Downsizing - interesting read.

[AllanB]

A link to a link and I found this wee gem.

I know of some happy 675 Street Triumph owners with no interest in the bigbore Speed.

http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread...ign=12/19/2015

[Blackbird]

Good find!

It probably depends on the type of riding you do too, but I downsized from a Blackbird to a Street Triple and loved it. There was a slightly uncomfortable feeling of dropping down in capacity (testosterone?) but it didn't last for long . Power to weight ratio wasn't massively different and the handling of the Triple was so much better. When it recently came up for replacement, the intention was to replace it with another one.

For reasons which aren't relevant here, I recently ended up with a GSX-S 1000. Enormously grunty, but heavier and not quite so nimble. There aren't many occasions when you can use all of the power and to be honest, the Gixxer doesn't offer me anything more than a Street Triple would. I fully understand the sentiments of the article!

Incidentally, a friend in the US has a Duke 390 and he loves it to bits. The only drawback in his view is a somewhat limited tank range.

[Tazz]

Different buzz for different folks.
Unless I have money to burn and live close-ish to a decent track, or the autobahn (which would probably get boring pretty quick anyway) I don't think I'll ever be getting a 1L+ power ranger mobile.
Slow vehicle fast vs fast vehicle slow and all that.

[caspernz]

Downsizing might be the wrong term in this context, I view it more as right sizing. In 30 or so years of riding, I've owned various sizes of bikes, going up and down in cubes to suit the intended purpose.

Bikes are a lot like the women we choose, whatever rings your bell

[WNJ]

Personally loved my TLS for power ( love the torque from low ) but loving the 636 for speed (faster then TL) plus it's cheaper for a commuter, doin approx 500 k+p/w

[Blackbird]

Downsizing might be the wrong term in this context, I view it more as right sizing. In 30 or so years of riding, I've owned various sizes of bikes, going up and down in cubes to suit the intended purpose.

Bikes are a lot like the women we choose, whatever rings your bell

Spot on! My choice was largely driven by wanting something lighter as I got older and not having to carry a pillion. Future-proofing I suppose. Even so, a light bike with a bit of grunt really refreshed my riding enjoyment.

[pritch]

Funny timing. I've been banging on about this for a couple of years now. As it happens I have an appointment with a dealer in just under an hour to discuss this very thing.

Nothing may come of it but the intent is there. Two models currently under consideration one of which is a KTM, although a 690 not a 390.

Gotta go.

[jasonu]

Fair comments.
Me though, I like to twist the throttle in top gear at 50ks and have something happen. Lazy???

[george formby]

Funny timing. I've been banging on about this for a couple of years now. As it happens I have an appointment with a dealer in just under an hour to discuss this very thing.

Nothing may come of it but the intent is there. Two models currently under consideration one of which is a KTM, although a 690 not a 390.

Gotta go.

Good call. My dad bought a 390 but exchanged it for a 690 after a few months. It did not take long for him to run out of woo hoo on the 390.

I'm a great fan of light (small) bikes with a bit of attitude. Up here, all the roads are very twisty so handling trumps power every time. My fav bike for getting the adrenalin going is my DT 230. I can absolutely cane it without getting into trouble and a really good ride leaves me gibbering like an idiot. Also low maintenance, low running costs (excluding 2t oil) and very easy to push around when I'm shuffling me bikes.

[Tazz]

Fair comments.
Me though, I like to twist the throttle in top gear at 50ks and have something happen. Lazy???

Ever ridden a motard? If not, you should.

[Asher]

I brought an RC390 after crashing my 636. I don't have the KTM anymore but while it was fun they do have big draw backs. I was actually surprisingly quicker than most of my mates in the hills, being small and light weight meant I could brake incredibly late and carry huge corner speeds. That might sound good and fun (which it kinda is) but it means to keep up with bigger bikes and get the same speed rush you are used to you have to ride the pants off them 24/7 and late braking/high corner speeds on Canterburys terrible roads isn't always a good combination.
Another draw back of smaller capacity bikes is that are cheaper which is initially great until you realise where they have saved costs. It's typically suspension and brakes where the money is saved, I'm sure a lot of people aren't fussed about it but riding a bike with mediocre brakes and non adjustable suspension designed for someone 40kgs lighter than you sucks.

[GrayWolf]

Maybe it's more about 'useable' power? Reality is, apart from the ego driven who will argue, there are bugger all roads in NZ where you can 'safely' use anything like the full performance of the 1L+ rocketships. I still own the ZZR1100, and that is still a formidable weapon. Yet the CB1300 is a much 'better' ride for outright usable power in everyday riding. I'm with JasonU on that one, twist the grip at 50kph in top, and something happens.

[jasonu]

Ever ridden a motard? If not, you should.

I also like the 120 to 180kph roll on a big bore offers.

[Big Dog]

Downsizing might be the wrong term in this context, I view it more as right sizing. In 30 or so years of riding, I've owned various sizes of bikes, going up and down in cubes to suit the intended purpose.

Bikes are a lot like the women we choose, whatever rings your bell

Do you mean how most of us pine over slim chassis and big headlights but in the real world we end up with hayabusas, bandits, cb1300s etc?

Sent via tapatalk.

[Jin]

Smaller engine is going to vibrate a lot more. For commuting that might be okay but for longer trips will get old very fast.