RE: Suzuki GSX-R1000: PH Fleet
Discussion
I've owned a GSX1340BK for a year now. Love it even though its a heavy brute.
Its lighter now and also puts out 183bhp and 115torques at the rear wheel. It has no rider aids whatsoever. not even ABS. I've not come across another naked bike that can match it in a straight line. Its also every bit as quick as a crossplane R1 up to 140mph. the other big name 1000ssport bikes are marginally quicker up to that speed. then they just walk on due to the aero.
OH, and 170mph is fun with no fairing
Its lighter now and also puts out 183bhp and 115torques at the rear wheel. It has no rider aids whatsoever. not even ABS. I've not come across another naked bike that can match it in a straight line. Its also every bit as quick as a crossplane R1 up to 140mph. the other big name 1000ssport bikes are marginally quicker up to that speed. then they just walk on due to the aero.
OH, and 170mph is fun with no fairing
Is John Urry reading any of this? Do the Pistonheads journos not like to 'partake' in the banter?
I had an old Gixer (wait, wait... Mine was of 'that' generation, so has to be called by that admittedly horrible term)... a K2 model, in that lovely blue and white colour scheme they did, when the Gixer was top of its class. It was proper scary, very fast with poor brakes (even with Goodridge hoses). A bit flabby. Fantastic induction roar. I put Akras on it, but took them off they were so loud (got stopped by police, who just chewed my ear a bit and let me go). I agree the K5 seems to have been the high point for GSXR thous, lovely looker as well as great performer. The current bike just doesn't do it for me aesthetically, and I have always bought bikes on both performance and aesthetics: Aprilia RS250, Honda CBR600 (ok, not a supermodel, but handsome), Ducati 998s (bought new, off the road for 5 months out of the 9 I owned it; mine was a Friday bike), GSXR1000K2, Kawasaki ZX6R 636 (05 model, great looker in Kawasaki green, amazing front end feel and general handling on track), Triumph 675 Daytona.
As you can see in the models I've owned, I stepped down to 600s after the Gixer Thou. It was too fast for me, and I stopped enjoying my track days. I could leave black lines coming out of corners, but I never felt comfortable with all that power. Scared of high siding it, I decided to try smaller bikes and had a lot more fun on track. Also, it was very satisfying to ride round track overtaking wobbling R1 and GSXR 1000 riders scared of their bikes!!
So the coming of traction control for big bikes is a good thing in my view. The 1000s need it for most owners to enjoy these bikes. But that said, I'm with Urry that there is something about bikes without traction control that I like. I currently have a Ducati 996, it took me a while to forgive Ducati for the Friday bike 998s they made for me! I didn't quite trust the build quality, so had Snells do the Full Monty blue printing on the engine (a process developed by Neil Spalding at Sigma Performance, but since licensed to Snells). Lovely bike, and you have to really ride it.
But back to the new GSXR... I don't get a manufacturer making a 1000cc superbike in this day and age with no traction control and ABS. There's no excuse, accountants have decided it, not engineers or designers. And when will Suzuki produce another good looking GSXR? Come on Suzuki...
I had an old Gixer (wait, wait... Mine was of 'that' generation, so has to be called by that admittedly horrible term)... a K2 model, in that lovely blue and white colour scheme they did, when the Gixer was top of its class. It was proper scary, very fast with poor brakes (even with Goodridge hoses). A bit flabby. Fantastic induction roar. I put Akras on it, but took them off they were so loud (got stopped by police, who just chewed my ear a bit and let me go). I agree the K5 seems to have been the high point for GSXR thous, lovely looker as well as great performer. The current bike just doesn't do it for me aesthetically, and I have always bought bikes on both performance and aesthetics: Aprilia RS250, Honda CBR600 (ok, not a supermodel, but handsome), Ducati 998s (bought new, off the road for 5 months out of the 9 I owned it; mine was a Friday bike), GSXR1000K2, Kawasaki ZX6R 636 (05 model, great looker in Kawasaki green, amazing front end feel and general handling on track), Triumph 675 Daytona.
As you can see in the models I've owned, I stepped down to 600s after the Gixer Thou. It was too fast for me, and I stopped enjoying my track days. I could leave black lines coming out of corners, but I never felt comfortable with all that power. Scared of high siding it, I decided to try smaller bikes and had a lot more fun on track. Also, it was very satisfying to ride round track overtaking wobbling R1 and GSXR 1000 riders scared of their bikes!!
