03-29-2014, 03:10 AM
No, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were a bit lighter...but that said, what difference does it really make? Granted, I'm used to handling big, heavy bikes, but the CB doesn't feel at all heavy to me, either in terms of handling or just lifting it on/off the side or center stands (in fact, if I didn't know, I'd guess it was actually lighter than the ZRX1100 I own--it certainly turns in quicker). It still accelerates fast enough, even stock, to embarrass all but the quickest sports cars. I doubt the extra pounds on the '14 deluxe will change that very much.
Bottom line, the bike simply isn't meant to play on the same field as a modern sporting machine, naked or not. That extra 50 pounds matters almost entirely at the outer margin of the performance envelope, which is a place where maybe 1 or 2 percent of owners will ever take it. For those who want a more competitive sport machine w/ the retro looks, it can be made to lose some weight and gain some horsepower...but it's never gonna be a CBR1000RR.
Which is why they make CBR1000RRs.
This isn't really directed at you, thessler, but in the digital camera world, there's a certain contingent of enthusiasts who focus almost entirely on technical specs, and in the process completely lose sight of the big picture--which is that the camera is ultimately just a tool used to capture an image; and that it's the image rather than the camera that ultimately matters. In reading comments on sites like Motorcycledaily lately, it seems like we've got something similar going on in the motorcycle world. You get the sense that the "peanut gallery" wouldn't be satisfied until somebody came out with a 220hp, 325lb bike that was completely docile on the street ("great first bike!"), handled like a MotoGP bike, rode like a Cadillac, had comfortable, adjustable ergonomics, got 60mpg, had hydraulic valve lifters, came with 500-mile seat comfortable for every rear-end, could tour like a Goldwing, looked exactly like a classic 1978 whatever (but better), had a centerstand, was belt or shaft driven....etc. And even then they'd find something to complain about ("Ugh! What were they thinking with that horrible speedometer font??")
Bottom line, the bike simply isn't meant to play on the same field as a modern sporting machine, naked or not. That extra 50 pounds matters almost entirely at the outer margin of the performance envelope, which is a place where maybe 1 or 2 percent of owners will ever take it. For those who want a more competitive sport machine w/ the retro looks, it can be made to lose some weight and gain some horsepower...but it's never gonna be a CBR1000RR.
Which is why they make CBR1000RRs.
This isn't really directed at you, thessler, but in the digital camera world, there's a certain contingent of enthusiasts who focus almost entirely on technical specs, and in the process completely lose sight of the big picture--which is that the camera is ultimately just a tool used to capture an image; and that it's the image rather than the camera that ultimately matters. In reading comments on sites like Motorcycledaily lately, it seems like we've got something similar going on in the motorcycle world. You get the sense that the "peanut gallery" wouldn't be satisfied until somebody came out with a 220hp, 325lb bike that was completely docile on the street ("great first bike!"), handled like a MotoGP bike, rode like a Cadillac, had comfortable, adjustable ergonomics, got 60mpg, had hydraulic valve lifters, came with 500-mile seat comfortable for every rear-end, could tour like a Goldwing, looked exactly like a classic 1978 whatever (but better), had a centerstand, was belt or shaft driven....etc. And even then they'd find something to complain about ("Ugh! What were they thinking with that horrible speedometer font??")