| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
Unfortunately, it's a subscription only site, but if you're a subscriber, you might find this interesting: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/06_Open_Standards/index.motml | ||
| Ginzero |
My subscription ran out today.. and I wasnt planning on resubscribing for lack of content... DOH!!!! | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
The Buell didn't do to bad. I like MO mostly because they are the only publication that has ever shown Erik some love. and of course reading kpaul rant is good stuff. | ||
| Typeone |
hmm, would have been interesting if they used a standard frame XB. they thought the long was 'boring'. i like MO too, they seem to give pretty real-world reviews of stuff. plus they definitely like Buell bikes, but still look at them honestly. | ||
| Whodom |
of course reading kpaul rant is good stuff I checked their discussion forums a few weeks ago and he was actually looking seriously at buying a Buell, or was that just a joke? | ||
| Brucelee |
Good review, I read it last night. The biggest criticism was the lack of oomph vs the other bikes tested. They also thought the Long reduced the cornering ability to some extent. | ||
| Jandj_davis |
4th place: 919 3rd place: XB12Ss 2nd place: Z1000 1st place: FZ1 Most discussed in the message board: XB12Ss Most apologized for: 919 (everyone wished it would have placed higher) I was looking at some dyno runs from a stock 919, and it looks like the torque curve for the 919 and the XB9 would be exactly the same if you stretched the XB graph out to 9.5K rpms. Same torque at 3K, up to the same peak (give or take a pound). The only advantage the 919 has is that it revs higher. It is one of a short list of bikes that I need to get a ride on before I make a purchasing decision. |
