2009 Suzuki GSX-R1000 Review

Comments

May 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm

(1) Peter says:

I see no comments yet? Does this mean the audience is not sports bike orientated, or what?

May 21, 2009 at 1:55 pm

(2) Joe says:

Just bring up how Harleys are outdated and slow and you will see how many sportbike riders there are on here. LOL

May 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm

(3) TEvo says:

Perhaps I’m jaded but personally, the Aprilia RSV4 and BMW S1000RR increase my pulse rate more than another regular 2-year overhaul of a Big Four sportbike.

Unless a hard-core GSX-R – I dislike GIXXER in the same vein as I dislike the term crotch-rocket – enthusiast, it’s basically their redesigned flagship open-class supersport. Major updates to the engine and the chassis but nothing earth-shattering.

Unless you split hairs (or are a national level roadracer), every single one of the CBRGSXRYZFZXR’s are supremely capable motorcycles that are well endowed with a surplus of handling, braking and of course, horsepower.

May 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm

(4) Peter says:

Now we’re talking! I personally see no point in bikes that go far beyond highway restraints. After those it is redundant and should be on a track. Surely then though, even on a track a bike and rider is controlled by the curves, condition and length of straightaways, so having a 160 HP or 500 HP is unimportant?

May 21, 2009 at 3:03 pm

(5) TEvo says:

It’s not a question of need. It’s a question of want. In the same vein, isn’t any number of sports cars and even luxury sedans with 300 – 500 horsepower and low fuel economy superfluous if taken in this same context?

These bikes are also the basis of their respective manufacturers’ production-based supersport, superstock and superbike racing platforms. Although modified from stock to various degrees, there is a feedback loop where a good production bike begets a good racebike and a good race result begets good sales numbers.

Other considerations being fairly equal, no racer would choose less power over more power. Any advantage is an advantage that can potentially grant a lower lap time than your competition.

May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm

(6) motorcycles says:

Unless you regularly track your sportbike, TEvo makes a good point: this segment is more about want than need, and that’s why I used “A Matter of Preference” as the subhead for the conclusion of my review. Most riders tend not to choose one sportbike over another because of incremental performance differences, they do so because they identify with the attitude, personality, and style of certain motorcycles.

That said, I’m curious to see who ends up buying the new BMW S1000RR and the Aprilia RSV4… those are two brands are basically starting from scratch in the genre, and will hopefully stay in the game for the long haul.

Basem

May 21, 2009 at 4:44 pm

(7) Peter says:

I guess my biggest concern is that with the power and performance of these bikes and cars, young men with more hormones that brains will react to that power and the advertising, and do themselves in as they very often do. I read about them all the time in the papers. There should be more training before a license is granted and some responsibility to sales people to guide sensible buying.

May 21, 2009 at 5:18 pm

(8) TEvo says:

Basem,

Armchair quarterbacking here but my 2-cents:

The RSV4 will likely be priced out of reach of the stereotypical Gixxer Boy® crowd and the controversial styling (and likely price premium) of the S1000RR will place this bike outside of the realm of desire for this segment as well.

I suspect a more European-esque demographic. Aapparently, most open-class supersport owners there tend to be closer to 40, with the credentials and financial werewithal to accommodate such a bike choice. After all, an -R1 is said to be $15k Euro (~ $20K USD) in many parts of Europe.

——–

Peter,

I suspect that young people have intentionally or unintentionally forced the laws of natural selection from the day in our evolution where we learned to make a wild horse a means of transportation.

Plus, there seem to be a significant portion of riders on non-sportbikes that seem to have a fair share of trouble on the roadways. These days, alcohol involvement or other causal factors just aren’t as exciting as some law-breaking 100+mph sportbike running off the road, into an obstacle or other vehicles

This said, fundamentally, I agree with you.
However, the problem is a complex one and I’m just scratching the surface with these three:

1) You have manufacturers who are in business to make money by selling bikes and a bike that isn’t as appealing doesn’t sell as well.

2) We are a society of entitlement and many people view tiered licensing as an abrogation of their rights. Plus how would you go about implementing a tiered licensing system in the land of the 1500cc potato-potato. Would displacement be the benchmark? Engine output? Combination of the two?

3) Lastly, on the subject of training, clearly there are limitations and a great deal of unknowns about just how effective our current standards of rider training are.

May 22, 2009 at 12:59 pm

(9) Peter says:

Well I have never seen any empirical or compelling evidence of evolution as described, but do see a natural selection process takes place to strengthen kinds. The difference with humans is that we can help the weak and foolish to some degree. Then after that, I guess we wring our hands.
We do have a three level procedure where I live to obtain a M/C license. The final examine is an hour ride with a person following in a car who gives random directions via a headset. Even if you fail immediately, you aren’t told but finish the whole exam. I suppose it helps better than it used to be, but the fools will still slip through I guess.

May 26, 2009 at 4:14 am

(10) clb3 says:

WE are not a “society of entitlement” I am sick and of that socialist propaganda.