On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:24:17 -0500, "Jim Tiberio"
Post by Jim Tiberio
It really does look a lot better in person, I checked one out myself, I wish
I could say the same thing about the Sprint ST whick looks kind of like a
mid 90's Suzuki RF900.
So what's wrong with looking like (side only) one of the prettiest
looking sport bikes ever produced? The front and rear are totally
unique plus far more distinctive than the anemic 788cc VFR & not as
goofy looking as the Futura. Beside twins do not make good sport
touring bikes; too shaky ;) BTW, The Triumph triple is possibly the
smoothest running sport bike engine, especially at high RPM, of any MC
engine shy of a six cylinder Gold Wing.
Seriously, compared to an R1/R6 or 954, 929,919 or Suzuki's own
humpback whaletail GSXR's & TL-Rs prior to say 01, the RF was a real
understated beauty. That said, the RF's (600/900) were never
performance kings but they sure beat the shit out of the looks of the
kiddy (graphic laden) race reps of yesteryear. Notice all the new
stuff looks more like a classy sports cars. IOW, understated vs. the
squidly, boy racer, kiddy look.
Actually, the S3 is pretty much a Daytona without the bodywork and
with the Sprint's new 1050cc (stroked) engine in a slightly higher
state of tune or nothing more than a short haul city bike, at best.
So Tim, again seriously, what's your experience base with the Triumph
brand, anyway? Myself, I've owned three of the four popular Japanese
brands, and in the last 5 years ridden nearly every contemporary
Japanese Race rep & ST sold in the US and currently own a high mileage
01 Sprint St & have ridden several post 02 Daytona's. To me, this
means I'm not talking out my ass, as you seem to be doing at least
based on what you think a sport-touring bike should look like.
I've never owned a Honda, as they're a "name brand", with the lone
exception of the 70cc three-wheeler I bought for my kids, back in the
late 70's. However some Honda's are fine bikes, particularly the dated
VFR. Never cared for any of the RR's except the new 600 I haven't
ridden the 1000RR yet but the rags say it's down on power compared to
the other liter reps.
I'm frankly tired of letting folks slide without revealing any of
their history or MC experience. This being a single dimensional
communication medium makes everyone a BSer to me unless they back up
their stories. Do you even know the difference between a ST and a Race
rep, I don't mean a second or third stringer but a purpose built
Sport-Tourer not a once great race rep now relegated to ST status.
Purpose built Sport-Tourers:
Sprint ST, Futura, Duc-ST2, 3.4s, K-1200RT, Yami 1300 & Honda
The last four of these are kind of a mix between a big touring bike
and an ST.
What makes a purpose built ST bike?
1) near 150 Mile top speed.
2) 1/4 mile in the high 10's to mid 11's.
3) Touring ammentaties: Stock or optional hard FACTORY hard luggage,
comfy bench seat, heated grips as FACTORY option, Electric plug stock
for foul weather riding in with a heated suit/ vest. Generally
integrated front or both F/R turn signals. Tall, broad stock
windshield and optional taller screen, Comfy lower pegs than race
reps. Finally, a slighty longer WB and bigger rear brake that
actually does something.
GT & Second/Third tier prior Race reps, just a few as there are so,
so, many dating to the late 80's:
Best example, Honda VFR
Other's, Suzuki RF, Katana, Yamaha YZF600R,97 Yamaha pre R1, Honda
F4i, Honda XX, Suzuki Busa, Kaw old 9R & current 12R's.
No BMW Boxers as they are not in league with either the race reps or
So what's the deal Timmy? Nobody, "these days", insults my favorite MC
and gets off easy -:)
Bob Nixon Chandler AZ-deer strike recovery
01 Sprint ST "RED" 45K miles
03 GSXR 1000 "SILVER" 7K RIP (deer slain)