Suzuki Al
16-10-2004, 08:49 PM
Having just read the 1150GS Test that Pete has posted, I got to thinking. :blink:
I keep a close eye on what owners say about their bikes and it is surprising how often their opinions and experiences are wildly different from the tests that are published. Why?
Testers only have a bike for a relatively few miles. Even long term tests rarely go beyond 5000 miles - nothing really. Because of this, all you can expect to get from tests are performance figures and basic riding impressions related to comfort and general riding characteristics, plus a few likes and dislikes.
As far as they go, tests are very useful guides, but their usefulness is limited.
A case in point is BMW's new 1200 GS. This bike has had rave reviews, all of which are almost certainly deserved. It is fast, lighter than the 1150 GS, has a slicker gearbox and handles better.
But, and it is a BIG BUT! A lot of the folks who have bought one are complaining like there's no tomorrow. Many of them are complete dogs! The bike is seriously underdeveloped, with severe issues relating to the shaft drive and the electronical system. Several riders have suffered catastophic drive train failures. General reliability is far below what one would expect from a premium priced, premum brand like BMW.
So, when you read a good review and think that a bike is right for you on the basis of that review, believe it. The test will be accurate. But, check around user groups and forums to make sure that when the same model bike, one that comes out of a dealer's showroom and has had a few miles put on it, rather than one that might have been carefully prepared for the testers, isn't actually a much worse bike than the review says.
More examples of great tests but average bikes are:
Honda CB1300. Honda Pan European (new model). Yamaha Fazer (new model). All Ducatis. Honda VFR800 (new model), Triumph Sprint (old model) and so on. It is a long list.
Conversely - Average tests on great bikes:
Suzuki Bandit 12s, Kawaski ZRX12s, Yamaha FJR1300, Yamaha XJR 1300, Honda's tragically discontinued Africa Twins.
I keep a close eye on what owners say about their bikes and it is surprising how often their opinions and experiences are wildly different from the tests that are published. Why?
Testers only have a bike for a relatively few miles. Even long term tests rarely go beyond 5000 miles - nothing really. Because of this, all you can expect to get from tests are performance figures and basic riding impressions related to comfort and general riding characteristics, plus a few likes and dislikes.
As far as they go, tests are very useful guides, but their usefulness is limited.
A case in point is BMW's new 1200 GS. This bike has had rave reviews, all of which are almost certainly deserved. It is fast, lighter than the 1150 GS, has a slicker gearbox and handles better.
But, and it is a BIG BUT! A lot of the folks who have bought one are complaining like there's no tomorrow. Many of them are complete dogs! The bike is seriously underdeveloped, with severe issues relating to the shaft drive and the electronical system. Several riders have suffered catastophic drive train failures. General reliability is far below what one would expect from a premium priced, premum brand like BMW.
So, when you read a good review and think that a bike is right for you on the basis of that review, believe it. The test will be accurate. But, check around user groups and forums to make sure that when the same model bike, one that comes out of a dealer's showroom and has had a few miles put on it, rather than one that might have been carefully prepared for the testers, isn't actually a much worse bike than the review says.
More examples of great tests but average bikes are:
Honda CB1300. Honda Pan European (new model). Yamaha Fazer (new model). All Ducatis. Honda VFR800 (new model), Triumph Sprint (old model) and so on. It is a long list.
Conversely - Average tests on great bikes:
Suzuki Bandit 12s, Kawaski ZRX12s, Yamaha FJR1300, Yamaha XJR 1300, Honda's tragically discontinued Africa Twins.