better handling on the R1 or R6

[ian]

haha except I can't right now...

[shift]

like george said, handling is subjective. but when i think sportbikes, handling is proven on a race track. because a rider is "too big", "too fat", etc, does not change a vehicles handling characteristics in general. the question given "better handling on the r1 or r6" is a general question. if i wanted to buy a mazda miata for the race track, would i listen to a review from some guy who is oversized? no. lets not confuse ergonomics with handling.

leaving out the ergonomics variable, let's compare apples to apples within "handling". like i said, handling is proven on a racetrack, not the grids of a city. handling is the ability to change direction and rate of speed, and also absorb irregularities of the road surface without upsetting the projected path of the bike.

r6 vs r1:

braking:
lighter bikes stop faster than heavier ones (no schit, eh?) advantage: r6
smaller rims and tires carry less rotating mass, allowing the bike to slow faster. advantage: r6

turning:
shorter wheelbase allows for a bike to fall into a turn easier and also stand back up. advantage: r6
again, less rotation mass allows a bike to change direction easier. (the weight difference between a rear r1 rim/tire combo is significantly heavier when compared to a r6 rim/tire combo) Because lighter wheels offer a reduction in flywheel and gyroscopic effects, the motorcycle can accelerate, corner and brake faster. In particular, the reduced gyroscopic effect allows for faster directional changes, which makes the motorcycle far more sensitive to the rider's inputs. advantage: r6

acceleration:
obviously, there is no replacement for displacement. advantage: r1
however, when cornering and acceleration are combined, you can get on the gas sooner on a 600 than a liter bike. so on a tight, technical track, the r6 would have the advantage. advantage: depends on the course

as far as street manners are concerned, 2 non handling factors that i would consider an advantage to the r1 would be: less shifting and power while riding 2 up.

i figured i'd throw some handling facts up there for those who aren't aware of these factors. take from it what you may.

by the way, what the funk is this smiley face about: ????? LOL

[ian]

...i figured i'd throw some handling facts up there for those who aren't aware of these factors. take from it what you may.

Gratzi! That is exactly what I'm looking for!

[Fartblood]

The gyroscopic effect of the crank is teensy compared to the wheels. Suzuki even tried a GP bike with a contra rotating crank (Schwantz rode it if memory serves) and it was a pig to ride, but this is cos it was a crap bike and rejigging the motor to rotate in the conventional direction made no difference.

On a real road, with potholes, diesel spills, night time riding, oncoming traffic, the lack or low and mid range on a modern middleweight is a liability - screaming the nuts off to get into the power in these conditionions takes time, and is a harder proposition to control correctly. On planet earth I can make progress just as easily on the fizzer, simply because what little power there is to be had is relatively accessible compared to the R6. What works on a billiard-table smooth track in good conditions rarely translates to a capable package in modern traffic conditions, at least not on our crowded little island.

[shift]

The gyroscopic effect of the crank is teensy compared to the wheels. Suzuki even tried a GP bike with a contra rotating crank (Schwantz rode it if memory serves) and it was a pig to ride, but this is cos it was a crap bike and rejigging the motor to rotate in the conventional direction made no difference.

On a real road, with potholes, diesel spills, night time riding, oncoming traffic, the lack or low and mid range on a modern middleweight is a liability - screaming the nuts off to get into the power in these conditionions takes time, and is a harder proposition to control correctly. On planet earth I can make progress just as easily on the fizzer, simply because what little power there is to be had is relatively accessible compared to the R6. What works on a billiard-table smooth track in good conditions rarely translates to a capable package in modern traffic conditions, at least not on our crowded little island.

fb, what are you talking about? what exactly do pot holes, diesel spills, night time riding and oncoming traffic have to do with a bike's handling characteristics? these are all outside factors, having nothing to with the question.

as for the "billiard smooth track" concept you have, i suggest you ride summit point's main track in west virginia. or maybe nelson ledges. both these tracks have uneven transitions, small pot holes, cracks, and other major flaws to the riding surface. summit probably does have diesel spills on it -- . i know they get gas and antifreeze spills... here's a great example of how bumpy a track can be: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=n ... l=en&emb=0 yes, those are patched potholes. most roads i ride are in hella better shape than this track.
regardless, none of these factors change a bike's handling.

cheers

[Fartblood]

They relate very seriously to a bikes handling ability. The R6 is a scalpel on the track, and no one would deny it's awesome conrner gobbling ability. Nonetheless, it's right at the edge in terms of grip and feed back so chucking in poor or contaminated road surfaces into the equation means one has to back off in order to keep a few degrees in reserve, which totally negates the point in the first place. In middleweight terms it's a bit like the original Fireblade was to it's own peers back in the early 1990s - stunning, but the extra is simply inaccessible in many real world situations, where it becomes twitchy and unpredicatble. I had an early 929, which was still largely based on the original Fireplace and know this all too well.

And if you as an experienced rider can't see why a powerful, but revvy engine with the bulk of it's power delivery high up the rev range is an unpleasant proposition in similarly wet and slimy conditions, then me expalining it won't do much for you. A nice rounded power delivery is easier to access and safer to lay dowm, making pulling into gaps in traffic, overtakes etc safer, swifter, easier and more predictable.

[shift]

the topic at hand is "handling". not "handling under slippery, pot holed roads". usually, when someone wants to know about handling, they are referring in a performance mindset, no? (unless otherwise stated) so i believe you are taking the topic off on a tangent.

"And if you as an experienced rider can't see why a powerful, but revvy engine with the bulk of it's power delivery high up the rev range is an unpleasant proposition in similarly wet and slimy conditions, then me expalining it won't do much for you."

wet and slimy conditions???? why are we even discussing handling in wet and slimy conditions? LOL but i digress... i'm gonna have to disagree with you on this too, fb. if conditions truly are slippery, i'd rather be on a 600, where i can keep the rpms between 2k and 8k (below the power) to avoid putting down too much power and slipping. everyone knows less power is forgiving in less than good traction. who rides a 600 up in the power on slippery conditions anyway?

as far as potholes go, i'd rather be on the bike that turns quicker so i can avoid them faster. i have no idea why a r1 would present an advantage on a road with pot holes.

acceleration between a r1 and r6 is almost identical up to 60 mph. the r1 is prolly a tenth of a second faster. having been on a racetrack with lots of friends on 1000's, i can safely say that the liter bike shows it's power advantage in the triple digits and not so much below that. click the link in my signature and watch the video called "life goes on". it's a great example of a r6 out braking a zx10 into corners and then the zx10 slowly pulling by on the straights. (that's a 100% stock r6, btw, and a slightly modded zx10 -- suspension, track tires, power commander and a few others) so yeah, the power of a liter bike is nicer, but it's not some incredible difference. ever heard the saying "big bikes are for people who can't make little bikes go fast"? there's some truth to that...

...i figured i'd throw some handling facts up there for those who aren't aware of these factors. take from it what you may.

Gratzi! That is exactly what I'm looking for!

besides, i think that summed it up.

peace, i'm outta here.