MCN today....."Black" Gixer 600....
Discussion
Went to look at the new Suzuki's at the dealers on ? (Monday I think). Must admit I went there with a little intention of choping the R6 in for a 750, however, they are ugly beasts 
The wing mirror/inidicators are horrible. The back end, again, horrible. So many little things spoilt it. The quality overall was nowhere near that on the Yamaha.
I was only tempted by the fact that I don't want to go the whole hog just yet & get a 1000cc, but the 750 is meant to handle like a 600cc but with added grunt (sick of being left for dust on the straights at cadwell).
Must admit though, every time I get on the R6 (came to work on it today), I forgot all about selling it
Need to learn so much more though before I get rid. (them black Honda CBR1000RR's do look very nice though
).
The wing mirror/inidicators are horrible. The back end, again, horrible. So many little things spoilt it. The quality overall was nowhere near that on the Yamaha.
I was only tempted by the fact that I don't want to go the whole hog just yet & get a 1000cc, but the 750 is meant to handle like a 600cc but with added grunt (sick of being left for dust on the straights at cadwell).
Must admit though, every time I get on the R6 (came to work on it today), I forgot all about selling it
Need to learn so much more though before I get rid. (them black Honda CBR1000RR's do look very nice though
).hobo said:
Went to look at the new Suzuki's at the dealers on ? (Monday I think). Must admit I went there with a little intention of choping the R6 in for a 750, however, they are ugly beasts
Ding! Now you know why all the promo shots of the new gixers are from the side! In the flesh they're absolutely hideous.
Exactly.
The two new 'actual' 600's (Suzuki & Yamaha) are both meant to be amazing bikes. The GSXR better on road & the Yamaha better on track. However, in all the test they've been slated for not being as quick in a straight line when put up against the ZX636 & the 675. Obviously
As you said, the 675 should be put up against the GSXR750 as its a nearer comparison (600 to 675 = 12.50% uplift in capacity) (675 to 750 = 11.11% uplift in capacity). Then lets see if the reviews are still as good.
The two new 'actual' 600's (Suzuki & Yamaha) are both meant to be amazing bikes. The GSXR better on road & the Yamaha better on track. However, in all the test they've been slated for not being as quick in a straight line when put up against the ZX636 & the 675. Obviously
As you said, the 675 should be put up against the GSXR750 as its a nearer comparison (600 to 675 = 12.50% uplift in capacity) (675 to 750 = 11.11% uplift in capacity). Then lets see if the reviews are still as good.
slim_boy_fat said:
I guess i must be the only one who thinks the new R6 is a realy ugly bike. Its the worst looking of all the 600s.
Im not a Yamaha fan but i do like the R1 in the new yellow/black colour combo.
Out of the 600s the new Triumph D675 is where its at.
Yep, the ONLY one! Must admit, when I first saw it at the Ally Pally show, I thought it was ugly. After that I kept looking at it, and now i honestly think it's the nicest looking bike there is....maybe with the exception of the R1. Agreed, the Triumoph is a lovely looking bike....a bit smooth though (if I HAD to pick holes!)
Cheers.
hobo said:
Exactly.
The two new 'actual' 600's (Suzuki & Yamaha) are both meant to be amazing bikes. The GSXR better on road & the Yamaha better on track. However, in all the test they've been slated for not being as quick in a straight line when put up against the ZX636 & the 675. Obviously
As you said, the 675 should be put up against the GSXR750 as its a nearer comparison (600 to 675 = 12.50% uplift in capacity) (675 to 750 = 11.11% uplift in capacity). Then lets see if the reviews are still as good.
How about price being te deciding factor... Oh look the D675 is cheaper than the R6....
How about power output.....
How about size
How about racing class...
If you are in the market for a 600 type bike then the 749 Ducati and Triumphn D675 will be on your list as well as the Kawazaki, R6, and CBR600, that because thay are all the same or similar class of bike due to all the factors above.
some people...... MRP for the Triumph is about 7,200 and 7,800 for the Suzuki. (Not that anyone ever pays full whack)
I know six hundred quid in seven and a half grand wouldn't influence my decission one way or the other.
The Triumph is racing with the superstocks in the UK, but not on the world stage, (on a dispensation based on splitting the difference between the 750 twins and the 600 fours).
Fair enough if you acept that the capacity limits compensate for the different valve to piston area ratio's and hence power producing potential of the three engine configurations.
Personally I like to see all the different types of engines racing, so long as no one type becomes totally dominant but there are always arguments. Ducati are winning everything in the superbikes at the moment and bleating like hell about the high cost of racing!
By these arguments the Triumph is in the "600" class but where does that leave the Kawasaki? They make a special 600cc version so they can race, but the road bike is a bit over 600cc. All the magazines have included it in their group tests (and it's the mags that define these "classes" anyway) so the Kawasaki is in as well.
Back to my original question, when is a 600 not a 600? When it's a Kawasaki?
So why not include the 750 Suzuki. But they make a 600 I hear, so do Kawasaki.
Silly aint it!
I know six hundred quid in seven and a half grand wouldn't influence my decission one way or the other.
The Triumph is racing with the superstocks in the UK, but not on the world stage, (on a dispensation based on splitting the difference between the 750 twins and the 600 fours).
Fair enough if you acept that the capacity limits compensate for the different valve to piston area ratio's and hence power producing potential of the three engine configurations.
Personally I like to see all the different types of engines racing, so long as no one type becomes totally dominant but there are always arguments. Ducati are winning everything in the superbikes at the moment and bleating like hell about the high cost of racing!
By these arguments the Triumph is in the "600" class but where does that leave the Kawasaki? They make a special 600cc version so they can race, but the road bike is a bit over 600cc. All the magazines have included it in their group tests (and it's the mags that define these "classes" anyway) so the Kawasaki is in as well.
Back to my original question, when is a 600 not a 600? When it's a Kawasaki?
So why not include the 750 Suzuki. But they make a 600 I hear, so do Kawasaki.
Silly aint it!
mtbr said:
MRP for the Triumph is about 7,200 and 7,800 for the Suzuki. (Not that anyone ever pays full whack)
I know six hundred quid in seven and a half grand wouldn't influence my decission one way or the other.
The Triumph is racing with the superstocks in the UK, but not on the world stage, (on a dispensation based on splitting the difference between the 750 twins and the 600 fours).
Fair enough if you acept that the capacity limits compensate for the different valve to piston area ratio's and hence power producing potential of the three engine configurations.
Personally I like to see all the different types of engines racing, so long as no one type becomes totally dominant but there are always arguments. Ducati are winning everything in the superbikes at the moment and bleating like hell about the high cost of racing!
By these arguments the Triumph is in the "600" class but where does that leave the Kawasaki? They make a special 600cc version so they can race, but the road bike is a bit over 600cc. All the magazines have included it in their group tests (and it's the mags that define these "classes" anyway) so the Kawasaki is in as well.
Back to my original question, when is a 600 not a 600? When it's a Kawasaki?
So why not include the 750 Suzuki. But they make a 600 I hear, so do Kawasaki.
Silly aint it!
Is 36cc really getting you lot this excited? And do you believe/care about everything you read in bike mags? The vast majority of stats are utterly irrelevant to the likes of most likely purchasers.
The Triumphs irrelevant to this arguement, by the way, as it's a triple.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff