11-16-2014, 02:26 AM
(11-16-2014, 02:11 AM)ClassicVW_imp Wrote: RI wholly agree with you guys. I too, just subscribed to CW and looked forward to the article. I couldn't find it the first time I looked, thinking I was going to see a title like " comparison test " or something. If the CB was the most retro, and they couldn't get the keys back from the tester, and the article was about tugging at your heartstrings.... well, doesn't the CB win?! In an article such as this one, why does there have to be a clear winner? And can there even be a clear winner?
If you read it closely, there's a ton of complaints about the RNineT yet they say "for the most part it didn't disappoint".
And their big beef about the CB is the limiter on the top three gears? What the heck? If you don't like that the CB only gets up to 109MPH and the Guzzi can hit 133, say so. But no, you can't say that without appearing foolish... because how many riders need to or want to or will do or be able to do 130 on a naked bike?
Yeah, they blew it big time because right up front in their second paragraph where they say- But what if you are looking for a plain ol' motorcycle? Not the fastest, lightest, most agile or most exotic- just a good all-around bike? Didn't they just describe the CB?!
P.S.---- If I were a Triumph Bonneville owner ( and I used to be ) I'd be pissed that it was left out.
Yep! Then turn right around and complain that the Honda just didn't have the suspension or chassis to keep up with the "Europeans" when the ride got more twisty and aggressive. Not sure how much handling difference there is between the 2014 DLX (they were on), and my 2013, but my bike is no slouch. I take it on the same roads that I used to take my KTM 990 SuperDuke on, which would blow the Guzzi or BMW into the weeds, and while the CB is no SuperDuke, you can hustle it through the curves at a very respectable pace.