Yet another battlefield victory for the FZ-07

[Mr.Puss]

For those who haven't already read this little article....
 
http://www.cycleworld.com/kawasaki-z650-vs-suzuki-sv650-vs-yamaha-fz-07-comparison-test
 

[level41]

I prefer the Kawasaki on every field, except riding comfort.
The FZ already had too much forward lean for me.
 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).
 

[Mr.Puss]

I prefer the Kawasaki on every field, except riding comfort. The FZ already had too much forward lean for me.
 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

Have to take your word for it, never ridden the Kawasaki.  For me, gas economy isnt even a factor as I dont use it as a commuter.  

[faffi]

 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

That must mean that the Z650 is a massively stronger down low than the old Ninja 650, because the FZ07 was towering over the old Kawa at these kind of rpm. 
Or did I misunderstand something and you are referring to fuel consumption and not acceleration performance?

[Beemer]

I prefer the Kawasaki on every field, except riding comfort. The FZ already had too much forward lean for me.
 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

"try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins". 
I don't think the comparison of a bike in top gear at 3k rpm is what most people care about so much as walking away from the competitors at the line and up to a quarter mile. At least with an urban, hooligan type bike.
 

[level41]

Yeah,
I've learned there are a few ways to look at bikes.
In regards to performance, one is peak power, and another is fuel efficiency.
One is the fastest, the other is the best cut out for the job of getting you around town, suburbs, and highways; with almost no lack of power, while costing you the least.
 
I mean, it's nice to have 1200cc, and 120hp between the legs, but what good is it, if you can only use 40-50HP anyway (meaning, without getting a ticket)?
 
I'm not complaining, but the ideal cc for a commuter is about 400cc, 2 cylinder, high rev engine, tuned for HP (not torque, since it would have more than enough torque for normal traffic).
 
I know the FZ is considered a hooligan bike.
However, it also is the only one that's below 400lbs at the moment.. (for 500+cc).
And weight makes a huge difference in small bikes.
 
If the Kawasaki was more upright, more comfy, or the Honda CB500F was below 400LBS, it would have been a preferred bike as a commuter to me.
The FZ starts to shine with the right gears at speeds over 100MPH.
At 60MPH, it's not even pushing 10% of it's engine power...
 
The FZ isn't a bad bike.
I definitely like accelerating wide open in 1st Gear, trying to keep the front wheel on the ground.
But I do this once in a blue moon.
I much prefer a bike that works a little sweat.
 
I feel like riding a formula 1 car, in a go-kart track sometimes. I guess I would much prefer a 125cc go-kart instead.

[faffi]

I like your way of thinking (who woulda thunk dat ) Only I like grunt, even in small displacement motorcycles, over high revs. More fuel efficient and easier to access power. The CB400SS is a bike I could well see myself owning, but it was never sold outside Japan AFAIK. I had a Kawasaki Z400G for a couple of years, a bike with the same weight as the FZ09, but felt much lighter and nimbler, likely due to its narrow wheels. It was geat fun around town and on narrow country lanes, but not good for touring on main roads due to a significantl lack of power - I'd guess there was about 27 hp on the crank remaining in the old beast.

[Beemer]

Since a good part of my riding involves being around cars at low speeds I like a bike that doesn't have to rely on non existent h.p. at low rpm's to get it out of a situation where I have to go quick 'right now', it has torque instead to do the job. With my style of riding I can crack the throttle at just about any time in low rpm and have instant acceleration. I like not having to change gears a lot also. In town I can keep this bike in 4th gear and go fairly slow without it bogging and still be able to throttle it back up to speed with no hiccups. I just love the engine on this bike. I guess the competition does too, they keep making bikes that will compete with it but keep failing. I almost feel sorry for them.

[faffi]

 

 
image uploader
 

[level41]

A 400cc has plenty of power if you need it. And if you need more, there's always a way to shift a gear or two down.
I think the cons of high acceleration often outweighs the benefits.
See that over and over again when people find themselves launched off their bikes, or wedged between the pavement and an object, when they lose control.
 
In my 30 years on 2 wheels, I've never had to rely on my bike's ability to out-accelerate someone.
If you're merging on a lane, and someone is approaching fast, you slow down, let him pass, and then try to overtake him.
Not go on the lane he's on, wide open throttle, hoping he wouldn't nosedive in the bike's ass.
 
For decades, added power meant added weight.
And weight means less nimble.
in my years of riding, I had a few times where I had to rely on the nimbleness of the bike.
I know for sure a 1200cc bagger, wouldn't have been able to avoid a crash I was able to, on a smaller 250-300cc bike.
 
I know these past 3 years, a lot of development is done in this area, and high power can be gotten for low weight; something not possible the years before that (save for a 2 stroke bike, but they don't make them anymore nowadays).
 
Anyway, even most 250cc motorcycles have sufficient power to outmaneuver most ordinary traffic.

[faffi]

Again, I can relate to a lot of what you say, but can also see things differently.
 
For as long as you have been riding, there have been 100 hp bikes available that was just 50 lb heavier than the FZ09; the 1985 Suzuki GSX-R was 201 kg wet, 20 kg or 44 lb more than the FZ09. In 1992, Honda had their 130 hp CBR900 weighing about the same as the Gixer.
 
On the other side of the coin, the 1986 44 hp Honda CB 450 S was 188 kg wet, 9 kg / 20 lb heavier than the FZ07, and the 1989 G Suzuki GS 500 E with 45 hp was a kilo heavier still. Heck, even the 1985 singel cylinder Honda XBR 500 with 44 hp was a kilo heavier than the FZ07!
 
Like you I have never needed more power, because I have adapted my riding to the bike I am on. However, I have wanted more power. Drivers have toyed with me when I wanted to pass since they were going slow. Having acceleration available right now instead of having to slip the clutch (if already in first) or changing down is also valuable if you want to get out of your own way. Or that of a truck. The other option is of course to stop. Or accelerate slowly from low speeds while you are waiting for the engine to wake up. That's why I'd much rather have a 33 hp SR500 for city riding than a 59hp FZ400. Out on the highway, I'd want to swap them because I'd like the extra speed of the 400. Or I could simply have something like the FZ07 - or even the ER-5 or CB500 from the 90s, or the ER-6 or SV650 from this millennium - because they offer a good compromise between power and weight with no real weak area.
 
Regardless, the good thing is that there should - among all the models out there - be something for everyone, regardless of desires and preferences
 
 

[Beemer]

level41 - I agree with most of what you say but you have to understand that just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean another person couldn't have or hasn't. I've been in situations where I did rely on gobs of torque and h.p. to allow me to accelerate faster than the guy that was about to rear end me. A smaller bike wouldn't have offered enough acceleration. True, big acceleration may get some, not all, into trouble and it may not be your average, every day need but you can't say it is never needed or that a small bike can do it all.

[Guest 2wheeler]

I prefer the Kawasaki on every field, except riding comfort. The FZ already had too much forward lean for me.
 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

PLEASE SELL YOUR FZ-07 TO SOMEBODY WHO WILL LOVE IT 

[pattonme]

any purist knows the correct answer is a SRX600, ideally mounted in a GS500e frame and YZF600 running forks and wheels.

[faffi]

Back when, somebody fitted an SRX-6 engine to a TZR125 chassis and made themselves a really light and nice streetbike. It was a very tight fit and the frame needed some modification to fit around the kick-starter area.
 
If you want factory fit and finish, you can get yourself an SRZ660, which goes a long way to resemble the homebuilt bike. Then there is the Goose 350 that would be fantastic with a DRZ400 engine.

[level41]

I prefer the Kawasaki on every field, except riding comfort. The FZ already had too much forward lean for me.
 
I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

PLEASE SELL YOUR FZ-07 TO SOMEBODY WHO WILL LOVE IT

After you sell your girlfriend, just because you don't like the mother in law.

[level41]

Would be interesting to see rotary engine bikes back on the floors.

[pattonme]

I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

Here's your bike -  http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/2012decnc700x.pdf 

[Sweeps]

As a long distance tourer I love the Honda CB500X as it can keep up with my friends Kwacker 800 when pushed. It's super comfy seat and extra large tank is a plus. The FZ-07 won me over enough to buy one this year for its nimbleness in corners and around town in traffic. It's way more fun and damn sexy. It's not a bike I wish to ride four or five days on a 1500 km tour cause it leaves my ass in pain and has no decent wind protection. Also the lightweight means it gets blown about a bit in cross winds. So buy the bike that works best for how and where you ride and enjoy yourself. There's no wrong answer to life experienced on two wheels rather than behind a car windshield. My two cents.

[level41]

I like a bike that gradually makes power. It's also more fuel efficient than one that has a lot of torque down low (try running final gear at say 3k RPM, side by side, and the Kawi wins).

Here's your bike -  http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/2012decnc700x.pdf

It would be a nice one, if they shaved off 10-20% of the weight. The CB500x is even better. But still too heavy.

[faffi]

Why bother with the weight? As I understand it, you do not notice it while riding. And it is frugal as few. 2.8 l/100 km on a test run made by MOTORRAD, or 84 mpgUS.

[robbo10]

For me, its manoeuvering the bike around before you start the engine that counts the weight. That said I got rid of a bike because I feared (and sometimes did) a drop at roundabouts.

[Beemer]

 

Why bother with the weight? As I understand it, you do not notice it while riding. And it is frugal as few. 2.8 l/100 km on a test run made by MOTORRAD, or 84 mpgUS.

There's something I've thought about from time to time but I never hear it talked about much, if any. You always hear talk about the differences in weight between two bikes (same h.p.) and the one that is lightest almost always gets the thumbs up as the bike that performs better (FZ-07) but for who and in what way I ask? Will it perform the same for a 300, 350 lb. rider as it will for a 150 lb. rider? Does a bikes weight matter so much after your own personal weight has surpassed a certain weight?  

[faffi]

Good topic, Beemer. Weight can be beneficial. For instance, a heavier vehicle will have a higher sprung-to-unsprung ratio, giving a better ride and better suspension control. A heavier motorcycle will also usually be more stable in heavy winds and be less deflected by bumps and dips in the road. In addition, as you suggest, a heavier vehicle will be less affected by added weight in the form of big rider, passenger and luggage.
 
In other words, weight isn't just negative.
 
On the negative side, however, a heavier bike will accelerate slower and use more fuel. Moving it around by foot will naturally also take more effort, and it can be harder to balance at a standstill.
 
A heavier bike will take more effort to change direction. But that isn't always a positive thing; a very light bike can be observed as nervous and having a lack of stability. It all depends on the rider's preferences and the intended use.

[level41]

I've never really had any issues with side winds.
I think the point breaker is making, is that a 500lbs 500cc with 50HP, on paper looks the same as a 700 lbs 700cc 70hp, however the heavier the rider, the faster the 700 will end up being. Also, the top speed will be better at high speeds.
Which means that the 500 at best, could match the 700 at low speeds.
 
Lower weight means faster acceleration, as well as increased nimbleness, at the cost of lower cc.
Higher cc also means faster acceleration, and higher top speed, but at a higher weight.
So where (weight a d cc-wize) is that sweet spot, of fastest acceleration?
I guess it'll depend on what kind of acceleration.
0-60? Or 50-100?