I could/should have bought a slower bike

[A500leroy]

Codotuk said:

V8RX7 said:

Not all 600cc bikes are the same - go try a single and a V twin - very different beasts to a 4 cylinder.

Edited by V8RX7 on Monday 13th January 15:01

I had a mt07 for a while which I really didn’t like, was very easy to ride had the low end power but the engine braking was annoying.

I’d compare that to a Diesel engine.

I’m not saying 600cc are not good. If I was doing a track day or a proper fast ride I’d say a 600cc would be more satisfying to ride, but for a daily it was too annoying because of traffic.

Hated mine it was like riding a pogo stick so it went for said 125..

[SteveS Cup]

I passed a few months back and bought a 2010 GSXR 750.

I’m constantly scratching my head wondering how anybody could use or need more power than the 750 on the road and yet you have bikes out there with almost another 100bhp! The reality is, the extra peak numbers are probably rarely used on the road, unless you have no regard for your license! It’s the extra low down / mid grunt that will be exploited.

[Codotuk]

SteveS Cup said:

I passed a few months back and bought a 2010 GSXR 750.

I’m constantly scratching my head wondering how anybody could use or need more power than the 750 on the road and yet you have bikes out there with almost another 100bhp! The reality is, the extra peak numbers are probably rarely used on the road, unless you have no regard for your license! It’s the extra low down / mid grunt that will be exploited.

Ride a friends 1000cc then your 750 will be a lot easier to ride and you might call it slow.

By the time you wind a 600 up to its power band your at the acceptable limit, on the 1000 your at the acceptable before u can think.

[V8RX7]

Codotuk said:

I had a mt07 for a while which I really didn’t like, was very easy to ride had the low end power but the engine braking was annoying.

I’d compare that to a Diesel engine.

I’m not saying 600cc are not good. If I was doing a track day or a proper fast ride I’d say a 600cc would be more satisfying to ride, but for a daily it was too annoying because of traffic.

I'm not particularly defending / attacking anything, I'm just saying to try everything and (to some) not to judge others by their standards.

A quick look at the stats suggests an MT07 wouldn't be my choice of twin (an SV650, 600 Monster or KTM 790 would) but again we are all looking for different things.

Regarding the car analogies I once ran a BMW 328 and a Prelude VTEC at the same time, when I was tired or it was a dull trip I'd take the BMW, when I was i the mood to drive I'd take the VTEC.

I only have bikes for fun, I have very little self restraint and tend to think things will be ok.... which isn't a great combination if you add powerful sportsbike into the mix.

[Speed addicted]

I must admit that after years of only buying things with over 1000cc and at least 130bhp my current favorite bike is my rebuilt Ducati st2 café thing.
It's got a whopping 80bhp but feels grunty enough and makes a great noise. Obviously it struggles a bit if you want to go properly fast but for thundering around the backroads at mostly sensible speeds it's about perfect for me.

I have owned much faster bikes (even my Explorer would leave the Ducati for dead) but it's a really nice feeling to be able to ride (what feels) quite quickly without running into possible jail territory.

[the cueball]

V8RX7 said:

Anyone who rides a 1000 sportsbike on the road and hasn't been banned / killed, either rides like a girl or has far more self restraint than I.

I've only been killed twice... not sure where that lands me on the PH girlomter??

[WarnieV6GT]

SteveS Cup said:

I passed a few months back and bought a 2010 GSXR 750.

I’m constantly scratching my head wondering how anybody could use or need more power than the 750 on the road and yet you have bikes out there with almost another 100bhp! The reality is, the extra peak numbers are probably rarely used on the road, unless you have no regard for your license! It’s the extra low down / mid grunt that will be exploited.

I remember when I 1st passed and I though a 95bhp Honda Hornet was stupid fast when wound up. I have now just downgraded on power from a Fireblade, which I still have to a 140bhp Speed Triple R. In my head the Triumph is slow and safe but in reality it's supercar quick it's just that my perception of speed is now completely different.

I will not ride the blade much now as the Triumph is more grunty down low and more comfortable. Makes much more sense for the road

[Birky_41]

WarnieV6GT said:

I remember when I 1st passed and I though a 95bhp Honda Hornet was stupid fast when wound up. I have now just downgraded on power from a Fireblade, which I still have to a 140bhp Speed Triple R. In my head the Triumph is slow and safe but in reality it's supercar quick it's just that my perception of speed is now completely different.

I will not ride the blade much now as the Triumph is more grunty down low and more comfortable. Makes much more sense for the road

I think thats the bit maybe some people including me dont always take into account. One persons 100 brake being quick could be the next persons 200 brake.

I've ridden the Speed Triple and like you said didnt find it 'mad' but its definitely quick...just not the utter madness bikes like your blade brings

Its why I typically ride my GSXR1000 on track where it doesnt feel as fast and I can really open it up. On the road I prefer a more upright, similar riding position as your Triumph. I think Super Nakeds are the way forward for the road for the fun factor

[squirdan]

WarnieV6GT said:

SteveS Cup said:

I passed a few months back and bought a 2010 GSXR 750.

I’m constantly scratching my head wondering how anybody could use or need more power than the 750 on the road and yet you have bikes out there with almost another 100bhp! The reality is, the extra peak numbers are probably rarely used on the road, unless you have no regard for your license! It’s the extra low down / mid grunt that will be exploited.

