RE: Suzuki GSX-R1000: PH Fleet
Discussion
bass gt3 said:
Its one button then select your chosen level or off. So you were defeated by one button?
Maybe the GSXR is the perfect bike for you after all
Maybe it is, I do not believe that electronics should be on driver and rider orientated vehicles as it just dulls the experience.Maybe the GSXR is the perfect bike for you after all
Which would you rather drive from a fun point of view, a Nissan GTR or a Caterham with at least 200hp.
Electronics might make things go faster especially to unskilled users but they don't make going fast more fun.
mike150 said:
Maybe it is, I do not believe that electronics should be on driver and rider orientated vehicles as it just dulls the experience.
Which would you rather drive from a fun point of view, a Nissan GTR or a Caterham with at least 200hp.
Electronics might make things go faster especially to unskilled users but they don't make going fast more fun.
Which would you rather drive from a fun point of view, a Nissan GTR or a Caterham with at least 200hp.
Electronics might make things go faster especially to unskilled users but they don't make going fast more fun.
I agree, but not being able to use the systems provided is no excuse to not have them. I run my v4 anti wheelie off, tcs level 1 throttle in track mode. On the road. But I have the options not to. If I choose. And thats the rub.
bass gt3 said:
mike150 said:
Maybe it is, I do not believe that electronics should be on driver and rider orientated vehicles as it just dulls the experience.
Which would you rather drive from a fun point of view, a Nissan GTR or a Caterham with at least 200hp.
Electronics might make things go faster especially to unskilled users but they don't make going fast more fun.
Which would you rather drive from a fun point of view, a Nissan GTR or a Caterham with at least 200hp.
Electronics might make things go faster especially to unskilled users but they don't make going fast more fun.
I agree, but not being able to use the systems provided is no excuse to not have them. I run my v4 anti wheelie off, tcs level 1 throttle in track mode. On the road. But I have the options not to. If I choose. And thats the rub.
Reardy Mister said:
I don't think the mere existence of a feature makes it compulsory. Or would you advocate cup holders on your V4 as well?
But by that argument, why develop anything? Why advance the technology, improve the performance. ? If the GSXR was fine 10 years ago, why update the bike? Surely the existence of better forks shouldn't compel Suzuki to fit them. But they do. But what they're trying to sell people is the idea that you don't need it. Its true, but the sales figures don't support it If its such a killer bike, why do they have to discount the arse out of them? What they're trying to say is " Cheap is good" people aren't buying it.
bass gt3 said:
Reardy Mister said:
I don't think the mere existence of a feature makes it compulsory. Or would you advocate cup holders on your V4 as well?
But by that argument, why develop anything? Why advance the technology, improve the performance. ? If the GSXR was fine 10 years ago, why update the bike? Surely the existence of better forks shouldn't compel Suzuki to fit them. But they do. But what they're trying to sell people is the idea that you don't need it. Its true, but the sales figures don't support it If its such a killer bike, why do they have to discount the arse out of them? What they're trying to say is " Cheap is good" people aren't buying it.
Suzuki probably wouldn't even need to change the internals of the engine or suspension a great deal. Just move the damn design on a bit would help.
I would like to say to Jon Urry though, how can you in all good conscience list specifically the performance figures of the new bike (as though they were still worthy of headlines) without acknowledging that they are unchanged for the last 9 years?
bass gt3 said:
3DP said:
BPF forks are class leading, Brembo calipers are top notch.
It's half the price of a Panigale or top RSV4 and with the discounts available, £2.5k less than a Blade.
It has its place in the market as good GSXRs always have as budget, bullet proof, no frills speed.
Fit an Ohlins shock, carbon, after market whizz bang electronics kit (that many don't want anyway) and you'd still have change over an RSV4 and it'll do 100k miles on one engine and have a decent parts back up. Comfy too.
Not knocking the RSV4, or a GSXR1000 fanboi, but you are comparing apples with oranges to slate a bike for missing things and being sub-standard when it's 60% cheaper than the opposition. If it was the same price you'd have a good point.
It's cheap, reliable, old-school speed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does need a refresh though
Pete, I was referring to the"trick bits" comment. All the jap bikes come with BPF so hardly trick.. It's half the price of a Panigale or top RSV4 and with the discounts available, £2.5k less than a Blade.
