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
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.