As of 2100 AEDST, Thursday the 8th October 2009, this prestigious and revered line of sports/touring motorcycles came to an end. In its place Honda have given us needless technology encapsulated in a behemoth with a tiny fuel tank, with none of the sporting OR touring convictions of the bikes that have long borne the initial.
Huh? A bit melodramatic don't you think? ;)
First of all, even if you don't 'like' it - it still is a VFR in name.
Plus, really? I'm not sure what all the griping is about - it's still a great all-rounder. I'm guessing the variable cylinder technology aids fuel economy so maybe the 18 litre tank is fine.
Also, there are two more models coming - wait and see...
[image: View Post]FotoMoto, on Oct 8 2009, 03:39 PM, said:
OUCH!
Heck, you can't even say "the jury is still out" since no real evidence has even been presented yet. Let's not jump the gun just yet.
I agree, give the poor bloke a chance! Besides, do we really know that production has ceased on the 6th gen? It would be interesting to find out who gets the last one. Hopefully its not one of those "rattle can everything black" U.S. market things. No offence to anyone who bought one of course! :biggrin:
Just rambling here, but if Honda had brought over the white and black one that europe and canadia got, I probably would be purchasing one in about a year after the price gets cut in half...
And if our Canajun dealer mate is correct and there's a VFR1000 waiting in the wings somewhere...but I'm not optimistic. Honda has clearly dropped the ball, AGAIN.
If I was a moderator I'd deleted this pathetic thread immediately.
Just because you have some bollocks opinion about what a VFR is doesn't mean you're right.
Go start your own forum if this is your opinion, and while you're at it, delete your VFRD account.
You whingers make me so angry I just want to SCREAM.
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt untill I can form an educated opinion. I'm sure we'd all be bitching if honda just "revamped" the current generation.... I beleive we went through the same griping when Honda released the 6th gen... were still moaning about not having gear driven cams... I think given some time and expierience this 7th gen will become as welcomed into the V4 lineup just as the 6th gen has.. Let's just give it a little time.. My hats off to to Honda for at least having the testicular fortitude to change.. It's a huge gamble on their part... You know damn well they would still sell boat loads of 6th gens if they wanted to. But in a volatile market they have taken a huge leap of faith. In my opinion Handa has reclaimed it's place at the top of the market for leading the way in design and innovation. Good job Honda. It's about time!!!
[image: View Post]kaldek, on Oct 8 2009, 06:54 PM, said:
If I was a moderator I'd deleted this pathetic thread immediately.
Just because you have some bollocks opinion about what a VFR is doesn't mean you're right.
Go start your own forum if this is your opinion, and while you're at it, delete your VFRD account.
You whingers make me so angry I just want to SCREAM.
Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the planet this morning! Calm down, take a deep breath, and realize that there are in fact views out there which might be contrary to your own! Live and let live, right?
I'm sorry, but since when did increasing weight and size, reducing fuel capacity and introducing MORE needless technology give a company props for "innovation" ???
[image: View Post]rc36Honda, on Oct 8 2009, 04:14 PM, said:
I'm sorry, but since when did increasing weight and size, reducing fuel capacity and introducing MORE needless technology give a company props for "innovation" ???
They've been doing that for 12 years with the last 2 gens and everyone seemed to be just fine with it, they've sold enough of them...
Hey, let's not be too quick to criticize the new VFR. Mother Honda followed through. They:
- offered more HP to push the added weight
- offered variable cylinder activation to make up for the reduced fuel tank size and offer more MPGs
- offered a shaft drive to make up for replacing chains that are worn
- provided a shiny mirror to admire ourselves as we step up to the bike ...oh wait...that's the exhaust heat shield :huh:
But the real question is: What are they going to provide to make up for the added cost, still TBD? I'm saying this bike is looking like it will go for at least $18k USD
If it lives up to all of this great technology, maybe it will be worth the extra greenbacks? We need to see real-world reviews first. Give the new VFR a chance.
The vfr will be dead when Honda says its dead, not when somebody like you or I says so. This just means you wont buy it. If you dont like it vote with your dollars, that how economics works. I betting that its gonna be a popular bike with the sport touring crowd I am sure they did thier research on this one, shoot they have had long enough to do it. This is exactly the same thing people said when the VTEC came out and well I see a whole lot more of them at all the vfr meets I have attended than any other vfr! Me I cant afford it so thats out I couldnt vote with my dollars cause well I dont have enough.
I am saying right here and now it is a VFR!