It has its place in the market as good GSXRs always have as budget, bullet proof, no frills speed.
Fit an Ohlins shock, carbon, after market whizz bang electronics kit (that many don't want anyway) and you'd still have change over an RSV4 and it'll do 100k miles on one engine and have a decent parts back up. Comfy too.
Not knocking the RSV4, or a GSXR1000 fanboi, but you are comparing apples with oranges to slate a bike for missing things and being sub-standard when it's 60% cheaper than the opposition. If it was the same price you'd have a good point.
It's cheap, reliable, old-school speed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does need a refresh though
But I'm really looking at it in isolation.
Yeas it's cheap, but that seems not to be its USP as the Blade shifted many more units even at 2.5k premium. So people do want quality and technology at a decent price point and the Suzuki misses by a mile. There's no denying the sales figures otherwise people would be flocking to Suzuki's cheap no frills offering.
Suzuki trying to tell us it's an "Analogue" bike is nothing more than marketing department hyperbole. For analogue read "we couldn't be arsed/afford it" The Blade has no TCS, ABS anti wheelie etc on the base bike yet sells. The zx10 has tcs and power modes as standard and abs as an option. It sells.
The Suzuki offers nothing the others don't do better. It's time has long passed.
And call me a cynic, but ill wager the only reason PH2 have a long term GSXR is Suzuki were fed up with looking at it sat on their sales floor.
Edited by bass gt3 on Thursday 17th April 15:30
Analogue is an attraction, but I agree with you on the sales figures - The Blade is everything the GSXR offers, plus better in every way.
The fact is, 99+% of riders will never get near their TC kicking in, let alone lean on it enough to worry about levels of TC and wheel spin they want to allow. What's left of the 1% are good enough that they aren't high siding out of every corner and unless on track have no use for TC and anti-wheelie, with the latter just getting in the way of the character of the bike.
Everyone who seems to buy these bikes with electrickery and says it's compulsary on a modern thou as a selling point, then proceeds to turn it all off!
PB just had an article on the RSV4 about how good it is, yet no-one has bought it - like 100 odd in the UK since it came out IIRC. In its own way, as the GSXR is to the Blade, the RSV4 is to the S1000RR. If you want Wizzbang electrickery, an S1000RR offers more performance, better dealer network and a non-comedy size/tank range. If you want exclusivity, the Panigale offers that with equal electronics, better residuals and halo brand.
Saying all of the that - the RSV4 suits a particular niche, which you appreciate, in the same way as the GSXR1000 suits a particular niche that a small number also appreciate. Neither are big sellers and I think unfortunately, both are moribund in their current forms as a result. Whether their replacements, lose some of their original charm as a result of fixing the issues, remains to be seen.
3DP said:
PB just had an article on the RSV4 about how good it is, yet no-one has bought it - like 100 odd in the UK since it came out IIRC. In its own way, as the GSXR is to the Blade, the RSV4 is to the S1000RR. If you want Wizzbang electrickery, an S1000RR offers more performance, better dealer network and a non-comedy size/tank range. If you want exclusivity, the Panigale offers that with equal electronics, better residuals and halo brand.
The electronics on the 'gale don't appear to be all they're cracked up to be once you start using it on track (look at numerous feedback on several (mainly US) forums). The TCS is relatively primitive as it doesn't allow for different slip maps (i.e. to accomodate tyre size changes/brand changes, etc), although neither does the stock S1000RR. I think the RSV4 is far more focussed than the BMW and is also a lot smaller, so puts a lot of riders off, who despite their BS haven't the commitment to make a purchase.
3DP said:
They have to say it's analogue in the marketing blurb. As much as I would love honest marketing, it doesn't happen and they aren't going to say "Buy a GSXR1000 - it's cheap, built to a price, but bullet proof, comfy and we're too broke to re-design it".
Analogue is an attraction, but I agree with you on the sales figures - The Blade is everything the GSXR offers, plus better in every way.
The fact is, 99+% of riders will never get near their TC kicking in, let alone lean on it enough to worry about levels of TC and wheel spin they want to allow. What's left of the 1% are good enough that they aren't high siding out of every corner and unless on track have no use for TC and anti-wheelie, with the latter just getting in the way of the character of the bike.
Everyone who seems to buy these bikes with electrickery and says it's compulsary on a modern thou as a selling point, then proceeds to turn it all off!
PB just had an article on the RSV4 about how good it is, yet no-one has bought it - like 100 odd in the UK since it came out IIRC. In its own way, as the GSXR is to the Blade, the RSV4 is to the S1000RR. If you want Wizzbang electrickery, an S1000RR offers more performance, better dealer network and a non-comedy size/tank range. If you want exclusivity, the Panigale offers that with equal electronics, better residuals and halo brand.
Saying all of the that - the RSV4 suits a particular niche, which you appreciate, in the same way as the GSXR1000 suits a particular niche that a small number also appreciate. Neither are big sellers and I think unfortunately, both are moribund in their current forms as a result. Whether their replacements, lose some of their original charm as a result of fixing the issues, remains to be seen.
I disagree with the Blade is better statement, I rode one back to back, both 2010, and the blade has a characterless engine which feels slower than the GSXR but I know isn't, a hard uncomfortable seat and is slightly slower steering. I don't see it better in any way. The owner of the Blade agreed with me on all points BTW!Analogue is an attraction, but I agree with you on the sales figures - The Blade is everything the GSXR offers, plus better in every way.
The fact is, 99+% of riders will never get near their TC kicking in, let alone lean on it enough to worry about levels of TC and wheel spin they want to allow. What's left of the 1% are good enough that they aren't high siding out of every corner and unless on track have no use for TC and anti-wheelie, with the latter just getting in the way of the character of the bike.
Everyone who seems to buy these bikes with electrickery and says it's compulsary on a modern thou as a selling point, then proceeds to turn it all off!
PB just had an article on the RSV4 about how good it is, yet no-one has bought it - like 100 odd in the UK since it came out IIRC. In its own way, as the GSXR is to the Blade, the RSV4 is to the S1000RR. If you want Wizzbang electrickery, an S1000RR offers more performance, better dealer network and a non-comedy size/tank range. If you want exclusivity, the Panigale offers that with equal electronics, better residuals and halo brand.
Saying all of the that - the RSV4 suits a particular niche, which you appreciate, in the same way as the GSXR1000 suits a particular niche that a small number also appreciate. Neither are big sellers and I think unfortunately, both are moribund in their current forms as a result. Whether their replacements, lose some of their original charm as a result of fixing the issues, remains to be seen.
mike150 said:
I disagree with the Blade is better statement, I rode one back to back, both 2010, and the blade has a characterless engine which feels slower than the GSXR but I know isn't, a hard uncomfortable seat and is slightly slower steering. I don't see it better in any way. The owner of the Blade agreed with me on all points BTW!
It looks better. There you go Great thread chaps. Enjoying the debate.
I bought my K8 as I wanted a simple, fast, comfortable sports bike that can take me to France/Italy/Spain and back. I'm a normal sized European adult so the latest stuff is just too small for my preferences anyway. As said earlier, they have their place in the pack. And they're plenty fast enough for 99% of us IMHO. Whinging that they don't have the latest doodad is just nit picking, I'm as quick as most things out there with my supposedly flabby out of date bike, it matters not in the real world.
I wonder what this is like on rough roads, or even off-road.
Why?
Only because one of my friends is riding his previous generation GSX-R around the world, on all sorts of roads.
Not sure if I can mention his website here, but it isn't commercial, he's doing it for charity.
www.teapotone.com
Must be worth a story, PH Towers?
Why?
Only because one of my friends is riding his previous generation GSX-R around the world, on all sorts of roads.
Not sure if I can mention his website here, but it isn't commercial, he's doing it for charity.
www.teapotone.com
Must be worth a story, PH Towers?
This is quite simple. It's simply a matter of personal choice and suiting your budget.
I'm not keen on the look of it but I'd love ago on it.
This bike is so much better than I am so I'd see the no frills approach to this as 'less likely to go wrong'
Maybe BMW should consider a basic analogue version of their undoubtedly amazing S1000RR with 2k lobbed of the RRP?
I'm not keen on the look of it but I'd love ago on it.
