I agree, the logo is very meh. Maybe a heat gun and some fishing line could fix it. The pipe will be changed on everyone that I am sure of..
|
|
|
Pan America
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
HD demo tour is hitting my town in a month or so. Already got a spot booked for a Pan America test ride.
From all the hype and coverage, I'm actually very interested to see for myself how it rides and compares to other ADVs.
I swear I have never read or watched a bad review of a new bike by the motorcycle press. Worst is damning it with faint praise and then maybe they'll bad-mouth it several months or a year after it's been released, but it's like they're under a "negative review embargo" for the first few months for fear of being blacklisted by the manufacturers from being able to attend any more new bike launches.
I'll just go put on my tin-foil motorcycle helmet now.
From all the hype and coverage, I'm actually very interested to see for myself how it rides and compares to other ADVs.
I swear I have never read or watched a bad review of a new bike by the motorcycle press. Worst is damning it with faint praise and then maybe they'll bad-mouth it several months or a year after it's been released, but it's like they're under a "negative review embargo" for the first few months for fear of being blacklisted by the manufacturers from being able to attend any more new bike launches.
I'll just go put on my tin-foil motorcycle helmet now.
Same for the new V4S Multistrada. Only thing negative I've seen was from only one video where it was mentioned the mpg difference the V4 gets compared to the V2 and they said in similar riding the V2 got 48-49mpg whereas the V4 got 39 and they agreed that's a big difference but also said they'd take the performance tradeoff of it. We'll see what actual owners say about that after a year or so.
sburns
Well-known member
I asked them about the chain drive, and they said it was every 8000 for maintainence. Not sure how good or bad this is for this kinda bike.
What does "maintenance" mean? Replace the chain/sprockets? Or just clean and lube?
8000 kms chain life is crazy low. My wife got over 40,000 kms on her chain and sprockets on her GS, which she regularly abused off-road. Granted, the chain fell off because it was stretched to sh!t and the rear sprocket looked like a ninja throwing star, but realistically, she could have changed it at 30K-35K...
I never pay attention to km's I just check it every day and adjust when required. Lube daily when on long trips. That means I am carrying lube, big sockets etc that the shaft guys can leave at home. On a multi-day trip I need to adjust chain before I get home so I can't leave the tools at home.
I think that will be mandated check/adjustment for the dentists in the crowd that get all service done at the dealer.
You'd think they'd know a thing or two about worn teeth...
Is it available for a test ride?
sburns
Well-known member
Yes the sales guy said come back and give it a go. He said he was riding it along some train tracks in the area.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Chains are probably the best for an ADV bike. Chains reduce unsprung weight by quite a bit, and they are much better at absorbing the on/off throttle lash and rear wheel lockup you get with shafts.
1/2 the shafted brands are known for spewing shaft parts when used off road, the other 1/2 is rock-solid dependable -- so it can be done well. Compare spending $5K on a shaft repair to cost of a few good chains.
So good shaft is hard to find?
bigpoppa
Well-known member
are we still talking about bikes?
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Depends on whether you use it a a noun or verb. Yamaha’s is usually a noun, good shaft. BMW is often a verb, good shaft.
Priller
Well-known member
Asphalt & Rubber has been blacklisted by Yamaha for saying mean things about their bikes. The flipside is Jensen Beeler is a huge Ducati fanboy, so he loves everything they do. Ultimately it comes down to what he thinks is cool, which is mostly sporty motorcycles. Some of the Brit magazines can be negative, too. Just read a road test of the new Speed Triple in MCN that was highly critical, saying that by prioritising track performance, they'd ruined it as a street bike. And historically the Brits have been highly supportive of their home brand.
The reality is almost nobody makes objectively bad motorcycles anymore, at least out of the gate before reliability becomes a concern. It's only in comparison with competing models that some can get marked down. You could slate the NC750 for being dull, but it offers a practicality that is ideal for some. R18 is ridiculously large and vibrates, but is has huge presence for those who want it. The V-Strom isn't quite as top-tier as some rival super-ADV bikes, but it offers amazing value. Even the above-mentioned Speed Triple would be ideal for someone who lives somewhere with great roads (SoCal? Spain?) and wants a very sporty bike combining rock hard suspension with high bars.
