Honda's 2010 VFR1200F vs. The Pump

http://blogs.motorcy...pump/index.html




Posted Yesterday 11:06 AM by Tim.Carrithers


Few people have had a look around inside the Palatial Motorcyclist Dyno Room, mostly because it's not much to look at. The guys in the shop where it lives don't have time for guided tours even if it was. We like the loyal Superflow. It gets the job done, and the monthly procession of new motorcycles gives the boys at the body and fender works next door an excuse to weigh in on the latest and sometimes greatest.


They weren't sure when I rolled up on the Honda's new VFR1200. Sort of a hung jury, really. Open minded members of the spray booth style council giving high points for originality and old school graduates wishing for a street-legal version of Wayne Rainey's 1987 VFR Superbike. Nobody is ambivalent, including my friend Gene.

As keeper of the dyno room keys, he's tortured hundreds of motorcycles on that big steel drum to provide the data for those tidy little charts you see every month. Some give up the numbers easily. Others do not. Seconds after we strap it into place, the VFR tips into that latter category. Before the Superflow can do its magic, we need a good rpm signal. That means sliding the inductive sensor over a coil wire or something similar. On a Triumph Bonneville, that's easy, but the VFR's electronic nervous system is infinitely more complex, and defended by layers of seemingly seamless plastic. Plastic for which there are no replacement parts in the country. Imagine breaking into a 594-lb. Japanese puzzle that's also your ride home. Nobody at the other end of my cell phone has a wiring diagram quite yet either. Welcome to the downside of testing the first example of anything built a few time zones away.

Word to the wise future VFR1200 owner: make sure the technician preparing to service your pride/joy has peeled one before signing turning him loose on anything more than an oil change. After innumerable phone calls, all seven of the words you can't say on television and one instructional web video, we've peeled away just enough plastic to lift the fuel tank and attach our sensor to an obliging wire. Relatively speaking, it's all downhill from there. Fire up the fans. Slip on some ear protection, take a few trips to the rev limiter and let the erstwhile desktop PC crunch those numbers. So? The 1237cc V4 lays evenly escalating traces of power and torque from 2250 rpm that crest at 142.1 horses at 10,000 rpm and 81.4 lb.-ft. at 8750.

On the way home, I'm more impressed with the sneaky-fast way this engine makes power than with the numbers themselves. But I can't decide whether the engineer who came up with a way to make all those body panels come together deserves a raise or solitary confinement. Either way, even money says he stays sane by wrenching on his Bonneville every weekend.

Thank you Mr.Dyno, for reminding me that my heart can touch my stomach when it sinks... :(

i am suprised that there isnt more torque. Even my Buell made 88 foot pounds right before it blew up.

but i guess that 81 from a real life, usable 4 cyl. aint bad.

......... so now it's an even slower phat lumbering pig. Sweet. :fing02:

Superflow dynos read lower than your typical dynojet. 142 is impressive.

Thanks for sharing that. Enjoyed it.

From what I've gathered, a stock 2008 Concours 1400 puts down 142.7 HP and 95.5 lb.-ft. per Two Bros Racing (not sure what dyno they used).

The stock VFR1200F puts down 142.1 HP and 81.4 lb.-ft


Considering the displacement difference between the two and the fact that the VFR1200 is a little lighter, I wouldn't say the VFR1200F is going to be a poor performer. As Carrithers said (after actually riding the thing!):

"I'm more impressed with the sneaky-fast way this engine makes power than with the numbers themselves"

FWIW here is a comparison between the VFR and a BMW K1300S (calculated HP at crank):

[image: Posted Image]

[image: View Post]BrittC, on 05 February 2010 - 10:22 AM, said:

From what I've gathered, a stock 2008 Concours 1400 puts down 142.7 HP and 95.5 lb.-ft. per Two Bros Racing (not sure what dyno they used).

The stock VFR1200F puts down 142.1 HP and 81.4 lb.-ft


Considering the displacement difference between the two and the fact that the VFR1200 is a little lighter, I wouldn't say the VFR1200F is going to be a poor performer. As Carrithers said (after actually riding the thing!):

"I'm more impressed with the sneaky-fast way this engine makes power than with the numbers themselves"


Yes, but the Connie has a "de-tuned" ZX-14 motor, which runs what, 160-175hp?

[image: View Post]BrittC, on 05 February 2010 - 10:22 AM, said:

From what I've gathered, a stock 2008 Concours 1400 puts down 142.7 HP and 95.5 lb.-ft. per Two Bros Racing (not sure what dyno they used).

The stock VFR1200F puts down 142.1 HP and 81.4 lb.-ft


Considering the displacement difference between the two and the fact that the VFR1200 is a little lighter, I wouldn't say the VFR1200F is going to be a poor performer. As Carrithers said (after actually riding the thing!):

"I'm more impressed with the sneaky-fast way this engine makes power than with the numbers themselves"

If they aren't on the same dyno the comparison is pretty pointless.

