Ricisan

I am in the process of trying to finish my 78 550 project bike. I'm very interested in Shawk. I want to be able to stomp pesky 600s. I think a well suspended big twin that "weighs less" will do the job. How light can a Shawk be w/wheels and better suspension? I spoke to Keith Code, he said a strong 600 is all most riders can handle. A 750 makes things happen too fast for most people.
I want to build a light, very torquey, well suspended "old Man's" sleeper. Riding on the edge was long ago. User friendly is more important than top end and braggin rights. I like to use mid range to power off corners like a open class MXer. TIA

Rick

blokeontheend

The SH is narrow but not real light. New wheels and exhaust certainly help, but she won't feel like an SV650 but will definitely pull out of corners much faster. There's been a few threads on suspension, I think the consensus is to use Race Tech up front and put an Ohlins or similar shock out back. My experience has been that the 600's are much more nimble in the tight stuff but I can hang with them. And they can't even come close on sweepers. It's a great all around road bike and can be set up for sport touring or pure sport - it's up to you. You definitely will love the "grunt"!

EngineNoO9

right now I'm on racetech springs up front and a fox shock in the rear. a penske or ohlins will work too as long as it's setup for you. I also have gixxer1000 front brakes for extra stopping power. Exhaust removes weight too. I've heard people mention that wheels do drop a bit of weight but aren't exactly cheap. Obviously jet kit and k&N are going to be required as well. Now there's some pieces that I'm told are just real heavy like the guage cluster mount. It looks to be all steel. Not sure how you'd replace that but if you're handy in a shop maybe you can figure something out. remove the pair system and replace with block offs, and maybe consider high comps and cams. Right now I can keep up with 600s but leave them in the dust I cannot. I'd say a bit of that is my own riding ability.

superbling

Using the marketing dry weights published by the manufacturers, the 'hawk is giving up over 65lbs (425 vs 357*). Going to need more than CF wheels and a Ti exhuast!

*2006 R6

EngineNoO9

probably going on a diet is gonna be your best bet. lol

JesseW.

has anyone ever thought of making an aluminum rear sub-frame, that would drop some weight.

Ricisan

I can't imagine spending big money only to be passed by 600. I'm sure there is a combination of power and handeling that can do the job. About the time I take #50 off the Shawk, the 600 takes off 25 and it starts all over again. I saw an outrageous Triumph 3 at Moto GP "#395 wet". That should work Too bad I don't know how to post pics. Do I have to get a sportbike and give it the "touring touch"? I see no reason for a sport tourer to be much heavier that a sport bike. Where do I have it wrong? TIA

Rick

EngineNoO9

yoou're comparing new technology to 8 yr old technology... You're never going to get our superhawks as light as a new 600. There's a reason 1000's are heavier. Plus we have manufacturing/construction techniques. New bikes have plastics tanks, fewer steel pieces, etc. bumping our power up and having better suspension and brakes is the way you're going to beat one. simple things are no problem but you're basically looking at redoing everything to get it as light as a 600 (not gonna happen). I do believe several other bike's wheels fit on ours which can drop weight but other then that there isn't much to do

bluesman

IMHO you can make Shawk real fast and light. Revolution Racing in UK is the place to go for this - they used to make 150 bhp racing VTRs by fitting Moriwaki stuff into engine and getting rid of heavy parts.
Exhaust, rearsets, passenger sets, rear subframe, gauge cluster and it's mount, straight line brake hoses, lighter brakes, lighter brake disks, PAIR removal, light clipons - you can get Storm down to 180 kg dry EASY but not cheap. Then change wheels to serious CF wheels and it will make handling lighter and will shed few kilos. Add 135 rw bhp to that 178 kg and you have 600s eater. But: is it worth it? At the end of the day GSXR K6 will do it at less cost.
What GSXR can not do IMHO is touring (talking 4000 km in a week let say) or carrying passenger, but then it is not meant for it.

There is a lot of things that can be unexpected when it comes to weight, power, type of bike...This summer total suprise for me was to find out that new Pan European can be a REAL fast in sweepes. Came as total suprise to me - my friend, good rider, almost been able to keep up with me on his Pan despite carrying a passenger! Obviously I mean almost, but then I was not riding relaxed and actually pushed it a bit.

3D02

Exactly. I always found that fascinating that people will talk about spending money on items that reduce the weight of the bike but never consider losing the weight on their own frame.

Ricisan

As an old MXer I remember the days of pre long travel suspension. The 125s were usually the fastest bikes. I found out then that "LIGHTER IS BETTER". Less weight is easier to control than more HP. Conversely, the open class was the slowest, except at the International level.
On the subject of personal body fat, back in my younger days I competed as a collegete wrestler. I once lost #7 in 24 hrs, #s that I didn't have extra to lose. I am now 52 and have accepted that I am not in my 40s.
When it comes to speed, I leave my ego at the door. A man has to know his limits, a lighter bike raises mine!

Rick