| Author | Message | ||
     Circusninja |
I have been thinking of upgrading to an 1125CR and a good friend of mine basically worships at the throne of the RC51. Typically, which one would win? Froggy told me that some of you have experienced both bikes and this was the place to find out for sure. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Cr HANDS DOWN | ||
| 2thepoint |
Win what? I ride with a RC51 all the time and we drag race from a dead start up to 150 mph they are dead even. Whoever is faster off the line wins. I think the 1125R is way better in the corners, but he thinks his bike is better. | ||
| Kevin_stevens |
The RC51 made 133HP at the crank. My 1125CR makes 130HP at the rear wheel, on a 90 degree day at Buttonwillow. That said, they're both great bikes with very good suspension and close in weight. It would almost always be a rider issue. KeS | ||
| T_man |
I drag raced with an RC51 and it wasn't even close. The best he could turn was mid 11's in the low 120's whereas I was in the high 10's in the low 130's. It was a good bike for its day - if a little heavy. Personally I'd take an old TL over an RC any day of the week. | ||
| Jng1226 |
+1 T_man. RC51's stock averaged about 122 HP at the wheel, which was great in their day. I also had TL1000S and that thing was a riot. A friend had a RC-51 SP2 and it was a great bike but needed a lot of upgrading to see the potential. Even then, it would be just about where an 1125R is out of the box. Kevin, I don't know what you mean about close in weight, the CR weighs about 435 lbs wet and the RC51 is closer to 480+. Jeff | ||
| Kevin_stevens |
Sorry, I was getting the dry weight at 439. KeS | ||
| Dcmortalcoil |
I have both. RC51 definitely feels lighter by FAR. I am short, requiring tippy toeing to move the bike. Backing the bike is really telling. RC51 takes far less effort to move around than CR. | ||
| Dcmortalcoil |
I don't have a scale, but moving RC51 around is so much easier than CR/R, and FAR FAR easier than XBs. That's my take by feel. | ||
| Jng1226 |
Kevin - is your RC51 stock at that weight? I'll always have a soft spot for the RC51 after Colin Edwards' epic 2002 WSBK Championship - remember that Edwards vs. Bayliss battle at the last race at Imola? The best race EVER! I also lived in NC at the time and got to see Nicky dominate his last AMA championship on the RC51 at VIR before going to MotoGP. However, I do recall the common complaint of the RC51 was the weight. Here is an article from motorcyclist.com comparing a RC51 to a 999R: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/roadtests/122_05 01_honda_rc51_ducati_999r/index.html They modded this RC51 with Sato Ti exhausts and other bits to get the weight down from 489 wet to 470 wet. The stock 2004 HP was 123 at the wheel. With the pipes, Power Commander, rev limiter and flapper mods, the tweaked one gets 129 at the wheel. Here is the spec chart from the comparison with the modded RC51. Ducati 999R Honda RC51 PRICE MSRP $29,995 $11,599 ENGINE Type l-c 90-deg. V-twin dohc, 8v l-c 90-deg. V-twin Valve arrangement dohc, 8v Bore x stroke 104.0 x 58.8mm 100.0 x 63.6mm Displacement 999cc 999cc Compression ratio 12.5:1 10.8:1 Transmission 6-speed 6-speed Final drive #525 chain #530 chain CHASSIS Weight 452 lb. (wet) 427 lb. (fuel tank empty) 470 lb. (wet) 441 lb(fuel tank empty) Fuel capacity 4.1 gal. (16L) 4.8 gal. (18L) Rake/trail 23.5-24.5 deg./3.82 in. (97mm) 23.5 deg./3.7 in. (94mm) Wheelbase 55.9 in. (1420mm) 55.9 in. (1420mm) Seat height 30.7 in. (780mm) 32.3 in. (820mm) SUSPENSION Front 43mm inverted cartridge fork adjustable for spring preload, compression and rebound damping 43mm inverted cartridge fork adjustable for spring preload, compression and rebound damping Rear single shock adjustable for spring preload, ride height, compression and rebound damping single shock adjustable for spring preload, ride height, compression and rebound damping Tire, front 120/70ZR17 Michelin Pilot Power 120/70ZR17 Bridgestone BT014 Tire, rear 190/50ZR17 Michelin Pilot Power 190/50ZR17 Bridgestone BT014 PERFORMANCE Corrected 1/4-mile* 10.34 sec. @ 134.37 mph 10.55 sec. @ 131.6 mph 0-60 mph* 3.17 sec. 3.14 sec. Top-gear roll-on, 60-80 mph* 2.94 sec. 3.31 sec. Fuel mileage (low/high/average) 24/45/37 19/45/35 Cruising range (exc. reserve) 121 miles 140 miles | ||
