I am buying my first street bike and have a comparison question; this isn't necessarily the tired question of SV650 vs GS500...More specifically choose between this or that.
On the table: 2005 SV650S 34k mi, Slip on Exhaust (Dealer 15min away) or 2007 GS500F 8k mi, stock (Private Sale 3 hrs away).
Both appear in very good condition, barring actually having seen them in-person. I am guessing the SV650 can be had for about $2,300 OTD based on NADA values and mileage, etc. The GS500 has been tentatively agreed at $1,950 after registration and private party tax in IL.
Anything I should specifically be on the lookout for? Prices seem fair? I would be very happy with both -- I have done tons of research since taking the MSF in October. I am just on the fence regarding these two specific bikes. My plan is the try and make a deal on the SV650 first as it is logistically easier, but if we can't come to a deal, then I will drive the 3 hours to pick up the GS500 the next day.
My riding experience is good for either bike. Rode dirt bikes off and on since I was 10 and rented a HD Street Glide 1600 back in November with my Dad for a few days and handled it easily.
I'd go for the far lower mileage GS over the SV650 even if I preferred to ride a SV650. 34K vs 8K is night and day.
I guess it also depends a little on who the previous owner(s) is(are). If the GS has been flipped 10 times by beginner riders then it might have had a pretty hard life even at 8K but they are extremely durable and bulletproof. If the SV has been flipped a few times and has youngish previous owners I'd be concerned that it's been ridden very hard, and for 34K miles that's a lot of hard mileage.
The hard truth is if you are not going to be depressed about getting a bike with half the power of the other, the GS is probably a better buy, easier and cheaper to service, and most likely in far better mechanical condition. The only reason you'd spring for the SV in my mind is if you are going to constantly be complaining about too little power.
IMHO, and BTW, I did shop for many SV650s before I bought my GS. I had it basically narrowed to those two choices. Every SV I looked at was ragged to the max, horrible mechanical condition and looked like a 19 year old kid had joy-ridden it for 30K+ miles. Either that or they were $4+. Actually I would rather have had a V-Strom or an ER-6n or even a Versys because they were consistently far better-cared-for than the SVs I looked at at the same price/mileage/age. I did wind up with a GS that required major mechanical attention but at least I only paid $900 for it.
As someone who has put 20K+ on a motorcycle in one season I look at mileage a little more objectively. The reality is that these machines aren't so different from a car. 35K miles isn't "high mileage" by any stretch.
mr72 isn't wrong about his assumptions, but it would all 100% depend on the condition of the motorcycles "in person".
If the SV has had a lot of aftermarket stuff thrown on it you can probably make an assumption on the types of owners it has had in the past. And I don't mean exhaust and levers, I mean carbon-fiber stuff for the sake of carbon-fiber, stickers, these little tiny bar end mirrors... I hate to profile people but that all is the mark of the hooligan!
It'll also be easy to tell if the bike has seen the ground, look for rash all around it.
I'd also look at the chain and see if it's been neglected. Even lift it and then drop it, see if the links move fluid like a rope or if they just fall anticlimactically which may indicate it's getting stiff.
And of course, start it. It should start without complaint, idle smoothly, and be more than willing to rev up and return to idle without hesitation.
Test ride if possible. Dealers aren't so keen to allow it, but some will, and in my experience most private sellers are willing to let you ride. Some may ask "cash in hand" as insurance for "you break it you buy it", but some can be convinced with an M class endorsement and your attitude.
Now, the prices are so close as makes no difference, and despite the mileage disparity if we assume the bikes are in identical conditions I would consider the following based on what you want and what you need.
1) The SV is fuel injected and the GS is carburetted. In a nutshell the SV is "hop on and go" while the GS will need a minute to warm up on choke before you can ride it, but this isn't that big of a deal. The larger issue is with tuning. On the SV if you upgrade the exhaust and/or air filter all you need to do is upgrade the exhaust and/or air filter. The oxygen sensor in the exhaust will detect any changes to how the motorcycle is running and adjust the fueling to compensate. It does this in a limited sense, and some people recommend retuning the computer, but that isn't necessary at all if all you're doing is an air filter and a muffler...
On the GS you will have to open the carbs up and change the jets in addition to an exhaust and/or air filter upgrade.
2) The SV is liquid cooled while the GS is air cooled. In a practical sense air cooling works just fine. Liquid cooling is "better" in the sense it is capable of regulating a specific temperature, but I haven't had an air-cooled engine overheat yet.
Now, I live in Arizona and currently operate an air-cooled monster of a motorcycle. It does have an electric fan to help it, however I'm still interested to see how it handles the 110+F dead-heat of summer in stop and go traffic. I only moved out here in the fall, so I haven't experienced the hottest of the hot yet, but I have ridden over 100F already and it seemed to handle it just fine.
I DID used to live in Illinois, and rode a GS for about 3 years to include stop and go traffic in the sticky lake-effect Chicago summer. Never an issue.
But, where liquid cooled definitely falls short is maintenance. In addition to needing to replace coolant every once in a while, you have added complexity and Murphy's Law doesn't like added complexity. Thermostats, sensors, electric fans, rubber hoses, water-pumps... All stuff that may see future service.
3) The SV will likely have more costly insurance. It's a larger and more powerful motorcycle, and it's also properly grouped in with "sport bikes".
The SV is also likely to have more costly maintenance. Aside from the cooling system, compared to the GS it's a newer machine that hasn't been manufactured for 3 decades, so the parts surplus isn't as great.
The GS will almost assuredly be cheaper to own long run.
4) The SV has more aggressive styling with the elevated pillion and that sweet trellis style frame, and that interesting half-fairing to show off the cool little V-twin.
The GS has a wicked cool banana seat... But the full fairing makes it look more like an actual sport-bike.
I think you can't go wrong with either. I am biased towards the GS since I had two, and like mr72 I also had SV650 high on the list but the ones I always found were abused or too expensive.
After selling my bikes and moving to AZ an SV was on the list once again, but I ended up going for gusto and ended up with a Buell Lightning XB12SS.
Can you provide pictures of these machines? More eyes might help you see things you would have otherwise missed.
Links to the CL ad and dealership page will suffice. If you don't use photobucket or imageshack or some other image hosting site you won't be able to upload pictures here.
Here is a photo of the SV at: http://bbkmotorsport.com/Motorcycles-Suzuki-SV650S-2005-Elgin-IL-6905dbfb-90f2-4a5a-ae63-a68801817761
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/0PvksTkilUl2ouzOgDwNEb_k1OSOCOO78qvilfyL04CbVsEX3cEMqozxO_NSDtrzrLe4PC7Up0VEcw=w590-h460)
Here is a photo of the GS at: https://tippecanoe.craigslist.org/mcy/5973577454.html
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/NAEQiA4XBAfzd5qIhCLY8rgP8MKkJdtxRDgzJTufRtTvEJ5tJhdZztU6B4TMPVK4xwdgULq18wUfJQ=w640-h360-no)
Quote from: Watcher on February 03, 2017, 01:39:07 PM
3) The SV will likely have more costly insurance. It's a larger and more powerful motorcycle, and it's also properly grouped in with "sport bikes".
The SV is also likely to have more costly maintenance. Aside from the cooling system, compared to the GS it's a newer machine that hasn't been manufactured for 3 decades, so the parts surplus isn't as great.
The GS will almost assuredly be cheaper to own long run.
As far as insurance goes, I'm looking at $20/mo vs $23/mo for the GS and SV respectively through my current insurance (full-coverage above minimums); so that really is not a factor.
Like I mentioned previously, the attractive point about the SV is the distance. I could easily handle a 15min cold ride home whereas the GS involves borrowing my brother-in-laws truck, finding a ramp of sorts, and driving to get it.
I don't know much yet about the SV, but the current GS owner only has owned it since August and doesn't sound like he himself has done any services on it -- mentioned previous owner kept the bike in great condition but it is not known when any previous service was done.
That SV looks great! I was never a fan of those integrated taillights, though, too hard for traffic to see.
Their pricing is pretty on the mark from what I can find locally, too.
If you can indeed get it closer to $2k I'm inclined to say go SV on this one, that seems to be the better deal considering the condition it's in. I've always been a fan of the bike, sadly could never find a good one myself.
But honestly I think you can't go wrong with either one.
Go with your gut.
Quote from: Watcher on February 03, 2017, 04:04:40 PM
But honestly I think you can't go wrong with either one.
+1 what Watcher said.
To add to earlier discussions, I don't pay much attention to kms on vehicles. I pay more attention to how it has been looked after. Before I bought my GSF, I looked at a KTM, only 5,000kms on it, late model. Perfect - almost brand new. Turned up to have a look, a young guy owned it, had no receipts for servicing, it was leaking oil and it just had a feeling / it looked like it had been flogged. Went and had a look at the GSF (42,200kms) and the owner was another young guy (early 20's) but the seat was soft (kept garaged), between him and the original owner they'd kept every receipt for every dollar spent on the bike and had all the original paperwork. It had been dropped on the right side by the young guy (misjudged his footing at a set of lights so you could tell it wasn't a bad low side etc fairing was a bit scratched). The GSF started immediately, no oil leaks, revved fine and rode perfect too apart from the forks being a bit soft.
Meeting someone in person you can generally tell if they cared for something / loved it. Needless to say apart from some maintenance that I always do to new vehicles when I buy them, I haven't done much to my GSF since purchase and at one stage put 8,000kms on it in 3 1/2 months.
You'll be happy either way. I'd probably do the same thing as you - try to secure a deal on the SV first because it is close (if everything checks out in person) and if that doesn't work out then get the GS. Just be prepared to walk away from either if you aren't happy with them.
