Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 12:50 am:

---

Quote:

Dear Motorcyclist,

Thanks for the review of the Buell XB9S. But, how is it fittingly described as

"...reasonably though not overwhelmingly torquey, with some power everywhere on
the dial but not a lot of power anywhere",

(an obvious negative spin) where the SV650, a bike with significantly less
power and torque, is described as

"...the just-shy-of-70-horsepower has always seemed powerful enough",

an obvious positive spin. And stating that the SV is "just shy of 70 hp" when
your hard numbers show it with 65.8 rwhp isn't just spin; it's deception.

Your journalism smacks of bias. Such bias is a disservice to your readers and
a blight on your integrity. Stick to the facts and leave the spin to the
politicians.

Blake
Kilgore, TX 75662
Blake@BadWeatherBikers.com

---

---

Quote:

> Blake:
>
> How do we make that comparison? How about: the Buell is a 984 while the
> Suzuki is a 645? How about the Buell costs $9500 and the Suzuki $5800?
>
> It's all in the expectation, isn't it? The Buell is in the price and
> displacement category where more performance is expected. Anything else in
> that class makes 100-plus horsepower, revs faster, has better manners and
> doesn't sound like a tractor.
>
> As for the Suzuki, most SVs we come across make 67 or 68 horsepower; the
> SV650S we tested (whose numbers you quote) was, if I recally correctly, both
> a CA bike and pretty new. BTW, I think we've also described the XB9R as
> being just shy of 80 hp, which is cutting it the same kind of slack.
>
> It's not bias, or even an anti-Buell stance. We expect bikes of a certain
> displacement and price to land in a certain performance category. Simply
> put, the Buell falls short.
>
> --Marc

---

---

Quote:

Marc,

Thank you for the reply. I am very disappointed by your defensive and somewhat
Buell bashing response. I hope you can accept my criticism as genuine; many of
my friends agree with my view.

Your emphasis on displacement and price to explain your publication's bias in
describing the relative power of a motorcycle is unfortunate. How about
instead you rate bikes' relative performance on their number of cylinders and
valves, compression ratio, or their peak rpm? Either is just as valid a
comparison basis as displacement, which is just one of the major attributes of
an engine that governs its performance.

You say that "anything else in that class makes 100-plus horsepower...".
Really? I disagree. I guess you don't consider the Ducati M900 and Ducati 900
Supersport, the Moto Guzzi V11 Sport, the BMW R1100S, or the BMW R1150RS in the
Buell's class? They are ALL more expensive, and all are comparably powered and
heavier, some significantly heavier. The fact that your focus, governed by
peak hp, is so narrow really should give you pause and prod you into re-
evaluating your biased view towards two wheeled performance.

I don't know what you mean by "has better manners". Care to meet me on a
handling course, you on the liter street bike of your choice, me on an XB9S,
and see who goes better? You saw the results of the CW handling test that
Canet recently did right? The XB9R matched the best performer, the CBR600F4i,
among an impressive field. The XB9S is a street bike. Trail braking on the
street is only a good idea if you wish to sample response times of the local
care flight chopper. It is not a smart thing to do on public roads, in fact,
it is plain stupid. You want neutral steering under trail braking? Try
mounting a steering damper and raising the forks 5mm or so. But that is for
the track.

Personally, all else being equal, I'd rather have a simple big engine that
makes 50 mpg than a complex little engine that can't do better than 40 mpg and
has to rev to 12000 rpm to make peak power. Dare to be different. Quit buying
into the flawed conventional wisdom of the "displacement yardstick".
Automobile performance enthusiasts don't hold to that yardstick. Compare a
Viper or Corvette to a Porsche 911, or a Honda NSX, then poo-poo the American
muscle cars because they have bigger engines? I don't think so.

My expectations are shaped by the manufacturers' advertised performance
specifications and my knowledge of the engine architecture. Did you know that
the XB9R races head to head with SV650's in many CCS classes?

Comparing a long stroke, low revving, pushrod, air cooled, two valve/cyl V-Twin
engine to short stroke high revving, DOHC, liquid cooled, four valve/cyl
engines is ridiculous. I suggest you pick up a copy of the current Road Racing
World and Motorcycle Technology and read their reviews, or check out the review
by Motorcycle Online, by John Burns and associate.

Since when does price enter into riding impression??? That is disingenuous and
to be honest, a really lame explanation. Tell us what the prices are, but
please don't tell me price determines the adjectives used to convey riding
impressions. Rather, maybe you'd do well to understand what the higher price
of one bike gets you compared to another. Is the suspension higher quality, is
the bike more exclusive/exotic, does the bike offer low maintenance, how about
unique attributes not found on other bikes, cool new stuff...

You say the SV dynoed was a CA bike and fairly new. Was that not the case with
the XB9R you tested? Don't make me call CARB on you.

If you truly "expect bikes of a certain displacement and price to land in a
certain performance category" then you have defined and admitted the basis of
your bias. But it is bias. Maybe you should take a look at the FUSA/CCS
rules. They have done a fair job of equitably defining displacement limits for
their racing classes. The XB9R would fit into LW SBK right along side the
SV650. Which bike in stock form in a head to head race do you think would
win? Answer... the XB9R would eat the SV for lunch. Absolutely no question.
Give the SV a few grand for suspension upgrades, the XB9R still pulls away.

Simply put, your publication reeks of bias. Using displacement as the primary
yardstick to compare performance is disingenuous and frankly ignorant. If
racing organizations see fit to consider other aspects of engine architecture
when establishing class limits, why can't you do the same when tempering your
riding impressions???

I definitely want honest opinions. I feel I am getting anti Buell and
overwhelmingly pro UJM bias.

See you out there,

Blake
Blake@BadWeatherBikers.com

PS: If my rant is a bit grumpy sounding it may be due to being rained out of a
long awaited track day at Oak Hill Raceway. Yes, I ride a Buell.

---