VFR1200 Riding Impressions

Any write up of this type will obviously be subjective but here are my
findings........

Context is coming from a Blackbird........the thing is better in the
flesh than in the pictures I had seen beforehand. Very easy to ride
with really no "getting used to" time - it's a Honda after all!
Personally I didn't like the characteristics of the V4 as opposed to
the inline. The vibes were much more than the BB - echoed by the view
from pillion.

Clearly a better handling bike than the BB also with better brakes and
stronger in the mid range and top end. However, as most of my time is
around 4-5k revs the BB clearly has more urge low down.

Suspension was a lot stiffer than the BB and I was even off the seat
with one poorly surfaced A road. I did the same route after on the BB
and it handled it much better.

Overall, I feel sure the new VFR will be a big seller but I would
prefer a different engine more suited to my riding style. I won't be
parting with £12k any time soon.

Mark

 

Twelve?! FFS, that'd get a fairly decent small car, which surely costs
a lot more to produce. Something really isn't right with bike prices.

 

Bikes (obviously) don't have the economy of scale you get with cars,
plus the technology is miles ahead of the equivalently priced car, on
the whole.

Cars aren't immune to silly list prices - my P11D showed a list price of
over £19k for the very basic Focus TDCI Estate I had for a few months
last year.

 

You say that, but you'd get a brand new VW polo SE for 12.5K OTR
without any discounting. I'd wager there aren't many fundamental
differences in technology between car and bike.

Indeed not, but I'd argue there's at least twice as much machinery and
design effort goes into a car for the same kind of money. Bikes
really aren't even that revolutionary. similar frame angles, similar
methods of suspension, similar 16 valve engines. Sure they squeeze a
bit more performance out every few years, but that's just technology
advancing all engines across all vehicles.

 

Yes, but only a 1.2 three-cylinder one, which is *horrible*.

 

Hatchback 1.4 85 SE 3dr £12,430

Source: Whatcar.com

 

Oh, OK.

I was working from memory when I test drove one a few months back. I
am fairly sure that the model we might have considered was over £14k.

 

It must have been bad if you preferred the gashqai.

 

ogden wrote:
[VW Polo]

This was after I'd bought the Qashqai, and we were still looking for a
new car for P.

I like the look of the new Juke and might well change the QQ for one of
those when it comes out:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/248140/nissan_juke.html

 

The what?

**** me, they've reinvented the Rav-4.

 

Only much smaller.

 

It's a lot smaller and looks nothing like it, but yeah, in a "it's a
car with four wheels" stylee, yes, exactly like a Rav-4 )

 

I reckon that'd look well funky in a Dakar colour scheme.

 

Obviously I'm talking about the original Rav-4, sonny. Undersized blobby
urban soft-roader. I could also mention the Suzuki X90.

 

Don't you "sonny" me!

Yep - two pieces of crap, but I don't think that style is what the Juke
is anyway.

 

Sorry, I thought you didn't remember it because it was before your time. I
should have realised it was the Alzheimer's kicking in.

Looks like it to me. We need Top Gear to do a Giant T^H^H^H Gay-Off between
the three of them.

 

CT took a blunt brush and painted...

God that's ugly.

I'm amused at the way they've designed the headlights that high up and that
"wrap around" they've had to add two more normal headlights to throw some
light forward.

 

I'll bet you it isn't until (at least) the first revision.

 

I suspect that you won't get the 186bhp one for £13k.

In fact, I'd put my (hypothetical) mortgage on it!