lolKwacky wrote:Maybe the 159bhp road version has softer suspension and less power so you can use it as a sports tourer?
![Big Smile :D](./images/smilies/emoticon-0102-bigsmile.gif)
lolKwacky wrote:Maybe the 159bhp road version has softer suspension and less power so you can use it as a sports tourer?
Granted it does suggest some possible reasons for being down on power but when they quote 327 bhp I feel it's missing the mark. Its easy to quote big power figures and then make excuses why they arent achieved, its something different to back the claims up. Don't get me wrong though not slagging it off or arguing just trying to give some balance to the discussion as imo peoples expectations and Hondas aims seem widely different.Perkles wrote:it says the the kwack was either loosing traction on the dyno rollers or the fuelling was out at the top end ,either way its still above the magic 200 bhp mark and nowhere near the hondas price.I dont want a H2R so not defending it.
I still think the Honda misses the point and is terrible value for money.No doubt it will sell to people with more money than snese
Sounds goodKwacky wrote:Maybe the 159bhp road version has softer suspension and less power so you can use it as a sports tourer?
I agree it should do what it says on the tin ,its still a fire breathing monster thoughBlade wrote:Granted it does suggest some possible reasons for being down on power but when they quote 327 bhp I feel it's missing the mark. Its easy to quote big power figures and then make excuses why they arent achieved, its something different to back the claims up. Don't get me wrong though not slagging it off or arguing just trying to give some balance to the discussion as imo peoples expectations and Hondas aims seem widely different.Perkles wrote:it says the the kwack was either loosing traction on the dyno rollers or the fuelling was out at the top end ,either way its still above the magic 200 bhp mark and nowhere near the hondas price.I dont want a H2R so not defending it.
I still think the Honda misses the point and is terrible value for money.No doubt it will sell to people with more money than snese
Perkles I can see your point and not arguing but Honda didn't ever intend to build the most powerful or fastest bikr and fail in doing so. They set out to build an exotic and special gp rep which shares many components and engineering with the factory racer.Perkles wrote:I agree it should do what it says on the tin ,its still a fire breathing monster thoughBlade wrote:Granted it does suggest some possible reasons for being down on power but when they quote 327 bhp I feel it's missing the mark. Its easy to quote big power figures and then make excuses why they arent achieved, its something different to back the claims up. Don't get me wrong though not slagging it off or arguing just trying to give some balance to the discussion as imo peoples expectations and Hondas aims seem widely different.Perkles wrote:it says the the kwack was either loosing traction on the dyno rollers or the fuelling was out at the top end ,either way its still above the magic 200 bhp mark and nowhere near the hondas price.I dont want a H2R so not defending it.
I still think the Honda misses the point and is terrible value for money.No doubt it will sell to people with more money than snese
You could buy a fireblade and with a few tweaks get more power than the rcv ,that cant be right for the money and spec
I wanted the rcv road bike but obviously it's too expensive.Kwacky wrote:I though you wanted a road going MotoGP bike? It's heavier than the Hondas we see on track and 100 bhp down.
I suppose £1,000 per 1 BHP is special.