp requirement has more to do with it than an extra 35kg.
It would be nice if bikes were lighter but the fact that no manufacture makes a bike that meets the original requirements of bhp, luggage etc. suggests to me that the engineering (at an acceptable price level) is not that easy.
Neal H said:
There’s plenty of litre naked bikes that don’t weigh 250 kilos. The Speed Triple 1200 weighs 198kg wet. I don’t think adding a fairing (or even half fairing) is going to add 50kg.
I suspect the extra weight is more to do with the requirements to carry a pillion and luggage, thus the frame, subframe, suspension etc. all need to be "bigger". Killboy said:
I can't think of a time we've had more choices than we have now. Perhaps it's not the bikes?
I disagree, look at the us websites for the big 4 and then the eu / uk range. I can't get excited about another matt black inline twin. The new cbr and zx6 look quite nice but there old bikes bought back.
Neal H said:
I don’t think so. Before spending £20+k on a bike and keeping it for 10+ years I want it to tick all my boxes
Both my Tiger and Speed Twin weigh in the order of 220kg. The Speed Twin is relatively easy to move around because it’s physically quite small and carries its weight low down. I do struggle with the Tiger though because it’s a tall bike that carries its weight quite high up which is why I won’t consider any of the full-fat adventure bikes.
Yet they are miles off your power requirements. Both my Tiger and Speed Twin weigh in the order of 220kg. The Speed Twin is relatively easy to move around because it’s physically quite small and carries its weight low down. I do struggle with the Tiger though because it’s a tall bike that carries its weight quite high up which is why I won’t consider any of the full-fat adventure bikes.
Greenbot35 said:
I disagree, look at the us websites for the big 4 and then the eu / uk range. I can't get excited about another matt black inline twin.
The new cbr and zx6 look quite nice but there old bikes bought back.
Which big 4 brand had more on offer at the same time than they do now?The new cbr and zx6 look quite nice but there old bikes bought back.
OutInTheShed said:
I have been in a similar position for some years now.
I have a Ducati ST4s.
It ticks all those boxes apart from only being about 120hp.
AIUI, none of the bigger twin engines like say an 1198 will fit the ST frame.
People have built fake superbikes out of ST's, I wonder if you could build an ST from a superbike?
The subframe is probably a lot stronger on an ST to take a pillion and three boxes. A mate did put a 1098 engine into a 996, but a faster ST might not work: isn't the ST frame based on the 888?I have a Ducati ST4s.
It ticks all those boxes apart from only being about 120hp.
AIUI, none of the bigger twin engines like say an 1198 will fit the ST frame.
People have built fake superbikes out of ST's, I wonder if you could build an ST from a superbike?
I wanted an ST3 back in the day but wife would murder me if I bought another Ducati after the experience with my Multistrada
black-k1 said:
Plenty of light bikes get dropped too
If you're worried about using more power or tyres not lasting as long then I'd suggest the 150+bhp requirement has more to do with it than an extra 35kg.
It would be nice if bikes were lighter but the fact that no manufacture makes a bike that meets the original requirements of bhp, luggage etc. suggests to me that the engineering (at an acceptable price level) is not that easy.
But most of that 20% extra power just goes into shifting the 15% extra mass.If you're worried about using more power or tyres not lasting as long then I'd suggest the 150+bhp requirement has more to do with it than an extra 35kg.
It would be nice if bikes were lighter but the fact that no manufacture makes a bike that meets the original requirements of bhp, luggage etc. suggests to me that the engineering (at an acceptable price level) is not that easy.
On the very small % of times that full throttle is actually used anywhere near peak power RPM.
Your tyres still wear out on long droning trips up the motorway where the throttle is barely cracked.
TBH, tyres are less of a cost than the old days, they last longer and haven't gone up as much as new bikes or petrol?
Back in the 80s, tyres for a big bike were a major expense. A significant part of 'it's cheaper to take the car'.
