...the more I look at the new-to-North America naked 750, the more it seems to be the closest thing to a GS500 successor.
- engine built from an old (ahem) "tried-and-true" architecture <not that the K5 750 is bad at all>
- styled to be "sporty"
- built to a budget to be a budget bike
- not as sexy as the competition, but highly skilled in the art of competency
- desperately in need of improved brakes
- a pillion seat seemingly designed to punish pillions any of the several transgressions pillions typically guilty of.
(silly pillions)
In fact, the bike adds much of what a few of us lament the GS lacking: FI. In addition there's better suspension and a Gixxer dash (sans shift light, but with brightness adjustment).
I just wish we'd had it for the past five years like Europe so I could find one nice and cheap.
Happy refund season!
At $8000.....um...
Double the price of GS500
Almost double the displacement...
1/2 the gas mileage...
and its Coyote ugly!!!!!!!!!!! uuuuuuuuuugleeeeeeee!
Honda CBR 500R is closest (modern) to GS 500 IMHO....
Cookie
Ducati scrambler would be one of my choices. has a reasonable 75HP.
for a more sporty choice the FZ09. with 115 HP. but a sad 65 Foot pounds of torque.
both bikes cost in the 8k range. and I'd strongly consider them if I could afford a new bike.
Not bad Suzuki... and keeping the New price to the $8000 range.. Not just too shabby..
Not sure why you say it needs a brakes upgrade, From what I see it looks like they might be like 2piston JHP caliper, which my fiancee's fz6r has, They're plenty adequate for street riding.
Would be a world better than the GS500 brakes!!
The honda cb500x or nc750x are 2 of my favorites to replace the GS if or when I ever had the money.
Tons more low end torque, lots lighter weight, and lower center of gravity, better seat and suspension; FI...
It just overall is better than a GS, save for the price of course.
Here in Miami, the only bikes that are in the same price range as the gs, are the 250-300cc bikes (like the cbr, ninjas, and Rebel/V-star/TU250X).
Quote from: twocool on April 13, 2015, 03:51:14 AM
At $8000.....um...
Double the price of GS500
Almost double the displacement...
1/2 the gas mileage...
and its Coyote ugly!!!!!!!!!!! uuuuuuuuuugleeeeeeee!
Honda CBR 500R is closest (modern) to GS 500 IMHO....
Cookie
A honda is not a Suzuki
More cc, thus "successor"
Given inflation, a new GS500 would be more than 5 grand.
48-60mpg....half what mileage?
Looks? In the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 13, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
Not bad Suzuki... and keeping the New price to the $8000 range.. Not just too shabby..
Not sure why you say it needs a brakes upgrade, From what I see it looks like they might be like 2piston JHP caliper, which my fiancee's fz6r has, They're plenty adequate for street riding.
Would be a world better than the GS500 brakes!!
by "improved", I could just mean "ABS". It really bugs me that an ABS version of this is produced but is not being offered in the US. I believe it's Tokico front, Nissin rear.
Quote from: cWj on April 15, 2015, 05:17:40 AM
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 13, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
Not bad Suzuki... and keeping the New price to the $8000 range.. Not just too shabby..
Not sure why you say it needs a brakes upgrade, From what I see it looks like they might be like 2piston JHP caliper, which my fiancee's fz6r has, They're plenty adequate for street riding.
Would be a world better than the GS500 brakes!!
by "improved", I could just mean "ABS". It really bugs me that an ABS version of this is produced but is not being offered in the US. I believe it's Tokico front, Nissin rear.
Ahh i see what youre saying there. I'm not sure why the ABS on bikes isnt catching on faster here in the US where we are the "Land of the Lawyer". Seems like alot more Euro bikes have ABS as standard.
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 15, 2015, 07:03:25 AM
Quote from: cWj on April 15, 2015, 05:17:40 AM
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 13, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
Not bad Suzuki... and keeping the New price to the $8000 range.. Not just too shabby..
Not sure why you say it needs a brakes upgrade, From what I see it looks like they might be like 2piston JHP caliper, which my fiancee's fz6r has, They're plenty adequate for street riding.
Would be a world better than the GS500 brakes!!
by "improved", I could just mean "ABS". It really bugs me that an ABS version of this is produced but is not being offered in the US. I believe it's Tokico front, Nissin rear.
Ahh i see what youre saying there. I'm not sure why the ABS on bikes isnt catching on faster here in the US where we are the "Land of the Lawyer". Seems like alot more Euro bikes have ABS as standard.
some people don't like ABS.. especially CHEAP ABS that would come on the cheaper "standard" bikes. I've only ever ridden 1 ABS motorcycle, and it was an older ABS system so I can't comment much. but the way the brakes worked felt like the steering bearing had a ton of play in it when you applied the brakes! lol
Ok...you win...go get one! :woohoo:
Cookie
Quote from: cWj on April 15, 2015, 05:12:56 AM
Quote from: twocool on April 13, 2015, 03:51:14 AM
At $8000.....um...
Double the price of GS500
Almost double the displacement...
1/2 the gas mileage...
and its Coyote ugly!!!!!!!!!!! uuuuuuuuuugleeeeeeee!
Honda CBR 500R is closest (modern) to GS 500 IMHO....
Cookie
A honda is not a Suzuki
More cc, thus "successor"
Given inflation, a new GS500 would be more than 5 grand.
48-60mpg....half what mileage?
Looks? In the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 15, 2015, 07:03:25 AM
Quote from: cWj on April 15, 2015, 05:17:40 AM
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 13, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
Not bad Suzuki... and keeping the New price to the $8000 range.. Not just too shabby..
Not sure why you say it needs a brakes upgrade, From what I see it looks like they might be like 2piston JHP caliper, which my fiancee's fz6r has, They're plenty adequate for street riding.
Would be a world better than the GS500 brakes!!
by "improved", I could just mean "ABS". It really bugs me that an ABS version of this is produced but is not being offered in the US. I believe it's Tokico front, Nissin rear.
Ahh i see what youre saying there. I'm not sure why the ABS on bikes isnt catching on faster here in the US where we are the "Land of the Lawyer". Seems like alot more Euro bikes have ABS as standard.
I was under the impression every bike with real power these days has ABS. I'm willing to be that the only reason the GS doesn't is because it's expensive (the GS is the pinnacle of budget), and the GS doesnt go fast enough to really need it. The GS500 isn't designed to go 0-120mph in 8 seconds and the 120-0mph just as fast. It also doesn't have double rotors + calipers in the front so it doesn't have the sport-bike stoppie braking power either. I've death-grip panic braked a few times when people have pulled out in front of me or slammed on their brakes by total accident when I was just starting to ride, and only once did my front tire start to wash out a little. I'm convinced the GS500 just isn't powerful enough for ABS to make a meaningful difference.
The difference a bike NOT built on a budget makes will change your life. Do yourself a favor and buy a bike that is constructed on more than shoestring budget. The GS500 is good for learning the track or driving around town, but its construction (except for the solid frame) isn't anything I'd base a future bike purchase on.
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 17, 2015, 08:52:46 PM
The difference a bike NOT built on a budget makes will change your life. Do yourself a favor and buy a bike that is constructed on more than shoestring budget. The GS500 is good for learning the track or driving around town, but its construction (except for the solid frame) isn't anything I'd base a future bike purchase on.
The ABS comments were in reference to the GSX-S/GSR750, not the GS500. Doubt it would make financial sense to engineer ABS for GS500.
Quote from: twocool on April 15, 2015, 05:13:21 PM
Ok...you win...go get one! :woohoo:
Cookie
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto *replacement* for the GS since Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with a modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. I admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
Quote from: J_Walker on April 18, 2015, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
I would sooo buy that bike in a few years!
Quote from: J_Walker on April 18, 2015, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 21, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
If Suzuki were to go for a 4cyl platform I think they should just detune an older 600cc GSXR engine. Same as Yamaha did with the Fz6 and Fz6r (both of which we own). They're detuned '03-'05 R6 engines, the fz6 makes 100hp's and the fz6r makes 65 or 75hp's. Infact the fz6r was my better half's direct replacement for the GS500. It addresses all the shortcomings of the GS.. and is an absolute Blast to ride!!
Really I would almost call the SV650 the 'almost' successor of the GS. And rightfully so, they're great bikes. Whenever I get a chance to ride my friend's wife's SV, I take if for a spin and love that engine!
Disclaimer: I always end up liking just about any bike that i get to ride. Every bike has its own uniqueness and you just have to appreciated that we live in a world where we have all these choices. And Even though the Gs500 and I had sour history, I still liked it for what it was.
Quote from: The_Paragon on April 22, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 21, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
I agree with you. The SV650 is a SOLID bike. It's really fun to ride, isn't too underpowered for the twisties, the suspension is slightly less garbage, and its about the same price. It's a very nice bike. The newer standard bikes are also pretty nice for people who want to be comfortable (I'm not one of them).
That's really how they should make these "Beginner" bikes though. Take the next biggest engine and detune it for the street. When you detune it just enough you get an awesome package like the street triple, which is just a detuned 675 daytona, and PLENTY of fun.
If Suzuki were to go for a 4cyl platform I think they should just detune an older 600cc GSXR engine. Same as Yamaha did with the Fz6 and Fz6r (both of which we own). They're detuned '03-'05 R6 engines, the fz6 makes 100hp's and the fz6r makes 65 or 75hp's. Infact the fz6r was my better half's direct replacement for the GS500. It addresses all the shortcomings of the GS.. and is an absolute Blast to ride!!
Really I would almost call the SV650 the 'almost' successor of the GS. And rightfully so, they're great bikes. Whenever I get a chance to ride my friend's wife's SV, I take if for a spin and love that engine!
Disclaimer: I always end up liking just about any bike that i get to ride. Every bike has its own uniqueness and you just have to appreciated that we live in a world where we have all these choices. And Even though the Gs500 and I had sour history, I still liked it for what it was.
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 21, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
Quote from: J_Walker on April 18, 2015, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
but going 4 cylinders just beats the point of me owning a GS to begin with.... parallel twins have a very unique exhaust note. lets just face it, in the US there isn't much of market for small displacement bikes. so better to go bigger parallel twin and be pushing at least the 90 HP range.
Quote from: J_Walker on April 22, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 21, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
Quote from: J_Walker on April 18, 2015, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
but going 4 cylinders just beats the point of me owning a GS to begin with.... parallel twins have a very unique exhaust note. lets just face it, in the US there isn't much of market for small displacement bikes. so better to go bigger parallel twin and be pushing at least the 90 HP range.
The last thing I would buy a GS for is it's exhaust sound. It sounds like an angry lawnmower/angry sewing machine. More on the sewing machine side. Its fun to rev but obnoxious at idle imo. The whole reason I suggested 4 cylinders and 16 valves is because smaller reciprocating mass produces more power for the displacement because the RPMs can go higher, and the one thing that is truly awful about the GS500 is it's completely anemic power band.
There's a HUGE market for smaller displacement motorcycles. Honda has released updated versions of their 250 as well as a 300cc. Small bore motorcycles are getting extremely popular because they offer economy and comfort with enough power to be interesting. The GS is outdated, and I wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki pulled it altogether because it can't compete. I mean consider that the GS was outdated 15 years ago. Now with the 300cc trend catching on it won't be long before Suzuki sees no point in producing them I bet.
A 1000cc motorcycle has all the torque needed to be interesting at stop lights, and plenty of white-knuckle terrifying speed to be awesome on the highway and track. If you don't want a 1000cc bike, any of the triumph triples is vastly superior to every twin I've ever been on. More power, comparable torque, and a better engine design IMO.
I ride my GS because it's easy to work on, and overall a decent bike for general riding. But every single time I get on the throttle something is missing. I think a lot of motorcycle enthusiasts would agree with me. I don't want to come off as an @$$hole in this post, I'm more just venting my frustration that the GS could be an amazing bike with a few tweaks, but Suzuki really dropped the ball on almost every aspect of the bike.
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 23, 2015, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: J_Walker on April 22, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
Quote from: Dr.McNinja on April 21, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
Quote from: J_Walker on April 18, 2015, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I actually consider the CB500s to be the defacto REPLACEMENT for the GS, so Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with modern 500 design.
In a similar way, I suppose the the GSX-S/GSR could be considered the updated of the cancelled Nighthawk 750: parts-bin bike tuned for urban civility and highway ability. Ih admit to being tempted...some publications and comment section scuttlebutt knock it for not being a Gixxer with handlebars. I like it as a potential cheap tourer that's a bit more substantial to the 650 class.
if Suzuki "modernized" the GS, it would just be added junk really.. if we're talking the same platform and not a whole new one. emissions stuff and maybe fuel injection? big whoop.
I honestly think that if Suzuki wanted to re-do the GS. keep the parallel twin, 800cc with the ability to bore to 850. [so lots of extra meat!] keeping it air-cooled with a larger oil cooler, plus fuel injection and a more touring/everyday mind set for the bikes use.. so largish fairings with big meaty windscreen/lots of rain protection. tubular frame design for people who love naked bikes the ability to go naked. a few other things here and there.
If suzuki modernized the GS at all you would significant performance gains. The engine is absolute garbage. It's a tank, but it's garbage. You can't do much with a DOHC 4 valve 500cc engine. Even the kawi EX500 has 8 valves.
I'd go the other way. Keep it 500, give it 4 cylinders, 16 valves, and throw away as much weight as possible. The GS is extremely underpowered in it's current form, and all things considered its not a *bad* bike, but it's a 70s twin on a modern frame with ok carbs. EFI, 4 cylinders, and 16 valves would easily make it compete with modern SV650s. I'd bet the GS500 would get all new respect.
but going 4 cylinders just beats the point of me owning a GS to begin with.... parallel twins have a very unique exhaust note. lets just face it, in the US there isn't much of market for small displacement bikes. so better to go bigger parallel twin and be pushing at least the 90 HP range.
The last thing I would buy a GS for is it's exhaust sound. It sounds like an angry lawnmower/angry sewing machine. More on the sewing machine side. Its fun to rev but obnoxious at idle imo. The whole reason I suggested 4 cylinders and 16 valves is because smaller reciprocating mass produces more power for the displacement because the RPMs can go higher, and the one thing that is truly awful about the GS500 is it's completely anemic power band.
There's a HUGE market for smaller displacement motorcycles. Honda has released updated versions of their 250 as well as a 300cc. Small bore motorcycles are getting extremely popular because they offer economy and comfort with enough power to be interesting. The GS is outdated, and I wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki pulled it altogether because it can't compete. I mean consider that the GS was outdated 15 years ago. Now with the 300cc trend catching on it won't be long before Suzuki sees no point in producing them I bet.
A 1000cc motorcycle has all the torque needed to be interesting at stop lights, and plenty of white-knuckle terrifying speed to be awesome on the highway and track. If you don't want a 1000cc bike, any of the triumph triples is vastly superior to every twin I've ever been on. More power, comparable torque, and a better engine design IMO.
I ride my GS because it's easy to work on, and overall a decent bike for general riding. But every single time I get on the throttle something is missing. I think a lot of motorcycle enthusiasts would agree with me. I don't want to come off as an @$$hole in this post, I'm more just venting my frustration that the GS could be an amazing bike with a few tweaks, but Suzuki really dropped the ball on almost every aspect of the bike.
you totally ignored the point of my orginal post and went on your own rant. :dunno_black:
you're REDOING. the GS. that means, all new everything, engine + platform. basically making it the predecessor to the GS. so the whine of the engine that the GS has most likely wouldn't be there any more.
as far as the 250 and 300cc bikes. they aren't cool... they try to hard, just like the F version of the GS. why put sportbike styled fairings on something that struggles to get past 80mph. Don't get me wrong. fairings DO something other then look cool, but lets be honest, the fairings on the 250 and 300cc bikes aren't there for function. I look at the late 80s and early 90s sport touring bikes, with the big chunky fairings that can stop every rain drop from hitting you and your passenger. now that's function!
I believe there's a gap between CHEAP and EXPENSIVE sport touring bikes. the cheap end is basically the sports bikes that people upgrade to be better for touring. the expensive are things like the newest Honda Gold Wing going for like 24k at the stealerships.
Quote from: J_Walker on April 22, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
but going 4 cylinders just beats the point of me owning a GS to begin with.... parallel twins have a very unique exhaust note. lets just face it, in the US there isn't much of market for small displacement bikes. so better to go bigger parallel twin and be pushing at least the 90 HP range.
Yeah, the parallel twin has a great character. Fast forward a few years, I can imagine myself on a TDM 900 or an XTZ1200, and the engine design thingie plays a huge part in that.
Doesn't shake like a single, and you don't have to rev it past 10k to actually do anything like an inline four (I do know I am exaggerating here). Easier (and/or cheaper) maintenance than a V-anything (one cover to remove when checking valves, for example). If you're into V-twins just look for a 270° crankshaft parallel twin, that will do it all except for the looks.
Now I have no experience with triples, but a Yamaha MT-09 Tracer that is whispered to be the successor of the TDM could be a very nice ride.
bleh.
Quote from: J_Walker on April 23, 2015, 04:55:17 PM
you totally ignored the point of my orginal post and went on your own rant. :dunno_black:
Well, you kind of missed the point of my post preceeding yours. ;)
("...Suzuki was never bothered to replace it with a modern 500 design"....not "modernized")
and another thread bites the dust...
:icon_lol: