After looking at a bike mag, i have to ask. '09 Fireblade ..

After looking at a bike mag, i have to ask. '09 Fireblade ..

Author
Discussion

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
is it ugly, or actually quite stunningly good looking?

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
I have to say that ALL the new litre bikes look superb.
Functional, modern and only the pipes need changing for smaller items.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
Decided it's 3rd in the 2009 Japanese litre bike looks dept. and 2nd best to own!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
(R1 best to own, Suzuki best looking!)

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
So, it looks like this then, chaps and chapesses!
Japanese 1000cc, 2009.
Order of merit!

LOOKS
Suzuki, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Honda.

TO BUY, RIDE AND OWN
Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki.

Sorted!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
(Bulletproof armour safely on!)

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
castrolcraig said:
yam top?? at 10k it would have to be monumentally better than the honda, sazook and kwaka for that sorta cash.

for me looks wise it is.

kwak, honda, sazook, yam

riding,

based on 2008 bikes as no average bloke who's not paid to rave about it hasnt ridden it yet.

blade, kwak, sazook, yam
Riding, it'll be the Yamaha, Craig.
Best engine, best powerband, best updates, etc.
Going by several American magazines.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
Stu R said:
castrolcraig said:
yam top?? at 10k it would have to be monumentally better than the honda, sazook and kwaka for that sorta cash.

for me looks wise it is.

kwak, honda, sazook, yam

riding,

based on 2008 bikes as no average bloke who's not paid to rave about it hasnt ridden it yet.

blade, kwak, sazook, yam
Honda are putting their prices up too (again) according to my local dealership.
New blade with ABS will be 10500 from april on, the non-ABS I think the dealer mentioned was 10200, Repsol high 9's, HRC 9600 etc. Suzuki dealer reckon the new GSXR is going to be somewhere between 9500 and 10000 etc.

So basically it's not looking as radically overpriced as it once did as dealers are giving firm quotes of <10200 for the R1.

They're getting bloody expensive I know that much!
The bottom line is that they are all around £10K.
The same as they were 10 years ago.

We have never had so much performance and technology and handling and braking for so LITTLE money.
At £10K, the Yamaha is a steal.
As is the Honda!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
Craig, the Honda is meant to be a stunningly good bike, too.
I just like the Yamaha approach this year to keeping power output sky high whilst developing a method of better using that power.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
To be honest Craig, there are lies, damned lies, statistics, then motorcycle weights, in that order!

Do ANY of us honestly know the dry or wet weight of a 2007 or 2009 Fireblade?

I take all weights with plenty of salt and just go by the maker's dry weight, purely as a comparison. I realise that the weight as i pull away from the happy dealer will be more.


Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
Yamaha has switched to 'wet' weight, it seems, from 2009, in the case of the R1, 206 kgs ready to roll.

It is 1% heavier than the 2008 model, it would appear.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
New Fireblade is 200 kgs, wet.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
As ever, far more important than marginal weight differences will be, firstly, how easy it is to put the power you have down and, more importantly still, how much the 'thing on top of the bike' weighs!

None of it matters much, if the rider is carrying masses of unnecessary lard everywhere, at the top of the bike!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
Wet weights would seem to be more sensible.

Bikes will just sound very heavy until we get used to it!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
Craig, you've certainly got more faith in the 'crashed, tuned and thrashed' bikes of this world than most!
(Thinking also of the other, ex-racing school thread!)

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2009
quotequote all
I meant Craig, more that you seem to trust bikes which have been crashed and repaired/raced, etc. more than most.
Just about nobody said they would buy an ex raced and crashed bike on the other thread.

If you took 2 bikes, both say, 2007 Honda CBR600RR, which bike would 99% of people buy?
The one with one owner, 5,000 miles and fHsh. Never been dropped or damaged. £5500.
The other, 3,800 miles, ex racing school, four times crashed and repaired, £5000.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Tuesday 27th January 2009
quotequote all
Well, let the numbers speak for themselves, on this one.
Bikes have never been such good value, i can assure you.

I have been buying them, often brand new, for 36 years and have always taken an interest in bike prices, both official and import.

I paid almost £10K for my new R1 in 2002, in 1999 i seem to remember the big 4 Japenese litre bikes being around £9K.

Average earnings have risen by around 30% in the last 10 years, whilst superbike prices have risen by 10% maximum.
In some cases, bikes are now available cheaper than they were 12 years ago!

Go back further and my 1978 Suzuki GS1000 cost me £2000, which was very nearly a year's wages for me then.
A GSXR1000, a MUCH better bike, by about a zillion percent, remember, costs £9,000 and the same job i did then now pays around £26,000 a year.

In my father's day of his Vincent Black Shadow and BSA Gokld Star DBD34, they cost hime around 2 year's income.

Trust me, take into account the near race-performance and handling we've got and the braking and handling we have now, the quality, the modern design wonders, etc., and you get the best and cheapest bikes we've ever known.

£9,000 buys you a brand new bikw which will bother the guy who just spent £300,000 on his Zonda.
Awesome.


Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Tuesday 27th January 2009
quotequote all
Just re-reading what you put, i accept that people only looking at 2007 and 2008 prices might think the new ones expensive.

But some bikes have been on sale silly cheap, like the Benelli in the other thread.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

215 months

Wednesday 4th February 2009
quotequote all
Well put.
The simplest comparison for me, is ten years ago, when the bikes were £9K to £10K. But not nearly as good.
They still are £9K to £10K, or thereabouts.
The prices have barely moved.

See if labour rates at the BMW dealer are the same as they were 10 years ago, or if that house extension's the same price!
A MacDonalds Cheeseburger has gone up by 27% in that time, as a comparison!