Granted this is a GS500 Forum....SV and never look back, E.F.I and you won't outgrow it any time soon, I owned a V-Strom 650 for 10 years, the linear power of the 90° V-Twin is more then confidence inspiring, I base my choice on owning both...at the same time :thumb:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/nmkgb7.jpg)
(http://i66.tinypic.com/aavgcy.jpg)
The GS looks good but the low miles and the fact the current owner has not done any services in 6 months have me questioning it -- but it does look as described and the owner seems to be honest so far, so I have little reason to doubt what he says about the condition.
The SV looks clean and the higher miles suggest it was ridden regularly.
Thanks for all the advice. I think I'll stick to my plan thus far.
How much do used dealers typically follow NADA for negotiating? KBB is nearly $900 more and is what they use for listing obviously -- but for Excellent condition.
Quote from: KGSB11 on February 03, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
Here is a photo of the SV...
It's yellow! no brainer, go for the SV.
over the past almost 6 years now. I would say the SV is a more reliable engine platform then the GS, and I'm talking first gen SV too, so Carb to Carb. the SV is actually easier to tune carb wise, then the GS, FOR WHAT EVER REASON. also if you sit in traffic a lot, SV engine is better. I'm more biased to the SV engine then the GS500 engine. [clearly]
I would go for the SV650 personally.
Welp...I passed on the SV today. Not because I didn't want it; I was actually annoyed to see it such great shape -- would have made passing on it easier. Had a few scuffs, no scratches, clean tank, perfect chain and sprockets -- the Vance and Hines slip on sounded great! Thing was damn near immaculate with 34k miles.
Unfortunately we were about 600 off on price. They bottomed out at $2,600 before taxes/reg. Which was very fair given its condition -- just a bit outside my budget.
So I am off to look at the GS tomorrow morning.
FWIW, a GS was my first bike and I'm still very happy with it 2 years later. I got a stock 2007F with 6k miles for $2000, and put 10k on it since then. If you like tinkering, you'll like it. I've torn mine apart many times over and it's been a wondeful learning experience. Parts are inexpensive and for the most part plentiful. One word of advice: just be careful with the fasteners because they metal is cheesy, stripping easily. If the owner doesn't supply a maintenance history record, you'll eventually want to learn how to check the valve shim clearance. And this forum is super cool, a very helpful bunch of folks here...
Quote from: Darkstar on February 04, 2017, 04:00:21 PM
One word of advice: just be careful with the fasteners because they metal is cheesy, stripping easily.
Thanks for advice on the chintzy metal. Is it just the fasteners or are the "female" threads chinzty too? Just wondering of replacing fasteners would solve this issue?
Depends on what and where. I never had an issue with any of the bolts I twisted, and I did a top end rebuild with the engine off the frame.
But I don't have gorilla hands and I look at torque specs...
The only really problematic ones are the oil filter studs. But it's well documented on this forum.
The studs go into aluminum and overtightening the nuts can lead to stripping. Just don't go at it with a 1/2" ratchet and you'll be good...
Snug them with your palm on the ratchet head, then add this {holds fingers barely apart} much tension.
I am the proud owner of a very nice 2007 GS500! Just needs a rear tire. Fired right up with very little choke and in great condition.
Took 320miles round-trip, $60 in gas, and a $65 trailer rental. Paid $1,800 cash for the bike itself.
Of course, until we see pics it didn't happen!
:cheers:
Also, $65 to rent a trailer? Where did you go?
U-Haul rents bike trailers for under $20...
Quote from: Watcher on February 05, 2017, 06:03:05 PM
Of course, until we see pics it didn't happen!
:cheers:
Also, $65 to rent a trailer? Where did you go?
U-Haul rents bike trailers for under $20...
I rented a 5x9 UHAUL at the last minute because the truck I borrowed ended up having a hard tonneau cover. They auto charged for 2 days and I didn't have time to really research prices...oh well.
Here it is nice and safe in my garage..
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yrwlVQrDt74idJrWHlByiB5jnoIvjR7VHGyNZOy5nmhLkd5bHi6ePEkZF8N5PEItsXt-ltQ7clVHwrDD-CjV8IqfkB64gerhfNUm_UZZt1RTLyRQx2ISQ-F6sJ6-tl2G6BzB-BeuzSvzUG2Ec8MGKMXipfYfyI6eMPbaj7FBTJmhijLcyvENOAW1L6AWx0M8c4Z-z4R6kEQh5JHls7cC-uGrrKZP9NSKOCamehWpbsk4duhh36hEBwDI3y92M0kk4G1YAQxDaqG55u5AhgTwGWLU__sBMmGTaf7_U8mDYeVR_U780As6P6hkoF_S3SVMSGcPvG-sbhH-ZzZYIev_n93jaK8rN1yg-UI5jmwQ4xkk-b0gqHYNgT_YmIOKVlvDaKJAMhc3Dk4FGHGRq9X3QlmdL_zua00oyefU9lPsk6PBbHqieV3YqMmoBww7GY85u12-Ljh737gH64gUisV015uLp7pUEK91GRUd6b1e31a-nlwSnW7odOq8yv_AUjiQ-QVqTatQHHx-ZEsSePOwXvGfQtY4Swbbr7nEn1l1PlNk8HfZHpE3APCAF78wAgNdGlaAlss3HmvyiIbY3_RNu48sM3m0bniWTZsb2g7tUUPNA1LCt9Nw=w556-h987-no)
I'm on my phone, but that rear tire looks like the P.O slabbed it a lot or did burnouts?
I can't even see the pic.
The picture from the ad I saw looked like it was slabbed but not necessarily from burnouts. Rubber looked OK, not raggy like you get from tearing up the rear end.
Really bad commuter strip + guy didn't know how to turn, maybe?
Or the PO to the seller did the damage and the seller rode it enough to cover it up...
Silly me....like a GS500 can do burnouts :cookoo:
I've seen it...
Actually, I think someone on here did it and got it on video. A "Viking funeral" for his old tires...
Yeah, I youtubed it before I made the post... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=GS500+Burnout (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=GS500+Burnout)
Congrats on your purchase buddy. As a newish rider as you described yourself, I think you'll really appreciate what the gs500 has to offer. As others have stated, it's not EFI and they're really cold as a witch's titty in nature, which is about my only real complaint since I do not expect it to be more than it is, but aside from that, they're a superb little bike. Cheap as chips, famously bulletproof parallel twin, nimble and easy to throw around in the twisties, awesome gas mileage, insanely cheap insurance, very easy to DIY on about everything that you may need to do to it for the most part. Very versatile bike. They're small enough to be great in city traffic for commuting but still just quite big enough to be comfortable on long all day weekend rides. And they still look pretty dang cool naked or faired, i love'em both. Have fun man and keep us updated on your new experiences in your life on 2 wheels! Also, stay safe out there and keep your eyes peeled.
congrats on the new bike and stick around this forum, you'll learn a lot. i enjoy my 500. i was also split between a sv and a 500 and ended up with a 500. it's a fun little bike for what it is. i like being able to work on things myself so this bike fit the bill for me.
Quote from: KGSB11 on February 05, 2017, 04:57:09 PM
I am the proud owner of a very nice 2007 GS500!
glad you pulled the trigger. im sure you'll enjoy this bike
Congrats on the buy. I was rooting for the GS over the SV. :)
I'm tired of the praise of the GS followed by "for what it is". It's a terrific motorcycle, period. "For what it is" kind of says something like, "all 500cc bikes suck bad, but this one is the least bad among them". Unless you need something a GS500 is not capable of doing well, it's a great choice, period.
Quote from: Suzuki Stevo on February 05, 2017, 06:32:20 PM
I'm on my phone, but that rear tire looks like the P.O slabbed it a lot or did burnouts?
The rear tire is dirty so it looks more flat that it is. In talking with the P.O. I didn't get the idea he was a crazy fellow...typical semi-introvert engineer type. Being in central Indiana, not too many twisties, so it was probably slabbed a lot.
He put just over 200 miles on it and stored it indoors; the last owner was his cousin who seemed to take great care and winterized it in a sealed bubble, so I was told.
Quote from: mr72 on February 06, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Congrats on the buy. I was rooting for the GS over the SV. :)
I'm tired of the praise of the GS followed by "for what it is". It's a terrific motorcycle, period. "For what it is" kind of says something like, "all 500cc bikes suck bad, but this one is the least bad among them". Unless you need something a GS500 is not capable of doing well, it's a great choice, period.
Hell, Ferrari is nice "for what it is". Not so much for a mounting a snow plow to the front.
Shame about the price difference on that SV, that was one pretty bike :o . The GS shouldn't steer you wrong though. Mine is my first road bike as well, and it has been a great experience so far.
As for the "good for what it is" deal, I think people just say that so people don't get the wrong idea about the bike. I get not wanting to sell the bike short, but I don't think setting someone up with a realistic expectation of the bike's capabilities and amenities (no FI, no fuel gauge, etc) is bad either.
For example: I think many GS500Fs have been sold to newer riders looking to get into the sportbike scene because it looks the part and is "beginner friendly" in its power delivery and handling without being underwhelming after 1 summer of riding (looking at you, Ninja 250...). Certainly why it was on my radar, anyway. For that, I think it's a great choice, however you don't want those newer riders to expect that their bike will perform like a GSXR or something. So, people say stuff like "yeah, its a great bike for what it is, just don't expect anything fancy". I don't think that's bad advice or a knock on the GS. :dunno_black:
Quote from: KGSB11 on February 06, 2017, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: mr72 on February 06, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Congrats on the buy. I was rooting for the GS over the SV. :)
I'm tired of the praise of the GS followed by "for what it is". It's a terrific motorcycle, period. "For what it is" kind of says something like, "all 500cc bikes suck bad, but this one is the least bad among them". Unless you need something a GS500 is not capable of doing well, it's a great choice, period.
