This is why I chose a Beemer twin

[fnfalman]

If you bypass the factory ECU, then you'll see that a BMW, any BMW much less the boxer twin, wouldn't have close to enough of either torque or power to compare to this beast from the Far East.

No doubt, but that kind of misses the point--what's the value of so much power when it has to be blunted to be usable? Balance is what we're talking about here, adequate power for the application--riding on real roads with real hazards, real speed limits, and real cops to raid your wallet as payment for overzealously exercising your "beastiness". If you have the self-discipline to stay off the throttle of a 200 mph rocket, my hat's off to you. Me, not so much. I spent way too many years citation-rated by the insurance company to want to do it again.

You are the one that misses the point. Don't blame the bike because the engineers/corporate lawyers wanted the bike to behave in a docile manner at low RPM.

Is it fair to denigrate the BMW's braking/handling ability at the limit because BMW decided that ABS/ASC can't be turned off? Is it the bike's fault or is it the engineer's/corporation's fault for second guessing the rider?

As far as "appropriate" power, a Harley-Davidson has "appropriate" power for real world riding. I don't suppose that everybody should ride them instead of a BMW K-bike?

Traction control belongs to the right wrist and not anywhere else.

So before you people start to play the BMW fanboy card, make sure that your house isn't made out of glass.

[BoiseBeemer]

So before you people start to play the BMW fanboy card, make sure that your house isn't made out of glass.

"You people"? Did you by any chance notice that you were posting on a BMW-enthusiast board? If we weren't "fanboys (and -girls)", I suspect we wouldn't be here.

The "point" here is that we're a group of BMW owners/riders who are having a bit of fun praising the unique characteristics of the bike we've chosen at the expense of a bike we haven't. I doubt anybody here is unaware of the virtues of Kawasaki's uber-beast. If I'd chosen the beast, I'd probably be on that board waxing poetic over the astonishingly unusable power of my ride and wondering why BMW owners are so obstinate about missing the point.

Peace.

[fnfalman]

And in case you didn't notice, I own a Rockster so I think that I just know a thing or two about R1150R.

But I am not foolish enough to say that my R1150R is "better" or the Boxer Twin is "better" than the mightiest production bike had ever made.

There's the difference between being a fanboy and an enthusiast. A fanboy tries his damndest to find a reason (real or imagined) to think that his vehicle is somehow superior to a truly superior product. An enthusiast judges each vehicle on its own merits regarding of badging.

But that's OK. Buy the marque's bike, wear the logo apparel and pat yourselves on the backs. You people ought to go riding with the Harley types. You're perfect matches. You can brag about how your big bore twins have superior torque characteristics at low RPM comparing to the ZX-14 (or Hayabusa, et al).

[fnfalman]

What I've yet to hear mentioned is the most obvious (to me anyway):
*HANDLING*

I rode a ZZR1200 and I was literally shocked by how poorly it performed in the turns!!

I realize that I've been spoiled by my K75 and now my R1150R, but man did that bike corner like garbage!

And I'm not even talking about knee-scraping type corners. The ZZR started shaking on just a sweeping highway off-ramp! It was literally fighting me the whole way through.

Sure, it was fast as hell in a straight away.... but so what??

I can't imagine that the newer, beefier and possibly heavier Kawi handles much better...

So, I take it that you haven't ridden the ZX-14 yet you somehow guessed its handling ability?

[Harry]

You're right. I shouldn't presume that since the ZZR1200 handles poorly that that means the ZX14 would as well. Quite possible that Kawasaki has addressed the problem of poor handling...

I'm sure that for some folks, incredible speed is the whole point of riding a motorcycle.

Nothing wrong with that.

[BoiseBeemer]

But I am not foolish enough to say that my R1150R is "better" or the Boxer Twin is "better" than the mightiest production bike had ever made.

There's the difference between being a fanboy and an enthusiast. A fanboy tries his damndest to find a reason (real or imagined) to think that his vehicle is somehow superior to a truly superior product. An enthusiast judges each vehicle on its own merits regarding of badging.

But that's OK. Buy the marque's bike, wear the logo apparel and pat yourselves on the backs. You people ought to go riding with the Harley types. You're perfect matches. You can brag about how your big bore twins have superior torque characteristics at low RPM comparing to the ZX-14 (or Hayabusa, et al).

Oh, please. Why are you spreading so much heat over nothing? Nowhere in any of my posts did I say the R was "better" than the Kaw. I pointed out the irony of building a bike capable of 200 mph speeds but making it so soft under 6000 rpm that testers found it difficult to ride smoothly at normal road speeds. I couldn't care less if it's an inherent flaw of the bike's engine or a designed-in compromise, because I'm not interested in attacking Kawasaki or asserting the objective superiority of Beemers. I simply pointed out without any further agenda that this was why I preferred the more balanced R1150R. I'm fully aware that people who prefer ground rockets would't be likely to choose my bike either, and that's okay. To each his/her own.

I don't get your animosity. I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to be calling me names (and thanks for letting me know that "fanboy" is supposed to be an insult--I did not know that), or assuming that I ride a BMW for the logo. I have hundreds of thousands of miles on standard-configuration Suzukis, and if they still made a standard air-cooled bike with shaft-drive, I'd probably have bought another one. They don't; BMW does (and for a decent price in 2004), so I bought one (well, actually, two). BTW, a 2004 BMW IS a lot better bike than an early-'80's Suzuki, by anybody's measure.

Again, why all the heat? And why should brand enthusiasts on a board dedicated to discussion of the brand be chastised for openly preferring their choice of motorcycles? If you really mean to say that "an enthusiast judges each vehicle on its own merits regarding (sic) of badging," then why preface the remark with the not-so-veiled implication that the Kawasaki is a "truly superior product?" Superior by whose measure? I'd say it's demonstrably faster, but nothing else in the article I referenced indicates to me that it is objectively superior to anything except slower bikes, and then only if ultimate speed is the only criterion for judging superiority. For me, and, apparently for most people on this board, rocket speeds are a low priority when judging the VALUE of a bike we want to spend our own money on. Now if that makes me a "fanboy", so be it. BTW, I actually do have a number of actual flaws that could be used as fodder for terrific insults, and if that is important to you, PM me and I'll send you some better examples to use in your next reply.

I actually believe the point I think you're trying to make, but I'm not sure you do, because I would never insist that my chosen motorcycle is "superior" for anyone but me. And THAT was MY point in writing a post entitled, "This is why I chose a Beemer twin," not "Why BMW is superior to Kawasaki"

Peace.