So the coming of traction control for big bikes is a good thing in my view. The 1000s need it for most owners to enjoy these bikes. But that said, I'm with Urry that there is something about bikes without traction control that I like. I currently have a Ducati 996, it took me a while to forgive Ducati for the Friday bike 998s they made for me! I didn't quite trust the build quality, so had Snells do the Full Monty blue printing on the engine (a process developed by Neil Spalding at Sigma Performance, but since licensed to Snells). Lovely bike, and you have to really ride it.
But back to the new GSXR... I don't get a manufacturer making a 1000cc superbike in this day and age with no traction control and ABS. There's no excuse, accountants have decided it, not engineers or designers. And when will Suzuki produce another good looking GSXR? Come on Suzuki...
Is John Urry reading any of this? Do the Pistonheads journos not like to 'partake' in the banter?
I had an old Gixer (wait, wait... Mine was of 'that' generation, so has to be called by that admittedly horrible term)... a K2 model, in that lovely blue and white colour scheme they did, when the Gixer was top of its class. It was proper scary, very fast with poor brakes (even with Goodridge hoses). A bit flabby. Fantastic induction roar. I put Akras on it, but took them off they were so loud (got stopped by police, who just chewed my ear a bit and let me go). I agree the K5 seems to have been the high point for GSXR thous, lovely looker as well as great performer. The current bike just doesn't do it for me aesthetically, and I have always bought bikes on both performance and aesthetics: Aprilia RS250, Honda CBR600 (ok, not a supermodel, but handsome), Ducati 998s (bought new, off the road for 5 months out of the 9 I owned it; mine was a Friday bike), GSXR1000K2, Kawasaki ZX6R 636 (05 model, great looker in Kawasaki green, amazing front end feel and general handling on track), Triumph 675 Daytona.
As you can see in the models I've owned, I stepped down to 600s after the Gixer Thou. It was too fast for me, and I stopped enjoying my track days. I could leave black lines coming out of corners, but I never felt comfortable with all that power. Scared of high siding it, I decided to try smaller bikes and had a lot more fun on track. Also, it was very satisfying to ride round track overtaking wobbling R1 and GSXR 1000 riders scared of their bikes!!
So the coming of traction control for big bikes is a good thing in my view. The 1000s need it for most owners to enjoy these bikes. But that said, I'm with Urry that there is something about bikes without traction control that I like. I currently have a Ducati 996, it took me a while to forgive Ducati for the Friday bike 998s they made for me! I didn't quite trust the build quality, so had Snells do the Full Monty blue printing on the engine (a process developed by Neil Spalding at Sigma Performance, but since licensed to Snells). Lovely bike, and you have to really ride it.
But back to the new GSXR... I don't get a manufacturer making a 1000cc superbike in this day and age with no traction control and ABS. There's no excuse, accountants have decided it, not engineers or designers. And when will Suzuki produce another good looking GSXR? Come on Suzuki...
I had an old Gixer (wait, wait... Mine was of 'that' generation, so has to be called by that admittedly horrible term)... a K2 model, in that lovely blue and white colour scheme they did, when the Gixer was top of its class. It was proper scary, very fast with poor brakes (even with Goodridge hoses). A bit flabby. Fantastic induction roar. I put Akras on it, but took them off they were so loud (got stopped by police, who just chewed my ear a bit and let me go). I agree the K5 seems to have been the high point for GSXR thous, lovely looker as well as great performer. The current bike just doesn't do it for me aesthetically, and I have always bought bikes on both performance and aesthetics: Aprilia RS250, Honda CBR600 (ok, not a supermodel, but handsome), Ducati 998s (bought new, off the road for 5 months out of the 9 I owned it; mine was a Friday bike), GSXR1000K2, Kawasaki ZX6R 636 (05 model, great looker in Kawasaki green, amazing front end feel and general handling on track), Triumph 675 Daytona.
As you can see in the models I've owned, I stepped down to 600s after the Gixer Thou. It was too fast for me, and I stopped enjoying my track days. I could leave black lines coming out of corners, but I never felt comfortable with all that power. Scared of high siding it, I decided to try smaller bikes and had a lot more fun on track. Also, it was very satisfying to ride round track overtaking wobbling R1 and GSXR 1000 riders scared of their bikes!!
So the coming of traction control for big bikes is a good thing in my view. The 1000s need it for most owners to enjoy these bikes. But that said, I'm with Urry that there is something about bikes without traction control that I like. I currently have a Ducati 996, it took me a while to forgive Ducati for the Friday bike 998s they made for me! I didn't quite trust the build quality, so had Snells do the Full Monty blue printing on the engine (a process developed by Neil Spalding at Sigma Performance, but since licensed to Snells). Lovely bike, and you have to really ride it.
But back to the new GSXR... I don't get a manufacturer making a 1000cc superbike in this day and age with no traction control and ABS. There's no excuse, accountants have decided it, not engineers or designers. And when will Suzuki produce another good looking GSXR? Come on Suzuki...
It's fascinating at which point a bike becomes too fast for the road for different people. I agree with John; litre superbikes are beyond what anyone needs for the road. A ZX6R or a 675R, in the right hands, can be more enjoyable and just as quick, albeit not on the straight. Surely you're not a bunch of shallow throttle jockeys are you? If you've got to have torque (and yes I do!), bikes like the Z1000SX have plenty, enough to out accelerate an S1000RR legally. You don't have to go hunting for revs as they're much punchier lower down the rev range, but can still sing at the top when the occasion arises.
I rode a 2014 ZX10R recently and have developed a new level of appreciation for Sykesey on his WSB, and indeed all BSB & BSB riders. The bike requires a different set of skills including a jet fighter's licence! The bike wanted to sit at 3 figures everywhere and was pure nuts. It was so agile, the fact the front wheel visits the tarmac part time is immaterial! Yep, steering in mid-air on this thing is as natural as with two contact patches. Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!
And whilst I enjoyed it, it's the most formidable total licence destroyer I have ever experienced. So what relevance is that on the road again? It's nice to have plenty of performance headroom I admit, but if you can't admit that there's a point where that becomes excessive, enjoy speed cameras everywhere because plod is gonna love you!
I rode a 2014 ZX10R recently and have developed a new level of appreciation for Sykesey on his WSB, and indeed all BSB & BSB riders. The bike requires a different set of skills including a jet fighter's licence! The bike wanted to sit at 3 figures everywhere and was pure nuts. It was so agile, the fact the front wheel visits the tarmac part time is immaterial! Yep, steering in mid-air on this thing is as natural as with two contact patches. Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!
And whilst I enjoyed it, it's the most formidable total licence destroyer I have ever experienced. So what relevance is that on the road again? It's nice to have plenty of performance headroom I admit, but if you can't admit that there's a point where that becomes excessive, enjoy speed cameras everywhere because plod is gonna love you!
A 1000, be it Suzuki, Honda, Kawasaki, whatever, is not too much for the road. As with most things bike related, it's usually down to the rider. A 125 with a t
t on board can be just as 'dangerous' in my experience. It's true that a 1000 spoils you. I get on a modern 600 nowadays and it just feels flat, with little in the way of go. Of course, it still goes like stink, relative to other vehicles on the road, but it doesn't hold a candle to a 1000.
t on board can be just as 'dangerous' in my experience. It's true that a 1000 spoils you. I get on a modern 600 nowadays and it just feels flat, with little in the way of go. Of course, it still goes like stink, relative to other vehicles on the road, but it doesn't hold a candle to a 1000. 
ChesterUK said:
It's fascinating at which point a bike becomes too fast for the road for different people. I agree with John; litre superbikes are beyond what anyone needs for the road. A ZX6R or a 675R, in the right hands, can be more enjoyable and just as quick, albeit not on the straight. Surely you're not a bunch of shallow throttle jockeys are you? If you've got to have torque (and yes I do!), bikes like the Z1000SX have plenty, enough to out accelerate an S1000RR legally. You don't have to go hunting for revs as they're much punchier lower down the rev range, but can still sing at the top when the occasion arises.
I rode a 2014 ZX10R recently and have developed a new level of appreciation for Sykesey on his WSB, and indeed all BSB & BSB riders. The bike requires a different set of skills including a jet fighter's licence! The bike wanted to sit at 3 figures everywhere and was pure nuts. It was so agile, the fact the front wheel visits the tarmac part time is immaterial! Yep, steering in mid-air on this thing is as natural as with two contact patches. Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!
And whilst I enjoyed it, it's the most formidable total licence destroyer I have ever experienced. So what relevance is that on the road again? It's nice to have plenty of performance headroom I admit, but if you can't admit that there's a point where that becomes excessive, enjoy speed cameras everywhere because plod is gonna love you!
Yeah maybe it is mental. But so bloody what? Bikes have outstripped what is appropriate for road rules for about 40 years. My 04 R1 redlines at 105mph in first gear. That means I'm in jail before I hit second. Most of the current 600s are within half a second to 100mph of their 1000cc stablemates. I rode a 2014 ZX10R recently and have developed a new level of appreciation for Sykesey on his WSB, and indeed all BSB & BSB riders. The bike requires a different set of skills including a jet fighter's licence! The bike wanted to sit at 3 figures everywhere and was pure nuts. It was so agile, the fact the front wheel visits the tarmac part time is immaterial! Yep, steering in mid-air on this thing is as natural as with two contact patches. Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!
And whilst I enjoyed it, it's the most formidable total licence destroyer I have ever experienced. So what relevance is that on the road again? It's nice to have plenty of performance headroom I admit, but if you can't admit that there's a point where that becomes excessive, enjoy speed cameras everywhere because plod is gonna love you!
So 600s are way beyond what is "needed" for the road too. As are old(er) litre bikes. We all know that. Therefore saying that "1000s are pointless but 600s are ok" is pretty hypocritical.
Just be honest and say "I enjoy being a badass but I'm a bit scared of that much badass".
Sorry for not getting involved in the banter, I was out of the country riding a slightly smaller capacity and considerably less scary machine! There is a lot of talk about the K5, which I have to confess is my personal favourite GSX-R (not Gixxer...) 1000 but I'm not 100% on the performance comments. The GSX-R engine was totally re-designed on the second twin pipe model (k9) and again tweaked for the 2012 model. I have a stack of power charts and speed testing figures so I'll dig into them and try and see what the deal is with power and performance over the generations. I know there was a period when all bike builders simply made up the figures (power quoted at the spark plug and weight minus tyres, battery, light bulbs etc!)and then regulations arrived that forced them to be a bit more honest, which is why they dropped and the weight increased. The weight figures were the best, there honestly was a meeting on what weight figure to claim for a company's latest sportsbike in the early 2000s. The actual weight wasn't even a consideration! Also, dynos can be a touch misleading. Depending on the correction figure (I think this is what it is called) the power can be 'tweaked' to make it look even better. Each dyno is different and can easily vary by 5-10bhp. I'll dig in and get a feature up on PH2 asap. Once again, sorry for the lack of response, my data limit got a bit upset...
Jon Urry said:
Sorry for not getting involved in the banter, I was out of the country riding a slightly smaller capacity and considerably less scary machine! There is a lot of talk about the K5, which I have to confess is my personal favourite GSX-R (not Gixxer...) 1000 but I'm not 100% on the performance comments. The GSX-R engine was totally re-designed on the second twin pipe model (k9) and again tweaked for the 2012 model. I have a stack of power charts and speed testing figures so I'll dig into them and try and see what the deal is with power and performance over the generations. I know there was a period when all bike builders simply made up the figures (power quoted at the spark plug and weight minus tyres, battery, light bulbs etc!)and then regulations arrived that forced them to be a bit more honest, which is why they dropped and the weight increased. The weight figures were the best, there honestly was a meeting on what weight figure to claim for a company's latest sportsbike in the early 2000s. The actual weight wasn't even a consideration! Also, dynos can be a touch misleading. Depending on the correction figure (I think this is what it is called) the power can be 'tweaked' to make it look even better. Each dyno is different and can easily vary by 5-10bhp. I'll dig in and get a feature up on PH2 asap. Once again, sorry for the lack of response, my data limit got a bit upset...
side by side testing is the only way to do it jon. i can remember being shocked when the first cross plane r1 came out.my local dealer let a few of us have a play on it,one bloke who had an old k2 thou he had bought as a damaged repairable brought it along,and it passed the new r1 quite easily on a straight , with increasing redlines the instant push of some of the older engines at lower revs can create a gap that is hard to pull back on a short straight . another mate with a current blade and one with an s1000rr regularly have a dual carriageway race on the way home from evening rideouts as they live close to each other.the bloke with the s1000rr cannot get past mate on the blade on a 3 mile dual carriageway ,yet book figures would say it would be a breeze.I reckon that the GSXR's attraction is it's bang per buck - new or 2nd hand. Also it's riding position is more roomy & comfortable than most (especially with adjustable peg position). Despite what the mags say there can't be much in it in real world performance, and it's one of the lightest. Add to that the relative lack of complexity which makes home servicing cheaper and easier. I know it's looks haven't changed much in 6 odd years but it's hardly a minger?
I think superbikes are generally at a bit of a plateau - it's increasingly a law of diminishing returns adding more power, particularly with stricter noise and emissions laws, and general public acceptance.
I know everyone has different preferences, but we should probably be thankful that we have such a wide choice of fantasticly engineered, ballistic machinery at relative prices cheaper than 20 years ago.
(PS. sorry about the name...)