The last bikes I can remember from a (sort of) major manufacturer that got really slammed for being irredeemably bad were all by Buell, especially the beginner dud, the Blast.
bigpoppa
Well-known member
Priller
Well-known member
As has become the norm, I have a lot of issues with his pat (and sometimes infuriatingly smug) conclusions, but some of the points are valid.
To me, the press cycle on a motorcycle is as follows:
- 'Pre-release hype', up to and including price info, photos (my favourite are the faux spy shots), rumoured specs, etc. New R7 is here now.
- 'First Ride', the launch with all the stuff Ryan is talking about, including all expenses paid trips to exotic locales and very controlled routes on group rides playing follow-the-leader. This is almost never critical, mostly because the point is to get out the basic details to interested potential buyers and the rest of us voyeurs.
- 'Road Test', where a bike is given to a publication for a period of time unsupervised for them to ride in their home turf. This is where I think the actual criticism should start, with hard questions asked and bikes put through their paces. At least a clear picture should be formed about what the bike does and doesn't do well.
- 'Comparison/Shoot-Out/Group Test', where bikes in a segment are pitted against each other with a clear remit for what the ideal one is for. Tourer, ADV, sportbike, etc. To me, this is where the gloves come off, with winners and losers declared, faults highlighted, and preferably a ranking. This is also the point where the real publications separate themselves from the the softball lobbers, as giving a verdict of, "They're all great, just pick the one you like!" being essentially useless. The old Cycle World and Motorcyclist paper magazines used to be awful for that...
- 'Long Termer', where the goal is to talk about the ownership experience, particularly in relation to modifying the bike to fix flaws. This is rare with online publications, but the paper ones still do them. For example, BMW, Honda and Kawasaki have gimped their superbikes in North America to pass EPA regs. If you flash the ECU, how much better do they get?
The real beef I have with the F9 video is where he criticises publications or journalists for saying modern bikes are all pretty good. That's fine, but he doesn't offer any evidence to the contrary. Modern bikes are mostly all pretty good, it's only by comparison with the competition that they can be diminished. Take the MT-10, for example. In a vacuum, it's an extraordinary bike. Massive power, amazing handling, you name it. It's only by pitting it against the newer competition that you can say it has a less fun motor, or offers less value, has less character or whatever. And even then, for some folks it would be perfect. If you dig the looks, or like the sound, or the ergos fit you better, or you get a deal, on and on, the list is long.
I'd be curious if anyone can name a modern bike made by a major manufacturer that's objectively bad. Some have flaws, for sure, but that doesn't make them bad bikes. Similarly, none are to everyone's taste, but none are to nobody's taste, either. Reliability doesn't count, as it's near impossible for journalists to evaluate that in a meaningful way...
bigpoppa
Well-known member
The idea of judging a bike in a vacuum is flawed, you HAVE to compare it to other bikes, the competition etc
calling every bike "good" is bad because it sets the bar very low (in this context I presume good refers to "functional and doesnt explode upon start up" )
There are benchmarks against which you compare/contrast or judge a bike, this is done consciously via a professional moto journalist or amateur youtubers or even subconsciously every time you ride a bike.
I do it with every bike I ride, I compare it to the MT09, thats my benchmark for what a fun bike should be like, its so rowdy and fun almost in an uncontrollable and slightly unstable way
Moto journalists who do this sort of thing are not only engaging in self deception by calling every bike "good" but are actively misinforming their audience for the sake of not burning bridges or other motives
I used to watch MissendenFlyer who did this ALL the time, every bike was 'good' or 'lovely' or 'brilliant',
the good journo's will tell you exactly what they dont like about a bike and how it compares to the competition
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Take any trade rag for what it’s worth. They make their money (paycheques) and receive lavish perks from manufacturers, not you. They are not journalists, they sell ads to the motorcycle industry, not paid subscriptions to consumers.
Who does any business serve? Their customers... those are not us.
|
|
|
|
|