I think the numbers might be honest but I really think they are distorted by circumstance.
I doubt the GS or the ST can even do 120 miles per hour, or if so only just. So it might take 24 seconds to reach 120 mph but the mile might actually take 35 seconds but the bike had reached 120 mph 11 seconds before the end of the mile....... can this math work?
120 mph = 0.03 mpsecond, 11 seconds = 0.36 miles so it may have reached 120 mph after 0.63 miles....or about 1 kilometer.
The point is so much in print is poorly presented or explained. (like this of mine.....)
Perhaps they should have used 0-110 mph or 0-100 mph.
Having ridden both my ST and a GSA across a very fast run south of Omeo and swapping bikes with the very fast rider of the GSA I can attest that there was no significant power advantage to either of the two. Top end stuff is NOT their design brief. He really liked the ST and I thought the GSA was a lot of fun too. I think the ST is easier and more neutral but now I'm talking handling.
Originally Posted by Wasp
I read no further than the first few lines of this report, and then saw the road tires used as a "control".
Oddly, but perhaps not surprisingly, there are no off-road pics in the test yet there are comments on how they believe the bikes would fair off-road?
This was enough to convince me that there was nothing to be gained by reading further.
In typical male fashion I glanced over the pictures to note that the BMWGSA was reported as (UK Pounds) $12980 while the S10 was (UK Pounds) $13499... Really? - Boxes and all?
If that's the case then I am surprised anyone would buy an S10 in the U.K - Shame on you Yamaha U.K
The icing on the credibility cake can be seen below when you look at the 0-120mph time for the BMW listed at 24.1seconds, yet the standing mile takes 35.3seconds to achieve the same 120mph... Am I missing something here?
To all the guys anxiously waiting on the arrival of their machines, don't place too much (read any) truth in what you see in these reviews.... Just enjoy the pictures