I think superbikes are generally at a bit of a plateau - it's increasingly a law of diminishing returns adding more power, particularly with stricter noise and emissions laws, and general public acceptance.
I know everyone has different preferences, but we should probably be thankful that we have such a wide choice of fantasticly engineered, ballistic machinery at relative prices cheaper than 20 years ago.
(PS. sorry about the name...)
As a returning biker (not born-again) I would be grateful if someone would explain exactly WHEN the word 'GIXXER' came about!
I sold my 918 'blade in 2004 and only got my VFR750FL last year after getting my leg over a 'blade again ( I couldn't stretch to buying a 'blade).
I've heard the term Gixxer a few times but don't remember using it in my lifetime. And I think ignorance is bliss as far as this is concerned...
I sold my 918 'blade in 2004 and only got my VFR750FL last year after getting my leg over a 'blade again ( I couldn't stretch to buying a 'blade).
I've heard the term Gixxer a few times but don't remember using it in my lifetime. And I think ignorance is bliss as far as this is concerned...
Gixer_fan said:
I think superbikes are generally at a bit of a plateau - it's increasingly a law of diminishing returns adding more power, particularly with stricter noise and emissions laws, and general public acceptance.
I know everyone has different preferences, but we should probably be thankful that we have such a wide choice of fantasticly engineered, ballistic machinery at relative prices cheaper than 20 years ago.
(PS. sorry about the name...)
This is very true. A bit like where cars are in 2014 - it's not easy to buy a 'bad' new bike nowadays. Everyone has access to the same technology and manufacturing processes. Even Italian-bike-cynics have to admire that Ducati have the longest servicing intervals amongst bike manufacturers - a testament to the engineering available on a sleepy Italian August.I know everyone has different preferences, but we should probably be thankful that we have such a wide choice of fantasticly engineered, ballistic machinery at relative prices cheaper than 20 years ago.
(PS. sorry about the name...)
The limiting factor really is the rider, and buyers' choices will increasingly be determined by whatever it is that makes any of the available bikes 'special', not just good, as being 'good' is no longer good enough.
I'm curious everyone, do you think character of a bike matters more than power? Willy waving aside, few people have the skill to exploit a current 1000cc bike.
I think my K2 GSXR had it, as did my ZX6R 636, and both my Ducatis in spades.
The nature of power delivery through the rev range, the mechanical noise (rattly Duke dry clutches do it for me, can't believe I said that, how sad...), the handling, the image...
Suzuki for me used to stand for making amazing engines, and their bikes really looked great too. They were cult bikes for a while, but they've lost that... Why? Is it just me?
I think my K2 GSXR had it, as did my ZX6R 636, and both my Ducatis in spades.
The nature of power delivery through the rev range, the mechanical noise (rattly Duke dry clutches do it for me, can't believe I said that, how sad...), the handling, the image...
Suzuki for me used to stand for making amazing engines, and their bikes really looked great too. They were cult bikes for a while, but they've lost that... Why? Is it just me?
I'm curious everyone, do you think character of a bike matters more than power? Willy waving aside, few people have the skill to exploit a current 1000cc bike.
I think my K2 GSXR had it, as did my ZX6R 636, and both my Ducatis in spades.
The nature of power delivery through the rev range, the mechanical noise (rattly Duke dry clutches do it for me, can't believe I said that, how sad...), the handling, the image...
Suzuki for me used to stand for making amazing engines, and their bikes really looked great too. They were cult bikes for a while, but they've lost that... Why? Is it just me?
I think my K2 GSXR had it, as did my ZX6R 636, and both my Ducatis in spades.
The nature of power delivery through the rev range, the mechanical noise (rattly Duke dry clutches do it for me, can't believe I said that, how sad...), the handling, the image...
Suzuki for me used to stand for making amazing engines, and their bikes really looked great too. They were cult bikes for a while, but they've lost that... Why? Is it just me?
sc0tt said:
Oh dear, you're quite right. Looks a bit desperate. £2,500 extra for some 'bling' anodizing and polishing? I thought that went out of fashion in the 90s...At least stick some Ohlins suspension on it and call it an 'Evo' like Honda did with the 'blade!
Edited by Gixer_fan on Thursday 24th April 00:11
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!
I second the above. I have a K5 1000, and rode a 2010 blade back to back on two separate occasions for well over a 100 miles. The blade was not a patch on the GSXR. It was heavier, gutless at low RPM (relative to GSXR) and did not have the 600cc-like handling characteristics of the K5.Once again, the blade owner rode my bike and agreed totally that the GSXR was better, so much so that he thought of selling his blade!
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff