Bikes, 1990 vs 2000 vs 2009

[tigertim20]

So I read some of these bike reveiws from time to time, and I was thinking.
Now I know that technology advances all the time, and that the technology available on a bike changes with each generation of the bike, but I read all the time in these reveiws where the writer says things like "peak HP or tourque is now 500 or 1000 higher or lower than last year ets, and I cant help but wonder, Do these people genuinely notice and feel this? or are they just talking shit because the dyno read out said this and they feel the need to add to it by saying something?
Dont get me wrong, I know that bikes DO get better over time (well, most of them) but does it really matter to Joe Bloggs rider? I mean, sure, valentino Rossi can probably nit-pick all day about the smallest of things that we wouldnt even notice, but these things are built for us joe bloggs riders, so Do we, as joe bloggs rider, genuinely see these "dramatic differences" that these articles piss on ( and on and on and on and on..) about?
I personally see bugger all diference, aside from what can generally be put down to wear and tear on each bike.
My bike had around 105HP when brand new, and the 2009 has 97HP, of course there are a whole heap of other cosmetic changes and bits have been made lighter and what-not, but I do wonder, are these things REALLY getting SIGNIFICANTLY better, or does it just come down to wear and tear, and personal preferences? thoughts?

[madbikeboy]

Yes, small improvements make a big difference. Ride a CBR6 from the 1990's, then live with a new one for a week. Then go back to the old one. Then you'll see...

[cowboyz]

With everything getting better and better the newer bikes are just getting easier and easier to ride. The extra power is made unnoticeable by the better brakes and better handling.

In saying that, I test rode a 2009 cbr1000rr the other week and didnt have any trouble at all going back to my 10 yr old machne

[madbikeboy]

But, putting that in perspective, the ZX9R is an animal, the CBR1000 is a pussycat.

[R6_kid]

Are you sure those HP figures are correct? My 1999 R6 dyno'd at 92.9hp at the wheel, claimed was 102hp in the mags.

I know that a new R6 on a dynojet dyno puts 108hp stock from factory, at the wheel. And can be opened up to well over 120hp without too much trouble.

[koba]

Every time I ride a "new bike" and go back to my '86 honda I do really notice it.
Alot.
In saying that the old dear does all I want it to do just fine.

[R6_kid]

In saying that the old dear does all I want it to do just fine.

I've found the same with my 85 CB650, actually is a nice change from riding a 150hp WEAPON around the streets.

[MaxB]

OK Yamaha fans according to Performance Bikes magazine match the sports tourer to the stats. Sorry about the mph

1988 FJ1200, 1993 GTS1000 and the current FJR1300

149mph/11.3 ss1/4, 152mph/10.9 ss1/4 and 154mph/11.0 ss1/4?

[koba]

OK Yamaha fans according to Performance Bikes magazine match the sports tourer to the stats. Sorry about the mph

1988 FJ1200, 1993 GTS1000 and the current FJR1300

149mph/11.3 ss1/4, 152mph/10.9 ss1/4 and 154mph/11.0 ss1/4?

Im guessing the new FJ is the slowest.
Again guessing, it is heavier with more blah crap on it and had to pass emmisions testing but isn't worth pissing about with too much to get back what is lost from that because they aren't sold on performance figures.

[vtec]

In the 600 range, the differences over the last 5 years have been huge. The new ones are far better handling, and slightly more powerful, and better braking. The most noticeable item would be the handling. The power won't be as noticeable, but even so, it will make you quicker round a track.

My dad went from an 07 Hayabusa, to the new model 08 Hayabusa, and there was actually a big difference. The 07 design had been around for quite a while. The 08 throttle response was way sharper made the old model feel like it was retarded in first gear (entirely possible). Turning the bike way easier, and the brakes more powerful. A much better bike in every way. Another example, I know a guy who drag races the older model Haya, and he's got a longer swingarm and all sorts of excellent mods. His PB is 10.2 seconds. He spends one day on the new model Hayabusa bone standard, and drops it to 9.9 WITH NO MODS. Holy crap. Big difference through a series of small improvements.

With regard to 250's. The early 90's ones were the best by far. Specifically the CBR250RR, the NSR250, and the RGV250. However, the much newer Aprilia RS250 is a great bike too.

And they don't make a good 400 anymore dammit. So my VFR400 from 1992 is going to have to do. Handles amazing.

I've ridden bikes newer than 2000 that had handling that felt like rubbish. And there are some amazing older machines. You've really just got to do your research on the bikes that you are looking at. Example. I had a 2003 CBR600RR with Ohlins that I felt handled like a pig (possibly suspension or straightness issues). Yet I had a CBR250RR that felt amazing to ride. Dad also had an 04 CBR600RR and the same handling issues came up, maybe it was just a poor model, felt really hard to turn it, always wanted to stand up.