I am thinking this thing will be a minium of 13k sticker - any takers? I got $5.23 cents to bet!
ON A SIDE NOTE, this thead is perfectly acceptable to me as owner of this website, its within the rules and its not a flame, its just one mans opionion and a valid one. so it stays voice your opionion if you want but keep it civil.
18.5 litres times Honda's claimed 15.5 kms per litre works out at 286kms on a tank. No amount of cylinder de-activation trickery can change that.
And just for comparison. My 4th Gen with a 21 litre tank can easily do 370-380kms on a tank (based on my usual 53mpg - imperial) and, using just those figures alone, could get 411 if I ran it completely dry. And yes, I know my bike is 15 years old and doesn't have lots of the fancy things the new bike will have.
If someone wants to say the VFR is dead, it's their opinion and not far fetched. How do you think the Mustang guys felt when the '74 Mustang II came out? I think they were saying "Like it or hate it, just call it something besides a Mustang." If a minivan is the latest generation in a long line of a sports car, wouldn't you expect the faithful to complain. Lighten up, it's just an opinion.
It gets Honda back into the hyper-bike market that they left when they kilt the 1100xx. Odds are it'll be an awesome sport tourer. But yes, it will be bigger and heavier than the current 800. It will also eat the highway miles like a fat chick eats chocolate.
Technology is good. Antilock brakes, traction control, better fuel management, variable cylinders, variable intake, etc has all make motorcycles more exciting. Unless your idea of excitement is having less control at speed.
[image: View Post]HispanicSlammer, on Oct 8 2009, 04:48 PM, said:
I am thinking this thing will be a minium of 13k sticker - any takers?
If it's that cheap, then yes, I'm a taker. I think it would be a steal for that price! Last I checked a k1300S is around 15K, I think the new VFR is squarely aimed at that bike, so I think pricing will be similar.
[image: View Post]HispanicSlammer, on Oct 9 2009, 10:48 AM, said:
ON A SIDE NOTE, this thead is perfectly acceptable to me as owner of this website, its within the rules and its not a flame, its just one mans opionion and a valid one. so it stays voice your opionion if you want but keep it civil.
OK, I get that. I'm sorry for getting so worked up about this. The VFR has always to me been a Sporty Tourer, with more emphasis on the Sports side than other brands of sports tourers.
My father owns a 4th-gen VFR750. My first big bike is still the bike I own, a 2002 VFR800. To both of us, they were never a "sports" bike, just a bike that could do sports duties when asked.
There just seems to be so many people hanging on to some ancient memory of the RC30, and other members who do stuff like replace their running gear with CBR or VTR components, or remove their rear footpegs and all sorts of stuff to make their VFR into a sportsbike.
The manufacturer doesn't consider it a sportsbike, and hasn't done this for a very long time - so how is it in any way fair or realistic to say that this is not a VFR, when by all realistic means of measuring, a VFR was never a sportsbike and this new model just continues the same design philosophy of the last 15 years?
I challenge ALL of the nay-sayers to INDIVIDUALLY come back and post a definitive list of what a "VFR" supposedly is. 50 bucks says your list defines what a CBR1000RR does already.
[image: View Post]95RC36, on Oct 9 2009, 11:11 AM, said:
I'll be spending my money on an RSV-4 if I decide to get a new V-4.
And to my mind that's a much better attitude to have than bleating on about the VFR not being sporty enough.
[image: View Post]kaldek, on Oct 8 2009, 04:54 PM, said:
If I was a moderator I'd deleted this pathetic thread immediately.
Just because you have some bollocks opinion about what a VFR is doesn't mean you're right.
Go start your own forum if this is your opinion, and while you're at it, delete your VFRD account.
You whingers make me so angry I just want to SCREAM.
All these crybabies will probably change their tune once the ride reports come out.
[image: View Post]kaldek, on Oct 8 2009, 07:11 PM, said:
[image: View Post]HispanicSlammer, on Oct 9 2009, 10:48 AM, said:
ON A SIDE NOTE, this thead is perfectly acceptable to me as owner of this website, its within the rules and its not a flame, its just one mans opionion and a valid one. so it stays voice your opionion if you want but keep it civil.
OK, I get that. I'm sorry for getting so worked up about this. The VFR has always to me been a Sporty Tourer, with more emphasis on the Sports side than other brands of sports tourers.
My father owns a 4th-gen VFR750. My first big bike is still the bike I own, a 2002 VFR800. To both of us, they were never a "sports" bike, just a bike that could do sports duties when asked.
There just seems to be so many people hanging on to some ancient memory of the RC30, and other members who do stuff like replace their running gear with CBR or VTR components, or remove their rear footpegs and all sorts of stuff to make their VFR into a sportsbike.
The manufacturer doesn't consider it a sportsbike, and hasn't done this for a very long time - so how is it in any way fair or realistic to say that this is not a VFR, when by all realistic means of measuring, a VFR was never a sportsbike and this new model just continues the same design philosophy of the last 15 years?
I challenge ALL of the nay-sayers to INDIVIDUALLY come back and post a definitive list of what a "VFR" supposedly is. 50 bucks says your list defines what a CBR1000RR does already.
No, because a 'Blade will not allow me to ride for 700kms in a day and get off feeling as fresh as I did when I got on, and that's just ONE reason why you're going down the wrong path here.
FWIW I WOULD like to know how much of the Titanic-sized weight would be saved if you could ditch the butt-ugly muffler!!!
I'll reserve my judgement on the bike until it actually hits the floor. Right now it seems to be filling the 1100xx void.
I am in the camp that if it doesn't do what current VFRs do, then they probably shouldn't call it a VFR. Then again, our bikes aren't really called VFRs. They're Interceptors. VFR is more of a prefix defining the engine. These new bikes are all getting V4's, so the VFR prefix applies.
[image: View Post]VFR Capt.Bob, on Oct 13 2009, 06:43 PM, said:
I just think all this caterwauling is a bit premature. I won't damn or praise it till my ass takes purchase of the seat at a motorcycle show or shop. Perhaps not till I've test ridden one. Maybe there will be a aftermarket for lighter parts. My brother runs an awesome machine shop. He can fix this. :biggrin: :cool:
Better to "caterwaul" now that be branded a VFR (bleh) 1200 basher and probably banned from the site once a few members here get the bike. At this point the comments aren't so personal to anyone, although it seems like it's starting to feel that way for some early fans of this bike. Call us skeptics pre-mature, but I think it's the same for everyone on both sides of the fence till this bike hit the streets.
[image: View Post]StuntManDan, on Oct 13 2009, 11:41 AM, said:
[image: View Post]bytor, on Oct 11 2009, 12:01 PM, said:
My 08' CBR1000rr runs like a raped ape, handles great, and is not far off the 6th gen comfort wise. And let me tell you, moving it around the garage is a revelation. BTW, I'm averaging about 46 mpg.
How do you know that raping an ape gives it the runs? and what does that have to do with a motorcycles fuel economy?
comfort is all relative to the size of the person, riders with a 26" inseam tend to ride cruisers
Here ya go: lighter bike easier to push around. CBR fast and light, still gets good fuel economy. VFR 6th gen good bike, but heavy. New VFR heavier.
And thanks for letting me know that comfort is an individual thing--I always wondered about that :biggrin:
[image: View Post]StuntManDan, on Oct 13 2009, 10:41 AM, said:
[image: View Post]bytor, on Oct 11 2009, 12:01 PM, said:
My 08' CBR1000rr runs like a raped ape, handles great, and is not far off the 6th gen comfort wise. And let me tell you, moving it around the garage is a revelation. BTW, I'm averaging about 46 mpg.
How do you know that raping an ape gives it the runs? and what does that have to do with a motorcycles fuel economy?
comfort is all relative to the size of the person, riders with a 26" inseam tend to ride cruisers
Gotta' love that internet! And these guys are arguing about really important things as well. <grin>
The way that we used the term was as slang for any vehicle (car or bike) running incredibly strong or fast. Also see: "Cartoon Fast"
Cheers! E-Ticket
Well, according to the second link, one RA = 350 Horsepower. But this is in terms of muscle cars, which tend to weigh over 4,000 lbs. So 1 RA could also be a lbs/hp ratio of 11.4.
The VFR1200F has a lbs/hp ratio of 3.5.
So the new VFR really goes like 3.2 raped apes??
:goofy:
The way that we used the term was as slang for any vehicle (car or bike) running incredibly strong or fast. Also see: "Cartoon Fast"
Cheers! E-Ticket
Well, according to the second link, one RA = 350 Horsepower. But this is in terms of muscle cars, which tend to weigh over 4,000 lbs. So 1 RA could also be a lbs/hp ratio of 11.4.
The VFR1200F has a lbs/hp ratio of 3.5.
So the new VFR really goes like 3.2 raped apes??
:goofy:
The way that we used the term was as slang for any vehicle (car or bike) running incredibly strong or fast. Also see: "Cartoon Fast"
Cheers! E-Ticket
Well, according to the second link, one RA = 350 Horsepower. But this is in terms of muscle cars, which tend to weigh over 4,000 lbs. So 1 RA could also be a lbs/hp ratio of 11.4.
The VFR1200F has a lbs/hp ratio of 3.5.
So the new VFR really goes like 3.2 raped apes??
:goofy:
By jove ... I think you have it! :^)
3.2 raped apes that weigh 267kgs each and only have 18.5 litre fuel tanks....Grrr.
The way that we used the term was as slang for any vehicle (car or bike) running incredibly strong or fast. Also see: "Cartoon Fast"
Cheers! E-Ticket
Well, according to the second link, one RA = 350 Horsepower. But this is in terms of muscle cars, which tend to weigh over 4,000 lbs. So 1 RA could also be a lbs/hp ratio of 11.4.
The VFR1200F has a lbs/hp ratio of 3.5.
So the new VFR really goes like 3.2 raped apes??
:goofy:
By jove ... I think you have it! :^)
3.2 raped apes that weigh 267kgs each and only have 18.5 litre fuel tanks....Grrr.
We just said they'd be fast .... not that they would get very far.
[image: View Post]Auspa�ol, on Oct 11 2009, 08:29 AM, said:
I hereby decree this thread a premature ejaculation!!!
Honda repeatedly refers to this bika as a SPORT BIKE... NOT a RACE BIKE...
The VFR800 (since 1998 guys, not 1999), is actually one heavy lug of a bike for a "sport" bike. 250 kilos... that's a quarter tonne!! Yet it handles really well in the curves.
I am a little concerned at the longer wheelbase of the VFR1200F, not at the extra weight (Honda has more than compensated for the extra weight by bunking up the torque).. but the rake and trail on this (big)baby say to me that the bike may feel quite nimble despite that.
There will always be detractors and fans when a new bike is revealed. No single one of you own the concept of the VFR such that you might claim the lineage has passed away. There is an obvious and logical progression here with the way it has been developed and finally manifest.
Mainly though, I think many of the comments here are so overly exaggerated, as if people were offended... calm the f%$k down will you!!!
It is not of the wise to speak rashly of that which one has no first-hand knowledge. All is heresay until you've taken one for a ride.
You don't like it?? FAT LUCK... now act like a sheep and get the flock outa here... Honda will do with the bike what they feckin' well feel like... THEY own it... THEY put years of work into it... you don't like it... get your shiz together, study engineering at university, prove you have an exceptional mind, apply for a job at a motorcycle manufacturers, or start your own make of motorcycles and BUILD YOUR OWN!!
Did I mention I like the new VFR1200F??
Cornercarver:
"The VFR800 is dead. Long live the VFR!!!"
That's Melvis funny that is!!
Skuuter you lucky SOD... when do you think you'll get a burn on one??
Hey Buddy.....not sure on a date, but my Dealer has em' pre-ordered, and I'm already promised a Test Ride the day the first one arrives......I really think it's gonna' be a Super Nice Bike.......We'll See.......... :fing02: :beer:
I think u may be right! No doubt this will be a awesome bike, but it will now be living in the fat tankerbike class. There is a lot of market for these out there it seems, but no thanks, tried it.yuk! They should have just given this a new name and let the vfr name die .
There are some holes in the chart so if there's better data out there or a mistake let me know. If something similar already exists let me know also, no need to reinvent the wheel. I left off the CA specific models which were typically a few lbs heavier. These figures are for the US bikes.
There are some holes in the chart so if there's better data out there or a mistake let me know. If something similar already exists let me know also, no need to reinvent the wheel. I left off the CA specific models which were typically a few lbs heavier. These figures are for the US bikes.
[image: Posted Image]
Uhmm. I don't remember the 98-01 being so light and fast but if you say so then.
I have yet to see a 98-01 dyno at anywhere near 108hp, however I have seen them average about 10-13 less than that on a realtively consistent basis. I also have yet to see a stock 6g dyno at 99hp...those numbers look they were released by the marketing dept.
![[image: Posted Image]](http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o124/capnspif/Misc/vfr_comparo.jpg){kind=link}
![[image: Posted Image]](http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o124/capnspif/Misc/vfr_links.jpg){kind=link}