This bike is so much better than I am so I'd see the no frills approach to this as 'less likely to go wrong'
Maybe BMW should consider a basic analogue version of their undoubtedly amazing S1000RR with 2k lobbed of the RRP?
mike150 said:
I disagree with the Blade is better statement, I rode one back to back, both 2010, and the blade has a characterless engine which feels slower than the GSXR but I know isn't, a hard uncomfortable seat and is slightly slower steering. I don't see it better in any way. The owner of the Blade agreed with me on all points BTW!
surely down to the individuals perception ? i cant agree the blades engine is characterless,once over 10k rpm it has character,a mate and myself called it top end rage as opposed to rush. the last gsxr 1000 i rode (i too hate the term gixxer) was a k7 ,and back to back with a k5 it was an easier bike to ride.it may have been a poor k5 example i rode (though the same bike is still going strong at 36000 miles plus and visits europe for 2 weeks every year as well as numerous track days) but i thought it felt like a rattling bag of s
te although the power was and still is right up there with the best of them.i would agree with the seat,though on twisties where your arse is constantly on the move it is not too bad.
as for the turn in,the suzuki does feel lighter to turn,until you realise you are turning in 10 mph faster on the blade. the blade was the first bike i ever had that made me realise how hard it is to physically turn a bike at speed,and it was purely down to it giving me the confidence to corner far faster than i had done before. after riding gsxr 750,s for numerous years it really was an eye opener.
suzuki do appear to be in the doldrums at the moment.whether the old adage of win on sunday sell on monday still applies i do not know,but i do not think its coincidence that the sales mirror the lack of racing success.the lack of investment in top riders over the years is mirrored in the lack of investment in the road bikes.roughly half of the group i ride with were at some point what were termed gsxr blokes ,yet all bar one (s1000rr) is on a blade these days which suggests it is not as simple as adding some fancy electronics.
i do agree with bassgt3 on some points,but maybe jon urry is mindful he is writing a bike review on a car forum so is catering for the wider audience rather than just the bike minded people on here ? (i would love an rsv4 by the way,always wanted a v4 sports bike and unlikely to be able to afford honda,s when they eventually get around to bringing it out)
I actually like the looks of the current GSX-R1000, though the K5 is one of my favourite looking bikes of all time. It would appear that Suzuki simply rested on their laurels, through the hubris of knowing their K5 was the bike beat for a while, or because their business group wouldn't spare the cash to keep developing the bike. They should have known that their competitors would come back with amazing responses - the 2010 onwards Fireblade, the S1000RR, the RSV4 and 1199 Panigale all cover different niches of the market and dominate in their respective areas. The only thing the GSX-R1000 really does, as stated, is cheap thrills.
I think the biggest competition for the Suzuki is the Fireblade. The BMW, Aprilia and Ducatis are double or greater the out-the-door price of the Suzuki, whereas the Fireblade is not a huge amount more to buy, but is obviously good enough to warrant the extra cost, as Honda don't have trouble selling the blade.
In reality, I'd expect for most riders the GSX-R would be more than quick enough. I'd guess that most could not or would not ride it to the max on road or track, I suppose what sells the other bikes is the difference in feel, and to a lesser extent the kudos of the electronics packages. While the ultimate pace for many is probably not limited by the ability of the bike, but rather how fast you dare to go, the smiles-per-mile factor would be a big decider in where the money gets spent. And what will offer more smiles, a cheap bike that hasn't really been updated in a few years, or an all singing, all dancing product that really feels premium? It's all about what you can make the customer feel, and a more modern, more nimble chassis, some electronics packages (even if they hardly get used, or get switched off) and a dollop more power, for all that amounts to, is going to get people opening their wallets. Imagine you're on a fast ride out with your mates, they're on the modern litre crowd and you're on the GSX-R. You probably won't be left behind or taking risks to keep up with them, but they're probably a bit more smug about sitting on something a bit special, and you'll end up wanting one of the fancier bikes too.
I'd definitely consider the GSX-R if I was looking for a new litre bike. They're all way beyond my current ability, and while I certainly wouldn't turn down the GSX-R for having "only" 156bhp and no electronics packages, I think I'd probably end up on a Fireblade.
I really hope Suzuki can turn it around and update it, give it more power, some electronics for people to turn off, give it some fresh styling and put the cat amongst the pidgeons again.
I think the biggest competition for the Suzuki is the Fireblade. The BMW, Aprilia and Ducatis are double or greater the out-the-door price of the Suzuki, whereas the Fireblade is not a huge amount more to buy, but is obviously good enough to warrant the extra cost, as Honda don't have trouble selling the blade.
