Tried other twins?
05-02-2009, 10:47 AM
#34
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 562
05-02-2009, 12:41 PM
#35
Will drum for BBQ
Back Marker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 166
During high school the Barnett twins and I got drunk and I rode bot..............oh bikes, sheez.........uh
RC51 = nice track bike, brutal on the road.
Lotsa cruisers. Harley, Yamaha, Honda. Had a Virago for a year. Kept trying to ride it like a sport bike so I sold it.
SV650 = nice bike.
RC51 = nice track bike, brutal on the road.
Lotsa cruisers. Harley, Yamaha, Honda. Had a Virago for a year. Kept trying to ride it like a sport bike so I sold it.
SV650 = nice bike.
05-02-2009, 12:52 PM
#36
Super Byrd
Superstock
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cumming, Ga
Posts: 356
05-02-2009, 10:03 PM
#37
Remember stock is BAD!
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 760
My twin experience is limited
CX500 Custom - first street bike I rode (friends)
883 hardley - couldn't get the thing to corner
SV650 - played swap keys with a friend
Mille R - Prillia day test ride - sweet bike
Other than that its been all inlines
05-03-2009, 09:58 AM
#42
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
Well... Slow and heavy turd and then the turbo kicks in (or doesn't kick as it is...) And then it's just a heavy turd...
I have spent considerable time on a mille... I liked that a lot... But it kinda got spoiled when I tried one with an supercharger fitted... It's pulls an honest 240 hp and lofts the front in any gear if you twist it hard... After that the R feels a bit dull...
The touno is great but it isn't really clear on it's purpose... It almost has the power of the mille, no ergonomics for touring and no real purpose... But fun...
The newer ducatis are fun bikes, they just feel to small and narrow, I look like a monkey on a fotball...
I have spent considerable time on a mille... I liked that a lot... But it kinda got spoiled when I tried one with an supercharger fitted... It's pulls an honest 240 hp and lofts the front in any gear if you twist it hard... After that the R feels a bit dull...
The touno is great but it isn't really clear on it's purpose... It almost has the power of the mille, no ergonomics for touring and no real purpose... But fun...
The newer ducatis are fun bikes, they just feel to small and narrow, I look like a monkey on a fotball...
05-03-2009, 11:00 AM
#43
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Delmar NY
Posts: 805
Ok now I will join in - Slow heavy turd? As I have ridden one since '87 I will now take you to task.
Heavy? Compared to the bikes of the day, in its class, it was on the heavier side (Hmmmm, same is said about the Superhawk) But a BMW is much heavier than a SHawk too and really the 500 turbo was about sport touring not street racing
Slow? Once on boost there is nothing like it - except the 650 turbo. Transitioning to boost cannot be described, you go from maybe 25 ft/lbs to 60+ ft/lbs in seconds. In '82 the CX500T was equivalent to any liter bike. It was the first twin to give low 12s 1/4 miles and was equal to any liter bike in roll on contest. The following year the CX650T was the roll on king and kept that title for the remainder of the decade
The Turbo was about technology and it had that in spades. Mine is in a coma at the moment. But I'm telling you that there is nothing like twisting your wrist at 60 mph, having the torque more than double at the same rpm and then find yourself at 110mph before you know whats happening.
Once you are a boost junkie anything else is just... Linear
Heavy? Compared to the bikes of the day, in its class, it was on the heavier side (Hmmmm, same is said about the Superhawk) But a BMW is much heavier than a SHawk too and really the 500 turbo was about sport touring not street racing
Slow? Once on boost there is nothing like it - except the 650 turbo. Transitioning to boost cannot be described, you go from maybe 25 ft/lbs to 60+ ft/lbs in seconds. In '82 the CX500T was equivalent to any liter bike. It was the first twin to give low 12s 1/4 miles and was equal to any liter bike in roll on contest. The following year the CX650T was the roll on king and kept that title for the remainder of the decade
The Turbo was about technology and it had that in spades. Mine is in a coma at the moment. But I'm telling you that there is nothing like twisting your wrist at 60 mph, having the torque more than double at the same rpm and then find yourself at 110mph before you know whats happening.
Once you are a boost junkie anything else is just... Linear
05-03-2009, 11:24 AM
#44
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
Ok now I will join in - Slow heavy turd? As I have ridden one since '87 I will now take you to task.
Heavy? Compared to the bikes of the day, in its class, it was on the heavier side (Hmmmm, same is said about the Superhawk) But a BMW is much heavier than a SHawk too and really the 500 turbo was about sport touring not street racing
Slow? Once on boost there is nothing like it - except the 650 turbo. Transitioning to boost cannot be described, you go from maybe 25 ft/lbs to 60+ ft/lbs in seconds. In '82 the CX500T was equivalent to any liter bike. It was the first twin to give low 12s 1/4 miles and was equal to any liter bike in roll on contest. The following year the CX650T was the roll on king and kept that title for the remainder of the decade
The Turbo was about technology and it had that in spades. Mine is in a coma at the moment. But I'm telling you that there is nothing like twisting your wrist at 60 mph, having the torque more than double at the same rpm and then find yourself at 110mph before you know whats happening.
Once you are a boost junkie anything else is just... Linear
Heavy? Compared to the bikes of the day, in its class, it was on the heavier side (Hmmmm, same is said about the Superhawk) But a BMW is much heavier than a SHawk too and really the 500 turbo was about sport touring not street racing
Slow? Once on boost there is nothing like it - except the 650 turbo. Transitioning to boost cannot be described, you go from maybe 25 ft/lbs to 60+ ft/lbs in seconds. In '82 the CX500T was equivalent to any liter bike. It was the first twin to give low 12s 1/4 miles and was equal to any liter bike in roll on contest. The following year the CX650T was the roll on king and kept that title for the remainder of the decade
The Turbo was about technology and it had that in spades. Mine is in a coma at the moment. But I'm telling you that there is nothing like twisting your wrist at 60 mph, having the torque more than double at the same rpm and then find yourself at 110mph before you know whats happening.
Once you are a boost junkie anything else is just... Linear
05-03-2009, 01:00 PM
#45
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Muskego,WI
Posts: 388
i have ridden....
Buell 1125r - fast but nothing special. rode and was not impressed
Buell 1125cr - fast, seemed faster than the 1125r, maybe the lack of fairing
Buell lightening - ok at that
Ducati 900ss - good overall bike, enjoyed.
waiting on a tl1000s -friend just got one last weekend, cant wait to ride.
Buell 1125r - fast but nothing special. rode and was not impressed
Buell 1125cr - fast, seemed faster than the 1125r, maybe the lack of fairing
Buell lightening - ok at that
Ducati 900ss - good overall bike, enjoyed.
waiting on a tl1000s -friend just got one last weekend, cant wait to ride.
05-04-2009, 06:04 PM
#46
MSF RiderCoach
Back Marker
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 170
I just test rode the new Monster 1100S, with T pipes on it. It pulls almost as hard as the SH down low, is MUCH lighter and makes the SH feel like the Queen Mary in the handling department. If you are looking for a naked mountain road machine, this is it. Still, I just can't give up my SHawk. On the other hand, as soon as I can get my hands on a test ride of the new Duc 1198, it may be all over...
05-05-2009, 06:31 AM
#51
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Muskego,WI
Posts: 388
My friend just picked up a 98 TL-1000S and upon further inspection noticed that one of the shock mounts on the frame was cracked. I guess with Suzuki's revolutionary suspension on the TL, this is a common problem.
05-05-2009, 07:05 AM
#52
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 227
I drool everytime I see an RC51, I wish I could afford one, because I would buy it in a heartbeat. I also have ridden an RSV Mille quite extinsively, the engine is smooth, and it has tons of power. It turns into corners so effortlessly, and quick!
05-05-2009, 11:27 AM
#53
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
________
MEDICAL CANNABIS
Last edited by Malice; 05-01-2011 at 07:37 AM.
05-05-2009, 11:56 AM
#55
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 562
05-05-2009, 12:06 PM
#56
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
The RC8 is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more comfortable than the Duc (in large part thanks to its adjustable ergos which allow you to give it a more real-world riding position for street use). Also, the RC8`s low-mounted muffler means your *** doesn't get roasted in stop-and-go traffic. The engine pulls more linearly too, not bucking at throttle applications at speeds below 4-4.5 K (where the Ducati`s cam timing makes it shake in protest). Of course, the 1198 may be a different animal in this regard....
05-12-2009, 07:32 PM
#57
Senior Member
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 524
Anyway, guess which bike wound up being the best for the buck? SUPERHAWK, YAY! Guess which bike got a big ol' yawn? SV 1000...
Falco was voted as being a great bike, but not much more of one for what you spend for it than the Superhawk...
Oh and there's a giant head-on photo of the rider on the Superhawk doing a stand-up 12 o'clock wheelie in the front of the article... Take note, Cycle World!!!
Last edited by supermarto; 05-12-2009 at 07:35 PM.
05-12-2009, 07:58 PM
#58
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 562
Yeah, I like those Brit rags - they do write for fun and delve into unexpected stuff. Pricey tho.
Looks like the article blows my argument that they put the SV over the SH. I know I've read it somewhere.
Looks like the article blows my argument that they put the SV over the SH. I know I've read it somewhere.
Actually, this months issue of TWO (Two Wheels Only) magazine from the UK has a used bike article which compares the Superhawk, the SV 1000 and an Aprilia Falco (now why don't AMERICAN mags have comparos that make that much sense???)
Anyway, guess which bike wound up being the best for the buck? SUPERHAWK, YAY! Guess which bike got a big ol' yawn? SV 1000...
Falco was voted as being a great bike, but not much more of one for what you spend for it than the Superhawk...
Oh and there's a giant head-on photo of the rider on the Superhawk doing a stand-up 12 o'clock wheelie in the front of the article... Take note, Cycle World!!!
Anyway, guess which bike wound up being the best for the buck? SUPERHAWK, YAY! Guess which bike got a big ol' yawn? SV 1000...
Falco was voted as being a great bike, but not much more of one for what you spend for it than the Superhawk...
Oh and there's a giant head-on photo of the rider on the Superhawk doing a stand-up 12 o'clock wheelie in the front of the article... Take note, Cycle World!!!
05-12-2009, 08:14 PM
#59
Senior Member
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 524
Well, they do say that the SV 1000 is a great bike, but doesn't have much more oomph than the smaller 650... that it just seems too de-tuned...
And you're right. Pricey. That issue cost me $8.00... Bastards.
I wouldn't have bout it if I hadn't seen that pic of the Supe doing a stand-up wheelie...
And you're right. Pricey. That issue cost me $8.00... Bastards.
I wouldn't have bout it if I hadn't seen that pic of the Supe doing a stand-up wheelie...
Last edited by supermarto; 05-12-2009 at 08:17 PM.
