Sportbike World banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
as some of us all know, magazines are only good for looking at pics. after being one of the first to own a zx-12 in arizona, i found out the expensive way that the zx-12 couldnt do the 200 to 220 mph like the hype in all the magazines were saying it would do. and proven wrong again today, the honda 954 absolutely bone stock weighs in at 420 lbs (wet). and my gixxer 1000, 425 lbs (wet). the magazines must be weighing the bikes with a spare tire in the trunk. the scale i used, (airplane parts warehouse) is dead nuts accurate, and is checked by the government frequently for consistantcy, not to mention i put my big ass on there as well to make sure. one of the new mags on the shelf says the gixxer 1 is weighing in at a wet weight of 437 lbs, and the honda bomb 954 they say is 10 lbs or so more than that, go figure. guess those magazines are great to have in the shitter though, if you run out of toilet paper you have some back-up, cause thats about all they're good for:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
The American mags have some nice pictures, and ads for new products in the back, but that's about all they're good for. The English mags do a much better job of reporting. I also bought a ZX 12 when they first came out, but I'm well satisfied with it 35k miles later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
bigmike32172 said:
after being one of the first to own a zx-12 in arizona, i found out the expensive way that the zx-12 couldnt do the 200 to 220 mph like the hype in all the magazines were saying it would do.
No magazine I read ever reported that the ZX-12 ran those speeds. I think the fastest test of the 2000 was about 185. Did you expect 200+ based on rumors? Caveat emptor.
and proven wrong again today, the honda 954 absolutely bone stock weighs in at 420 lbs (wet). and my gixxer 1000, 425 lbs (wet)...one of the new mags on the shelf says the gixxer 1 is weighing in at a wet weight of 437 lbs, and the honda bomb 954 they say is 10 lbs or so more
Motorcyclist (6/02) reports that the 954 weighs 410lb with an empty tank and 439lb with a full tank and that the GSX-R1000 weighs 408 and 437 (empty and full, respectively; Cycle World 6/02 empty data is similar). Fuel weighs 6lb/gal, so the weights you report are within the range of a partially full tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
i agree that you can't take everything that the mags say as 100% on target. but we still need them for what little feed back they give us. seeing how the local dealers don't give test rides. so you take whatever amount of info from the mags. go to the dealer sit on a few bikes. rock them back and forth between your legs check prices check your pockets. haggle for all it's worth and hope you brought the right bike. or take that same info or not. hit up as many of your buddies who have bikes similar to what you want and see if they'll let you ride the bikes for more of a feel. most of the time their afraid of the same thing the dealers are. dude you might wreck my bike. so the mags is the next best source we have to nothing. because ever factory claims their bike is the fastest or lightest or best handling or less maintance etc.........and you know their lying. because their lips are moving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
hey darkman, it kinda sounds like the way i find the right girl. check em out, rock em between your legs a few times, etc. lmfao!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: just kidding gals!!!:D darkman you perv you:hurl: :eek: :hurl: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
datadan, the scale tells no tales, only the mags do that. although i do note that immediatly there after, the good Q and i rode to the gas pump. i was down 1 gallon of gas, i filled it to the rim, so that would actually add 6 lbs giving me a grand total of 431 wet. now that i think of it, mr Q was a pourin away over there for alot longer than i, so maybe there is a tale to tell there, hmmmmmm:confused: :confused: :confused: ? and as far as the zx-12 goes, the mags were hyping it up months before its actual launch, making comments like; its designed to do well over 200 mph, people in europe have claimed it went 210 on the radar gun and still had throttle left, the hayabusa goes 192, and kawasaki isnt going to put out a bike that goes slower, seeing they dominated the 90's with the zx-11, etc. etc. but i must admit kawasaki never said a word, they know the media and they let them just run their mouths and do the selling for them, "free hype"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
I concur that the mags get a bit "evangelical" at times :rolleyes:

One of the things that's bugged me for years is that they'll do a "shoot-out" and pick the winner based upon a 10th of a second laptime at Willow. Never mind that 97% of the bike's buyers will never hit a track, and ride mostly for fun and "sporting" riding. I think the mags should at least place more emphasis on the real world application of the bikes. Fat chance.

Rags derive revenue from advertising, large display advertisers get favorable reviews in a consistant manner. Follow the money and remember that it's REALLY easy to lie with statistics or manipulate numbers.

Ride Safe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
bigmike32172 said:
its designed to do well over 200 mph, people in europe have claimed it went 210 on the radar gun and still had throttle left,
You also have to remember that the "voluntary" top speed restrictions were enacted right at the release of the zx12 and a lot of performance was lost due to this. If you read the mags closely there were several articles about this loss of performance from the preproduction bikes to the production bikes. Ricky Gadson rode one at the strip pre and post and there was a huge difference noted. And top speed figures have to be taken with a grain of salt so to speak since with a 10mph tail wind you WILL go close to 10 mph faster. So one mag saying they saw 210 isn't a big lie if they had a tail wind and a pre restriction bike.

Maybe I'm being stupid but I believe a lot of what they write. And as far as weight goes, the absolute number may not be accurate from scale to scale but at least they are weighing the compared bikes in a consistent fashion so the difference from one bike to the next is valid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
bigmike32172 said:
as some of us all know, magazines are only good for looking at pics. after being one of the first to own a zx-12 in arizona, i found out the expensive way that the zx-12 couldnt do the 200 to 220 mph like the hype in all the magazines were saying it would do. and proven wrong again today, the honda 954 absolutely bone stock weighs in at 420 lbs (wet). and my gixxer 1000, 425 lbs (wet). the magazines must be weighing the bikes with a spare tire in the trunk. the scale i used, (airplane parts warehouse) is dead nuts accurate, and is checked by the government frequently for consistantcy, not to mention i put my big ass on there as well to make sure. one of the new mags on the shelf says the gixxer 1 is weighing in at a wet weight of 437 lbs, and the honda bomb 954 they say is 10 lbs or so more than that, go figure. guess those magazines are great to have in the shitter though, if you run out of toilet paper you have some back-up, cause thats about all they're good for:eek:
Outstanding!
that you took the initiative to actually do this, make me really wonder what the magazines are doing!! thanks for being honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
bigmike32172........are you sure

gasoline weighs just 6 lbs per gallon??? cause if you are your in for a ration of shit...cause theres a "nut" who will argue this with you.....................



(bigmike, its a pesonal thing) fear not..:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
gasoline weighs just 6 lbs per gallon?
Pardon my ignorance, but that's what I understood as well. I took a peek at the Stanford sustainable resources list and it noted the same ratio. I am aware that fluid ounces do not always equate to specific weight. I may be wrong, but I think H2O is the equal fluid-solid weight in ounces. However it's been over 20 years since my last chemistry class :D

Isn't water 8 pounds per gallon?

Just another empty mind...the product of the NY educational system :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
hey dont knock new york education, fact is arizona is the second worst education in the country, must be the language barrier. any way when it comes down to it, yes water is just under 8 lbs, approx 7.86 lbs per gallon i believe. gas ive always heard is approx 6 lbs, give or take an ounce.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Re: bigmike32172........are you sure

spongebob wrote:
gasoline weighs just 6 lbs per gallon??? cause if you are your in for a ration of shit...cause theres a "nut" who will argue this with you
I'm the one who originally posted that figure. Though not precise, it's close enough. There's not much to argue about. Just look it up in any handy engineering reference.
Tahoe wrote:
Isn't water 8 pounds per gallon?
"A pint is a pound, the world around." Two pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon. Thus 8 pints and 8 pounds per gallon of water.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top