In the pursuit of technological superiority all the manufacturers are building lighter supposedly better bikes using exotic metals for frames
and motors. Here is the question, at what expense are we achieving these advancements? I have heard countless stories of frames cracking in small crashes where maybe a 5-7 year old bike would have fared better.
example: The recent Aprillia factory Milleis and GSXR's. How about the
rash of late model R6's blowing up after thin walled gas tanks scraped?
The other part of the equation is how are motors holding up over time?
Built in obsolescense is something the manufacturers don't discuss, but let's be realistic the average sportbike doesn't make it past 20k miles before it gets totalled or traded.
I can see where 1/2 a pound here and there in saved weight can equate to a 1/1000 of a second faster on the track but with the ammont of power the average liter bike produces the power to weight ratio is already unbelievable. For us mortals, do the technological changes really matter
given the current state of tune or are the changes just
a marketer's dream?
In the pursuit of technological superiority all the manufacturers are building lighter supposedly better bikes using exotic metals for frames
and motors. Here is the question, at what expense are we achieving these advancements? I have heard countless stories of frames cracking in small crashes where maybe a 5-7 year old bike would have fared better.
example: The recent Aprillia factory Milleis and GSXR's. How about the
rash of late model R6's blowing up after thin walled gas tanks scraped?
The other part of the equation is how are motors holding up over time?
Built in obsolescense is something the manufacturers don't discuss, but let's be realistic the average sportbike doesn't make it past 20k miles before it gets totalled or traded.
I can see where 1/2 a pound here and there in saved weight can equate to a 1/1000 of a second faster on the track but with the ammont of power the average liter bike produces the power to weight ratio is already unbelievable. For us mortals, do the technological changes really matter
given the current state of tune or are the changes just
a marketer's dream?
Listen bro,
At the end of the Day, the 2002 ZX-9R (Gold and Black) is the best street bike ever made.
On the track, light is Right. And Right is Might. Who cares if they blow up. Racers don't get paid to crash. These bikes are designed to win 12-18 races every year and that's that. They are not designed to survive squidly trackday usage year in and year out.
The issues with the GSXR frames is well known and highly documented. The GSXR's continue to fail and still no recall or design modification.
At least Yamaha had the sense to update the tank shape of the R6 and that appears to have corrected the problem.
Aprilia did have a swingarm recall for the 2004 Mille, but that was right as the bike was introduced as it was a major redesign year. It was a manufacturer-initiated recall with not one actual failure worldwide.
ALL of the manufacture's announce recalls on a regular basis, not one is spared from the occasional part that gets past QA and most are sourced from outside suppliers. RRW sometimes posts a page specifically dedicated to recalls and you can even check your bike to a database on the NTSB website.
I wouldn't put the issues with either the R6 or the Mille in the same category as that of the Suzuki GSXR 600/750/1000...
You will continue to see a push for lighter bikes because while power helps acceleration and top speed, lightness helps almost everywhere: braking, accelerating, & turning.
As for manufacturers, if they can design a major component like a swingarm or frame that is light and doesn't fail in normal non-crash use, there wouldn't be much motivation to beef up the parts to withstand crashes.
With respect to engines, I would be interested in the percentage of new bikes that don't even make it to their first valve adjustment before being crashed or blown up. I would say probably 50%. But if you have people who will buy the newest thing every other year, why should a manufacturer care?
If there is one thing everyone should experience before they die it's the joy
of the lightest bike possible propelled by 4 cylinders in a V configuration...
like the dream of a Gp racer where your eyes just roll to heaven with a
twist of a grip...
All though I live by "light is right" the down side is a bike that reacts quicker
and sharper to the perverted highways bumps and dips... coupled with track
ready suspension the net affect is internal organ pain during the worst of
it... consequently I stand on the pegs a lot if I see it coming... the ones I
don't can really steal my breathe away...
So after 5 pages of mods Mr.RC45 is down to 417 dry 446 wet and I shall
never stop modifying until it's down to 371 dry 400 wet... that's my goal...
If there is one thing everyone should experience before they die it's the joy
of the lightest bike possible propelled by 4 cylinders in a V configuration...
Larry, is that why the stock CBR900RR was lighter than the stock RC45?
Strange but true... frames break... it's a sign of progress...
Use to be that the forks... wheels and triple clamps were weak and flimsy but
they did save the frame... now a days the forks wheels and triple clamps are
so strong that they stress the frame beyond design point in a hurry... if you
added enough aluminum to frames you can make them stronger than the forks
but then you might have a complaint about packing the extra weight for a
crash that ain't suppose to happen... then we go full circle back to
complaining that my forks bent so easily...
Larry, is that why the stock CBR900RR was lighter than the stock RC45?
Honda stated that reason why the 94 CBR900RR was 10 pounds lighter than
the stock 94 RC45 was to due to more metal in the frame and more metal in
the engine cases in order to handle the projected stresses of WSBK racing
whereas the CBR900RR was only designed to handle the stresses of street
riding... consequently the CBR frame was not as planted nor as steady as
their pure racer and when you tired to race the CBR... the flexy frame just
threw in the towel... despite these facts owners took to blaming the non
standard 16inch front wheel or lack of trail as the source of handling
problems...
Honda stated that reason why the 94 CBR900RR was 10 pounds lighter than
the stock 94 RC45 was to due to more metal in the frame and more metal in
the engine cases in order to handle the projected stresses of WSBK racing
whereas the CBR900RR was only designed to handle the stresses of street
riding... consequently the CBR frame was not as planted nor as steady as
their pure racer and when you tired to race the CBR... the flexy frame just
threw in the towel... despite these facts owners took to blaming the non
standard 16inch front wheel or lack of trail as the source of handling
problems...
If 'flex' was such a bad thing, the Ducati would never win races.
I still own my somewhat dated '06 GSX-R1000 for two reasons, 1) no emission crapola on it 2) it hauls ass and none of the new bikes seem to touch it. No electronic trickery on this one, just a good old fashion torquey motor that has been one of the best bikes I have ever owned. Granted this model has a reputation for breaking on impact makes no difference to me as long as I keep it on two wheels upright. I have owned alot of GSXR's and this one has been the best of the lot hands down. When they started fiddling with the electronics and adding O2 sensors and catalytic converters I lost interest in a new sportbike. So what if my '06 weighs 370+/- lbs. all that goes away when you twist the throttle.
Pardon? It's an I4....isn't it supposed to be cammy and gutless? Larry?
In terms of the CBR900RR, I beleive the frame was redesigned in 96 for more flex and then re-redesigned in 98 for less flex (Honda likely realizing they had overdone it in 96).
Pardon? It's an I4....isn't it supposed to be cammy and gutless? Larry?
In terms of the CBR900RR, I beleive the frame was redesigned in 96 for more flex and then re-redesigned in 98 for less flex (Honda likely realizing they had overdone it in 96).
Honda seems to be forever confused on the issue of flex/stiffness.....anyone remember the Superhawk and its famous flexy frame?
__________________
Only one left not in captivity.
Is lighter really better?
No electronic trickery on this one, just a good old fashion torquey motor that has been one of the best bikes I have ever owned. Granted this model has a reputation for breaking on impact makes no difference to me as long as I keep it on two wheels upright. I have owned alot of GSXR's and this one has been the best of the lot hands down. When they started fiddling with the electronics and adding O2 sensors and catalytic converters I lost interest in a new sportbike. So what if my '06 weighs 370+/- lbs. all that goes away when you twist the throttle.
Mind you, it is not quite stock and I've only had it on the track once....
Linear Mode