I remember when I 1st passed and I though a 95bhp Honda Hornet was stupid fast when wound up. I have now just downgraded on power from a Fireblade, which I still have to a 140bhp Speed Triple R. In my head the Triumph is slow and safe but in reality it's supercar quick it's just that my perception of speed is now completely different.

I will not ride the blade much now as the Triumph is more grunty down low and more comfortable. Makes much more sense for the road

I've done the same thing but gone further down that path...Thruxton R. not so much top end horizon rushing towards you madness. But loads of instant grunt at "sensible" speeds. And a good noise.

[Triaguar]

I had a 650 Daytona for a few years and thought it was everything I wanted. Until I changed for a litre sports bike. There is absolutely no comparison. They just do everything so much better.

[trickywoo]

Triaguar said:

I changed for a litre sports bike. There is absolutely no comparison. They just do everything so much better.

Including burning money.

[black-k1]

trickywoo said:

Triaguar said:

I changed for a litre sports bike. There is absolutely no comparison. They just do everything so much better.

Including burning money.

If money is the top priority then a C90 is better bet!

The overall cost difference between running a 600(ish) bike and a 1000 bike is not going to be huge.

[Pegscratch]

black-k1 said:

If money is the top priority then a C90 is better bet!

The overall cost difference between running a 600(ish) bike and a 1000 bike is not going to be huge.

My 1100 did 21mpg. My 790 does 65mpg. My 1100 cost £800 to service. My 790 costs £250 to service. My 1100 cost £1200 to insure. My 790 cost £400 to insure.

Night and day difference.

[iacabu]

WarnieV6GT said:

SteveS Cup said:

I passed a few months back and bought a 2010 GSXR 750.

I’m constantly scratching my head wondering how anybody could use or need more power than the 750 on the road and yet you have bikes out there with almost another 100bhp! The reality is, the extra peak numbers are probably rarely used on the road, unless you have no regard for your license! It’s the extra low down / mid grunt that will be exploited.

I remember when I 1st passed and I though a 95bhp Honda Hornet was stupid fast when wound up. I have now just downgraded on power from a Fireblade, which I still have to a 140bhp Speed Triple R. In my head the Triumph is slow and safe but in reality it's supercar quick it's just that my perception of speed is now completely different.

I will not ride the blade much now as the Triumph is more grunty down low and more comfortable. Makes much more sense for the road

The first few days on my Hornet felt crazy. Everything blurred and that was only up to about 85mph. 98% of my riding since I've owned it has been commuting on pretty much a straight A road. The problem I have now I'm used to it, is I want to give it some beans but don't like that fact everybody around can hear me doing it. Would rather a lower revving, torquey bike for that reason.

[Triaguar]

black-k1 said:

trickywoo said:

Triaguar said:

I changed for a litre sports bike. There is absolutely no comparison. They just do everything so much better.

Including burning money.

If money is the top priority then a C90 is better bey
The overall cost difference between running a 600(ish) bike and a 1000 bike is not going to be huge.

I am fortunate and very grateful that I am in a position to treat my bike and some other things as a toy. Up to a point money is not the principle driver.

[black-k1]

Pegscratch said:

black-k1 said:

If money is the top priority then a C90 is better bet!

The overall cost difference between running a 600(ish) bike and a 1000 bike is not going to be huge.

My 1100 did 21mpg. My 790 does 65mpg. My 1100 cost £800 to service. My 790 costs £250 to service. My 1100 cost £1200 to insure. My 790 cost £400 to insure.

Night and day difference.

And how much would a C90 cost?

[yellowstreak]

NNK said:

I gave up on sports bikes in NZ about 10 years ago when I went from bike to car trackdays.
Since I have intermittently had road bikes but Monsters, Hypermotards and now a KTM 690SMCR which I think is awesome for NZ roads.
OK my twice weekly 125km each way commute by highway would be better on something else but I know I wont lose my licence (although tickets are always possibilities) and a blast round the Coromandel or out to Kawhia for fish and chips couldn't be more fun on it.
I keep meaning to get it on the track but something always comes up, soon .

Having driven a little on the South island, I was going to suggest a 690 SMCR as the perfect NZ bike! Mine is down two teeth on the back and tops out just over 100mph, but is most comfortable well below that, which is absolutely fine for me. Its an absolute hoot at lower speeds.

What I wouldn't give to ride the Takaka Hill road this weekend on any type of bike! It would be mega on a scooter let along a GSXR 750!!

Edited by yellowstreak on Wednesday 15th January 09:42

[Pegscratch]

black-k1 said:

Pegscratch said:

black-k1 said:

If money is the top priority then a C90 is better bet!

The overall cost difference between running a 600(ish) bike and a 1000 bike is not going to be huge.

My 1100 did 21mpg. My 790 does 65mpg. My 1100 cost £800 to service. My 790 costs £250 to service. My 1100 cost £1200 to insure. My 790 cost £400 to insure.

Night and day difference.

And how much would a C90 cost?

Less, but that's not the retarded bit of your statement. The difference between a ~600 and a ~1000 is massive for the most part assuming they're the nice ones. Money might not be your top priority but when ~600s will do indecent speeds fairly effortlessly and cost less than half to run (less than a third in most cases!) then it becomes a factor.

You're effectively advocating buying a C90 or a Desmosedici?

[A500leroy]

My c125 (modern c90) costs £200 to insure £20 to tax £100 to service and does 150mpg, ( if that helps)

[V8RX7]

A500leroy said:

150mpg

^^^ That's the bit I'd like

Most of my transport struggles to get 20