Car vs Bike

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:20:08 +1100

Pre-war, BMW used to do rather a lot of solo racing too. Naughty
things like blowers for example...

Post-war there was no money in West Germany for stuff like that, but I
think there were still privateers on BMWs in the longer races? And of
course sidecars were BMW powered for ages.

Zebee
- wondering if they'd let V8s in

 

No and end of story. Previous bike was a tourer ( R1150R ) and current bike
is what I would call a sports tourer. The S is definitely no tourer, to
tour on that would be bloody horrible so thats why I would consider it just
a sports bike.

Now everyone has their own opinions but like always mine is the correct one

 

Well thats your definition of sports bike and its not one I agree with .

I guess we will agree on one thing only and thats that we disagree

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:39:15 +1100

Just not a very good one!

A Suzi SV650 is a sport bike. It's not in the GSXR class but that
doesn't make it not a sportbike, just a slow one.

A Mk1 Le Mans is a sportbike. Was when it was made, and is now. Just
not a fast one these days.

Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:44:06 +1100

Um... it's either "at that time" or "now".

Is a 750SS Ducati, the fibreglass tanked bevel drive known as "the
Green Frame" a sportbike? I dunno you are going to call it a sport
tourer!

I think any bike gets judged in its day. So a Green Frame was a
sportbike and is a sportbike. Ditto a Jota. Or a GPZ900R.

They aren't up to race track competition with a modern sportbike but
that's not the point.

Also, if you have something with clipons and rearsets and solo seat
and yet it isn't as fast as an R1/GSXR/whatever, is it not a
sportbike? It might not be a top of the line one, but it's still
sitting in that niche. A Babyblade is a sportbike whether or not it
can run with a GSXR.

Now, for marketing purposes it might get a new image because it can't
run with the current ones. But that's marketing, if they don't change
the seat or riding position or retune the motor then it was always a
sport tourer or always a sportbike.

Zebee

 

It all depends on what you call "sports". And we can argue until we are
all blue in the face about that. I am quite happy to accept what the bike
manufacturers refer to as sports.

 

They're on track to front the WSB grid with a 1000cc inline-four in
2009...

....as for the disparity between the products of the car division vs
BMW Motorrad, it's important to keep in mind that they're very
separate entities, each with their own management and R&D, and that
they don't play the same game, much as Suzuki's car division
specialises in dinky little fun things rather than four-wheeled
analogues of the GSX-R1000 or the Hayabusa.

BMW Motorrad's problem is their small size; Honda make more FireBlades
than BMW's entire volume. When they're only bringing in that much
money, they're going to have trouble branching out in their
development efforts; what money can be set aside for R&D needs to go
towards supporting the incremental work on their traditional touring/
road models first, rather than get gambled on developing new models
for a performance segment they have no recent experience and no
current expertise in.

That's why they're doing it incrementally. With the K1200S/R, they
worked out how to build a motor that actually revs and makes power,
and they worked out how to build a dual-beam frame. They rolled that
out, and the R&D manager would've gone to his team, "Gut. Gleich,
begreife ihr wie die Schwere verlieren."

 

A sportsbike is a bike which can be adapted to *competitive* race use
with minimal modification... the list of bikes in current volume
production which meet that criterion extends to:

- Aprilia RSV1000R
- Ducati 1098.
- Honda CBR600RR
- Honda CBR1000RR FireBlade
- Kawasaki ZX-6R
- Kawasaki ZX-10R
- MV Agusta F4 1000
- Suzuki GSX-R600
- Suzuki GSX-R750
- Suzuki GSX-R1000
- Triumph Daytona 675
- Yamaha YZF-R6
- Yamaha YZF-R1

The rest are roadbikes... your bike's not in the above list, so what
you have in your K1200R is a roadbike.

....or until you accept that your bike's too fat, too long and too low
to be considered a sportsbike.

Yes, because if there's anyone out there talking sense, it'll be
forthright individuals motorcycle manufacturers have working in their
marketing divisions...

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:19:09 -0800

heh. I point out that there is currently an 850T3 downgraded to a T
for eligibilioity reasons that is racing and winning.

So you need to make some kind of criteria for the class, else all
those post classic bikes...

