R9-t vs. Griso vs. CB1100

[the Ferret]

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

[HikerToo_imp]

Hmmm....for me, these %'s would be higher.
Appearance 77
Cool 73
Grin Factors 56

[Firstfour_imp]

Hmmm....for me, these %'s would be higher.
Appearance 77
Cool 73
Grin Factors 56

Obviously, all subjective, but the CB rates 100 on all those for me. Those are the reasons I bought the darn thing!

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

As an example of what too much power can get you, the service writer at the local motorcycle dealer had an R1, rode it like it is apparently intended, ended up getting 3 way-over tickets in about 2 months and lost his license. He ended up selling it to get a bagger.

[Henrik_imp]

In my opinion it is also much more a question of how the power is delivered. My Ducati ST2 was not very powerful with soething like 85hp, but it had a lot of torque right at the revs you normally ride at. This made it feel much more powerful than what it was, and much more enjoyable on the road than the more powerful ST4.

Supersports may have silly power figures, but it is always way up in the revs. Personally I hat 600 supersports away from a race track.

[The Spaceman_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

[grover_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

^ this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DAC]

They didn't mention that if you want the BMW, you need to wait a year or two until some parts grenade and they fix the flaws. (See S1000RR and R1200RT.) But maybe the R9T is a one year special.

[Firstfour_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

And one of their "sighs" is: So perfect it can seem a little bland. Uh, OK. I can live with perfect. They want imperfection, they can
have it. A strange thing to hanker for...

[rboe]

I'm not sure why they dinged the fueling on the Griso, mine, a 2012, ran very well with the stock map. I've been playing with the newer maps (more torque down low where we normally play on the street) and perhaps better mileage. But I also thought they were overly harsh on the CB. Kinda like complaining that the US flag is lacking because it only has three colours. WTH?

[pechorin75_imp]

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

I guess I don't mind them playing racer with the bikes (I like going fast too), but with machines like these it'd be nice if a little more attention was paid to how they behave in day-to-day riding for people who aren't carving canyons or drag racing every weekend. 600 supersports? Sure, go wild. "Standard" bikes obviously aimed at a well-heeled, older crowd that's unlikely to ever take them to a track? Not so much.

But...that's clearly the riding culture the writers are steeped in. I mean, it's obvious there's a major difference in perspective. I don't think I realized quite how major until the first time I sat on a ZX-14R and discovered just how relative the phrase "relaxed, comfortable ergonomics" actually is.

And then there's the need to declare a winner (and I'm not just saying that because the CB came in 3rd here). I know why they do it--the whole horse race thing--but if I'm reading a comparison test, I'm really more interested in an honest assessment of the differences and similarities between the bikes, preferably taking into account different riding styles and preferences. Yeah, you end up getting that info out of most decent comparisons, but in my opinion the "Which is better" arguments just get in the way most of the time. Give me the facts and I'll decide which is better for me.

That said, it'd be great if more manufacturers followed BMW/Harley's lead on test rides. Then prospective buyers wouldn't have to rely so much on articles like this...