Hell, Ferrari is nice "for what it is". Not so much for a mounting a snow plow to the front.
if I had lots of cash to afford a ferrari.. why not mod one to have a snow plow on front?! :icon_mrgreen:
Congrats!!! I agree with Torstein, hope ya stick around the forum. Bought my GS 5 years ago and am still loving it. :cheers:
Quote from: ShowBizWolf on February 06, 2017, 12:07:26 PM
Congrats!!! I agree with Torstein, hope ya stick around the forum. Bought my GS 5 years ago and am still loving it. :cheers:
I'll stick around for sure; can't guarantee the frequency though because of life (marathons, wife, kids, etc). But as I ride more, I know that I'll be referencing these boards more and more. Expect me to be quite active this first season -- Especially as I begin to replace all the fluids and get it to a state where I know the current history of MY bike.
Quote from: qcbaker on February 06, 2017, 10:09:09 AM
As for the "good for what it is" deal, I think people just say that so people don't get the wrong idea about the bike. I get not wanting to sell the bike short, but I don't think setting someone up with a realistic expectation of the bike's capabilities and amenities (no FI, no fuel gauge, etc) is bad either.
I don't think anyone who has even the most cursory awareness of motorcycles will be misinformed in that way. Like the new potential owner such as the OP who comes to this forum for input, they are already knowledgeable enough to make an informed comparison and identify a knowledgeable body of people like this forum. I think that user knows the bike is a carbureted twin-cylinder 500cc with under 50 hp and no fuel gauge (etc. :) ). So when we say "it's a great bike
for what it is" really communicates "it's not a great bike, but you may be too beginner to know the difference".
QuoteFor example: I think many GS500Fs have been sold to newer riders looking to get into the sportbike scene because it looks the part and is "beginner friendly" in its power delivery and handling without being underwhelming after 1 summer of riding (looking at you, Ninja 250...).
I hadn't really thought about the perspective of people who think the GS500F is a sport bike, since to me it's a standard/naked bike with the unfortunate addition of fairings :)
Quote
Certainly why it was on my radar, anyway. For that, I think it's a great choice, however you don't want those newer riders to expect that their bike will perform like a GSXR or something. So, people say stuff like "yeah, its a great bike for what it is, just don't expect anything fancy". I don't think that's bad advice or a knock on the GS. :dunno_black:
Yeah I get that, but I don't think anyone who is in the market for a GS500 honestly thinks it might perform like a GSXR or need to be told that it doesn't have 100 hp. I guess my point is, there's nothing really misleading or confusing about the GS500. It's just a condescending thing to say, you know? Maybe sort of self-deprecating at the same time on this forum.
I don't know how to explain it, it just rubs me the wrong way. A GS500 is
not "underpowered" just because a SV650 or Bandit 400 has more power, you have to compare it only to other bikes in the same class, and it has equal or more power than most other bikes in the same class. It's
not a sport bike and maybe that's the problem, it kind of looks like one (an F anyway) so that leads us to tag a qualifier on the description of the bike, "for what it is...", that kind of says, "you DO know what it is, right? <wink>" Compared with a lot of cruisers and other standards a GS500 is screaming fast. Compared with a lot of sport bikes it's very nimble and tossable. Compared with bikes with more amenities and fuel injection and all that it's super reliable and cheap. It's not so much that it's in a class by itself, but the class that it's in is the class it's in. Among that class, it's a solid contender, at or near the top.
The funny thing is I only really see this attitude around here on GSTwins. When I was researching what bikes I should look at and consider, there was something interesting that stuck out about GS500s. Seems like a lot of people reported having owned one as their first or second bike, or as a backup or fixer-upper or whatever. It was common for these folks to express regret in selling it, even though they mostly thought they were upgrading. I didn't see that same attitude among previous owners of the only other bikes in its class (Ninja 250/500, Ducati M600, Honda Hawk GT, Buell Blast, Yamaha SRX, etc). Ultimately this is what led me to focus on GS500s along with the availability of a knowledgeable and friendly forum and an abundance of parts and experience from DIYers. I figured a bike others regretted letting go of was a good one to start with.
For me the "for what it is" gets tossed 100% dependant on who is catching.
If it's a newbie looking for a first bike, or an upgrade from a 250, I'll praise it up and down for its reliability, economy, balanced power, and comfort, while boasting that I can keep up with 600s in the turns.
If it's a guy with an R6 or an FZ09 asking me about it, I might say "It's pretty quick, for what it is."
In other words, it's not a sport bike and in some ways you might even call it technologically archaic but it isn't a snail.
But keep this in mind, as well.
A 2016 Yamaha R3 has a 321cc 2-cylinder that's fuel injected, liquid cooled, and makes about 37 horsepower and 19ft-lbs at the wheel.
The wiki puts the GS at 40 and 25 respectively.
The extra 166ccs isn't doing the GS any big favors these days. Sure, the numbers are there, but they're not raising any eyebrows.
Quote from: mr72 on February 06, 2017, 01:09:54 PM
I don't think anyone who has even the most cursory awareness of motorcycles will be misinformed in that way. Like the new potential owner such as the OP who comes to this forum for input, they are already knowledgeable enough to make an informed comparison and identify a knowledgeable body of people like this forum. I think that user knows the bike is a carbureted twin-cylinder 500cc with under 50 hp and no fuel gauge (etc. :) ). So when we say "it's a great bike for what it is" really communicates "it's not a great bike, but you may be too beginner to know the difference".
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I think that most people looking to buy their first bike don't have a cursory awareness at all. They aren't
misinformed, they are
uninformed.
Quote
I hadn't really thought about the perspective of people who think the GS500F is a sport bike, since to me it's a standard/naked bike with the unfortunate addition of fairings :)
I like my fairings, thank you very much lol. In all seriousness though, its a bit "sportier" than most other "standard" bikes I think, honestly. It isn't a true sportbike"\ by any means, but it has rearset pegs, a higher tail, and a slightly more leaned forward riding position, and the handling is pretty nimble which is part of what makes a sport bike "sporty". Get what I mean? I'd call it "standard" for sure, but I think its definitely sportier than bikes like the Buell Blast, Ninja 500EX, or Honda Nighthawk.
Quote
Yeah I get that, but I don't think anyone who is in the market for a GS500 honestly thinks it might perform like a GSXR or need to be told that it doesn't have 100 hp. I guess my point is, there's nothing really misleading or confusing about the GS500. It's just a condescending thing to say, you know? Maybe sort of self-deprecating at the same time on this forum.
You'd be surprised. Some people just see fairings and think its a sportbike. Even other riders I've met think my bike is a "crotch rocket" before I tell them anything about it. Mostly cruiser guys who dont know much about bikes other than Harleys and Goldwings, but still, that's a large portion of the riding community at large.
Quote
I don't know how to explain it, it just rubs me the wrong way. A GS500 is not "underpowered" just because a SV650 or Bandit 400 has more power, you have to compare it only to other bikes in the same class, and it has equal or more power than most other bikes in the same class. It's not a sport bike and maybe that's the problem, it kind of looks like one (an F anyway) so that leads us to tag a qualifier on the description of the bike, "for what it is...", that kind of says, "you DO know what it is, right? <wink>" Compared with a lot of cruisers and other standards a GS500 is screaming fast. Compared with a lot of sport bikes it's very nimble and tossable. Compared with bikes with more amenities and fuel injection and all that it's super reliable and cheap. It's not so much that it's in a class by itself, but the class that it's in is the class it's in. Among that class, it's a solid contender, at or near the top.
I know what you mean about it rubbing you the wrong way, but you said it yourself, the F model looks like a sportbike, so many newer riders think it is one. While personally I think it's a great starter bike for someone who later wants to get into true sportbikes, it itself will never perform like one and you don't want to set someone up to be disappointed by a completely competent bike.
Quote
The funny thing is I only really see this attitude around here on GSTwins. When I was researching what bikes I should look at and consider, there was something interesting that stuck out about GS500s. Seems like a lot of people reported having owned one as their first or second bike, or as a backup or fixer-upper or whatever. It was common for these folks to express regret in selling it, even though they mostly thought they were upgrading. I didn't see that same attitude among previous owners of the only other bikes in its class (Ninja 250/500, Ducati M600, Honda Hawk GT, Buell Blast, Yamaha SRX, etc). Ultimately this is what led me to focus on GS500s along with the availability of a knowledgeable and friendly forum and an abundance of parts and experience from DIYers. I figured a bike others regretted letting go of was a good one to start with.
As an owner of both the GS500F and the Buell Blast, I have to say I enjoy riding the GS more for sure. If the blast were my only bike, I would definitely want to upgrade next year. But I feel like I can grow into the GS a bit more, so I don't really want to get rid of it any time soon.
Quote from: Watcher on February 06, 2017, 04:42:44 PM
But keep this in mind, as well.
A 2016 Yamaha R3 has a 321cc 2-cylinder that's fuel injected, liquid cooled, and makes about 37 horsepower and 19ft-lbs at the wheel.
The wiki puts the GS at 40 and 25 respectively.
The extra 166ccs isn't doing the GS any big favors these days. Sure, the numbers are there, but they're not raising any eyebrows.
No but you make my point. Even compared with a thoroughly modern new bike
in the same class a gs500 is still competitive. For example a ducati scrambler sixty2 has nearly identical power numbers to a gs500 and costs nearly 10k. Duke 390, ninja300, cbr300r or even the cbr500 are all similar new bikes with similar or less power and performance as a gs. So within that class the GS is still in the pack. Are all of these bikes pretty good, for what it is? The motorcycle mags rave about some of them, no qualifiers.
Quote from: mr72 on February 07, 2017, 06:07:37 AM
No but you make my point. Even compared with a thoroughly modern new bike in the same class a gs500 is still competitive. For example a ducati scrambler sixty2 has nearly identical power numbers to a gs500 and costs nearly 10k. Duke 390, ninja300, cbr300r or even the cbr500 are all similar new bikes with similar or less power and performance as a gs. So within that class the GS is still in the pack. Are all of these bikes pretty good, for what it is? The motorcycle mags rave about some of them, no qualifiers.
