Suzuki problem, or has boomer just had too many pies?

**skidMark** · 2nd May 2008, 18:51

Whats going on? from what i understand boomer has broken at least 2 subframe on his New GSXR 1000...just from riding, not crashing...

How are these bikes being allower to be built. it's not like boomer a big fat fella he would weight in at what i would estimate to be 80 kg's ish.

I think he has had other problems also, i'm sure he will be in soon enough to enlighten us.

But a near new bike breaking 2 subframes now? even 20 year old bikes dont have them suddenly break, so what for the new tissue paper bikes like the gsxr...in 20 years time are they all going to be in garage corner with broken subframes/ frames etc... they just really do not seem built to last.

I feel it needs to be seriously discussed, considering theamount of these bikes that are being sold. take my bias out of this. it is a safety issue.

Skid.

**McDuck** · 3rd May 2008, 14:52

How hard is he weiling them? While it is not right suzuki make the bike to go fast not have hard landings on the road.

**karla** · 3rd May 2008, 15:02

I worry about shite metal being used to make newer bikes too. It would be interesting to know more about the quality control processes for metal testing.

I had two small metal things break on my Suzuki (2007) - a blinker assembly and a helmet lock. Both just snapped without any force being applied. Not biggies, but I wouldn't have thought that could happen if decent metal was used.

**Katman** · 3rd May 2008, 15:54

I doubt a broken sub-frame could be attributed to wheelstands (maybe from stoppies though) but certainly frames breaking up at the steering head are almost certainly the fault of treatment that the bike is not designed for. I think the very fact that Suzuki are not currently facing huge lawsuits shows that they actually have no case to answer regarding broken mainframes. GSXR1000s are designed and built as racebikes - not stunt bikes.

**imdying** · 3rd May 2008, 15:59

Originally Posted by karla

I worry about shite metal being used to make newer bikes too.

It's the improved quality of the metal that lets them build the bikes at all... it's one of the reasons why if you took a set of blueprints for a GSXR back 30 years, they still couldn't build one... the metal simply couldn't handle it.

**AllanB** · 3rd May 2008, 16:14

Dang - has he been picking up girls from weight watchers again........

He should have purchased a HONDA - no problems there.

**jafar** · 3rd May 2008, 16:20

Originally Posted by Katman

I doubt a broken sub-frame could be attributed to wheelstands (maybe from stoppies though) but certainly frames breaking up at the steering head are almost certainly the fault of treatment that the bike is not designed for. I think the very fact that Suzuki are not currently facing huge lawsuits shows that they actually have no case to answer regarding broken mainframes. GSXR1000s are designed and built as racebikes - not stunt bikes.

The differences between a racebike & a stunt bike are what exactly ? A bike should not be breaking in the subframe ( or anywhere else ) due to street riding.

**dipshit** · 3rd May 2008, 16:47

Originally Posted by jafar

The differences between a racebike & a stunt bike are what exactly ?

One of these is a stunt bike and the other is a racebike. Can you tell the difference now?

**jafar** · 3rd May 2008, 16:53

Originally Posted by dipshit

One of these is a stunt bike and the other is a racebike. Can you tell the difference now?

Thanks for that

So the answer is bugger all then

**Katman** · 3rd May 2008, 17:05

Originally Posted by jafar

A bike should not be breaking in the subframe ( or anywhere else ) due to street riding.

And guess what - wheelstands are not a legitimate part of street riding. Motorcycle manufacturers do not take into account how well their motorcycles cope with wheelstands if they are trying to produce a machine that is unbeatable on the racetrack. Motorcycles are actually designed to be ridden on two wheels.

**dipshit** · 3rd May 2008, 17:05

Originally Posted by jafar

Thanks for that

So the answer is bugger all then

No, the difference is huge. People who are seriously into stunting only use their stunt bike for stunting and nothing else. (i.e. not even for street use) Because they know full well that stunting fucks them.

A racebike on the other hand is designed as light as possible to help them win races. Lasting 30 years or doing circus tricks is not engineered into their design.

**McDuck** · 3rd May 2008, 17:10

Originally Posted by jafar

The differences between a racebike & a stunt bike are what exactly ?

A stunt bike is designed to handle pounding and bending from odd angles and places where a race bike isnt. (BTW when i said wheel stands i ment landing them with a nasty thump)

**boomer** · 3rd May 2008, 17:14

Who said the second rear sub frame had/has been wheelied? And i don't do stoppies (not since i fell of the cbr600rr trying to do 'em)

**Katman** · 3rd May 2008, 17:15

Originally Posted by McDuck

A stunt bike is designed to handle pounding and bending from odd angles and places where a race bike isnt. (BTW when i said wheel stands i ment landing them with a nasty thump)

I realise what you meant McDuck. The subframe is the bit bolted (or welded) on to the back of the frame that the seat is mounted on - not likely to be affected by wheelstands although stoppies are a different story.