[MaxB]

Im guessing the new FJ is the slowest.
Again guessing, it is heavier with more blah crap on it and had to pass emmisions testing but isn't worth pissing about with too much to get back what is lost from that because they aren't sold on performance figures.

154mph = FJR1300, 152mph = FJ1200 and 149mph = GTS 1000.

I know you can make the stats say anything but you have 2 mph to show for over 20 years development.

But you are on to it in that cat converters, noise and riders love of gadgets have to be dealt with by todays bike makers.

To be fair the FJ1200 was sold as a sports bike it just happened to be a fantastic sports/tourer and the later 17" wheel models got slower.

But I am still wary some of the marketing bullshit around modern bikes. They are better but not by as much a people think. Last year a mate brought an FJ in from Japan with only 12000 miles from new. If felt and handled almost like a new bike, so maybe new bikes are better because the switches and seat havent worn out yet!

[Mystic13]

Example. I had a 2003 CBR600RR with Ohlins that I felt handled like a pig (possibly suspension or straightness issues). Yet I had a CBR250RR that felt amazing to ride. Dad also had an 04 CBR600RR and the same handling issues came up, maybe it was just a poor model, felt really hard to turn it, always wanted to stand up.


This raises an issue that isn't often talked about. I look for a bike that is well balanced. I can't explain what it is but when you ride a bunch of bikes that you're considering there is often one that handles well, turns well and is just really well balanced. I've ridden brand name bikes that are not well balanced and it always seems like work to ride them.

I go for the well balanced bike everytime. So does anyone else do this and what is it about the bike that causes that?

[SARGE]

yes, small improvements make a big difference. Ride a cbr6 from the 1990's, then live with a new one for a week. Then go back to the old one. Then you'll see...

meh.. Ive ridden the lot..none of my bikes have fuel injection for a reason...

Ya find something that works for you and go with it...

Peak factory hp / stats are just wank..



OK Yamaha fans according to Performance Bikes magazine match the sports tourer to the stats. Sorry about the mph

1988 FJ1200, 1993 GTS1000 and the current FJR1300

149mph/11.3 ss1/4, 152mph/10.9 ss1/4 and 154mph/11.0 ss1/4?



i had an 84 FJ1100 before my present 92 FJ1200.. the 84 with the smaller engine was faster (stock)

[AllanB]

Personally I ignore all the HP figures published and look at torque curves. The outright HP means F-all one the real road on today's litre bikes as there is no way you can sanely use it.

It is like having a 15 inch penis - pretty impressive, but there are very few places you can actually use it.

I've been pushing along as fast as I am comfortable with in the hills and had bikes with 30 less hp pass me.

Blind corners - who knows WTF is around them.

[MDR2]

Blind corners - who knows WTF is around them.

more often then not, road works , a rock or two in the riding line or a policeman with a grin on his face. :buggerd:

worst i ever had was a hilux cutting the corner.

[AllanB]

Yesterday (on the open road) I found a row of cars doing 10 kph due to the tourist van in front of them crawling along so one of them could lean out of the window to take photos. I'm thinking of packing a spare set of undies under my seat.

[koba]

154mph = FJR1300, 152mph = FJ1200 and 149mph = GTS 1000.

I know you can make the stats say anything but you have 2 mph to show for over 20 years development.

But you are on to it in that cat converters, noise and riders love of gadgets have to be dealt with by todays bike makers.

To be fair the FJ1200 was sold as a sports bike it just happened to be a fantastic sports/tourer and the later 17" wheel models got slower.

But I am still wary some of the marketing bullshit around modern bikes. They are better but not by as much a people think. Last year a mate brought an FJ in from Japan with only 12000 miles from new. If felt and handled almost like a new bike, so maybe new bikes are better because the switches and seat havent worn out yet!

But who buys a tourer based on its power anyway?

I guess we can say it really depends on the bike.

Sportsbikes are where power matters and thats where most of these incremental steps occur.

In some kind of bikes bikes changing them is bad, It is a good thing that suzuki churned out unchanged A100s for ages and ages.

When Craig Shirriffs got on the new 'blade and manfield he raced it with flash suspension but (so the rumour goes - I dont know for sure) the bike was otherwise standard.
He laid waste to the superbike field!
Sure, him being a a fster rider is also a factor but not THAT much!

[discotex]

It's not really fair to say the 09 600rr has 97 HP. It's the same engine as the 08 which puts out well over 105 at the crank.

The emissions regs (noise and content) are starting to bite our bikes now days. Take a look at this and it's pretty obvious something happens in the ECU/exhaust valve to stop the 09 screaming:

<img src="http://www.motorcycle.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/183905-2/2009_Supersport_Shootout_Dyno_Chart_CBR-08-09_2_.jpg"

Taken from: http://www.motorcycle.com/shoot-outs/2009-supersport-shootout-87967.html


To the OP's question - yes you can feel the difference. Maybe not in raw HP but the total package is different. The 07 ZX-6R is totally different to the 636 before it and I suspect the 09 ZX-6R will be totally different again.