You're kind of missing Watcher's point I think. All those sportbikes (except for the CBR500 obviously) have more than 100 fewer CCs than the GS, and all make similar power. So, calling the GS "competitive" with them is a bit strange. Those are "real" beginner sportbikes that make similar power to the GS with less displacement and less weight. A great rider on the GS could probably keep up with mediocre riders on those other bikes, but put an expert rider on all of them? No contest. I'd bet money that all things being equal (rider skill, conditions, etc) the GS would get smoked by an R3, Duke 390, Ninja 300, or CBR300R any day.
But that's because like we said earlier, the GS isn't a "real" sportbike. So its a false equivalency. The GS
isn't in the same class as those bikes. Rating them all on purely "performance" is unfair to all the bikes. And all these bikes are "good for what they are". All the 300-500 CC sportbikes are "great beginner sportbikes" not simply "great bikes". What makes something a "great bike" is its ability to accomplish the tasks its designed to do. Which is another way of saying it should be "good for what it is".
Just my two cents...my brother bought an SV a few months before I bought my GS. I spent $500 less to get a bike that's 8 years newer with half the miles on it, and that was much more meticulously cared for. His bike is loads faster than mine, but I got exactly what I wanted. I feel like (and I'm pretty sure he'd agree) in the same amount of time riding, I've become a notably better rider than he has. That's not to say that there aren't loads of other factors in that equation, but I give the GS credit where credit is due. It's good for what it is. It has taught me a ton already, and I expect to be able to ride it for at least another season--probably 2 seasons--before thinking about moving on to something bigger, faster, newer, and more expensive.
Ive decided on the Avon Roadrider for the tires -- I was only going to replace the rear at first due to wear and dry-rot, but noticed the front appears to be the original tire, so I'm replacing that as well.
I can get the set of the Roadriders for $200 and I have a work colleague that will put them on for a case of beer. He is a track instructor and has his own private shop in the warehouse of his "regular Job" where he works on his bikes.
Everything you buy is a trade-off -- believe me, I am the non-committal buyer that gets "anxiety" over the plethora of options available (Thanks Internet :technical:). Anytime someone says something is good, it is nearly 100% implied that it is "for what it is".
My point on the Ferrari analogy earlier was that everything is good for what its intended purpose is...A Ferrari will be kick ass on the track or long stretches of open road, but will be rendered useless with snow. An AWD SUV will do better in the snow, but you are not going to be winning many 1/4mi races.
If one bike out there was The. Best. Bike. Period. It would drive out all other competition over time and this forum would become defunct.
Quote from: qcbaker on February 07, 2017, 07:23:45 AM
You're kind of missing Watcher's point I think. All those sportbikes (except for the CBR500 obviously) have more than 100 fewer CCs than the GS, and all make similar power.
Well they make somewhat less power (except the CBR500) and are only slightly lighter. But they are also a decade newer than the newest GS500, and most of them have had a recent model refresh. They almost all have far superior suspension to the newest GS500. Basically the GS500 can't really be compared fairly with any bike with year-2000+ technology because it's essentially a 90s era bike that was stretched into the 2000s.
Quote
So, calling the GS "competitive" with them is a bit strange.
I agree. They are "competitive" only in terms of numbers on paper. There's not a lot, if anything, in literally the same class as a GS500 today, but to be fair you'd really have to compare any GS500 with its contemporary rivals which is why I originally mentioned another list of other 90s naked street bikes in the 40-50hp range.
Quote
But that's because like we said earlier, the GS isn't a "real" sportbike. So its a false equivalency. The GS isn't in the same class as those bikes.
Agreed.
I still don't like "for what it is".
Y'all aren't talking me out of it.
Quote from: mr72 on February 07, 2017, 08:53:50 AM
I agree. They are "competitive" only in terms of numbers on paper. There's not a lot, if anything, in literally the same class as a GS500 today, but to be fair you'd really have to compare any GS500 with its contemporary rivals which is why I originally mentioned another list of other 90s naked street bikes in the 40-50hp range.
If you're comparing it solely with other 90's bikes in that class, then I agree: call the GS a great bike, without any qualifiers. But someone buying a bike today has way more options and you have to compare the GS to all the bikes on the market. So, ignoring the point I was making earlier about classifying the bike (which I think is a big part of why people add the qualifier) and talking about comparing solely to bikes in its class, of all the newer bikes you named there, I think only the CBR500R is a fair comparison to the GS500F. Its basically the CB500F (500CC parallel twin, sporty standard bike, like the GS500E) with a different set of bodywork. I would call them "in the same class" for sure. Yes, The CBR is ~10 years newer, but still.