After all, if it's about modern production or semi production races,
a Manx Norton isn't a sportbike. I find that rather hard to justify.

Zebee

 

The former. The manufacturers don't expend much thought on how future-
proof a particular design will be, especially their outright-sports
designs. When Kawasaki carried the relaxed seating position of the
original ZX6 into the 1998 model, for example, their aim was to
continue stealing sales from the CBR600 and the GSX-R600 of the time
by offering a bike that was, respectively, faster but no less
comfortable, and just as fast, but more comfortable. They weren't
thinking, "Let's build it with this much room between the seat and the
pegs because it'll make a mad middleweight sports-tourer in eight
years' time."

Hmmm, that part's debatable... the VFR750 didn't fundamentally change
in that regard between its inception and the first big model revision
in 1993, and yet when it first appeared, it was Honda's four-stroke
production racer, their retort, and a fairly successful one at that,
to the original GSX-R750. it just turned out that, as the market
evolved around those two models, it did so in a way that let the VFR
slot into another segment while the equivalent GSX-R just became
slow...

 

I direct your attention to the "current volume production" bit in my
post, and to my response to your other post (you wouldn't have read it
at the time you posted the above...).

To reiterate, what matters is what the bike was *originally* designed
to be, not what the evolution of the marketplace around it allowed it
to slot into as its design aged. If a bike was built with speed and
handling as its foremost design priorities, it's a sportsbike.

Back in the day, the Manx was built to go as fast as possible, at the
expense of pretty much everything else.
Ditto the green frame. Thus, they're sportsbikes.

These days, that same approach is applied to the bikes I listed in my
post, the R-sisters, the GSX-R's and the rest.

 

wrote:

Sorry to show ignorance here, but is the R the naked one or is it the S?

Whichever is the naked one, definitely isn't a sports bike, it's a
hooligan bike. For very large, wealthy hooligans. ;-)


regards,
CrazyCam

 

Sure the RD was the fun bike but the XJ & XS were the bikes the factory
raced in open-class races.

 

Tell Mike Dowson that! He used to be pretty handy on the XJ900. I know he
won the Surfer's 3-hour but he got knocked out of the 6-hour. (I think
Stephen Gall placed the other one well though)

[erk] I just can't see those buyers wanting BMWs though..... Still; I guess
they've got as much right to seperate people from their excess-cash as
anyone else!

They had one on display at the GP Expo. That was about the warmest I felt
all day!

 

Tell that to my friend who toured 3500km around Tassie with us earlier
this year on his K1200S!

SteveB

 

Ahh Clem boy

They already make very fast stuff for the F1, why not for MotoGP?
Competing against the mass produced Jap gear probably does not make a
lot of business sense, but putting a super special machine on the
MotoGP track would enhance the company's reputation, and in marketing
that is what seems to matter.

Oh, and if BMW make it, it won't BE fragile.

SteveB
(Well certainly not as fragile as the Jap equivalent)

 

Wasn't he wearing waxed-cotton?


regards,
CrazyCam

 

Come on you're not that thick, we're talking about buying them new. So
you wheel a newly manufactured 5 year design ZX6 on the showroom floor
stick ZZR stickers on it and it's a sports tourer - cos it's too fat too
slow and too soft now to be classified with the sports bikes - that's
why its been superceded twice. Still a good bike (and a damn good buy at
several grand cheaper

No, you can't buy one new. It's a sports bike of that time. Same as the
KR1 - read further down the post - made that clear I woulda thought...

We're in violent agreement

Clipons and rearsets don't make it a sports bike, a thruxton isn't
getting a look in for example (the modern one not the 50s one). Read
again the definition we've thrashed this out before. A baby blade would
have made the cut in its day. Hell I think you'd still struggle to find
anything as good in it's class even now.

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:37:06 +1100

Whaddya mean we white man?

I disagree. I feel it is a sportbike if it looks like one, just not a
very good one.

A thruxton or a V11 Sport or 1200 Sport Guzzi might not be a good
sportbike but that's what it looks like, that's what it is used for.

Zebee

 

Now would you like to show me something to back up your claim ?

Never said it was a sportsbike ... please keep up

Once again...have never said my bike was a sportsbike

Well they make more sense then your post