11-13-2017, 02:27 AM
I know at least one member here traded in his CB1100 for a Z900 and I've heard nothing but good things about them so I thought I'd give one a try since there is a dealer not too far from me who actually allows test rides.
My first impression on approaching the bike is that it is small. There's no presence to it. When I sat on it I felt that there was nothing in front of me, especially compared to the GL1800C Valkyrie I ride.
The other member said he found the ergos quite comfortable. I found just the opposite. The front lean angle was "ok" -- I wouldn't want anything more than that but I could live with what it is but the backward knee angle was horrible -- incredibly cramped and noticeably worse than the CB1100, which itself is cramped.
The bike revved nicely in a way the CB1100 doesn't and it has noticeably better acceleration -- no complaints in that department.
I was looking forward to something with a slipper clutch because going from 2nd to 1st on the Valk is like hitting the brakes hard. I was surprised that it seemed too effective. By which I mean I would be in 6th and download to 5th expecting some engine braking and getting almost none. So, I'd drop to 4th and still little engine braking and so drop to 3rd. I guess that is something I'd get used to.
As for being light and maneuverable, well, I guess I don't ride hard enough (and certainly not on a test ride) to notice that much difference from my 754 pound Valk. I'm pretty sure that once I got comfortable with it and tested it harder the difference would become more apparent. My main complaint with the weight of the Valk is coming to stops. It is a bear in stop-and-go traffic.
I guess one thing not talked about in discussing older bikes and retros is that they are built longer and have a certain presence when you're sitting on them and I kind of miss that with these modern bikes. It will be interesting to see what the length of the new Z900RS is. I can already tell by looking at the photo of the cafe version that was posted that the backward knee angle is going to be a problem for some.
My first impression on approaching the bike is that it is small. There's no presence to it. When I sat on it I felt that there was nothing in front of me, especially compared to the GL1800C Valkyrie I ride.
The other member said he found the ergos quite comfortable. I found just the opposite. The front lean angle was "ok" -- I wouldn't want anything more than that but I could live with what it is but the backward knee angle was horrible -- incredibly cramped and noticeably worse than the CB1100, which itself is cramped.
The bike revved nicely in a way the CB1100 doesn't and it has noticeably better acceleration -- no complaints in that department.
I was looking forward to something with a slipper clutch because going from 2nd to 1st on the Valk is like hitting the brakes hard. I was surprised that it seemed too effective. By which I mean I would be in 6th and download to 5th expecting some engine braking and getting almost none. So, I'd drop to 4th and still little engine braking and so drop to 3rd. I guess that is something I'd get used to.
As for being light and maneuverable, well, I guess I don't ride hard enough (and certainly not on a test ride) to notice that much difference from my 754 pound Valk. I'm pretty sure that once I got comfortable with it and tested it harder the difference would become more apparent. My main complaint with the weight of the Valk is coming to stops. It is a bear in stop-and-go traffic.
I guess one thing not talked about in discussing older bikes and retros is that they are built longer and have a certain presence when you're sitting on them and I kind of miss that with these modern bikes. It will be interesting to see what the length of the new Z900RS is. I can already tell by looking at the photo of the cafe version that was posted that the backward knee angle is going to be a problem for some.