My preference is that a bike with no fairing should have leetle teensy handlebars that are just big enough for your hands. Otherwise, you are fighting the wind. I guess I ain't no flat tracker. No fairing, I need clip ons.
Chuey
I don't want this
- Sibbo
- Posts: 5637
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:18 am
- Location: Oz , half way up ,sitting on a wet spot .
Re: I don't want this
It will start after you turn it off?Major Softie wrote:"Returning to the performance, it becomes obvious that the sophisticated components are not mere technical details included for the sake of style but enhances performance and provides guaranteed reactivity.
WTF?
Leaving the fact that they are not "returning to the performance," as it's the first time it is mentioned, but what the f**k does "provides guaranteed reactivity" mean???
Seriously .When it comes to new bikes most of them look like Hitachi power tools .Bright colours , rubber bits here and there .I am not impressed . BMW do this as well ..... Actually they are prime offenders .
Sooooo ...if I can get past slightly strange aesthetics ..... that Guzzi would be fine, in fact it looks much better than the bloated line of big GS's BeeM are offering . The 800 studiously exempted .
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
The Grateful Dead
The Grateful Dead
- Zombie Master
- Posts: 8821
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:21 am
- Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada
Re: I don't want this
Sibbo
110 hp is nothing to sneeze at. But my concern is with the quality of torque produced at low RPM. Many of the new larger displacement twins these days have what a good friend of mine calls "hollow torque." What it means to me is horse power without gutz. I still prefer the torque character of my old R90 to my R100, and yet the R100 feels way stronger at the bottom than a lot of modern twins. I know there are good reasons to keep flywheels light, but I miss the grunt of a large displacement, kinetically endowed twin. YRMV.
.Sooooo ...if I can get past slightly strange aesthetics ..... that Guzzi would be fine, in fact it looks much better than the bloated line of big GS's BeeM are offering . The 800 studiously exempted
110 hp is nothing to sneeze at. But my concern is with the quality of torque produced at low RPM. Many of the new larger displacement twins these days have what a good friend of mine calls "hollow torque." What it means to me is horse power without gutz. I still prefer the torque character of my old R90 to my R100, and yet the R100 feels way stronger at the bottom than a lot of modern twins. I know there are good reasons to keep flywheels light, but I miss the grunt of a large displacement, kinetically endowed twin. YRMV.
Any and all disclaimers may apply
- Sibbo
- Posts: 5637
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:18 am
- Location: Oz , half way up ,sitting on a wet spot .
Re: I don't want this
I think I wrote here a while ago about a mate's Ducatis . A 696 monster and his 1000 GT .The seemed to be some disapproval of the the 1000 GT but since then it's had the suspension mods ( new front forks)and is now brilliant . But when it comes to torque that bike pulls like a train .She putters around very politely but wind it from about 1500 rpm up and it just pulls .I was VERY impressed .A real tourer but with brakes and suspension (now) to go very hard.
The question remains as to why a new bike (or nearly new) would need new forks but as for torque .No question at all.
The question remains as to why a new bike (or nearly new) would need new forks but as for torque .No question at all.
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
The Grateful Dead
The Grateful Dead
Re: I don't want this
Sibbo wrote:Seriously .When it comes to new bikes most of them look like Hitachi power tools.
I've spent most of my money on women, motorcycles, and beer.
The rest of it I just wasted.
The rest of it I just wasted.