Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Road Warriors' started by Ginger Beard, Jul 13, 2021.
Huh, mine says 162hp.
Agreed. I’m awaiting the review from mo.com, ya know, where they actually ride it. John burns on it as a motorcycle, and everyone else on how it is as a performance bike.
and, yeah, everyone PLEASE stop posting Diavel pics.
All they're doing is showing Ducati practiced to make a bike that ugly!
Matt Laidlaw is a shill. Saw one video, thought it was absolutely laughable. A waste of Mb's on YouTube's servers...
Seems like the enjoyed it. In spite of......
Harley is trying to address the market saturation problem while knocking lower volume dealers out of business. I'm not real happy with the new guy.
Anyone gonna say anything about Scaysbrook's comments from 10:00 on?
I really do wonder what this bike would be like with normal naked bike suspension travel and peg positioning along with 150/70-18 rear and 110/80-18 or 19 wheel/tire set. That is a Harley I'd take a very serious look at. Still like the 750 engine though. If you ever rode one of the 700 Yamahas you'd know why.
pretty much what a lot of us are thinking, no?
but I’m convinced the Bronx is alive and well. Maybe not in the exact form as the motorcycle formerly known as Bronx, but with a few twists. Maybe Soortster R, S and T versions? But it’s not difficult to understand why the slammed, tech heavy, hot rod version came first.
And I’m with you on a smaller version as well. The rumored 975 would be fabulous. A Street 750 motor given the Max treatment would work too.
What’s the sense of a smaller displacement if it’s the same motor with just a smaller bore?
In my case, it’s a great way to compensate for lack of brains.
but when ms iron started riding, she had a ninja 250 and then a 650 GS. Every once in a while I’d hop on one of those to run errands. And I really liked the experience. I discovered that, mostly, it was enough to be fun and you could wring it out a little harder.
im still a performance and horsepower junkie. But as pointed out in the mo.com article, there’s a lot of flexibility in this platform and I’d really like to try the smaller platform. Sometimes I’d just like to go goof around on a great handling v twin where I don’t have to pay mega attention ALL the time. Or maybe better stated, a bike that mediates my basic instincts.
Why'd they make an 883 and a 1200?
Lots of reasons, but maybe one of the biggest at this point is the 1250 makes enough power that you can't really wring its neck on public roads.
Smaller displacement bikes generally offer:
* Let you flog it harder which can = more fun
* Greater efficiency (better mileage, longer range from the same size tank)
* Lower insurance rates
* Lower initial price
Now that last one doesn't have to be from a physical/mechanical point of view. But it's true from a marketing standpoint.
Most people will pay more for a bigger engine/more power and conversely a company that sells more expensive models usually also wants to sell cheaper ones and will need to differentiate them. Maybe they'll use lower performance suspension, brakes, or fewer tech features, or less desirable/cheaper finishes etc.
Personally for my use I kinda find engines bigger than 1200cc really unnecessary. I could happily ride a 1200-1340cc BT and don't really need my somewhat grotesquely large 1.6L or whatever it is these days.
I really think that < 1000cc is a sweet spot. It's why 3 of our 4 bikes fit that bill.
And water-cooling allows a 975 you outperform even my 1.6L so I have no doubt it would be fine.
But then again I could happily buy another 883 or the new 850 Guzzi V7 and enjoy the hell out of the relative minimalism, doing more with less.
I guess my RK is for times when I want to simply have it "all" without said minimalism.
I have no problem with smaller displacement bikes per se. It’s when it’s the same bike with just a smaller piston. Or worse like the BMW Twins the same motor in just a different state of tune. If you want less HP, less high strung you can do that with riding modes. And for high reving Twins 100 HP/ 1,000 cc has always been enough for me.
Ducati did it with their 400/800 Scramblers. Guzzi has done it with their small block and before with their big block. It gets different placement in insurance categories and suits rider preferences. Some people like to use most all the power a bike can give, without ending up in jail or don't want the front wheel constantly pawing 3 feet in the air (just some of the time with that one for some of us).
It isn't just the same bike with less displacement in many cases. The general frame may be the same, but the way it is equipped or some components may be different to lower pricing. They can reduce prices significantly by simplifying some of the modern nuances like engine modes and all the electronic gimmicks like cell phone connectivity. Personally I didn't want that big a bike or all the electronic stuff they put on those bigger bikes. I like the simplicity of one engine mode and that I control the bike more than the bike controls me. I went 700cc instead of 900cc with the Yamaha, as I'm sure you may know. One friend who raced flat track now is riding a Ducati 400 Scrambler and loves it. He could have gone 800 or 1100 if he wanted. He didn't want to. It was about riding, not electronic gimmicks. Clearly all the extra junk adds to the price.
But the thing that @BigIron included was they already had the 750 engine that I am saying pushed 64 hp (for comparison Yamaha's 700 did 68 hp) as tested by Cycle World. They even made it with decent suspension travel, just wrong styling and bad ergonomics for the market where it would sell well. Some more current naked bike styling and they have a competitor for the mid range market (in the past 6 years Yamaha has sold 125,000 FZ/MTs). Seems Cycle World felt it was a fairly decent bike handicapped by ergonomics and I think the pipe that grounded out. But instead of going in a mid size bike direction H-D binned the whole idea. From what I gather the closing of the India plant was a financial thing and they apparently didn't want to build the bike in the U.S. at the Kansas plant anymore. Kind of a shame. Might be cool if they'd actually revive the engine in a standard.
peter Egan wrote a great column about these kinds of bikes in which he called them something like ‘motorcycles that present no opposition to being ridden’
I guess that’s what I’m after.
Well I mean I understand the confusion in some cases like the BMW Oilhead 850 vs 1100 which didn't make sense in the US as much as overseas. Same chassis she weight, very little benefit.
And I guess Guzzi may have had an EU only smaller bore big block, though I'm not positive. I feel like there was an 850 Griso or something like that.
There was the Bellagio Tonti, but iirc that was a short stroke 940 made from the 1100 Tonti.
But I don't recall Guzzi ever really did that with the smallblock or most of their big blocks?
Can you think of some examples for my curiosity?
KevM, you’ve triggered an interesting discussion here; I went back through my 30+ years of riding, and realized that the largest displacement bike I’ve ever owned was a 750; I actually owned two, a 1984 VF750 Interceptor and a ‘97 Ducati M750 Monster. I’ve ridden more powerful bikes, but I’ve never been able to justify the extra cost relative to the benefits they offer. I realize the calculation is different with a cruiser or other riding style, but I find the smaller displacement bikes more appealing in these cases, too. I actually prefer the 883 to the 1200 sportster, despite the additional power the 1200 has, provided it’s tuned correctly. While I’m super happy hat H-D has built this machine with 120hp, and torque to match, I’m unlikely to buy a bike with that output. If the 975 comes to pass, it’s likely to be more my speed.
Then you, my friend, have most of us beat with simple, steady, self-confidence!
I am jealous, I've spent much of my life flittering from one bike to another trying to figure out what you seem to have known from the start.
Thanks! Note that I didn’t say I don’t LOOK at other bikes, I just end up BUYING the more modestly powered/sized bikes.
EDIT: I think one of the major attractions of the Sportster for me has been the almost limitless permutations one can create from the blank canvas the machine represents. I hope that the modular assembly approach H-D has used on the new one lends itself to customization. That’s the real genius of the Sportster, and I hope it’s able to continue serving this role into the future.