Have we all become biking gods?
Discussion
A friend is negotiating the purchase of an original GSXR 750. By today's standards it is heavy and not that powerful and I get the feeling that many people would dismiss it as "slow" - certainly current 600s that are much lighter and more powerful are belittled as "suitable for learners" and lacking grunt. Yet if you go back and read reviews of the GSXR 750 when it was new I expect the road testers then were creaming their pants about how amazing the bike was with unbelievable performance. Were they just deluded? Or have we all become biking gods without knowing it so anything less than 200 BHP is a bit dull?
The decision to own and run a classic bike isnt linked to performance, 99% of the time,
for many people a 200bhp bike isnt on their biking wish list, an enjoyable ride out for them isnt doing 160 down the bypass or a trackday.
That said, if you know how to ride a little, a first gen GSXR750 will surprise many owners of newer bikes....they are not that heavy and im sure would in a straightline give something like my Firestorm a hard time.
for many people a 200bhp bike isnt on their biking wish list, an enjoyable ride out for them isnt doing 160 down the bypass or a trackday.
That said, if you know how to ride a little, a first gen GSXR750 will surprise many owners of newer bikes....they are not that heavy and im sure would in a straightline give something like my Firestorm a hard time.
podman said:
The decision to own and run a classic bike isnt linked to performance, 99% of the time,
for many people a 200bhp bike isnt on their biking wish list
for many people a 200bhp bike isnt on their biking wish list
Yup. A slabside 750 isn't a cheap old clunker.
I'm sure there are better stats but the one that comes to mind is Foggy's TT lap record in the iconic 1992 battle with Hislop. 124 mph with 120 Bhp.
Someone has already said it but as time moves on so does technology.
New bikes are smoother, have better brakes, have access to new tyres,have new electronics, lighter and stiffer frames the list goes on. this is all relative of course as some machines these days do feel built to a budget rather than the glory days.
New bikes are smoother, have better brakes, have access to new tyres,have new electronics, lighter and stiffer frames the list goes on. this is all relative of course as some machines these days do feel built to a budget rather than the glory days.
Birky_41 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeh exactly my thoughts Anyways it's bike weather so I'm going out. I'll do some more keyboard warrior work later
Riding in cold wet weather is for mugs....
(Done all that years ago, no thanks)
Esceptico said:
Yet if you go back and read reviews of the GSXR 750 when it was new I expect the road testers then were creaming their pants about how amazing the bike was with unbelievable performance. Were they just deluded? Or have we all become biking gods without knowing it so anything less than 200 BHP is a bit dull?
That's the key point. Compared to other bikes of the time, it was amazing. How were journo's of the time meant to know that we would commute to work on something with 200bhp, a wet weight of 200kg, yet still had 4k miles service intervals?trickywoo said:
Yup. A slabside 750 isn't a cheap old clunker.
I'm sure there are better stats but the one that comes to mind is Foggy's TT lap record in the iconic 1992 battle with Hislop. 124 mph with 120 Bhp.
Years ago my main bike broke down just before the TT so I took my knackered VFR750 instead but first I had to repair the collector with gun gum, wire and bits of coke can. Even with the top box on, I managed to smoke loads of brand new bikes over the mountain whilst laughing my arse off and wringing every last HP out of it. You don't need loads of power or the latest kit to have fun and I'd wager most riders wouldn't have the first idea how to ride the wheels off a modern, 200hp litre bike.I'm sure there are better stats but the one that comes to mind is Foggy's TT lap record in the iconic 1992 battle with Hislop. 124 mph with 120 Bhp.
WaferThinHam said:
Esceptico said:
Yet if you go back and read reviews of the GSXR 750 when it was new I expect the road testers then were creaming their pants about how amazing the bike was with unbelievable performance. Were they just deluded? Or have we all become biking gods without knowing it so anything less than 200 BHP is a bit dull?
That's the key point. Compared to other bikes of the time, it was amazing. How were journo's of the time meant to know that we would commute to work on something with 200bhp, a wet weight of 200kg, yet still had 4k miles service intervals?Esceptico said:
WaferThinHam said:
Esceptico said:
Yet if you go back and read reviews of the GSXR 750 when it was new I expect the road testers then were creaming their pants about how amazing the bike was with unbelievable performance. Were they just deluded? Or have we all become biking gods without knowing it so anything less than 200 BHP is a bit dull?
That's the key point. Compared to other bikes of the time, it was amazing. How were journo's of the time meant to know that we would commute to work on something with 200bhp, a wet weight of 200kg, yet still had 4k miles service intervals?Its not about the bike 99% of the time, anything with 100bhp can keep up with most riders on any other bike (unless they are insane) I never got off my gsxr 750 thinking st that was slow, in fact I was amazed just how quickly a 15 year old bike could be made to hustle.
But 600's are for girls.
But 600's are for girls.
Esceptico said:
Yet if you go back and read reviews of the GSXR 750 when it was new I expect the road testers then were creaming their pants about how amazing the bike was with unbelievable performance. Were they just deluded? Or have we all become biking gods without knowing it so anything less than 200 BHP is a bit dull?
I've got a copy of PB with the RC30 v GSX-R750 road test (29 years ago!! ) and yes they were creaming their leathers over both bikes. But you have to compare the RC30 & GSX-R with the competition of the day, GPX750's or FZ's etc.My 1050 Daytona isn't fast compared to modern Fireblades, S1000RR's etc but still plenty quick enough and yet it's more or less a street legal F1 endurance racer from the late 80's early 90's!
wormus said:
Years ago my main bike broke down just before the TT so I took my knackered VFR750 instead but first I had to repair the collector with gun gum, wire and bits of coke can. Even with the top box on, I managed to smoke loads of brand new bikes over the mountain whilst laughing my arse off and wringing every last HP out of it. You don't need loads of power or the latest kit to have fun and I'd wager most riders wouldn't have the first idea how to ride the wheels off a modern, 200hp litre bike.
In your case the answer is a self-proclaimed yes to the question asked in the title. Ages ago, when Honda launched the CBF600, BIKE magazine said they thought it was a little underwhelming. They spoke to someone at Honda HQ about the bike, who said that the bike was aimed at novice riders and they haven't got any more experienced.
My CBR600F is still way better than me
My CBR600F is still way better than me
Gavia said:
wormus said:
Years ago my main bike broke down just before the TT so I took my knackered VFR750 instead but first I had to repair the collector with gun gum, wire and bits of coke can. Even with the top box on, I managed to smoke loads of brand new bikes over the mountain whilst laughing my arse off and wringing every last HP out of it. You don't need loads of power or the latest kit to have fun and I'd wager most riders wouldn't have the first idea how to ride the wheels off a modern, 200hp litre bike.
In your case the answer is a self-proclaimed yes to the question asked in the title. Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff