Sport Tourers; Where Art Thou?

I always see people saying that on the internet. But I don't agree. Wet weight is useful to know if a rider is considering buying a new/used bike or about to maybe take a test ride.

But dry weight is actually more of an apples-to-apples comparison of how weight-efficient the bike was actually engineered since it's not distorted by different sized fuel tanks.

the dry weight is meaningless in the real world, unless you intend to ride your bike with an empty tank and no fluids in the engine and transmission. If you do so, please post videos.

No, it's not meaningless. All bikes require fluids/battery/etc. But some bikes have different fuel capacities, which skews the comparison. So as a metric, dry weight is actually a better tool to measure the weight of the materials used to build the bike.

You're right that the wet weight is useful to know, but it's not a good way of measuring lots of different bikes against one another.

The best weight is ready to ride MINUS fuel.

dry weight doesn't include things like loctite or assembly lube, it's more or less a fictitious number derived from the sum of the calculated masses of a CAD file.

the only numbers worth anything aren't even given by mfg's, they're found by independent sources rolling the bike onto a scale.

It's just as fair to weigh bikes full of fuel and expect people to be able to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity, as it is to weigh the bikes empty of fuel and expect people to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity.

what doesn't make sense is to use the dry weight figures, which are unverifiable unless you want to fully disassemble a bike and clean it of all contamination and weigh all the parts, unless you do this all you're getting is a mfg claim which is pretty much always subject to a good degree of fudging.

I personally wouldn't mind if people started measuring CG location and MOI about various axes, and then for giggles measured the MOI's again at various engine and wheel RPMs. a guy can dream

Don't really see many sport tourers around here either. If I dismiss all the H-D's and sport bikes, there are few of anything to spot. Dual sports, BMW has that one covered around here. Saw a GS650 just today at Tractor Supply. I'm aware of four C14 riders locally.

Dry weight, wet weight, it really is all about how the bike carries its weight, right? With mass closer to the ground and the bike would feel lighter.

So to use weights in determining a bike purchase, shouldn't the buyer also straddle the bike considered? :kbasa

My Goldwing didn't feel heavy as long as I didn't tilt it more than a few degrees but, my C14 at a few hundred pound lighter feels just as heavy. If either were to get past a point of no return, I'm jumping out of the way.

Want to experience heavy? Get on a BossHoss.

I think I get what you are trying to say here and I agree to some degree however I think that the size of the fuel tank and its subsequent weight with fuel should be considered overall when looking at weight since we don't ride without gas in the tank. The manufactures plan and take this into consideration when designing the bike so why shouldn't it be considered. I am sure more then one manufacturer has made a tank smaller just to save weight weight and handling characteristics. Who cares if one bike is 10 pounds heavier then another if it handles better so I agree that the design and center of mass etc...are just as critical. Dry weights are just something the manufacturer puts out to appease us the buyers so we can quote the statistics for our buddies. I understand you are driving at the materials used in the manufacturing process therefore it is a more apples to apples comparison but that really only applies if you are going to set them up for display. The actual rideable weight and pushing it around in the garage is more important............

Low CG feels light when stopped since you're pivoting around the contact patch and the CG moves laterally, but High CG feels light when moving since you're pivoting around the CG and the contact patch moves laterally (and provides the roll forces, hence the longer moment arm of a high CG translating to lighter feel).

2 bikes with the same mass and CG location can still be differentiated by different moments of inertia about various axes, and the spinning crank can change the moment about the two axes around which it doesn't spin and this influence changes with RPM, as does the influence of the spinning wheels and theblahblahblahblahblah.

Sitting on doesn't give the same info as riding, and riding in one set of conditions doesn't give the same info as riding in another, and you get used to some things and not to others, and pretty soon the only way to really get to know a bike is to buy it and really get to know it.

You know the best part of this wet weight debate is that only 20 years ago everything just about was heavier then what we can buy now. Only a very few riders can even tap into 50% of a motorcycles ability.......we truly live in good times when it comes to motorcycle selection........

+1 on this... I know I spend too much time whining about whether 118 hp is 'enough' and not enough enjoying the fabulously reliable, great handling bike that it is...

+ 1,000
Ride'in on the street, mor weight is better; to a point. I never thought I'd own a 600 lb bike, 'til I dun got me this 660 lb. FJR and am luv'in it. (Just like a big girl, thar's mor ta luv! )
It's so versatile, solid, stable, and planted at sane street speeds.

+ 1,000,000 The reliability!
Just pick a fucking bike 'n ride the thang already. :fyyff

Amen!

+1. This...

Race bikes *could* be designed with lower CG, but they aren't because the higher CG makes the bike quicker to lean over and turn. High CG = light at the "bottom" of the bike, and the bottom of the bike needs to scoot left and right quickly in order to lean and turn quickly.

Well said... the one key point missing is that no matter how well balanced or set-up a heavier than necessary bike is it will never claw back the dynamic advantages a lighter bike starts with.

that's a bit opposite of what I said, but that's not to say lightness doesn't have a rightness all it's own.

A Sport Touring bike should be just heavy enough to not be a sport bike, and just light enough to not be a Harley. (It is what it isn't).

How did Tom put it - "between a dream and a memory?"

My wife and I have been touring on our matching Duc 900 SS's. up to 800 km days. With a Corbin seat and Cycle Cat adjustable bars mine is ok, but I just bought a R1100S. I am hoping that this will be still sporty enough for me. We are keeping our 900's in our collection so if I want to go for a sporty rip I'll still be able to. The R1100 has hard bags and a more upright seating position so I am hoping that it will be all day, 7 days a week comfortable. Does any one here have experience putting serious distance on a R1100S?

I was also intrested in the R1100s I started a thread that recieved some good info...
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=827317