|Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 06:20 am: ||
The article is up:
Their main complaints about the EBR are lack of electronics and lack of refinement. It doesn't appear they compared track times for the bikes.
|Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 07:18 am: ||
Clearly they did not. Why would you want to compare what they were made for? Biased BS
|Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 09:31 am: ||
MC.com always finds a way to bash EBR, I dont understand why the even include it. I know numbers on paper dont tell the whole story but dang. The EBR destroys every bike on TQ and HP up to 10k+, makes more power than the CBR and GSXR matches the R1 and is 5hp down from the ZX10. The overdog S1k and RSV4 make more no surprise there. We all know here there is plenty of power hiding in the EBR that puts it right on par with the competition, its all a simply pipe and ecu swap way. Still they give 3 place to an underpowered CBR beacuse of its "electronics". The negative press EBR always gets for the most insignificant things is just silly. I never ride with the TC on my RX on, im no alien rider yet I have never had any issues controlling wheel spin out a corner. I have yet to high sides or tucki the front end. My only complaint was the excessive slack on the throttle, I fixed that with a MotionPro rev2. Its a shame the only words to get out on this bike were biased and damaging, bad PR is worse than no PR me thinks. Dont get me wrong, I like the other manufactures offerings as well especially that RSV4 and lets not forget that awesome exhaust note from that crossplane R1. The determining factor for me was no electronics I didnt want them, That and im Buell/EBR for life I do have a 5 valve R1 that I absolutely love though.
|Posted on Friday, June 16, 2017 - 09:15 am: ||
Didn't the article say they have another piece coming out covering the track times?
EBR will never compete without the electronics we all love to hate.
It's like comparing a 94 Mustang with 1000 hp to a Porsche 911. 94 was first year with ABS.