13 year old Triumph design outperforms current Honda CB1000?

[9990]

Is this right?

I was just checking out the lead article on VisorDown... they compare the CB1000R to the CB1000RR / Fireblade. The recommend the CB1000R: "If you are an everyday rider the CB makes more sense than pretty much every other bike out there, let alone the Blade."

Ok, if it's such a great bike, what are the specs? That's what caught my eye:

2012 HONDA CB1000R
Price: £7,071 (£7,571 ABS) [it's $11.8k at my local dealer here]
Engine: 998cc, liquid-cooled, 16-valve inline four
Power: 115bhp @ 9,300rpm
Torque: 65 lb.ft @ 9,000rpm
Dry weight: 221kg
Top speed: 153mph

( http://www.visordown.com/road-tests/...#ixzz2AQtTsuYI )

Compare it to the Sprint RS:

1999-2004 Triumph Sprint RS
Price: $4k or so, used [based on a quick survey of CycleTrader]
Engine: 955cc, liquid-cooled, inline three
Power: 108bhp at 9,200 rpm (earlier engine, '99-'01) 118 bhp (later engine, '02-'04)
Torque: 72 lb/ft at 6,200 rpm
(source: http://www.motorcycle.com/manufactur...-rs-16151.html )
Dry weight: 207kg
Top speed: 154mph
(http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/bi...RS-1999-2004-/ )

So let's see: the Honda has the same or fewer horsepower, lower torque, weighs more and clearly has a worse power-to-weight ratio than the Sprint RS. Why would one go spend a bucketload of cash for a current Honda CB1000R? And why would VisorDown say it "makes more sense than pretty much every other bike out there"? Have Honda really managed to spend 13 years of R&D and engineering and come up with something that performs worse than what Triumph did back in 1999? And with 43 fewer cc's too.

I know I sound like a Triumph snob, am I missing something?

I know the CBR1000RR is a different story, but I'm going with the bike VisorDown is recommending for real world road riding.

[Flyfisher]

I think making that sort of conclusion from a few stats and facts is highly prone to error. I'm not saying the Triumph is necessarily worse, is just that the information given is insufficient to make an informed judgement, especially when so many subjective riding and ownership issues are considered.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Motorcycle.com Free App

[RageZro]

It's new... new sells rag mag's or moreover, advertiser space on web pages nowadays.

The suspension and brakes would be a better comparison for vast improvement between the RS and the CBR I'd have to guess, that or how fast it gets from X to Z, smoothness of trans, etc. The specs you listed don't tend to show some holy grail of performance for the CBR as the writer spewed from his pie hole.

I never listen to rag writers for what bike is best, just a guaranteed way to end up with a dud bike under you if that's what pulls the trigger on the showroom floor.

[BigDanUK]

Stats mean **** all. You have to ride the bikes to know the difference.

[DaveM]

Originally Posted by BigDanUK

Stats mean **** all. You have to ride the bikes to know the difference.

I'm with Big Dan on this one.

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Motorcycle.com App

[DeanRider]

Originally Posted by DaveM

I'm with Big Dan on this one.

+1

While 'hand's down' I prefer my Speed III, the Honda CB1000R remains an awesome machine

You Tube

You Tube

[KitNYC]

Wow. That is not to my taste!

Cheers,
-Kit

[9990]

Originally Posted by DeanRider

+1

While 'hand's down' I prefer my Speed III, the Honda CB1000R remains an awesome machine

Have you ridden one? If so, how was it in comparison to the Speed Triple?

[Rider14]

Quoted states don't take into account the subjective view of many other characteristics like suspension, ergonomics, LOOKS...

Ride what you like.

- Dan

[Macduff]

Originally Posted by 9990

Have you ridden one? If so, how was it in comparison to the Speed Triple?

Much smaller and way less top heavy. handling was good but the inline 4 is pretty boring. I tested one in 2009 and loved it but then decided I needed a more versatile bike so got the Sprint instead.

If I'd kept my VFR and was buying a bike for fun then this would be high up the list