2010 Superbike Smackdown - MotorcycleUSA

[Eddie]

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/9/6843...VII-Track.aspx

[toocrazy2yoo]

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/9/6843...VII-Track.aspx

Interesting. Anyone know, is there any relationship (aside from brand) between the ZX-14 Ninja (and hence, my Kawasaki Concours14) and the ZX-10?

Just musing.

[Bolts Of Fire]

That new BMW is so strange looking... Definitely bummed the RC8 didn't rank better

[The Snowman]

Was surprised the Ape came in last.

[soloithtz]

Nice to see the KTM getting it's feet wet in the sportbike crowd

[Slyder]

Well damn, I guess I need to pick up an 1198 next. No need for a BMW, already got an I-4. No way in hell am I buying a CBR. I'm also surprised to see the Aprilia and KTM so far down the list.

I bet if that RSV4 had a GP style exhaust on it, it would have been #1

[RocketPunch]

They use the RSV4R for the test not the factory.

[Harley Davidson]

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/9/6843...VII-Track.aspx

It seems to me that M-USA had to work the numbers pretty hard to score the BMW above the CBR. Take a look at the numbers in the score card. Basically, their scoring scheme uses subjective (track) and objective (performance) categories.

The CBR is tops according to M-USA in the subjective track ratings. However, the advantage over the BMW here is pretty insignificant. You can almost call it a wash.

Then, M-USA lists 10 objective performance categories. One would suspect that some combination of hp, tq, weight, max acceleration, cornering g-forces, lean angle, etc. would combine in a way that would lead to performance, which, IMHO, for a comparison of this sort is how well the bikes go around the track (i.e., LAP TIMES).... Not 1/4 mile, not braking 60-0. Save the 1/4 mile for the ZX14s and 'busa crowd and the 60-0 for a road test.

Despite the fact that the CBR registered the fastest superpoles, and the BMW was a somewhat distant third, M-USA considers the BMW to have have better objective performance. Does this make sense? IMHO, this should tell M-USA that its own objective performance categorization scheme isn't strong enough to reflect how the bikes perform on the track, beyond the 10% they credit to ... yes ... I'll say it again ... lap times. So then why do we care about these numbers?

A motorcycle is more than the sum of its hp, tq, braking, etc. It's a complex system. Yet when we think of sport bikes, we like to compare them to race bikes, which we evaluate based on winning races by being fast around racetracks.

Don't get me wrong, this was a nice review and I enjoyed reading it, but I wonder of they were looking for a certain winner and found a way to crown it even though it doesn't stack up on the track. More likely, it's just a result of a scoring scheme that assigns just as much value to maximum lean angle as lap times.

Ok, so even if you believe things like braking, 1/4 mile, and maximum lean angle are important, do they individually matter that much in the spirit of this type of comparison? If Rossi's M1 laps a half second faster consistently than Stoner's Duc, no one gives a shit if the DUC can stop 60-0 faster. For that matter, no one cares if it weights 1lb more or less or which has more horsepower.

My point is that the test emphasizes a BUNCH of single objective performance numbers and suggests each in of itself is JUST AS VALUABLE AS LAP TIMES, and then hides the one thing that really matters (i.e., LAP TIMES) as being only 1/10 of the whole overall objective performance score. Come on, if they are going to do this at least assign some reasonable weighting to lap times, say 50 points?

The CBR simply provided the best performance in the context of this test, despite the way the numbers were presented. Sure, on another track things might likely be different, but they weren't at Thunderhill.

I would personally choose the S1000RR over the CBR. My reasons would include the electronic gizmos and the engine power. However, that's based on my subjective opinion, but outside the realm of drag racing and panic stops, it seems both the CBR and the 1198S have it over the S1000RR in terms of objective performance and M-USA should have called it that way.

[KawiSmurf]

It's usually kind of a pet peeve of mine when they mix-up the model levels in these comparisons (mixing the higher end European bikes with the Japanese bikes). Just doesn't seem fair. Can you imagine reading an issue of Car and Driver or Road and Track where they compare a Shelby GT500, Challenger R/T, and Camaro RS? Three completely different price/performance levels thrown unfairly at each other...seems representative of what they've done here (even if a bit exaggerated).

It would've made more sense if they used a base 1198 and RC8. At the least, if you're going to go with the higher priced models, stay consistent and also include the RSV4 Factory, a fully option laden S1000RR with all its accessories, and the CBR1000RR w/ ABS. And if that were the case, I think it would've been cool to see the new MV Agusta F4 included, to see how it stacks up against the rest of the mainstream bikes.

That being said, I wasn't surprised to see the BMW finish first. It had the most hype surrounding it by far this year (more than any new bike in recent memory, in fact). You can bet that had a pretty significant impact on the overwhelmingly high marks it got in the subjective categories.

Other than that, it seemed like a good comparison to read. The ZedX-10 finished exactly midpack, so I'm solidly satisfied with that. As they usually point out these days, all of these bikes are so fantastic and cutting edge now, you'd be hard-pressed to find fault with them unless you rode them all directly back-to-back. You'll be ridiculously happy buying any one of them.

I will take issue with one thing Mr. Davidson said above, though. I will end up doing a pretty decent amount of track days this year, but I can guarantee you that less than 15% of my miles will be put on at the track. The rest are street miles. So lap times are FAR from the only thing that matters. This class of superbikes is so dynamic, and they all lap different tracks in different ways. Not to mention that MCUSA is one of the 'publications' that specifically does separate Track and Street comparisons every year, so the results for the street portion could vary quite a bit...that's where the harder-edged track focused bikes (like the Duc) usually fall to the back of the pack. That comparison usually holds more weight with me.

[JohnnyX-14]

Jeez Harl, 3:30am. Shouldn't you be in the sack by now?

My quick skim of the article left me thinking they consider the CBR to
be the all around best of class for the 3rd year in a row which makes
the bike all the more remarkable.

If you would rather have the BMW, I'm buy your CBR cheap.

[Eddie]

It seems to me that M-USA had to work the numbers pretty hard to score the BMW above the CBR. Take a look at the numbers in the score card. Basically, their scoring scheme uses subjective (track) and objective (performance) categories.

The CBR is tops according to M-USA in the subjective track ratings. However, the advantage over the BMW here is pretty insignificant. You can almost call it a wash.

Then, M-USA lists 10 objective performance categories. One would suspect that some combination of hp, tq, weight, max acceleration, cornering g-forces, lean angle, etc. would combine in a way that would lead to performance, which, IMHO, for a comparison of this sort is how well the bikes go around the track (i.e., LAP TIMES).... Not 1/4 mile, not braking 60-0. Save the 1/4 mile for the ZX14s and 'busa crowd and the 60-0 for a road test.

Despite the fact that the CBR registered the fastest superpoles, and the BMW was a somewhat distant third, M-USA considers the BMW to have have better objective performance. Does this make sense? IMHO, this should tell M-USA that its own objective performance categorization scheme isn't strong enough to reflect how the bikes perform on the track, beyond the 10% they credit to ... yes ... I'll say it again ... lap times. So then why do we care about these numbers?

A motorcycle is more than the sum of its hp, tq, braking, etc. It's a complex system. Yet when we think of sport bikes, we like to compare them to race bikes, which we evaluate based on winning races by being fast around racetracks.

Don't get me wrong, this was a nice review and I enjoyed reading it, but I wonder of they were looking for a certain winner and found a way to crown it even though it doesn't stack up on the track. More likely, it's just a result of a scoring scheme that assigns just as much value to maximum lean angle as lap times.

Ok, so even if you believe things like braking, 1/4 mile, and maximum lean angle are important, do they individually matter that much in the spirit of this type of comparison? If Rossi's M1 laps a half second faster consistently than Stoner's Duc, no one gives a shit if the DUC can stop 60-0 faster. For that matter, no one cares if it weights 1lb more or less or which has more horsepower.

My point is that the test emphasizes a BUNCH of single objective performance numbers and suggests each in of itself is JUST AS VALUABLE AS LAP TIMES, and then hides the one thing that really matters (i.e., LAP TIMES) as being only 1/10 of the whole overall objective performance score. Come on, if they are going to do this at least assign some reasonable weighting to lap times, say 50 points?

The CBR simply provided the best performance in the context of this test, despite the way the numbers were presented. Sure, on another track things might likely be different, but they weren't at Thunderhill.

I would personally choose the S1000RR over the CBR. My reasons would include the electronic gizmos and the engine power. However, that's based on my subjective opinion, but outside the realm of drag racing and panic stops, it seems both the CBR and the 1198S have it over the S1000RR in terms of objective performance and M-USA should have called it that way.

Nice write up. I believe you would agree with Aristotle's famous quote: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."

[Harley Davidson]

I will take issue with one thing Mr. Davidson said above, though. I will end up doing a pretty decent amount of track days this year, but I can guarantee you that less than 15% of my miles will be put on at the track. The rest are street miles. So lap times are FAR from the only thing that matters. This class of superbikes is so dynamic, and they all lap different tracks in different ways. Not to mention that MCUSA is one of the 'publications' that specifically does separate Track and Street comparisons every year, so the results for the street portion could vary quite a bit...that's where the harder-edged track focused bikes (like the Duc) usually fall to the back of the pack. That comparison usually holds more weight with me.

Thanks, I agree completely and despite ALL my words I somehow neglected to get at this myself. There clearly is much more to the big picture than lap times and these undoubtably would be shuffled somewhat at different tracks. This why I enjoy reading these articles and hearing the opinions of the testers in the videos. I'll be looking forward to the street portion of the comparison.

[Harley Davidson]

Jeez Harl, 3:30am. Shouldn't you be in the sack by now?

My quick skim of the article left me thinking they consider the CBR to
be the all around best of class for the 3rd year in a row which makes
the bike all the more remarkable.

If you would rather have the BMW, I'm buy your CBR cheap.

All the rain and lack of riding left me with too much post midnight energy...

Sure you don't want to trade for the '10 Vmax? I might even throw in some motor oil.

[HIGHONSTRESS]

great posts and discussion here!! nice!

In some ways, i'm glad Im still a noob with bikes for the most part, i dont have to sweat all these details. Pretty much any of those bikes would blow my mind

Also, its my opinion that the majority of people that buy sportbikes don't race them professionally. And in that case, at a normal track day, if your keeping track of your times it would really only be to improve upon your own riding and beat your personal best, not to get on the podium. Maybe you want to be faster than your friends though haha.

So that frees you up to buy the bike that speaks the most to you using more subjective things like, looks, feel, sound etc.

Like when I meet someone with a fast car and they say "yeah it will go 11.xx in the 1/4 mile, or 0-60 in three seconds. Most of the time they have never been to the track, and are just quoting magazine times, but can't drive their own car to that level.

[The Snowman]

No way in hell am I buying a CBR.

Why not? It's only been at the top of the list for years now.

[JohnnyX-14]

All the rain and lack of riding left me with too much post midnight energy...

Sure you don't want to trade for the '10 Vmax? I might even throw in some motor oil.

Nope! Chased Jr riding the X-14 (me on the MAX) down that new route from
tdeloren's the other evening, laughing out loud and talking to myself through
the "S"s: Sick, Totally Sick!

On the other hand, did some research on the S 1000RR. Especially Brock's
review. Looks like the S 1000RR is the new Uber Scooter.

One concern: 13 to 1 compression. What octane fuel is required to keep the
anti-knock retarder from kicking-in?

[Harley Davidson]

It must run fine on 91? Might not stay with your VMax in a straight line, but I want one anyway. You, too, eh? I bet the price jumps for 2011.

[Slyder]

Why not? It's only been at the top of the list for years now.

Why won't you buy a gixxer ? Plus as stated, I already have an I-4.
But the next addition will be Italian. The 3rd addition could be a CRF or an NSR, I'm not completely anti-honduh, but I'll never own another CBR (no bad experiences, but I've been a Suzuki guy since I was, well, a kid).

1198S or RSV4 Factory. By the looks of things, I should go with the Duc. I'm curious to see what Ducati will turn loose for 2011 .. I've heard rumors. I think I'll wait and see. I need a new cage before a new bike.

[JohnnyX-14]

It must run fine on 91? Might not stay with your VMax in a straight line, but I want one anyway. You, too, eh? I bet the price jumps for 2011.

It'll smoke the stock MAX if the 1/4 figures are legit (I question those figures).
(See Brock's Performance home page.) Anyway Brock will sponsor some
S 1000RRs. He's impressed, so lookout!

Re: the fuel octane. Way back in the old days 12.75 to 1 compression required 100 octane. What do they have for aviation gas over at the airport?
So if the anti-knock retards the timing 15 degrees she won't be doing 180 Hp.
But that's an assumption. The way technology keeps advancing... sheez!

Yeah, trade the 02 next year... sounds like a plan. Roger the price increase.

[Big Draggo]

[QUOTE=JohnnyX-14;907969]It'll smoke the stock MAX if the 1/4 figures are legit (I question those figures).
(See Brock's Performance home page.) Anyway Brock will sponsor some
S 1000RRs. He's impressed, so lookout!

QUOTE]

June isssue of Sport Rider bike Comparision the S 1000 RR used in the comparision ( a stock bike ) ran a 156.1 mph 1/4 mile , time 9.57 seconds , showing 176.5 rwhp on a Super Flow Dyno.


Here's the link to Brocks write up for Dragbike

http://www.dragbike.com/dbnews/anmviewer.asp?a=5526&z=3

[Harley Davidson]

It'll smoke the stock MAX if the 1/4 figures are legit (I question those figures).
(See Brock's Performance home page.) Anyway Brock will sponsor some
S 1000RRs. He's impressed, so lookout!

Re: the fuel octane. Way back in the old days 12.75 to 1 compression required 100 octane. What do they have for aviation gas over at the airport?
So if the anti-knock retards the timing 15 degrees she won't be doing 180 Hp.
But that's an assumption. The way technology keeps advancing... sheez!

Yeah, trade the 02 next year... sounds like a plan. Roger the price increase.

AVGas is most commonly found as 100LL. 100 reflects 100 octane. The LL, or "low lead" part reflects the tetra-ethyl that is still used in AVGas as an anti-knock, and helps achieve the 100 rating.

[KawiSmurf]

Part 2, the Street Test:

2010 Superbike Smackdown VII Street - MotorcycleUSA.com

[scottieducati]

My own internal battle. I want the S1000RR for so many reasons, but can't stop coming back to the RSV4, it's just sexier than anything else.

[KawiSmurf]

My own internal battle. I want the S1000RR for so many reasons, but can't stop coming back to the RSV4, it's just sexier than anything else.

I hear ya. There's no way I'd even think about trading my ZX-10R for any of the other inline fours in that comparo, but if I had to give it up, I'd only trade it in for the RSV4. Sure, it's less comfortable, less practical, and less economical...but it's also the only other one that really tugs at the ol' heartstrings.

[rbrais]

Surprised to see the HP down in the 150's-160's. Weren't they pushing 180 hp just a few years ago?