fnfalman wrote: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.