In reality, I'd expect for most riders the GSX-R would be more than quick enough. I'd guess that most could not or would not ride it to the max on road or track, I suppose what sells the other bikes is the difference in feel, and to a lesser extent the kudos of the electronics packages. While the ultimate pace for many is probably not limited by the ability of the bike, but rather how fast you dare to go, the smiles-per-mile factor would be a big decider in where the money gets spent. And what will offer more smiles, a cheap bike that hasn't really been updated in a few years, or an all singing, all dancing product that really feels premium? It's all about what you can make the customer feel, and a more modern, more nimble chassis, some electronics packages (even if they hardly get used, or get switched off) and a dollop more power, for all that amounts to, is going to get people opening their wallets. Imagine you're on a fast ride out with your mates, they're on the modern litre crowd and you're on the GSX-R. You probably won't be left behind or taking risks to keep up with them, but they're probably a bit more smug about sitting on something a bit special, and you'll end up wanting one of the fancier bikes too.
I'd definitely consider the GSX-R if I was looking for a new litre bike. They're all way beyond my current ability, and while I certainly wouldn't turn down the GSX-R for having "only" 156bhp and no electronics packages, I think I'd probably end up on a Fireblade.
I really hope Suzuki can turn it around and update it, give it more power, some electronics for people to turn off, give it some fresh styling and put the cat amongst the pidgeons again.
maybe not going to be popular but everyone is adding their opinions.
I have purchased 1000 / 1100cc bikes for 31 years now; had one shot of sub 1000cc ownership with a 750 (gsxr srad) but the rush a 1000 gives is too much of a draw.
i was recently looking for a replacement for mine and looked at the 4 japs
After 6 months of ownershop on the BM though, they dont seem as absolutely bulletprooof as the japs and my foray onto the european offerings may end and i'll track a zx10 down.
my tuppence worth on the offerings out there.
I have purchased 1000 / 1100cc bikes for 31 years now; had one shot of sub 1000cc ownership with a 750 (gsxr srad) but the rush a 1000 gives is too much of a draw.
i was recently looking for a replacement for mine and looked at the 4 japs
- Suzuki...nah, too old.
- fireblade - having had 1000cc hondas in the past, i was interested but it was just too appliance (sorry all, just my opinion)
- R1 despite the engine, i just couldnt...too expensive and just didnt get me excited about it.
- zx10r that was the one. I just love them.
After 6 months of ownershop on the BM though, they dont seem as absolutely bulletprooof as the japs and my foray onto the european offerings may end and i'll track a zx10 down.
my tuppence worth on the offerings out there.
Reardy Mister said:
I am suspicious of guys who slate 1000s as unnecessary in the same way I am suspicious of all the guys over the years who say to me at bbqs "oh yeah, I'd have a motorbike ya'know but I'm such a mental I just know I'd kill meself on one".
You've met those blokes too? It's not quite the same thing though, it isn't fear. I'd be quite happy to have a ride on another 1000 sports bike if somebody offers, but don't feel the need to own something like that. Something like the aforementioned Triumph 675 will go, stop and corner at a level that means that restraint is required on the roads anyway -you certainly can't ride around on full throttle constantly.
Off the mark most 600cc+ bikes are similar, although the smaller engine will run out of puff sooner than a monstrous 1000, be slightly slower over a 1/4 mile(dependent on a good rider)and less overwhelming rolling-on in 2nd gear, if that's a problem -You are often rolling off the gas before completing an overtake on the road anyway.
It would actually be a shame to have a bike that will do 100mph in first gear that I couldn't open-up occasionally for more than a handful of seconds without reaching 140mph.
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 18th April 08:39
I see lots of hate about how old the GSXR is underneath. I'm going to go out on a limb and admit to being shallow and say I'd have one just because I think it looks fantastic. I had two GS500Fs, a 09 and 11, each with a chassis dating back to the early 1990s hiding under its pretty skirts, an engine design from even earlier and not even any sort of ecu. They were great and sadly missed. I admit ABS and traction control would be nice on greasy roads but then again part of the fun of riding for me was those lower limits of adhesion and stopping power compared to cars. With the above in mind, I would not be deterred from handing over the pennies for on old bird like mr Urrys new steed. Unless he finds it hideously unreliable over the course of his time with it in which case I may be cautious.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff