|Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 08:30 pm: ||
Unfortunately, it's a subscription only site, but if you're a subscriber, you might find this interesting: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/06_Open_Standards/index.motml
|Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 08:32 pm: ||
My subscription ran out today.. and I wasnt planning on resubscribing for lack of content...
|Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 02:32 am: ||
The Buell didn't do to bad.
I like MO mostly because they are the only publication that has ever shown Erik some love.
and of course reading kpaul rant is good stuff.
|Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:41 am: ||
hmm, would have been interesting if they used a standard frame XB. they thought the long was 'boring'.
i like MO too, they seem to give pretty real-world reviews of stuff. plus they definitely like Buell bikes, but still look at them honestly.
|Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:44 am: ||
of course reading kpaul rant is good stuff
I checked their discussion forums a few weeks ago and he was actually looking seriously at buying a Buell, or was that just a joke?
|Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:55 am: ||
Good review, I read it last night.
The biggest criticism was the lack of oomph vs the other bikes tested. They also thought the Long reduced the cornering ability to some extent.
|Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 12:25 pm: ||
4th place: 919
3rd place: XB12Ss
2nd place: Z1000
1st place: FZ1
Most discussed in the message board: XB12Ss
Most apologized for: 919 (everyone wished it would have placed higher)
I was looking at some dyno runs from a stock 919, and it looks like the torque curve for the 919 and the XB9 would be exactly the same if you stretched the XB graph out to 9.5K rpms. Same torque at 3K, up to the same peak (give or take a pound). The only advantage the 919 has is that it revs higher. It is one of a short list of bikes that I need to get a ride on before I make a purchasing decision.