| Donaldb |
I own both, but I disagree that the RC51 is quicker, not to mention how uncomfortable the RC51 is to ride because of the odd clip on angle. My RC has the flapper mod, PC III and Sato's so it not stock either. I don't see much difference in the handling with both set up to my preference. Now the exhaust note on the RC51 is music to my ears. When all said and done the rider is going to be the difference in a race. Oh and the RC51 has a much better design hydraulic slave cylinder IMHO.  donald | ||
| Jjk |
My CR walks away from my friend's pristine '03 RC51 gear for gear until very high speeds (over 130). We weigh the same (170ish) and his bike has all sorts of mods (Yoshimura Japan pipes, Ohlins, -1/+2 sprockets, etc. Mine has Drummer and tune). I've ridden it several times and it is a fantastic bike, but for people who say the handling is 'better' than the CR, I think that they are mistaken. The RC51 is very stable when leaned over on it's ear, but it's turn-in is much lazier and it takes a lot more effort to pick it back up on the exits. We're both running Bridgestone 016s so it's not a tire thing, either. The RC51 feels like a sharper, more precise version of my TL1000S. My 1125CR feels like it's several generations ahead in term of chassis performance. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
never ridden one but the exhaust note as mentioned above is just damn sexy on the 51 | ||
| Dennis355 |
Had an 02 RC51 it was fast and rock solid stable handling. Had many suspension mods and a few motor mods. Loved the bike. Great on the race track. Have an 08 1125R getting it prepped for the track. So far it has been a good experience except a bad front end shake above 120 mph. In the process of doing suspension upgrades hopefully will cure the head shake.I love my 1125R but I think the RC was faster. Sold to a friend so I still get to see her. | ||
| Duphuckincati |
Ever see that T-Shirt "Better my sister in a whorehouse than my brother on a Honda"? Not that I would ever wear anything like that.... | ||
| Rex |
I heard this week, that the RC 51 did not do well at turning, and that the Buell was much better in the corners. That the RC 51 was a handful to get turned? Just heard this. I think the RC 51 motor is fantastic. I think it is a shame that Honda has kind of forgotten about this motor. I would love to see it in other bikes, other than the RC 51 uncomfortable format. Give me an M2 with the RC 51 motor. | ||
| Donaldb |
Honda didn't forget about the engine, the cost to build the V vs. inlines is staggering, and there isn't enough smart folks like us around that would be willing to pay the extra $. donald | ||
| Jng1226 |
Another reason that V-Twin Sportbikes got abandoned by the Japanese is that their marketing is very much fueled by their racing activities. WSBK was arguably the biggest show in town back in the 2000's and the rules from the Italian owners of the series heavily favored the Ducatis and their V-Twin. Honda couldn't win with their V-4s at the time (RC45) and decided to beat them at their own game with the RC-51, which they did in 2000 and 2002. The rules changed again to make inline-4s more competitive and with the Japanese also heavily invested in MotoGP it made much better sense to have multi-cylinder (more than 2) race bikes, better related to what they sell on the showroom floor. Aprilia used to race V-Twins in WSBK and obviously now have come back with a more-competitive V-4 and are selling that bike very well to the public. For their first WSBK effort and first-ever true sportbike, BMW chose to come out with an inline-4 using some of their F1 drivetrain technology. It's all about marketing and getting some return on their significant investment in motorsports activities. I so wish that Honda would have come up with a V-5 street sportbike based on their RC211V 990cc MotoGP bike. I'm a Buell and MV fan, but I'd be damned if I didn't have one of those the minute it came out! Jeff | ||
| Fresnobuell |
There is an old comparo with the Aprilia Mille (same V-Twin generation as the RC-51 and I assume comparable) and the Buell 1125R. Needlessto say the Buell waxed the floor with the Aprilia--as it should. | ||
| Jng1226 |
Fresnobuell - not sure if this is the article you are referring to, but this is a link to the Motorcycle-USA.com article where they track-test the 2009 versions of a Buell 1125R vs. an Aprilia RSV1000R vs. a ZX-6R: http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/9/3317/Motorcycle-Ar ticle/2009-Daytona-SportBike-Comparison.aspx  Yup, the 1125R waxed all comers at the track, even the acknowledged best 2009 600cc Supersport, the ZX-6R with it's Showa Big Piston Fork and revised motor. Jeff | ||
| Jng1226 |
Some interesting data from that comparison I just posted (typo on the HP Graph, they tested a stock R, not CR):     Jeff | ||
| Jng1226 |
Last picture, I promise. It's a good one though, Steve Atlas KILLING IT on a bone-stock 1125R (except for race tires):  Jeff | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Sweet Pic! Some Sick lean angle there!That IS the article I was referring to...Nice read as it was back then. | ||
| Strato9r |
A buddy of mine just picked up a really clean Honda Superhawk, which is basically an RC-51 with more street oriented ergonomics. Perhaps not the prettiest bike, but a very sweet ride nonetheless. | ||
| Drbyk |
I traded my 2003 RC51, a bike I lusted after for a number of years, for my 1125R. I still believe it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The RC51 had a great tranny and beautiful sound, but I will take the comfort, engine, and handling of the R any day | ||
| Jgarner99 |
+1 Drybk. I had an RC51, too. I loved a lot of things about it: Its sound, its long legs (stock gearing) and its solid, quality feeling. But the bars were too low, the seat too high, the steering lock too limited, and the steering rather heavy for a bike of its pretensions. So I sold it and bought an 1125R, and I've never looked back. The 1125R is easier to ride slow, easier to ride fast, and easier for me to love completely.  | ||
| Drbyk |
Jgarner99 I agree; a difficult bike to drive in slow traffic, even when starting behind slow moving cars at a stop light I always had to pull the clutch in a few times until they got up to speed. The other thing I didn’t like was that it was effort it took at slow speed turns, that along with some erratic throttle response, and my back tire would often loose traction. I am able to drive easier and faster with the R. My only complaint of the R, and it is a minor thing, is that while both bikes ran hot at least the frame did not heat up on the RC | ||
| Nattyx1 |
Many will say that the only place the RC51 will challenge the buell is on the brakes. That's a controversial thing... but I would venture a guess that a totally stock R or CR on a tight track that has lots of hard braking areas (g.g. laguna, infineon, mid-ohio, barber, etc), the RC might have an advantage on the way in after a few laps because of lever/feel fade. But then if you use Erik Buell Racing's rotor remount kit and chuck the stock master cylinder for the "right" radial one (I'm looking for that at present), you'd win there too. | ||
| Jgarner99 |
Natty: Yes, the brakes on the RC51 were a bit better -- mostly a "bite" or "feel" thing, as best I can recollect. As for the radial master cylinder, I've already installed one on my 1125R. It's a 19x18 Nissin and it doesn't make the braking any more powerful, it just makes it WAY easier to modulate (no more grabiness). Cost $220, I believe. Here's the link: http://www.braketech.com/index.php?option=com_cont ent&view=article&id=84&Itemid=10 Sorry, but I don't know if the stock hose will work with it, because I was putting higher bars on, so had a custom hose made. | ||
| Jng1226 |
Very cool Jgarner99. Thanks for sharing that. Jeff | ||
| Nattyx1 |
Jgarner: I found that Nissin kit for $40 less here: http://www.sportbikesolutions.com/product_info-cPa th-32_37_73-products_id-296/nissin_19x18_radial_fr ont_brake_mc_w_res.htm |
