howdy, and questions on the sport classic 1000 biposto

[corks67]

Howdy to all , from Perth Western Australia.

Just joined the forum as I'm looking at purchasing a sport 1000 biposto , which are fairly new, but I'm hoping some owner of these or the mono posto will pipe up.

main question is what are the brakes and handing like ?

brakes - 2 pot calipers on 320mm discs any good.???

suspension - im a wee bit on the wrong side of a 100 kilos (okay a lot at 124kilos), so im a little disappointed that the front forks have no adjustibility for pre-load. Are they capable of taking my weight and still providing a good ride.

Ive owned a duke before 96 900ss so i figure the engine will be similar tho im told the 1000ds is much better than the olde 900 carby.

i really like the looks of the sport classic, tho the pricing is somewhat odd, the 1000 super sport has better brakes , fully adjustable forks and the monoshoc rear, yet is $500(oz) cheaper. even the st3 has at least preload.

enuff belly aching

i really like the cafe racer look of these bikes, previously i owned a triumph thruxton ,but found 60hp on a 208kilo bike plus me equalled slow, plus the suspension and brakes werent anything special
[IMG][/IMG]

so i hoping the sport classic can be what the thruxton wasn't.

Have owned quite a few bikes mostly japanese and the current bike is a 97 gixxer 600

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b216/corks67/my-bikes/

thanks in advance for any replies and opinions and i look forward to spending more time checking out the site and forums

thank you

Dave

[Greg_S]

I have the S, but all your questions relate to the same parts.

I'm a 250 lbs'er and I find the brakes and suspension fine for the street and the canyon's. The stock rear shocks are fine with the preload set at the right mark. I may have a stiffer set of springs put in the front because the front end does dive under harder braking, but I'm not sure how much comfort I want to give up. If I do any track days on it, the stiffer springs are a must.

The handling is very solid in these bikes.

I think the answers to your questions have a lot to do with the type of riding you will do.

[slowerthan]

I asked the very same questions before buying my '06 Sport 1000. Clearly the Monster S2R1000 is a better equipped bike (brakes and forks), and cost less money as well. But the sexy style of the Sport was too hard to pass up, and I figured it would cost more to transform a Monster to have the same cafe racer look that I wanted (it would have required new clip-ons, triple crown, mirrors, etc.). I added the Termi 2:2 set-up on my Sport, which I especially like because it eliminates the catalytic converter completely. It is much harder and costly to go through that exercise on the Monster.

As for the performance questions you are asking, I think everything is fine for "real world" street riding, assuming you are not overly aggressive. The forks are not adjustable, but seem fine unless you push so hard that you want something stiffer. Same for the shock, which is adjustable, but not very stiff. The rear brakes are next to useless. The fronts are fine again for daily use, but you may feel they are somewhat lacking if you ride very aggressively.

BTW, I believe the latest issue of Motorcyclist magazine compares the Sport to the Thruxton. It really is a dumb comparison, because the bikes are quite different. Anyway, I glanced over the article, an if I remember correctly, it said the Sport suffered from a budget suspension. And it said the Thruxton was an embarrassment.

Hope that helps.

[aviatorbdm]

I'm at 240 lbs, 6' 1" and have had a great time with my 06 Sport. The suspension and brakes have been just fine. The engine is plenty strong although I wanted a little more low end so I went with the 520 chain and sprocket conversion along with a regearing. I am also considering the lighter fly wheel. I chose the Sport over the Triumph Thruxton since in since I wanted something with more power and the Sport is simply beefier over all.

[geospencer]

Originally Posted by corks67

Howdy to all , from Perth Western Australia.Dave

Welcome to the forum!

Can you get a copy of MOTORCYCLIST down there? They just did a comparison test of the Triumph and the Ducati. They complained a little about the Ducati's front forks but preferred it by far to the Triumph. (I would still like to have a Triumph one of these days. I think they are pretty interesting bikes.) The Ducati engine is definitely stronger.

One of the British magazines (Bike?) did a comparison about six months to a year ago. They also preferred the Ducati.

I think you'll enjoy it.

[jonniedee]

Motorcycle Consumer News actually prefered the Triumph, but the Ducati GT1000 outright won almost every single catagory...
http://www.triumphrat.net/modules.ph...60070&forum=21

[DrD]

I'm 6'5" tall and weigh 240 lbs. I have a Paul Smart so I can't comment on the Sport's suspension but I can tell you that the brakes and the motor are more than adequate even for aggressive canyon riding.

[geospencer]

Originally Posted by jonniedee

Motorcycle Consumer News actually prefered the Triumph, but the Ducati GT1000 outright won almost every single catagory...
http://www.triumphrat.net/modules.ph...60070&forum=21

I never read Motorcycle Consumer News because I almost never agree with them.

I have absolutely nothing against a Triumph. In fact I would love to have one. But after riding both I definitely prefer the Ducati. (If I could afford a third bike I would get the Triumph for a Sunday afternoon cruiser.)

[corks67]

Wow, excellent replies by everyone thanks very much.

I see there a few "heavier'' people here so that makes me feel a bit better in my choice.

Yes sorry about not putting in riding style into my original question - I'd say I'm an average to okay rider. I dont ride overly fast and generally keep within my limits. something reflected in my choice of bikes - either 750/600 4's or 850/900 twins. I prefer something that i can at least see some of the performance from.

the thruxton was pretty cool and on its on was a neat enough bike, but in company of others it was just too slow. i put on pipes and a k+n filter and removed some the smog gear and still only got 60hp at the rear wheel.
dynograph

In its defense the thruxton was cheaper than a sport classic, but it too suffered from odd pricing - it was more expensive than the 600cc daytona 4 which seemed to be a lot more advanced/more bike for the money. Maybe nostalgia costs more

To slower than - yes i had considered the same thing, turning a s2r1000 into a cafe racer, but agree it would be a lot of money and still not have quite the same look, besides overhere monsters are like bums...everyones got one

Not sure, if we get motorcyclist here, but i'll have a look around.

Now just to wait, as I want a biposto in burnt orange, I have to wait to february 2007 to get

cheers Dave

[scooter]

Originally Posted by jonniedee

Motorcycle Consumer News actually prefered the Triumph, but the Ducati GT1000 outright won almost every single catagory...
http://www.triumphrat.net/modules.ph...60070&forum=21

There's another thread at Rat Net that discusses the Sport/Thruxton test as well. Some of the comments from Triumph owners are surprisingly defensive as well as disparaging to the Sport. Seems to me, more than one person talked about how ugly the Sport is. Ugly? Maybe if ugly means "too sexy for words".

Both articles are idiotic. They're stupid comparisons, stupid results and pretty much meaningless to anyone doing his (or her) own homework. The GT lost against the Scrambler because of horrific vibrations. I've read at least 5 or 6 other reviews of the GT as well as a number of reviews on the Sport and no other tester that I can remember talks about vibration. We all own these bikes and yes, there are some vibes at high rpm but otherwise, these are wonderful bikes. I can't imagine the GT vibrating badly enough to influence someone's decision like it did in MCN, it just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, sorry for the near hijack. I just think it would be wise for all of us Sport Classic and Triumph Modern Classic owners to just ignore the rags.