The manufacturers should forget about making bikes with more power and concentrate on getting the weight of new motorcycles down.The new Crossrunner 800 is 240 kilos!! The Triumph Tiger 800 is 20 kilos heavier than the Tiger 1050!! What the hell is going on?
Posts 21 | Views 732
It's probably all the extra technology that is being added to machines these days. Systems like ABS and traction control must add some mechanical parts as well as the electronics the control it all. The linked braking system fitted to Hondas (althoughh purely a machhanical system on my VFR) adds about 6Kg in plumbing and extra control valves.
Your VFR weighs 218kg with all the kit the Crossrunner has.I know the Crossrunner is bigger physically but it should not be 22kg(49 pounds) heavier.Honda should aim to make it lighter than the VFR by using lighter materials and doing some more research into alternative technology instead of just increasing the weight.
Providing the weight is well balanced and manageable I don't see it being a massive problem. Its also worth remembering that in the past advertised weights were more likely to be dry weights which just went right out of the window once your bike was set up and running.
Less weight equals faster bikes and less fuel consumption which we all want.If the Crossrunner is 240 kg(528 lbs) dry then it must be 265kg(584 lbs) wet which is ridiculous.
Actually, mine is a proper (Pre-V-Tec) model and weighs in at a featherweight 208 Kg. By coincidence my FZS is also 208 Kg according to the spec sheet.
The weight has never been an issue for me on either machine although I accept that modern materials and manufacturing processes should make new bikes lighter while remaining durable.
As somebody who started off on 80-120kg race bikes I find most of todays bikes ponderous and overweight. Reducing weight massively improves the dynamics of the bike. My optimum bike would be + 80BHP and sub 140Kg but nothing like that is available.
TL1000R 230kg dry (I think)
That thing was HEAVY. Helped though when it got crashed into the side of a building....
yea looking at bringing back the two strokes then(oh yes)my old RG 500 was only about 180ish Kg and 100 bhp(with a bit of tweaking-95std) but saying that only done 18-22 miles to a gallon.But if your willing to pay for the power to weight advantage in fuel,i suppose the way to go is a Aprilia RS 250 std is 140kg and 73 bhp,so wouldn't take to much(lots more cash) to get it near the 80bhp hey spondonste.Or just put up with the new diesels barges(there not that bad really)
What's the Point
Of making a really lightweight bike when some lardy fat git like me goes and sits on it??!!!
If History has taught us One thing....
It's We've learnt None of Histories Lessons!
Try feather weight and feel the difference
I used to race RGV250's and a good one that was race tuned would normally only kick out around 68 - 72 RWBHP unless you wanted it blowing up every meeting (about 56-62 RWBHP as stock). Heavily tuned 400's could be tuned to around 85BHP but they didn't carry the speed around the corners.
The new Vyrus 986 is 100BHP and 150KG so appeals a little bit but its a bit pricey aswell
the problem for me is the bikes i like i cant sit on as the seat highs are so so high. most are for people are 6foot tall
the new honda crf 450 seat high is 37inch high which i think is shocking. i am 5.8 and my leg is about 32inch long and i cant even get one of my feet on the foor.
I know what you mean
I raced a Vertemati supermoto in the UK national supermoto championship a few years ago and that had a seat height of 39". Could only get one tippy toe on the ground at a time. If I stalled the engine I just couldn't get my leg high enough in my leathers to kick it over again.
Spondon, if you can find
a TM660 supermoto, you'd be in the ball park with that, only thing is it might be waving the front wheel in the air all the time! or the even rarer KTM Works rep 660 would be similar.
A while back I was supermoto racing a KTM500, they were faster than the CR500 Honda in fact, genuine 65hp and 110/115kilo, but that's not really practical road bike!
bmwgs, you could fit a cut down seat and lowered suspension, putting 17 inch supermoto wheels in a crf would also lower it.
My old RD350LC was mildly tuned, stage 2 stan stephens barrels and head, formula 2 pipes, around the 150 kilo mark, they could be tweaked up to around 70hp, probably more in the case of the later powervalve engines, lots of fun at any rate, left an early zzr1100 round the roundabouts, and down the dual carriageway, much more agile
**Surprised the Vertemati was that **
high, motocross version must have been a skyscraper! Sometimes I used to look for stuff to stand on for starting, toolbox, motocross stand, sometimes getting kickstart round to compression and then hopping up in air with other foot, but then a two stroke doesn't kick back as bad as a four stroke!
The 39" seat height is for the MX version I had before I supermoto'd it (it was in response to the CRF seat height comment earlier). I never measured it after I'd lowered the suspension but it was still over 36". I'm only 5'6" - 5'7" so it was always a struggle for me to kick it over without it being propped against something.
I've got a Husqvarna SM610 which is fairly fun and I do substantially modify bikes myself. Aprilias SXV550 is a bit highly strung in the engine department but would make a reasonable starting point for a road bike. Would prefer slightly more cc though for better torque.
Is 240kg heavy then?
Even taking the panniers off, mine would never get DOWN to anywhere near that weight.
It's around 298kg dry and over 325kg with fuel, etc.
who the hell wants a blow away bike
who the hell wants alight bike cross winds would be to much of a killer
I like to feel my bike really dont like light bikes at all but then have never liked full on sports bikes ether will stick with my fjr not light but what a nice machine to ride
dont get me wrong there is some bikes that are just to heavy like goldwings for instance but it all about how the weight is distributed
And one more plus side if some one tryes to put your bike in back of a van teh heavyer the better even though they will manage it its always nice to think the fuckers might have done there back in doing so lol
Apparently, mine is 183 kg dry, and that's 10 years old. I'm not telling you what it is with me on it!!
But, in reality, it is how the bike is balanced that makes the difference. The lower the centre of gravity, the better.
If it ain't fun, don't do it
I agree with ninjachica
I don't know what my Harley weighs in at. I just know it's heavy compared to my BMW, yet because the weight is so low down it's much easier to manage. I'm on tippy toes on the BM, and always thinking I'm going to drop it but the Harley is a doddle to move about in comparison.
It's all in the weight distribution. I'm only 5'2" so things have to be easy to move around on tiptoe.
Try to be a sparkly unicorn, not a miserable cow.
are easy to control in a crosswind. You just have to pay attention, shift your weight and think about where the gaps in the hedges are. A lighter bike is much more fun than a heavy one except when touring. If I'm on a motorway eating miles then a bigger bike is much nicer. In every other situation the lighter and often the smaller the bike, the better. That's twisties, town work, racing, off roading... perhaps not for sex. Falls over easier.
The 140kg and 80bhp mention from earlier - the KTM 690 SMC comes close.
EDIT: Do agree with the weight distribution thing above. Myself I can't move a heavy bike about any more due to a disc problem but if I had to I'd be looking at the lower centre of mass bikes.