Current vs the past

[MeHow]

Hey, I was just wondering about a few things and figured this would be the best section to post in. Currently I'm trying to switch from street to riding track and I have a few questions about bike peformance. I was wondering what the difference in performance is between lets say the bikes of today and the bikes of year 2000 or so...without mentioning weight and power is the current bike design and geometry much more advanced in terms of suspension and handeling? And, if I had a choice between lets say a 2006-2008 600cc stock bike or a 2000 600cc with ohlins suspension jet kit etc etc which one comes out on top?

[DucDic]

yeah, i have always wondered about this...has bike performance really shot through the roof over the last few years, was there a time of plateua for bike performance, was the industry focussed on other aspects of motorbikes...i see people write that my bike, monster 695, produces more torque and hp than their 750's and such, but don't think that their bikes are that old...just curious...

[reciprocity]

with 2 capable riders, the new bikes will crush the old stuff.

Even 03-05's have to be really well prepared to compete against the new equipment.

[bitzz]

Brian Henderson did a 1:33 lap on Mosport last year on a 1970s bike.

It is more rider than bike.

[franz131]

I'm with recipe (figuratively)

I had a 2000 Honda F4 racebike and I really liked riding it, it handled good and wheelied in the right places.

When I rode the first practise session of the 2003 national series I was mobbed by the new 600s, all completely stock.

Get the newest bike you can afford, ride it stock and gradually update it.

[Wingboy]

Brian Henderson did a 1:33 lap on Mosport last year on a 1970s bike.

It is more rider than bike.

Having done some laps with Brian at Mosport (well..i was there for a bit) i think he could turn respectable times with my Wing there.It's just amazing to watch him toss his Beemer street oilhead into turn with with the cylinder sliding all the way thru the turn.

[Grimmy]

This topic was discussed in Sport Rider magazine not too long ago. I have the old Mag around here somewhere.

It compares the devastating (at the time of release and still brutally fast) 2001 GSXR-1000 against a bone stock 2007 model of the same bike. The 2001 received some upgrades to update the older unit.

The same was done to the Yamaha R6, old and new.

Ultimately, the new wins the reviews, but the older bikes have their perks.

Here's the story:
http://www.sportrider.com/features/0...son/index.html

-Grimmy

[TLDeano]

A bike just a few years old (often 2 generations behind) feels big,wide,slow to the touch, and cushy. A great bike all round, but for a dedicated track tool, the new bikes cant be beat (in good hands).
Though the new model changes dont appear significant to the eye, theyre subtle and many, all to give the rider a keen sense of what the tires and suspension are doing on the track. These new frames are so stiff on the front, and flexy in rear, (and break like a coffee cup) and give amazing feedback, the swingarms today are sooo loonnngggg, for traction and feel, also the rider is moved ahead an inch or so every generation to get over the front and in control of the bike.
The newest motors are painstakingly being tuned for smooth high speed, and now torque, even a 600, as its found now that torque is as important to get around a circuit as top end power numbers.
As an example,the 08 R6 is a new bike, though it looks like an 07, almost every single part has been changed, and will outperform the 07 in every way.

[Brian P]

A counterpoint is that 95+% of track day riders (NOT talking about pro roadracers) will not be able to use the capabilities of ANY bike that they ride, anyway. If the objective is to win Pro 600, there is little question but to ride something relatively new; you are NOT going to win that class on a '91 FZR600. But for most people doing the average track day, I've got a BIG counterpoint to this.

The extra little bit that the last couple generations of bikes have, will be lost on most street / casual track day riders anyway. There is something to be said for buying something "less new" in that case:

Cheaper to buy. Cheaper to replace. It has been said many times, never race something that you can't afford to abandon in a ditch. If you are going to throw a bike cartwheeling off the end of the straightaway at Shannonville, better off throwing away $2000 than $14,000.

An ex race bike (that is still in good mechanical condition) can make a good track day bike. Hopefully the suspension will have already been worked on (although it still might require adjustment). And most racers change the oil A LOT more often than most street riders.

If you buy a bike that is a couple generations old, most likely all the good and weak points will be known, and the "fixes" will be known. New bike ... unknown quantity.

And the big one ... "Crashworthiness". It takes one helluva crash to turn a CBR600F2 (or EX500 or GS500) into a pretzel. (Reason: Steel frame!) Certain later models have a well deserved reputation for bending or breaking frames when crashed. The later bikes are designed to handle the stresses imposed when rolling down the road (not always successfully *cough* GSXR) and they are NOT designed to handle crashing. This is the side effect of becoming ever lighter and more powerful.

I do not like how fragile bikes have become. My '94 ZX9R might have been a bit portly, but it was strong as heck and nothing *ever* broke.

[XLOR8T]

A counterpoint is that 95+% of track day riders (NOT talking about pro roadracers) will not be able to use the capabilities of ANY bike that they ride, anyway. If the objective is to win Pro 600, there is little question but to ride something relatively new; you are NOT going to win that class on a '91 FZR600. But for most people doing the average track day, I've got a BIG counterpoint to this.

The extra little bit that the last couple generations of bikes have, will be lost on most street / casual track day riders anyway. There is something to be said for buying something "less new" in that case:

Cheaper to buy. Cheaper to replace. It has been said many times, never race something that you can't afford to abandon in a ditch. If you are going to throw a bike cartwheeling off the end of the straightaway at Shannonville, better off throwing away $2000 than $14,000.

An ex race bike (that is still in good mechanical condition) can make a good track day bike. Hopefully the suspension will have already been worked on (although it still might require adjustment). And most racers change the oil A LOT more often than most street riders.

If you buy a bike that is a couple generations old, most likely all the good and weak points will be known, and the "fixes" will be known. New bike ... unknown quantity.

And the big one ... "Crashworthiness". It takes one helluva crash to turn a CBR600F2 (or EX500 or GS500) into a pretzel. (Reason: Steel frame!) Certain later models have a well deserved reputation for bending or breaking frames when crashed. The later bikes are designed to handle the stresses imposed when rolling down the road (not always successfully *cough* GSXR) and they are NOT designed to handle crashing. This is the side effect of becoming ever lighter and more powerful.

I do not like how fragile bikes have become. My '94 ZX9R might have been a bit portly, but it was strong as heck and nothing *ever* broke.

umm yup i can attest to the latter part...subframes don't like crashes on these newer bikes

[TBK]

yeah, my 98 zx7r was tough as nails, both mechanically and in crashworthness.