^ and on that note, 04 ZX10R was the second Kawasaki nicknamed the "widowmaker" ... the first being the old two-stroke triple ...
|
|
|
Litre bikes that redefined the class
- Thread starter kwtoxman
- Start date
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Lots of interesting discussion. I will let that discussion go on before I give my 2 cents, but just a note on the 750 side bar..
Except your wrong. The 1998 R1 was the first 150 hp lightweight bike available to the public. A major milestone on that and many other levels. The 1999 GSXR 750 was 134 hp to the crank, major for a 750, but not litre bike level. With the R1 cc advantage it killed that gen GSXR overall even if you rev'd the nuts off the 1999 750 with its slight weight advantage. And the R1 was much more receptive to basic mods than the 750 (as would be expected of any litre bike over a smaller displacement bike at that time). Groundbreaking to the point sportrider said as much here (enjoy the link) http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0905_1998_2001_yamaha_yzf_r1/. A quote from the article.. "in fact, the diminutive setup was smaller than most 600s at the time." All I see is R1 win when compared stock to stock to the 99 GSXR 750 and more so when compared modded to modded. Google the 1998 litre bike competitors to the R1 and you will see how much it was an improvement and "better" than its direct competition.
The 2000 GSXR 750 was a much better comparator to the R1, but again, you had to rev the nuts off the 750 to truly compare. http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/04/12april00gsxr750/ And besides we're talking litre bikes. With the 750 game change in 2000 the 01 GSXR 1000 is hence on the list as a game-changer litre bike.... for obvious reasons.
FWIW the 750 class improvement and leaders closely mirror the litre bike class changes. Not unexpected frankly. (Hint, look at the 600 class changes and improvements and you will see them drive the 750 class as well). Whenever the 750's started to compete with the litre bikes, which has happened multiple times over the last 30 years, the litre bikes take their respective leap forward. I still don't think you can use them as "THE" metric for defining outstanding candidate litre bikes though, per se, as you have. I've mentioned a few reasons, and others have mentioned other reasons as well.
A 750 discussion thread is a great option; lets put the 750 discussion to bed on this thread and talk about ground-breaking litre sportbikes. There are some amazing bikes that redefined that class but their discussion is another story.
Except your wrong. The 1998 R1 was the first 150 hp lightweight bike available to the public. A major milestone on that and many other levels. The 1999 GSXR 750 was 134 hp to the crank, major for a 750, but not litre bike level. With the R1 cc advantage it killed that gen GSXR overall even if you rev'd the nuts off the 1999 750 with its slight weight advantage. And the R1 was much more receptive to basic mods than the 750 (as would be expected of any litre bike over a smaller displacement bike at that time). Groundbreaking to the point sportrider said as much here (enjoy the link) http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0905_1998_2001_yamaha_yzf_r1/. A quote from the article.. "in fact, the diminutive setup was smaller than most 600s at the time." All I see is R1 win when compared stock to stock to the 99 GSXR 750 and more so when compared modded to modded. Google the 1998 litre bike competitors to the R1 and you will see how much it was an improvement and "better" than its direct competition.
The 2000 GSXR 750 was a much better comparator to the R1, but again, you had to rev the nuts off the 750 to truly compare. http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/04/12april00gsxr750/ And besides we're talking litre bikes. With the 750 game change in 2000 the 01 GSXR 1000 is hence on the list as a game-changer litre bike.... for obvious reasons.
FWIW the 750 class improvement and leaders closely mirror the litre bike class changes. Not unexpected frankly. (Hint, look at the 600 class changes and improvements and you will see them drive the 750 class as well). Whenever the 750's started to compete with the litre bikes, which has happened multiple times over the last 30 years, the litre bikes take their respective leap forward. I still don't think you can use them as "THE" metric for defining outstanding candidate litre bikes though, per se, as you have. I've mentioned a few reasons, and others have mentioned other reasons as well.
A 750 discussion thread is a great option; lets put the 750 discussion to bed on this thread and talk about ground-breaking litre sportbikes. There are some amazing bikes that redefined that class but their discussion is another story.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
It appears you are drawing from recent experience in the litre sportbike class for that opinion. For much of this class history as covered (mid 80's to now), many different manufacturer interpretations of the litre sportbike class have occurred. From 900 cc to 1100 cc or so. Much of this due to the racing series hierarchies at the time. The litre bike class developed in more of an open sportbike manner. The 750's were the superbike racing class at the time and the mainstream racing machines. Anything bigger went into the open racing classes in more regional series, such as wera, etc (I'm missing some so if anybody can remember...). Thus manufacturers weren't beholden to engine size limitations on litre sportbikes so a variety of litre sportbike engine sizes came out over time.
