October Issue

Showed up in the mail on Saturday....looks and reads great...  

I love it. When I saw it today my first thought was, "kickass!" Some will resist/hate it because it is a change, but i love it.  

Sport Rider was the best before the facelift.  Now it's better.

Thanks for the work done, guys  

Thanks for the props, everyone. Much appreciated.

Suggestions on what you'd like to see more of in the future are always welcome.  

I have a suggestion...but by all indications, the subject I would suggest..has no interest.

But just to say it...and it is related to your project R1 that You street fighter-ized a couple years ago.

Here we have race developed liter bikes, for a price that is so low, (and especially, if a simple tip-over totals it as far as the insurance company is concerned...Low priced).
We have a basis for otherwise un-obtainable street use types of bikes.  Like Sport touring, Super-Hyper Motards, that commute, and slice through (in California Split lanes) like a warm knife in soft butter.

All with a simple handle bar conversion (available in kit form from Spiegler, as LSL kit) and whatever suspension tweeks and luggage additions a rider wants for their own specific wants.

I really don't get it, why Americans aren't accepting this.
Europeans are the cutting edge, and the individuals doing it on their own, grew to be a market that the factories are producing for.

We have SuperMoto racing, MX racing, Desert Racing, Flat Track racing, yet Americans can't seem to grasp sitting up-right to have the control, for severe and knarly conditions...And the public road is (can be) severe and knarly...And the Race replica can deliver behavour and do it better if the rider is sitting up-right.

But...it won't catch on.

By the way..My bike is an 05 ZX-10..Flat tracker bend Handle bars, Scotts Damper, RaceTech total conversion, (Gold valves, Shim stacks,Separator valve, Springs, oil) for rough surfaces.
Metzeler Roadtec Interact Z6's EBC HH brake pads.
And I ride the Sierra passes (Ebbetts pass is my favorite).

Just feel sorry for the masses of bikers that ride street, on race replica's that have clip-ons...because they have the idea the racer crouch is how that bike works.

That I have to believe is a product of not getting exposure (this is where Sport Rider comes in) to what else is available.  

The frustration at the naked bike's inability to catch on with American consumers is understandable. But the factories aren't dumb; if the American public really clamored for a real-live stripped-down literbike in enough numbers, the OEMs would build one...it's in their best interests (selling bikes) after all. The plain fact is that there isn't enough market in the U.S. for such a machine; none of the previous versions have sold anywhere near enough numbers to justify the R&D and tooling expense (small as it may be) to build one.

Yes, none of the previous naked bikes (save for the Aprilia Tuono, or perhaps the Ducati S4R/now Streetfighter and the discontinued BMW K1200R) have had any real steam to go with the look. But even those bikes have sold in mere handfuls. The Europeans don't want a stripped down literbike; they want the power to be useable without being excessive (hence the reason why the K1200R was discontinued). And the Euros are driving naked bike development at the moment.

The issue here is not exposure; we've covered enough naked bikes and/or lamented on the fact that they don't have the right engine countless times. It's basically that very few are interested in naked bikes; if there were, the numerous focus groups (made up of everyday riders from all over the country) and customers in dealerships would have made that point pretty obvious to the OEMs, and they would have built one by now. When I was at a recent manufacturer test ride day, I asked every rider I could find that stepped off the company's naked bike what they thought of it. Their answer was not that it didn't have enough power, or that it didn't handle; more often than not, they answered that the bike "was really fun to ride...but I need a fairing of some sort to block the wind. I don't want to be a windsail on the highway..."

That in a nutshell is why naked bikes won't sell in the U.S.

Your bike suits the environment where you ride (the Sierras). However, the vast majority of the U.S. isn't made up of that type of pavement.  

I never said naked...I keep the fairing on. (just removing the very lower plastic, because it serves no purpose for me).

I transfer the performance of the Liter Race replica (actually it gets increased as You guys found out in your "ultimate Sport bike" report, saying the loss of weight of the plastic removed didn't account for the amazing increase of performance.

I do wish You guys would of said sitting right, for Canyon riding was the why of the amazing increase in the performance...but.You also didn't put the right rear tire (size/profile) on and you didn't put a Scotts damper on...so you could of done better...that's the way it goes, though.  

I also (but it's just because of the roads I ride) increase the performance (actually fly my bike) with the suspension from Race Tech.

The overall versatility...is a bike that is at home on tight twisties...and can cross states in a single bound touring.

Again Europeans get it...Americans??? Not so much (in fact not even noticable).  

Your point about your keeping the upper fairing on is well taken, although I guess what I should have stated was that even half-faired bikes like the FZ1 just don't sell in enough numbers here to make Yamaha take notice. When American consumers are sitting upright, they apparently want more fairing than even a sportbike's half-size fairing.

Not sure what you mean about the "right rear tire size/profile"; the stock tire on that generation R1 is a 190/50.  

190/50 isn't right size/profile for canyons (where Your project bike was getting evaluated).  180/55 is right...190/55 is right for some. 190/50 isn't right for anyone.

Also I don't recall (pretty sure because it wasn't done) but...Canyons with switchbacks and generally tight twists, and no center lines (but I haven't riden where you guys ride) also require steepening the forks, it is very dramatic how that sharpens up the quickness to dive to the edge of the road and hold that line, when an oncoming car/truck/trailer, is incountered on your side of the road, in a blind corner.

I haven't found any downside at any speed (mid triple digits is my sight of line limit) even though somewhere, there should be a loss of stability. It just hasn't happened.

I can't over emphasise...doing these modifications is all plus..No minus.

The  bike is just right everywhere, doing anything possible on a public road...No matter what the road.

I'm ubber fortunate to have some roads that are so rough, both in surface and raise and fall (actually old wagon trails)..no one else will use them..and places on those roads that have visability that is more than ample to fly my bike like a desert racer that will be at 100MPH if possible for the firmer sandy/soil at that speed.

Since the public road is the widest range of conditions...crossing such a range of terrain, and priorities of highway maintenance spending done from wealthy city to no one is there middle of nowhere...All of these modifications get used, somewhere.  

Except the "Letter of the Month". Rewarding foolish behavior on one page and preaching personal responsibilty on another. I have to figure out a way to ride in a situation that bites me in the ass so I can get a new helmet. I always like new helmets.  

louemc:
190/50 isn't right size/profile for canyons (where Your project bike was getting evaluated).  180/55 is right...190/55 is right for some. 190/50 isn't right for anyone.


Curious why you feel that "190/50 isn't right size/profile for canyons"...  

chnreaxn:
Except the "Letter of the Month". Rewarding foolish behavior on one page and preaching personal responsibilty on another.

What was the "foolish behavior"?  

The corners that Canyons have are quite different than the corners a track has..not just the shape of the corner, but the behavour of the rider on blind corners and the complications of possible on coming traffic.

The 190/50 is a track based profile..Canyons favor quicker easier moves.

And power applications are way different on a track where everyone is going the same direction, and corner workers have flags...None of that stuff is in the Canyons.

There is a very high possiblity, your canyons aren't that twistie, might even have a center line, so it wouldn't be so noticable there, though, if that is the case.  

As stated before, your riding scenario is quite a bit different than the vast majority of the U.S., so that would go a long way toward explaining why your opinion on what constitutes a sportbike is different than most. If you ride on mostly tight goat trail roads without a centerline, then you definitely need a different type of sportbike. The majority of canyon roads we've experienced, including those in our area, have corners with similar characteristics to many racetracks that we've been to (in addition to having a centerline painted down the middle). While the rider's "behavior" might be different than what he would be on a racetrack, that doesn't necessarily mean that the steering inputs would be slower; it all depends on how the rider takes the corner while keeping an acceptable margin of safety.

Actually, the 190/50 is not a "track-based profile". Race tires (both treaded and slick) have always had taller (i.e., higher aspect ratio) tires in order to both put a bigger footprint down when leaned over and also to promote quicker and more agile handling. A tire's aspect ratio doesn't determine its steering characteristics; its overall profile, plus belt construction play the major roles.  

As sportbikes have evolved, the steering head angle has steepened and trail has shortened; these changes accomodate wider wheels.  There is a symbiotic relationship.

Try putting modern 17" wide wheels on an old classic! Can you say "truck?"  Try putting narrow 18" wheels on a late model sport bike!  Any bets on how quick you'll flip that thing upside down?

Bikes wheels now take side loads.  Try that on Mike Hailwood's 350 Honda 6 with its old school ultralight WM1 or WM2 Borranis with 20 gauge spokes, aluminum nipples, and condom rubber for tubes!  There's a reason he sat dead center - those wheels were strong in one plane, only.

Notice how the superbikes have evolved.  There was a time when McLaughlin and Pridmore and Code and Lawson and whodidIleaveout all rode with widebars. Why?  That's what worked with the wheel widths and chassis specifications of that time.  Now, their equivalents are all on bikes with low bars, quick steering, and wide wheels.  Those old schoolers, they hung off, but not as decisively or as smoothly as the pros do now.  Greater speeds have something to do with it too.  You have to tuck in at 150 or 180 but you can sit up at 130.  Today's show room stocker probably makes more power and goes faster than any factory superbike from the 80's


It used to be that a bike with "clip ons" was harder to ride at lower speeds.  Not so anymore.