Quote:
Originally Posted by Daka
Kaiser Zose I am not sure were you get weights from, but the fjr dry 609, concours 613, st 687, triumph sprint st is 511. If you wan,t a very light st with adequit performance check out the triumph you will be pleasently surprised I now I was.
Daka
|
I do not know of any industry standard for measuring "dry weight". It seems that it is up to each manufacturer to decide how that should be measured. Does it include the engine oil and coolant? What about the battery? If a bike comes with hard luggage standard, is that included?
One of the magazines that I subscribed to for many years, is the USA publication "Motorcycle Consumer News". It is a subscription-only publication, and unlike the glossy magazines that you find on the newstand, they do not accept any advertising. Because of that, they have no qualms about telling the truth. Whenever they do a full review of a motorcycle, they actually fill it up with fuel, then put it on a calibrated scale and weigh it. What a concept! Instead of just regurgitating the numbers given by the manufacturer, they acually take measurements! Their numbers are reliable for the purpose of doing comparisons among different manufacturers. Hence, what I did was to use the two "dry weight" numbers from Kawasaki UK, to determine the difference in weight between the C-14 and the ZX-14, which difference is 140 lbs, give or take a pound or two. Then, I added that difference to the wet weight of the ZX-14, non-ABS, as measured by MCNews, thus deducing the wet weight number for the C-14, as I reasonably expect it to be measured by MCNews whenever they get their hands on one to do a full test. The other numbers that I gave, for the purpose of apples-to-apples comparisons, are the wet weight numbers for those various bikes, as measured by MCNews. The only adjustment that anyone should have to make to any of those numbers, in order to do a fully proper apples-to-apples comparison, is to make minor adjustments for the fuel capacity, so that bikes are not penalized for having greater fuel capacity.
Please note that the only significant and likely source of error using this approach, is if Kawasaki did not measure the "dry weight" of the C-14 using the same rules as they used with the ZX-14 (ZZR1400 non-ABS). It doesn't seem at all likely to me that they would not measure the dry weights the same way, especially given that the C-14 comes out 140 lbs heavier. If, by chance, they did use a different rule for measuring the dry weight of the C-14, it only underscores the problem with trying to use "dry weight" to compare two different bikes from two different manufacturers, since, if the numbers for two different bikes from the same manufacturer are meaningless, what does that say about the numbers for bikes from different manufacturers? If you take the measured wet weights from MCNews and compare them to the dry weights reported by the manufacturers, it becomes all too apparent that the different manufacturers do not measure dry weight consistently. The difference, between the dry weight quoted by a manufacturer and the measured wet weight, will typically be anywhere from 15% to 20% of the dry weight. Manifestly, there is no way that the fuel can account for that. Moreover, there is no easy explanation for the huge variation, from one manufacturer to the next, in the difference between reported dry weight and measured wet weight.
As for the Triumph Sprint ST, which you mentioned, curiously, its ergos will be similar to my XX, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that it could offer any notable improvement over the XX. Rather, I would only give up the phenomenal power and ulltra-smooth engine charactistics.
I have been saying all along that the primary difference between the FJR and the C-14 will be the engine smoothness, because the C-14 would likely come with additional weight that would largely offset whatever advantage in power that it might have. The advantage that the C-14 will have in power-to-weight ratio, as compared to the FJR, will not be great, although it will be greater in comparison to the latest FJR which comes with ABS, since it weighs significantly more than the earlier FJR sold in the USA without ABS. As is always the case with these things, subjective preferences are all that matters in the end, and from that standpoint, it is foolish to even try to identify "objective" differences between two different bikes. But, to the extent that it makes any sense at all to try and do that, the predominant objective difference, to my way of thinking at least, will be the difference in engine smoothness. I expect that better management of mass in the C-14 will nullify its penalty in mass, and that its handling will be comparable to the FJR, and possibly a little better. I certainly hope so, because to be honest, the FJR's handling isn't one of its better characteristics.