Also on my list here were 900 cc bikes. These bikes were developed and considered as part of the litre sportbike class. Some manufacturers gave up cc's for weight advantages at times in their litre sportbike development history, others went for extra cc's to overcome weight in their development history. By no means did every bike have 1000 cc engines all the time in this class in the last 30 years, fwiw.
It wasn't until around 2003 that AMA and WSB changed the superbike rule books to allow up to 1000 cc I4s to race in these premier series. And the 750 class became a footnote to history with many manufacturers no longer making them. That is why recent litre sportbikes are 1000cc or less for the I4 designs, whereas earlier ones were at times more than 1000cc.
It has been an interesting variety of philosophies over the years in the litrebike class. And these philosophies and their competition has only helped to improve the breed. Stuff to celebrate.
Last edited:
muay_thai_dan
Well-known member
Sweet write up... I have to agree with the list. there r a lot of other bikes that were significant to the bike world.... but the bikes mentioned in the list were definitely ground breaking....
If we grant the older (and air-cooled!) bikes a wee bit of extra displacement then I propose going back one more generation, and present the 1980 Suzuki GS1100. That bike brought the 4-valve-per-cylinder arrangement into that class. There wasn't really such a thing as a "sport bike" back then ... but that was a Superbike race-winning bike platform in its era (in the previous 1000cc form). The GS1100 was beyond the Superbike displacement limit in its era, but on the streets, nothing else could touch it at the time.
What looks like a big heavy under-suspended bike by today's standards, was once cutting edge ...
And on that note ... the 1984 Ninja 900 ought to be worth mention, too. Liquid cooling. And its descendant, the 1986 Ninja 1000 ... Full-enclosure bodywork. That bike later morphed into the next displacement (and weight) class up, but it was a litre bike when it came out ...
What looks like a big heavy under-suspended bike by today's standards, was once cutting edge ...
And on that note ... the 1984 Ninja 900 ought to be worth mention, too. Liquid cooling. And its descendant, the 1986 Ninja 1000 ... Full-enclosure bodywork. That bike later morphed into the next displacement (and weight) class up, but it was a litre bike when it came out ...
Shaman
Well-known member
Yes and no. The 2007/8 make a better track bike by most accounts, but a poorer street bike. The downsides are fixable and you can get over 170whp out of one with a full system, which also fixes the major issue with the bike: added weight.
DownUnder
Well-known member
In Aus it was THE BOSS of flipping people backwards onto their heads at WOT, people just werent used to the power/weight of it.
Someone mentioned the 999 but I think twins just arent in the same class.
The models after the 04 zx10 and 05 gsxr 1000 were a little neutered by kawi and suzuki, not sure why other then I guess liability concerns.
Just an emission issue.....they aded those heavy cats, removed them when I got the bike home, transformed the bike.
Shaman
Well-known member
That may be true, but the real issue was the swingarm and frame winding up like a spring with competition tires (what we'd think of as street tires today really) and then spitting the rider off with alarming regularity. I was thinking of campaigning one in VRRA when they became legal and was advised to take out lots of insurance for my widow if I did...
Were the RSU cartridge forks and non-radial calipers dramatically worse on the litre bikes? Or was it the combined package that did it? I always assumed part of the change was marketing driven, even if the quality was decent (street-bike now has race-bike style components).
All of the current litre bikes are neutered to some extent in stock form - some more obnoxiously than others.
The cross-plane 2009 R1 is the worst of the bunch; the (drive by wire) throttles don't even open all the way when the rider opens the throttle all the way. That bike probably *would* be on the game-changers list IF Yamaha hadn't hamstrung it so much that it's always the slowest in any of the magazine comparisons (which is all that the squids pay attention to when bike shopping). Make no mistake, that engine can make serious power just by remapping the ECU.
Suzuki detunes the engine in the lower gears; current ZX10R closes the exhaust butterfly a bit at high revs; BMW and ZX10R have pretty conservative settings in the stock traction control configuration. I don't know what Honda does, but it's not making class leading power in stock form, either.
Inverted forks and radial calipers are just part of the standard chassis package nowadays. There are reasons why they are technically superior, and that's why they're now standard.
By no means does this mean a bike with conventional forks and calipers is rendered unrideable just because the newer stuff is different ...
1994 Ducati 916, a classic of classics.
Green Machine
Well-known member
actually the zx-11 was re-nicknamed the widowmaker as after it was released Motorcycle deaths increased dramatically because of this bike, also resulting in high insurance rates for super sports bikes because of this bike
1994 Ducati 916, a classic of classics.
My thought exactly, that bike should be on top of the list. When it comes to 2007, the Ducati 1098 came out in that year. The bike that saved Ducati and went on to win several championships; the same cannot be said for the current model (1099).
1998 Yamaha R1 for sure.
|
|
|
|
|