Agree with the op. I appreciate its subjective so no offence intended. i had the same dilemma; no bikes in that category can claim to be or considered pretty, the kawasaki Z and H are great tools, I compromised and went for the Z as a second bike as i needed something for the commute but it was defo a head over heart decision and no regrets. The suzuki is close to that capability and looks wise but the Z is arguably the marginally better bike if you trust the reviews, and believe that the many development cycles make the latest gen all the more better incorporating all the feedback to make it a great bike; the H is a leap up in all departments, i wish i had man math skills to justify the budget and would have one over the Z but again not pretty enough to make me want to stretch. The ducati is under powered and vibey ( marketing team: characterful) and for the money you'd be looking at the other bikes in the range and wishing you spent a bit more on the pani V2 and if budget stretched V4 but even then I think the 1299 was peak pretty; the V4 is like a powerlifting fitness model with a big jaw, massive delts and a fun button the size of a golf ball ( marketing: aggressive and purposeful), obviously I'd like a go one one ( girl or bike). The tuono has an engine and accompanying orchestra to die for and probably the prettiest of the bunch but it's a bit light on wind protection.
It's difficult: with the longer geometry, bigger tank, stronger chassis, more upright riding position and to provide enough protection from the environment to make something truely pretty and if a manufacturer successfully achieved it I wonder what impact it would have on already dwindling supersport sales....
Op i think you either need to compromise and maybe upgrade later when the right bike comes along or hold tight in the hope someone fulfils the brief in the next few years. I guess it depends on whether what you want to do on it warrants a new bike or you manage with what you have..
It's difficult: with the longer geometry, bigger tank, stronger chassis, more upright riding position and to provide enough protection from the environment to make something truely pretty and if a manufacturer successfully achieved it I wonder what impact it would have on already dwindling supersport sales....
Op i think you either need to compromise and maybe upgrade later when the right bike comes along or hold tight in the hope someone fulfils the brief in the next few years. I guess it depends on whether what you want to do on it warrants a new bike or you manage with what you have..
OutInTheShed said:
TBH, tyres are less of a cost than the old days, they last longer and haven't gone up as much as new bikes or petrol?
Back in the 80s, tyres for a big bike were a major expense. A significant part of 'it's cheaper to take the car'.
Not sure about that. 6k miles of fuel at 45mpg will cost you about £900.Back in the 80s, tyres for a big bike were a major expense. A significant part of 'it's cheaper to take the car'.
I’d say you won’t be far off needing a set of tyres at around that mileage, on average. Which are £350+ if you go for ride in / out fitting.
If you do a rear in 2k miles as I do it gets expensive if you do any real miles.
Greenbot35 said:
All of them?
Look at the range of bikes from say 2005 and compare it to the range now.
If you exclude cruisers, 125s, dirt bikes and scooters, which aren't in your mind anyway, there are more available now than there ever has been. You're looking almost 20 years ago, technology has been through several revolutions since then. BMW has become a different motorcycle company since then, almost unrecognisable with the litre sports bikes and derivatives. What's happened to KTM since them ? Wow. Kawasaki, streets ahead of where they were, same with Honda. Look at the range of bikes from say 2005 and compare it to the range now.
https://www.motorcycle.com/specs/bmw/2005.html will show you BMW bikes from 2005, almost every one is available now plus a whole new range of naked, 'herritage' and litre sports bikes.
I think you need to get yourself to a large bike show. I went to EICMA last year and it's amazing what's available, I was really impressed.
So, it seems that if I want a litre 150hp purpose built sports tourer my options are limited to Suzuki or Kawasaki - neither of which appeal. If I wanted a big, tall, heavy adventure style bike then I have plenty of options.
Fortunately, sticking with what I have is no great hardship as both the Tiger and Speed Twin are great bikes. I’m just getting a bit fed up with paying twice for road tax, insurance, maintenance etc and still miss the do it all brilliance of my old FZ1 Fazer!
I’ll just sit tight for the time being and hope that somebody launches the bike that I actually want to buy.
Fortunately, sticking with what I have is no great hardship as both the Tiger and Speed Twin are great bikes. I’m just getting a bit fed up with paying twice for road tax, insurance, maintenance etc and still miss the do it all brilliance of my old FZ1 Fazer!
I’ll just sit tight for the time being and hope that somebody launches the bike that I actually want to buy.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff