Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

I thought new bikes were supposed to be lighter :?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by hornet, Oct 5, 2011.

  1. Suzuki have always been pretty good with dry weight and power output.
    Honda on the other hand has it's own type of dry weight I think.
    215 isn't bad for what it is. Think my Viffer has twenty kilo's on that in real life.
    If it was a sports bike I would want at least twenty kilo's off that.
  2. Its the case of Suzuki being cheap and using a steel chassis instead of aluminium. That adds over 20kgs alone.

    Just boycott and hopefully Suzuki will learn to keep their accountants from ruining their motorcycles.
  3. If you want to use it as a comfortable daily machine the weight isnt bad for suspension effectiveness.
  4. It's about on par with the Kawa. Z750 in terms of weight. Better suspension & brakes & I would consider it also. The build quality & finish however on the ones I've seen seems pretty ordinary.

  5. Yep the steel frame. My hornet (08) model has an aluminium frame and Honda put a lot of effort into keeping the weight down. this makes it quite agile. one of the things that made me choose it over the zed
  6. 215....wow

    my 1400 is about 220Kg dry. Near enough to 250kg Wet, that it makes no matter.

    i would have expected a bike 1/2 the capacity to be somewhat lighter.

    bike itself looks ok i guess but not at all suited to my needs. (long live the UJM!)
  7. Actually 215 is the curb weight, not the dry weight. Not entirely sure what is encompassed in a curb weight, but think it's all fluids and 1/2 tank of fuel. So that would make the dry weight sub 200kg.

    Also it's hard to see a steel chassis adding 20kgs. A softail chassis might weigh that but not real bike would have a chassis that heavy, let alone add that much on top of and aluminium chassis. Most steel frames you can pick up with one hand comfortably. Similar to aluminium chassis'
  8. .. especially when the Hornet HAS a steel chassis and still weighs in at only 176ks, even if that is completely 'dry' weight.....
  9. There have been a few offerings all round that have been quite disappointing the weight department. The Suzuki was one. The VT750s is another. The w800 isn't great either. From memory there was another suzuki too. Sometimes it's hard to see where the weight is.
  10. indeed, BIKE magazine slated the Kawasaki Z750 because it's actually heavier than the Z1000 :shock:

    and the GSX650 thing of Suzuki's is also a porker, especially when it's a LAMS bike....
  11. There's a few porkers out there, my 650RL is about 210kg.
  12. Lower weight might be the holy grail on race track but here in the real world where I live I'd rather have a bike that's slightly heavier than one that snaps in half if pushed over when parked.

    Also, I'd prefer the manufacturers to give me honest figures that bear some resemblance to what I would see if I put my bike on the scales, rather than 'dry weight' numbers that border on complete fiction.
  13. I understand that completely, but I'm not interested in weight for the race track, just how much a bike weighs when you have to heft it around, pick it up if it falls over, manoeuvre in tight spaces, etc. The initial comment was specific to a make and model, and I think that's been answered in terms of cost to build, cheaper steel frame, etc.
  14. Weight has got nothing to do with taking a fall. It's the amount of damagable bits that matter.

    Though I agree with the dodgy specs, apparently the manufacturers used to weigh every bit separately and then add it all up to get the total. WTF?
  15. Speaking of costs, do we have Australian prices for those bikes yet? I haven't been keeping up with the news lately, I didn't even know we were getting this model...
  16. :oops: I was only tyre-kicking (mind you the sales guys ignored me anyway) so I didn't ask :oops:
  17. Couldn't be much more than $11k at that weight.
  18. I beg to differ. Modern sport bikes are very poor crashers compared to older simple and rugged designs and even minor incidents can result in serious structural issues - they are not designed to cope with damage, it simply isn't on the agenda. Weight reduction certainly is though. It's just the turn evolution of bikes took and personally I think it's gone too far.
  19. Motards crash well though and they are lighter than sportsbikes. As I said its about design.

    My 1990 vfr fell off it stand I remember and it had a lot of damage. You might be remembering with rose coloured glasses. Certain old bikes did crash well but others didn't.