|06-15-2012, 11:21 AM||#16|
because I can
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay area
I am sticking by what I said but it is my policy to not argue about weights since most go by claimed weights and claimed weights for most brands have almost nothing to do with reality. BMW's are light bikes. Not the lightest but a lot lighter than most (in their classes of course).
I have worked at a couple of multi-line dealerships. I disagree with you about '83 reliability too but . . . .
|06-15-2012, 04:38 PM||#17|
Out of the office.
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Where the Ghetto meets the sea.
most manufactures especially back then were very very optimistic about their claimed weight figures.
And for that matter the bike's power.
BMW's have in my 20 year experience with the marque, an unfounded reputation with being overly reliable.
By the early 80's most of japan incs big bikes, the ones that are in the same class were more reliable then a comparable BMW. If you look at reliability as the amount and cost of maintenance per mile traveled. This is especially true during the mid 80's when these bikes were still new.
But we both have our views and I'm sure I'm not going to change yours and you won't change mine.
Back to the OP and what I said.
BMW's have unique handling characteristics based on the bikes design and intent.
This is further impacted by the the now current age of these bikes and the wear and tear over the years of the parts of the bike that affects handling.
Compound this with new tires, tire profiles and tires compounds and you can get some funky handling.
On vacation for a spell
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|