[dipshit]

More importantly they don't paint bikes fluorescent pink or dayglow purple any more.

This has been one of the biggest improvements since the 90's.

[tigertim20]

yeah I get that the pc emissions rubbish is ruining some of the potential for development, I guess I just feel that, while you might feel some differences in general riding, with things like improved brakes etc, I just think that those little differences often dont really mean much unless you are on a track, I mean youre doing a 1,2 or 3oo km trip, does it really matter that you can brake 5-10 metres earlier for a corner?
I know the emissions are a prick for restricting HP, but I cant help but feel that they should be able to come up with a solution that meets emissions standards, AND increases HP. Better brakes etc will make you faster around a track, but on the road you are limited by the speed of the vehicles in front of you, and the availability of safe passing places. I just think that more raw power increases the number of places which you can safely get past. I mean, how many of you have been on a trip, and either done a passing manouvre, and thought afterwards, fuck, I didnt have the room/power I thought I might, or have seen a spot where you could have passed safely, if you had that little more power?
I guess what Im trying to say here is that I think in MY opinion (not tryna call anyone else wrong here!) that what is "real world" usefull on the road is much different than whats "real world" useful on the track.

[discotex]

I guess what Im trying to say here is that I think in MY opinion (not tryna call anyone else wrong here!) that what is "real world" usefull on the road is much different than whats "real world" useful on the track.

That's exactly why the 600rr and Daytona 675 are the best of the bunch.

Top end HP like the R6 is utterly useless around town or when passing. Who wants to drop the bike down a gear so you're at 14000 RPM to get power.

Both the 600rr and 675 have great top end HP but if you compare their torque curves you'll find they're making loads of power much earlier in the RPM range. This translates to more pickup in "normal" riding. Also handy on a track if you muff a corner or like me am just a little slow for the gearing on some corners.

That's where all the development has been lately (more torque without losing HP) and you REALLY feel it.

And yeah the cornering, suspension, and brakes are all noticeably better too.

Go take an 08 or 09 600rr out for a test ride :)

[breakaway]

meh.. Ive ridden the lot..none of my bikes have fuel injection for a reason...

What reason would that be?

[FROSTY]

I know there are some people who want more and more HP but Im of the opinion that with the current (and as far as I can see future) state of our roads more power is becoming more and more about ego. The power is unusable in the real world.
Ive noticed too that modern bikes seem to be more frajile than older bikes.
On the track I dunno --but have the laptimes dropped in proportion to the increases in HP ?

[SARGE]

what reason would that be?

i can have a set of cv carbs stripped, cleaned and jetted in a little over an hour.. If i want more power at a certain rpm.. I just change the jets and needles ..i dont need a power commander and a degree in computer science to go fast .. I like getting a bit of grease under my nails and i have never known many modern bikes that can leave me for dead..


Simple really... Its a bike .. Not a video game .. Bikers can fix their own stuff without a laptop


maybe im just a dinosaur

[tigertim20]

More importantly they don't paint bikes fluorescent pink or dayglow purple any more.

This has been one of the biggest improvements since the 90's.

OI!!! Pink is sexy, (see attached) dont tell me you are so uncertain about your sexuality that you feel deeply challenged by a mere colour?????

[dipshit]

OI!!! Pink is sexy, (see attached) dont tell me you are so uncertain about your sexuality that you feel deeply challenged by a mere colour?????

Trust me, I don't mind girls in pink panties.

I just don't like bikes where the designer was obviously influenced by those 90's boy bands styles.

[tigertim20]

I just don't like bikes where the designer was obviously influenced by those 90's boy bands styles.

Care to show evidence of the designers taste in music? no?
So you have your taste, good for you, im more concerned with function before form, does what I want it to do, Im happy.
the threads about function, so perhaps someone would like to help the thread back on topic?

[MaxB]

For mine it is all about the bike. Not the age. It has to fit me and my needs. In the past I have traded my new bike for an older model because it was better for me. Function I guess.

Performance figures to me are just a guide, I stopped believing them ages ago. Or are bikes less efficient??? According to the marketing types we now need 185bhp to crack 300kmh whereas in 1989 you only needed 160hp to crack 320kmh/200mph on a BMW Luftmeister K100 turbo. Maybe the modern horses have asthma?

Is the whole aim of modern marketing is to make you feel like what you own is shit and that your only hope is to upgrade to the latest and greatest to find true happiness? Is a 2008 R1 for example really that much better than a 2006 model?

A good thing I reckon is the comeback of the big twin. From metric cruisers to tricked up Italians to 'see you in Bluff' BMWs, people are out there riding what makes them feel good rather than chasing some race replica fantasy.