CBR500R HP: 49.6
CBR500R Torque: 31.7 lb ft
GS500F HP: 40.5 hp
GS500F Torque: 26.7 lb ft
They make similar power, with the CBR having a bit of an edge. So, an older bike being "competitive" in terms of raw power with a brand new bike? I'd call that "great." But it doesn't include any of the modern luxuries the CBR has: EFI, ABS, adjustable preload, digital dash, fuel gauge, etc. People add "for what it is" so the person knows it cant really be a direct comparison with the CBR, but a cheaper alternative that offers similar performance, just without some of the luxuries, due to the difference in age.
The GS500 is like a great but very old movie. Example: Citizen Kane was a great movie when it came out. Comparing to other movies of the period, it shines. It can be called great with no qualifiers. By today's standards of filmmaking, it doesn't really hold up. It's not in color, modern acting is much more believable, etc. So, its "a great movie for what it is". Same with the GS. Compared to the other middleweight standards, its an awesome bike. But by today's standards, its a bit lacking.
Quote
I still don't like "for what it is".
Y'all aren't talking me out of it.
That's fine. I get where you're coming from, but I just felt I should explain the mentality of the phrase.
Engine size/configuration is still a major defining characteristic when it comes to motorcycle "class". You wouldn't put an R1 in with an R6.
300s are included in, and surely set to replace, the 250 class.
The RC390 is a bit of an oddball since it's close to 400cc; it's typically roped in with these but I don't think it should be, I got a chance to ride one a few weeks ago, it makes a good amount of power. It should be compared to the CBR500R.
The CB500, the GS500, the SV650 (keep in mind these are being made again), even the FZ07, these are the same "class" as middleweight "commuter" type bikes or "naked standard". 500-700cc twins.
So when I bring up that a 300 makes only a few HP/TQ less than the GS500 I'm not saying it in a way that could compare the bike's purpose.
I'm saying "the GS500 is being encroached by a bike in a smaller class."
The GS and CB are very much equivalent, but considering the GS was made up until 2013 which is when the CB500F hit the floor it's a really hard race for the GS.
A new rider going at both of these bikes new would be hard pressed NOT to go CB.
The CB is basically the GS replacement. Modern styling, more power, EFI, liquid cooled, and optional ABS, in a lighter bike on top of that.
Plus, re: the numbers, the CB engine spins slower and makes its peak figures at lower RPMs than the GS. That's all done on purpose by Honda, they wanted to make the power more available for around town. I've no doubt they could make higher numbers if they wanted to, but it made sense for a commuter.
Having owned both at one point or another I can say the Honda felt a lot more linear and had more "go" at the twist of your wrist. While the GS doesn't spin a lot faster or make its power at much higher RPMs, it was a noticeable difference coming from one and going to the other. The GS likes to be wound up, and most cases of needing speed required a downshift. The CB did often need a downshift if you wanted to get up and go, but in the middle of the rev range you CAN just goose it and get somewhere.
The GS is what it is, an old machine that was produced perhaps longer than it should have been.
This thread is drifting a bit... If we want to keep talking about bikes and classes, maybe we should go start an OaE thread lol.
Quote from: qcbaker on February 07, 2017, 12:51:38 PM
This thread is drifting a bit... If we want to keep talking about bikes and classes, maybe we should go start an OaE thread lol.
OaE?
Yeah, we did get more than a little off topic. Someone call a US Marshal, this thread has been hijacked!
Quote from: qcbaker on February 07, 2017, 12:51:38 PM
This thread is drifting a bit... If we want to keep talking about bikes and classes, maybe we should go start an OaE thread lol.
Ototacoustic Emissions ? Ohio Assessment of Educators?
Quote
Yeah, we did get more than a little off topic. Someone call a US Marshal, this thread has been hijacked!
LoL. I caused that.
Really sorry I brought it up.
My bad.
Quote from: Watcher on February 07, 2017, 02:54:30 PM
OaE?
Quote from: mr72 on February 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
Ototacoustic Emissions ? Ohio Assessment of Educators?
Odds and Ends. I meant Odds and Ends. lol sorry, I shouldve just typed it out.
Hahaha that's awesome, you guys are super funny sometimes :laugh: I knew exactly what that meant but I got a kick outta everything else it could have meant :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: mr72 on February 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
Quote from: qcbaker on February 07, 2017, 12:51:38 PM
This thread is drifting a bit...
Really sorry I brought it up.
My bad.
You should never feel bad about starting interesting conversation. Even though we could say it was in the wrong place how many people were actually interested in what had to be said?
Quote from: mr72 on February 07, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
Quote from: qcbaker on February 07, 2017, 12:51:38 PM
This thread is drifting a bit... If we want to keep talking about bikes and classes, maybe we should go start an OaE thread lol.
Ototacoustic Emissions ? Ohio Assessment of Educators?
Quote
Yeah, we did get more than a little off topic. Someone call a US Marshal, this thread has been hijacked!
LoL. I caused that.
Really sorry I brought it up.
My bad.
sorry i said, "for what it is" and got him all riled up. :dunno_black: