I actually like the midrange power better than the low end that my 2008 had. I found that the 2008 was a bit of a bear in the tight stuff due to that low end. While I find myself in the lower RPMs more these days, I like when the bike has "enough" low end to pull itself around quickly but will willingly slide right up into that powerful midrange when I'm ready to get it on. For me, the midrange bikes allow me to be smoother, more fluid. The low range bike made me look like a dolt more often than not due to the bike damn near taking off from under me at low speed throttle inputs.Te watercooled engines are not top end, they're midrange, and they're very sweet.
That was hurtful.And I'm no amateur.
Even thought my 2008 Hyper made me look like one....
Yup - moving along smoothly up to about 6 k and then 6 up is like an afterburner. I like it a lot. 821I actually like the midrange power better than the low end that my 2008 had. I found that the 2008 was a bit of a bear in the tight stuff due to that low end. While I find myself in the lower RPMs more these days, I like when the bike has "enough" low end to pull itself around quickly but will willingly slide right up into that powerful midrange when I'm ready to get it on. For me, the midrange bikes allow me to be smoother, more fluid. The low range bike made me look like a dolt more often than not due to the bike damn near taking off from under me at low speed throttle inputs.
And I'm no amateur.
Even thought my 2008 Hyper made me look like one....
Dave
How so? I wasn't referring to anyone but me.That was hurtful.
Sorry for the misinterpretationHow so? I wasn't referring to anyone but me.
I've ridden way more powerful bikes and been a whole lot consistently smoother on them. My 2008 hyper caught me off guard more times in any one ride then I can remember. I never could get used to the low end torque.
Dave
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk