ksquared
"O Captain, My Captain"
If you're interested, the most recent issue of Motorcycle Consumer News (US) has a comparo between the R3R and Honda's new F6B. Long story short - R3R takes 5 out of 8 categories, including engine, transmission, handling and Fun to Ride, with 1 tie.
However, they measure the R3R HP as 119 at the rear wheel. What could account for this loss of over 25% of the R3R's rated HP at the crank (ie the 147 spec at the crank, as rated by Mother Triumph)? MCN is a great magazine, which accepts no advertising, so their tests are always a source of solid info for me and very credible. I understand losses through the drive train - but 25% seems awfully high to me. This would mean that my R3T, being rated at 105hp would only be putting out about 79 -81 HP at the rear wheel, and I'm here to tell you that that's an impossiblity, given it's performance.
Anyway, besides the brakes, which they found wanting - and a few ergo quirks - the review is nothiing short of a rave for the R3R.
However, they measure the R3R HP as 119 at the rear wheel. What could account for this loss of over 25% of the R3R's rated HP at the crank (ie the 147 spec at the crank, as rated by Mother Triumph)? MCN is a great magazine, which accepts no advertising, so their tests are always a source of solid info for me and very credible. I understand losses through the drive train - but 25% seems awfully high to me. This would mean that my R3T, being rated at 105hp would only be putting out about 79 -81 HP at the rear wheel, and I'm here to tell you that that's an impossiblity, given it's performance.
Anyway, besides the brakes, which they found wanting - and a few ergo quirks - the review is nothiing short of a rave for the R3R.
as with cars stating you will get xx and x amount of miles never heard of anyone matching what they claim.