[image: View Post]V4 Rosso, on 05 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

FWIW here is a comparison between the VFR and a BMW K1300S (calculated HP at crank):

[image: Posted Image]


So BMW slams the new VFR in every test, top speed, accerlation and fule consuption....

Yeah, and to think quite a few people on here think the new VFR looks like a beemer, Well it doesn't even come close :laugh:

:goofy:

Remember motorrad is a german bike mag, but numbers mostly don't lie.
The same issue also has a test where they compare the fireblade against the BMW1000RR, haven't read it yet but I don't think the outcome will be much different.

Belgium motorijder made the same comparison and their verdict was the same as motorrad: The Beemer is better in every respect but the price, especially when you're adding options.
http://www.motoblog....0S-VFR1200F.pdf

Calling one "better" than the other is a matter of the judging criteria. If peak HP is the criteria, then the K13 is "better" than the VFR12. If all around competence is the criteria (although more subjective), then perhaps the VFR is "better" than the K13. At this level of performance and sophistication of both bikes, the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual, not necessarily what the spec sheet or dyno says. A few HP and a few pounds difference is not going to make or break either of these machines. Hell, the VFR800 is out-powered and out-performed in nearly every objective category, yet it remains one of the finest machines ever made and the bike of choice for many. With a whole lot more juice on tap, I'm not worried that VFR1200 will have a HP deficit in either absolute or relative terms, I like the power of the VFR800 as it is, and 50% more mojo is a delectable bonus! My other bike is a Moto Guzzi Griso 1100, this is about as old school and gutless as they come, but it is a great bike with a lot of "character" and lots of fun to ride. In the almost four years I've owned it, I've logged 3x the miles on the Griso as the VFR, so that should tell you something about the whole package, a bike is far more than the sum of it's spec sheet.

[image: View Post]Solomoto, on 07 February 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Calling one "better" than the other is a matter of the judging criteria. If peak HP is the criteria, then the K13 is "better" than the VFR12. If all around competence is the criteria (although more subjective), then perhaps the VFR is "better" than the K13. At this level of performance and sophistication of both bikes, the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual, not necessarily what the spec sheet or dyno says. A few HP and a few pounds difference is not going to make or break either of these machines. Hell, the VFR800 is out-powered and out-performed in nearly every objective category, yet it remains one of the finest machines ever made and the bike of choice for many. With a whole lot more juice on tap, I'm not worried that VFR1200 will have a HP deficit in either absolute or relative terms, I like the power of the VFR800 as it is, and 50% more mojo is a delectable bonus! My other bike is a Moto Guzzi Griso 1100, this is about as old school and gutless as they come, but it is a great bike with a lot of "character" and lots of fun to ride. In the almost four years I've owned it, I've logged 3x the miles on the Griso as the VFR, so that should tell you something about the whole package, a bike is far more than the sum of it's spec sheet.


I agree. The same may be said for my 4th Gen whose potential I still haven't managed to exhaust even though it only makes a meagre 100bhp. Let's not fall into the sportsbike trap of "I've got more horsepower than you have." I mean, who cares? My mate's Gixxer 1000 will do the ton in first gear. So what?

Useability is the key, and the fun factor, because, after all, isn't that the main reason we ride?

Thank you for the info. It doesn't matter to some of us what the peak numbers are. Real world info is very useful in making decisions.

[image: View Post]Solomoto, on 07 February 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Calling one "better" than the other is a matter of the judging criteria. If peak HP is the criteria, then the K13 is "better" than the VFR12. If all around competence is the criteria (although more subjective), then perhaps the VFR is "better" than the K13. At this level of performance and sophistication of both bikes, the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual, not necessarily what the spec sheet or dyno says. A few HP and a few pounds difference is not going to make or break either of these machines. Hell, the VFR800 is out-powered and out-performed in nearly every objective category, yet it remains one of the finest machines ever made and the bike of choice for many. With a whole lot more juice on tap, I'm not worried that VFR1200 will have a HP deficit in either absolute or relative terms, I like the power of the VFR800 as it is, and 50% more mojo is a delectable bonus! My other bike is a Moto Guzzi Griso 1100, this is about as old school and gutless as they come, but it is a great bike with a lot of "character" and lots of fun to ride. In the almost four years I've owned it, I've logged 3x the miles on the Griso as the VFR, so that should tell you something about the whole package, a bike is far more than the sum of it's spec sheet.



What a bunch of nonsense. We all know that a spec sheet and a couple of preliminary ride reports are the be-all-end-all.

:laugh: It is when the VFR comes out on top. :warranty:

[image: View Post]Solomoto, on 07 February 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual

:+1:

OK, so the Crank power is 175hp and the wheel is 142hp. Does this mean that the transmission and Driveshaft are eating up 33hp!?!?!? :huh:

If I remember my numbers correctly, the VFR800 puts 107hp on the crank and 96hp on the ground. I won't feel so bad when I'm lubing the Chain anymore... ;)

Brian

[image: View Post]V4 Rosso, on 07 February 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

:laugh: It is when the VFR comes out on top. :warranty:

[image: View Post]Solomoto, on 07 February 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual

:+1:

:+1:

A area where I think the VFR1200 will beat the BMW is tecnical foults. I know some that had BMWs and plenty of small fault all the time, and one that had to stop a long trip as the shaft drive jammed on a bike whit less that 15000km on the odo...
I just wounder when Honda will get a fi that doesnt use so mutch fuel as others, well they sometimes get it right like the 2000-01 800FI... :491:

[image: View Post]keny, on 05 February 2010 - 01:04 PM, said:

[image: View Post]V4 Rosso, on 05 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

FWIW here is a comparison between the VFR and a BMW K1300S (calculated HP at crank):

[image: Posted Image]


So BMW slams the new VFR in every test, top speed, accerlation and fule consuption....

There seems to be a 14% loss between the crank and the rear tire if Motorrad's numbers are taken as a base for crank HP numbers. If we roughly apply this loss to the BMW's HP number (I know, the drivetrain is different to the VFR's and losses may be more or less, but this is just rough estimation), BMW would probably give around 150 horses at the rear (149.64 to be exact). I have done the same calculation for torque and the loss seems to be 11% this time; using this logic the BMW's torque would come to approximately 125 N-m (92 lb-ft) vs Honda's 110 N-m (81 lb-ft).

It gives a very rough idea though and the Honda's numbers don't look bad compared to the BMW's. However, the BMW's engine makes more power sooner and on the road it obviously outperforms the Honda by quite a margin. Let's forget about top speed and standing starts as they have little bearing on real world riding but the Honda's roll-on performance is quite a bit slower than the BMW. And the BMW burns less fuel and has more range although its fuel tank has only 0.5 liters more capacity. I have read a lot of reviews though and it is apparent that the charm of the VFR comes from its polished traits: good throtle response, smoothness, good handling etc. So it is not different than its predecessor really. And all around good bike with polished manners.

But I have to say that I am a little disappointed with this latest VFR, why can't it match the BMW K1300S on performance and economy? Why does it weigh so much? Why, for the given price does it not have more gizmos (fully adjustable suspension etc, though I really like the DTC tranny)? After all the VFR is the newer bike and its obvious competitor is the K-S, why couldn't match and surpass its rival even though it came out later? I realize the new VFR is indeed powerful enough, and I am sure a lot of people will be very happy with it and rightfully so. For now though, especially after splashing so much dough on my 04, I can't think of getting a second hand one in the near future; it doesn't lure me enough. This is purely my feeling at the moment and I might always change my view later...

[image: View Post]keny, on 08 February 2010 - 01:45 AM, said:

[image: View Post]V4 Rosso, on 07 February 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

:laugh: It is when the VFR comes out on top. :warranty:

[image: View Post]Solomoto, on 07 February 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

the final judgement should be which bike works better for the individual

:+1:

:+1:

A area where I think the VFR1200 will beat the BMW is tecnical foults. I know some that had BMWs and plenty of small fault all the time, and one that had to stop a long trip as the shaft drive jammed on a bike whit less that 15000km on the odo...




Don't forget stalling, gearbox issues, scary front-end feel, turns like a bus, stuttering at part-throttle.


I will admit I am a bit surprised by Honda.... they decide to take on the K1300S, then produce a bike that is heavier, has less power, and is more expensive.

[image: View Post]phobe, on 08 February 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

and is more expensive.

Maybe in the US. Here a VFR is more than a grand (in euros) cheaper than the beemer and the price gap increases even further when you add farkles like hardbags.

I realize this is subjective but where the K1300S has 'em all beat is looks. It looks a better than the Busa, ZX-14, and VFR1200F, IMO. It's also got 'em beat in the exclusivity factor. You don't see anywhere near as many BMW motorcycles as you see Suzukis, Kawasakis, and Hondas. If I had my choice between these four bikes, I'd take the Beemer.*

[image: Posted Image]

*I admit I might change my mind after getting the first repair bill.

Cycle World dyno run, similar numbers. http://www.cycleworl...#vfr1200dynorun

[image: View Post]EmeraldVFR, on 14 February 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

I realize this is subjective but where the K1300S has 'em all beat is looks. It looks a better than the Busa, ZX-14, and VFR1200F, IMO. It's also got 'em beat in the exclusivity factor. You don't see anywhere near as many BMW motorcycles as you see Suzukis, Kawasakis, and Hondas. If I had my choice between these four bikes, I'd take the Beemer.*

[image: Posted Image]

*I admit I might change my mind after getting the first repair bill.



:+1:

I agree, maybe it's time to add a 2 wheeled bimmer to the garage!! :cool:

There are some complaints about the 13OOS re stalling...I think.

[image: View Post]vfrcapn, on 15 February 2010 - 01:15 AM, said:

Cycle World dyno run, similar numbers. http://www.cycleworl...#vfr1200dynorun


Similar, but 145 hp vs 142 hp is a little better.

Disapointing to learn that 145HP and 80+lbft is not considered powerful anymore.




If we are going to bring up the K1300S, and how fast it is, then let us not forget it gets trounced in every performance category by the Busa or ZX-14. Splitting hairs.

[image: View Post]Brown81, on 16 February 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

Disapointing to learn that 145HP and 80+lbft is not considered powerful anymore.




If we are going to bring up the K1300S, and how fast it is, then let us not forget it gets trounced in every performance category by the Busa or ZX-14. Splitting hairs.

This is true. And who knows, the VFR1200F might beat it, too (although that's unlikely in every category at least.) Out of all these bikes, I still think it looks like the best one. And it's definitely more exclusive. One thing I'm sure we can all agree on is if you're in the market for this type of bike, you really can't go wrong with any of them.

A downside to the K1300S that nobody's mentioned is there aren't anywhere near as many aftermarket accessories available for it. One of the plusses that nobody's mentioned is, compared to Busas, comprehensive coverage ought to be less expensive. Busas rank high on most bike thieves' lists and insurance companies know it.

Doesn't anyone remember the K1200S? That is of course the precursor to the present K1300S. It was also 'under-powered' (something like 140hp). It took BMW another 2 years to come up with their present iteration. Give Honda a couple of years and I'm sure they'll up the ante a bit. I refuse to believe that they have squeezed every last hp out of the 1200, with nowhere to go...

Brian

[image: View Post]EmeraldVFR, on 17 February 2010 - 10:20 PM, said:

[image: View Post]Brown81, on 16 February 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

Disapointing to learn that 145HP and 80+lbft is not considered powerful anymore.




If we are going to bring up the K1300S, and how fast it is, then let us not forget it gets trounced in every performance category by the Busa or ZX-14. Splitting hairs.

This is true. And who knows, the VFR1200F might beat it, too (although that's unlikely in every category at least.) Out of all these bikes, I still think it looks like the best one. And it's definitely more exclusive. One thing I'm sure we can all agree on is if you're in the market for this type of bike, you really can't go wrong with any of them.

A downside to the K1300S that nobody's mentioned is there aren't anywhere near as many aftermarket accessories available for it. One of the plusses that nobody's mentioned is, compared to Busas, comprehensive coverage ought to be less expensive. Busas rank high on most bike thieves' lists and insurance companies know it.


It is not the power that the new VFR is lacking (although in this day and age it is nothing to shout about either), the weight is too much. And no, the K1300S does not get trounced by the ZX-14 or the Hayabusa, because BMW has shorter gearing than both and actually trounces them in roll-ons at real world (ish) speeds. Honda will never beat a K1300S in any measurable performance criteria because, well, it can't. Motorrad's test of K1300S and VFR1200 was posted in this forum elsewhere and BMW came out on top including fuel economy. I still think both are brilliant bikes and will give their owners great satisfaction.

Both great bikes indeed.

I can't believe we are fussing over who has the most power on a sport touring forum. Either bike (BMW or Honda) has more than enough for the intended mission the bike was designed for.

Heck, my 2003 VFR 800 has plenty.

And we all know it means even less when the road gets twisty.

Wow, I haven't been around here for a while....Well I have been working in the middle east (for a while....) so I can afford the new VFR1200F :) . And, now I have enough to buy it cash with every foreseeable option. When I get done in June or September I'll be picking one up. Really looking forward to it.

Some of the members here have me a bit confused. Since when was the VFR all about HP? Maybe I am missing the point here, but I could really care less about what bike beats it in HP, weight or whatever other measurement you want to use. We all bought our VFR's knowing that it is NOT the best performing bike as far as numbers on a piece of paper go. If you did then you bought the wrong bike. I would like to think that we bought our VFR's because it was the best bike that suited what we needed. For me it was the ability to tour, corner well, and be comfortable to me. The SSSA is nice as is the overall look (speaking about a 5th gen here). The 7th gen took a while for me to like looking at, but it has grown on me and I think it has everything that I need once again in a bike. Funny though that the main reason why I am getting the VFR is because it has more power than my 5th gen....(still keeping the 5th gen though) I think if you have to rely on numbers when thinking about purchasing a VFR then the bike probably isn't for you. I would say ride it first and then see what you think. I have preconceived notions about this bike, but so far what I have read from the people that have ridden it, it's a pretty good bike. Has anyone else read otherwise?

Just my 2 cents.

-Rahsaan

[image: View Post]johnmark101, on 18 February 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Both great bikes indeed.

I can't believe we are fussing over who has the most power on a sport touring forum. Either bike (BMW or Honda) has more than enough for the intended mission the bike was designed for.

Heck, my 2003 VFR 800 has plenty.

And we all know it means even less when the road gets twisty.

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

Wow, I haven't been around here for a while....Well I have been working in the middle east (for a while....) so I can afford the new VFR1200F :) . And, now I have enough to buy it cash with every foreseeable option. When I get done in June or September I'll be picking one up. Really looking forward to it.

Some of the members here have me a bit confused. Since when was the VFR all about HP? Maybe I am missing the point here, but I could really care less about what bike beats it in HP, weight or whatever other measurement you want to use. We all bought our VFR's knowing that it is NOT the best performing bike as far as numbers on a piece of paper go. If you did then you bought the wrong bike. I would like to think that we bought our VFR's because it was the best bike that suited what we needed. For me it was the ability to tour, corner well, and be comfortable to me. ...

I have preconceived notions about this bike, but so far what I have read from the people that have ridden it, it's a pretty good bike. Has anyone else read otherwise?

Just my 2 cents.

-Rahsaan


This is my opinion but this isn't a simply Sport Touring forum. Do a search for Torocharger and you will see the most popular topic about VFR; and what's it about? Increasing horsepower. A lot of people change their front and rear suspensions with high performance parts such as upside down forks from other bikes and from makers like �hlins, Hyperpro etc. Why? Because for many the sport is as important as the touring part of the equation, including myself (and yes I'm planning to get the Torocharger and yes I have upgraded my suspenders).

People had very high hopes when this bike came out since many in this forum felt the BMW K 1200/1300S represented what a new VFR could offer performance wise with the refinement of a V4 and many though this was what Honda was aiming for. If you look at the end product, it is obvious that the 1200 is indeed aiming at the K series. Don't get me wrong, the new bike is very good, but its numbers are not as good as the BMW K1300S. Why is it weird to question this? VFR is the newer bike, many people expected less weight, better performance and economy, simply because Honda promised that it would be the best in class. I expected that it would at least be equal to the K1300S if not better performance wise. Looking it from this perspective only, the new bike didn't deliver but obviously it's not a failure. It is a very good bike that will give its owners immense satisfaction only a V4 Honda can deliver.

My main gripe by the way, isn't the fact that it is slower than the BMW, I thought my 6th gen was too heavy and this new one is 55 pounds heavier! I'm still interested in it though and I'd really like to test ride the one with the dual clutch/automatic version. I wonder who in this forum will get it first?

[image: View Post]arrow, on 22 February 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

[image: View Post]johnmark101, on 18 February 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Both great bikes indeed.

I can't believe we are fussing over who has the most power on a sport touring forum. Either bike (BMW or Honda) has more than enough for the intended mission the bike was designed for.

Heck, my 2003 VFR 800 has plenty.

And we all know it means even less when the road gets twisty.

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

Wow, I haven't been around here for a while....Well I have been working in the middle east (for a while....) so I can afford the new VFR1200F :) . And, now I have enough to buy it cash with every foreseeable option. When I get done in June or September I'll be picking one up. Really looking forward to it.

Some of the members here have me a bit confused. Since when was the VFR all about HP? Maybe I am missing the point here, but I could really care less about what bike beats it in HP, weight or whatever other measurement you want to use. We all bought our VFR's knowing that it is NOT the best performing bike as far as numbers on a piece of paper go. If you did then you bought the wrong bike. I would like to think that we bought our VFR's because it was the best bike that suited what we needed. For me it was the ability to tour, corner well, and be comfortable to me. ...

I have preconceived notions about this bike, but so far what I have read from the people that have ridden it, it's a pretty good bike. Has anyone else read otherwise?

Just my 2 cents.

-Rahsaan


This is my opinion but this isn't a simply Sport Touring forum. Do a search for Torocharger and you will see the most popular topic about VFR; and what's it about? Increasing horsepower. A lot of people change their front and rear suspensions with high performance parts such as upside down forks from other bikes and from makers like �hlins, Hyperpro etc. Why? Because for many the sport is as important as the touring part of the equation, including myself (and yes I'm planning to get the Torocharger and yes I have upgraded my suspenders).

People had very high hopes when this bike came out since many in this forum felt the BMW K 1200/1300S represented what a new VFR could offer performance wise with the refinement of a V4 and many though this was what Honda was aiming for. If you look at the end product, it is obvious that the 1200 is indeed aiming at the K series. Don't get me wrong, the new bike is very good, but its numbers are not as good as the BMW K1300S. Why is it weird to question this? VFR is the newer bike, many people expected less weight, better performance and economy, simply because Honda promised that it would be the best in class. I expected that it would at least be equal to the K1300S if not better performance wise. Looking it from this perspective only, the new bike didn't deliver but obviously it's not a failure. It is a very good bike that will give its owners immense satisfaction only a V4 Honda can deliver.

My main gripe by the way, isn't the fact that it is slower than the BMW, I thought my 6th gen was too heavy and this new one is 55 pounds heavier! I'm still interested in it though and I'd really like to test ride the one with the dual clutch/automatic version. I wonder who in this forum will get it first?


Yes, I know about the torocharger. As someone that has dealt with forced induction in the past I would rather not put a supercharger on a already high compression motorcycle motor. I think it is awesome though that someone makes a supercharger for a VFR though.

So, why not just get the BMW and be done with it? If you don't like the new VFR then go with what works for you. According to you the BMW is the superior bike so go for it. It sounds like you had an issue with the VFR's weight to begin with so maybe this isn't the bike for you. There isn't a problem with that. I just have an issue of people bashing this bike based on numbers. I'll have fun with my VFR which has always had lower performance numbers than other bikes. From what I have read not many people seem to have an issue with the performance of the bike that have taken it for a ride. No one seems to have an argument for that.

I wasn't around during this time frame, but did this many people complain when the 6th Gen came out?

*coughToroChargercough* Then your 800 can beat the VFR1200 and you invest less than a 1/3 of the cost. :491:

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

So, why not just get the BMW and be done with it? If you don't like the new VFR then go with what works for you. According to you the BMW is the superior bike so go for it.


In my opinion, both are great bikes and I said as much. I didn't say I liked the K better than the VFR. Its performance is superior to the VFR, yes and it's a great bike with many innovative features. I am not planning on getting a new bike by the way. I am just saying the new bike is quite heavy. When I choose the VFR I also looked at the Blackbird but chose the VFR because it was a lot nimbler and lighter. So that should clear me of being accused of a power junkie alone :blush: ...

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

It sounds like you had an issue with the VFR's weight to begin with so maybe this isn't the bike for you. There isn't a problem with that. I just have an issue of people bashing this bike based on numbers. I'll have fun with my VFR which has always had lower performance numbers than other bikes. From what I have read not many people seem to have an issue with the performance of the bike that have taken it for a ride. No one seems to have an argument for that.


It's not a matter of having an issue with the weight. My viffer is quite heavy for an 800 cc motorycle. That's the truth. One of my friends own a 2006 R1200 GS, despite being an air&oil cooled 1200cc boxer twin with shaft drive, it weighs less than mine. And despite that, it (VFR) IS the bike for me. I love my bike but I'll also talk about its shortcomings, one of them is; it's heavy. And the new one is a lot heavier. Does it make it (the 1200) bad? Not one bit. But I use my bike in the city as well, and there are times it makes it weight felt in heavy traffic so I am guessing the new one will be 55 pounds worse. I'm just saying that this is a factor for me. If the new 1200 was the same weight as mine, I'd probably be looking at ways to come up with the money to purchase it. I'm looking forward to the automatic version and I am sure it will be a fantastic bike...

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

I wasn't around during this time frame, but did this many people complain when the 6th Gen came out?


I am actually curious of that as well. I'm guessing yes, because the viffer lost the beloved gear driven cams (which I like a lot) and gained a bit of weight and the unnecessary complexity of the VTEC (I have helped my mechanic perform the ritual and it is quite long) with no gains in torque or HP. So not exactly a step forward compared to the 5th gen, perhaps more a step sideways :goofy:

[image: View Post]vanion2, on 22 February 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

*coughToroChargercough* Then your 800 can beat the VFR1200 and you invest less than a 1/3 of the cost. :491:

That, dear sir, is exactly what I intend to do. :fing02:

By the way I just received the April issue of the Cycle World and it seems they are very fond of it. Kronus I hope you purchase your 1200 soon and tell us about it. You can be sure a lot of people will be picking your brains about it :fing02:

I took a spin on a brand new K1300S a month ago, and while it is fast, it felt like a Cadillac. Yes, the numbers are impressive, but it's all about how they translate into the feel of the bike. The beemer has around 94 ft/lbs of torque yet it didn't feel that torquey. It has 150 hp, but it didn't feel like I was approaching ludicrous speed when I twisted the throttle. What I'm trying to say is, sometimes motorcycles are much more than their stats. The VFR is a good example of this. 100 hp and somewhere in the 60s or 70s in torque value, and it's much more fun to ride than many other more powerful bikes. So, the new VFR may not be the stat monster that the Beemer and ZX-14 are, but we shouldn't measure a bike's worth by this alone. Honda has been very good at making the simple and straight forward, highly effective.

In the end, you don't know which bike you like better until you ride the ones you're comparing. A lot of people are raving about the BMW S1000RR, for example, but a part of me would rather try out the HP2 sport. MUCH less HP, but 130 HP in boxerville may be much more fun.

[image: View Post]Brown81, on 16 February 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

Disapointing to learn that 145HP and 80+lbft is not considered powerful anymore.




If we are going to bring up the K1300S, and how fast it is, then let us not forget it gets trounced in every performance category by the Busa or ZX-14. Splitting hairs.



ahh negative... Sport Bike did a busa K1300S comparison and the K1300S beat the busa........

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

I wasn't around during this time frame, but did this many people complain when the 6th Gen came out?



Yes it was absolutely terrible. The amount of whining came from the older VFR gen owners and not from the cams, LOL. Partially this was the generation we thought we were getting a 1000 VFR, and Honda gave us VTEC, no gears, heavier weight, and the looks really were 2 or 3 years ahead of their time, imo, even though they look great now, they really looked like star trek when they came out.

I cancelled the VFR mailing list due to the amount of bitching about VTEC, it was getting Posted Image

[image: View Post]jaimev34, on 22 February 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

100 hp and somewhere in the 60s or 70s in torque value,


Try about 50 lb/ft.

[image: View Post]arrow, on 22 February 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

So, why not just get the BMW and be done with it? If you don't like the new VFR then go with what works for you. According to you the BMW is the superior bike so go for it.


In my opinion, both are great bikes and I said as much. I didn't say I liked the K better than the VFR. Its performance is superior to the VFR, yes and it's a great bike with many innovative features. I am not planning on getting a new bike by the way. I am just saying the new bike is quite heavy. When I choose the VFR I also looked at the Blackbird but chose the VFR because it was a lot nimbler and lighter. So that should clear me of being accused of a power junkie alone :blush: ...

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

It sounds like you had an issue with the VFR's weight to begin with so maybe this isn't the bike for you. There isn't a problem with that. I just have an issue of people bashing this bike based on numbers. I'll have fun with my VFR which has always had lower performance numbers than other bikes. From what I have read not many people seem to have an issue with the performance of the bike that have taken it for a ride. No one seems to have an argument for that.


It's not a matter of having an issue with the weight. My viffer is quite heavy for an 800 cc motorycle. That's the truth. One of my friends own a 2006 R1200 GS, despite being an air&oil cooled 1200cc boxer twin with shaft drive, it weighs less than mine. And despite that, it IS the bike for me. I love my bike but I'll also talk about its shortcomings, one of them is; it's heavy. And the new one is a lot heavier. Does it make it (the 1200) bad? Not one bit. But I use my bike in the city as well, and there are times it makes it weight felt in heavy traffic so I am guessing the new one will be 55 pounds worse. I'm just saying that this is a factor for me. If the new 1200 was the same weight as mine, I'd probably be looking at ways to come up with the money to purchase it. I'm looking forward to the automatic version and I am sure it will be a fantastic bike...

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 22 February 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

I wasn't around during this time frame, but did this many people complain when the 6th Gen came out?


I am actually curious of that as well. I'm guessing yes, because the viffer lost the beloved gear driven cams (which I like a lot) and gained a bit of weight and the unnecessary complexity of the VTEC (I have helped my mechanic perform the ritual and it is quite long) with no gains in torque or HP. So not exactly a step forward compared to the 5th gen, perhaps more a step sideways :goofy:

[image: View Post]vanion2, on 22 February 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

*coughToroChargercough* Then your 800 can beat the VFR1200 and you invest less than a 1/3 of the cost. :491:

That, dear sir, is exactly what I intend to do. :fing02:

By the way I just received the April issue of the Cycle World and it seems they are very fond of it. Kronus I hope you purchase your 1200 soon and tell us about it. You can be sure a lot of people will be picking your brains about it :fing02:


Well I wasn't so surprised that the bike was going to heavier. I mean the engine is bigger, it's got more gadgets, and an auto transmission (not getting the auto though). How in the world would that equate to a lighter bike? I would buy the new VFR right now if it was out in Qatar and I had my Qatari license (IT'S A PAIN IN THE A$$!!!!!). By the time I get back it should just be coming out in the states anyway. You don't have to wait for my review, I have read at least 5 different reviews and they all pretty much say the same thing. I want a lighter better performing bike as well, but that wouldn't be a VFR. It would be a straight sportbike.

Oh, and on the issue of modding. You can mod anything to beat pretty much anything with the right amount of motivation :)

[image: View Post]GGray, on 22 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

[image: View Post]Brown81, on 16 February 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

Disapointing to learn that 145HP and 80+lbft is not considered powerful anymore.




If we are going to bring up the K1300S, and how fast it is, then let us not forget it gets trounced in every performance category by the Busa or ZX-14. Splitting hairs.



ahh negative... Sport Bike did a busa K1300S comparison and the K1300S beat the busa........




Actually, it didn't. Go back and read the technical info.


However, several of the guys said they would choose the K bike because of the comfort, on the fly suspnsion adjustments, etc. Not because it out permormed the Busa. Also, check the price differential.

[image: View Post]arrow, on 18 February 2010 - 01:25 AM, said:

It is not the power that the new VFR is lacking (although in this day and age it is nothing to shout about either), the weight is too much. And no, the K1300S does not get trounced by the ZX-14 or the Hayabusa, because BMW has shorter gearing than both and actually trounces them in roll-ons at real world (ish) speeds. Honda will never beat a K1300S in any measurable performance criteria because, well, it can't. Motorrad's test of K1300S and VFR1200 was posted in this forum elsewhere and BMW came out on top including fuel economy. I still think both are brilliant bikes and will give their owners great satisfaction.



"Trounces"????? Ha.

Cool, buy a 25 dollar front sprocket and the roll ons would be different. Easy to do when saving 4 GRAND or more over the BMW.

The thing about roll-on testing is that they put both bikes in top gear.

Drop a gear on a Busa and you will get a different result.


Gearing is the easiest thing on a bike to change. Although, impossible to do on a K13000S.


Look, my point is not that the BMW1300s in not a great bike: It is that we are splitting hairs here when talking about power. All these bikes, including the K13000S and the VFR1200 have plenty of power. Arguing over magazine tests performed by professional riders on closed race courses is ridiculous and useless.

Here's the Sport Rider data:

Busa 164.8 Hp/ 97.6 T 1/4mile: 9.96/145mph 60-80 (top gear) 2.98 80-100(top gear) 3.07

K1300S 146.8 /89.6 T 1/4mile: 10.46/137mph 60-80 (top gear) 2.71 80-100(top gear) 2.82

18/100ths of a second is not exactly getting trounced. And, given gearing changes, would be faster for the Busa.

And we're not even bringing up top speed.



Where Sport Rider said it won was in comfort, etc. I guess they are getting old like me over there! :fing02:

The way I can sum it up is by saying this...

For me...


The VFR has always been a bike that is much MUCH greater than the sum of it's part's - and it looks like the new 7th gen is no different

It's always more fun to ride a ''slow'' (which my VFR ain't) bike fast, than a fast bike slow

That's all I can be bothered to say :laugh: Ride on :wheel:

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 23 February 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well I wasn't so surprised that the bike was going to heavier. I mean the engine is bigger, it's got more gadgets, and an auto transmission (not getting the auto though). How in the world would that equate to a lighter bike?

Honda says the engine is smaller and lighter than the 800's...

[image: View Post]vfrcapn, on 25 February 2010 - 05:47 PM, said:

[image: View Post]Kr0nus, on 23 February 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well I wasn't so surprised that the bike was going to heavier. I mean the engine is bigger, it's got more gadgets, and an auto transmission (not getting the auto though). How in the world would that equate to a lighter bike?

Honda says the engine is smaller and lighter than the 800's...



Maybe the "lighter and smaller" 1200cc motor is why it is so expensive :unsure: . I'm sure the shaft driven SSSA has a lot to do with the cost and weight as well.

[image: View Post]Brown81, on 23 February 2010 - 05:34 PM, said:

Here's the Sport Rider data:

Busa 164.8 Hp/ 97.6 T 1/4mile: 9.96/145mph 60-80 (top gear) 2.98 80-100(top gear) 3.07

K1300S 146.8 /89.6 T 1/4mile: 10.46/137mph 60-80 (top gear) 2.71 80-100(top gear) 2.82

18/100ths of a second is not exactly getting trounced. And, given gearing changes, would be faster for the Busa.

And we're not even bringing up top speed.

Where Sport Rider said it won was in comfort, etc. I guess they are getting old like me over there! :fing02:


Stock for stock, a BMW K1300S will out accelerate a ZX-14 or a Hayabusa on top gear roll-ons from 40 mph to 120 mph, up to a second faster if I remember BIKE's test correctly (I'll look it up tonight) and this could be called trouncing since the difference is pretty big. Just like the Hayabusa trouncing the BMW in quarter mile, where the difference is 8 mph and 0.5 seconds. Are we splitting hairs though? Hell, are we ever? But this what these forums are for right?

Yes, the Jap bikes can shift down (so can the BMW), be modified to to hilt with the four grand difference or just match the BMW easily with a 25 dollars smaller front sprocket. I also know that they are much faster in quarter mile and top speed but I was just comparing stock bikes. Me, if I had the money, I'd probably go for the ZX-14, not for speed kicks but for its comfort and handling. BMW is too expensive for my tastes too. Still a really nice bike though...

I sat on a VFR1200 yesterday at the bike show by the way and it felt similar to my VTEC. The grey color looked really nice, I thought it looked better than the red version actually. I am not in a position to purchase one (not even close) but I'll try to see if I can get a test ride soon.

I was reading through this thread about lighter vs faster vs mores power and so on and got curious about what the K1300 forum might be chatting about. All bike models have issues but FWIW this was the page that greeted me.

http://www.i-bmw.com...ead.php?t=23460

Reading through some of the associated posts its pretty disappointing stuff for those poor guys and girls. A stalling bike is a danger on the road and shouldnt happen no matter who the manufacturer is. I hope BMW get it sorted. Were all bike riders and the more of us there are the better the whole place is.

Cheers
MGVFR in Australia

[image: View Post]mgvfr, on 29 March 2010 - 10:39 PM, said:

Reading through some of the associated posts its pretty disappointing stuff for those poor guys and girls. A stalling bike is a danger on the road and shouldnt happen no matter who the manufacturer is. I hope BMW get it sorted.


Reading that forum you could substitute VTEC for K1300 and surging for stalling... Hmmm that brings back fond memories (not). And they're doing all the same things in an attempt to fix it, PC's, disabling pollution gear etc. In the end they'll probably find it's something simple like it was with the VTECs (sync the throttle bodies properly)

It seems a lot of new bikes these days are so highly strung that the slightest variance in tolerances makes them run badly.