Bikes, 1990 vs 2000 vs 2009

**tigertim20** · 7th March 2009, 22:22

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** · 7th March 2009, 22:44

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** · 7th March 2009, 22:58

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** · 7th March 2009, 23:00

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

**R6_kid:Me** · 7th March 2009, 23:09

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** · 7th March 2009, 23:21

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:Me** · 7th March 2009, 23:36

Originally Posted by koba

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** · 7th March 2009, 23:37

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** · 7th March 2009, 23:41

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 7th March 2009, 23:50

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** · 8th March 2009, 00:11

Originally Posted by koba

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** · 8th March 2009, 06:11

Originally Posted by vtec

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** · 8th March 2009, 07:32

Originally Posted by 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...

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..

Originally Posted by 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?

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

**AllanB** · 8th March 2009, 07:51

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.