Before I get started on this, don't get me wrong, I like reading about bikes, anything and everything, not really got anyone around me from day to day that likes them, the wife swtiches off if I even mention the word....but.... Is it me or when you watch or read a review I always feel like its a sales pitch (or im starting to...) let take the monster for example, could I assume the general consensus is that everyone wanted a naked panigale? but its almost like the reviews went along the line of "we know everyone wanted a naked panigale but this is really good, you didn't need that, this is better..." Also, even with the monster 1200r DVT was expected but not delivered and, in turn it was "well we know you all wanted it, but, you really don't need it..." My own RSV4 for example, when it came out, touted as the sharpest thing ever and even the last gen model is now "not very good" compared to the new one.... Again, for those that can afford it...even the RCV - shown to be seriously down on power compared to a modern day premium sports bike but in the mags its almost like youre told "you don't need that kind of power..." when they'll tease with the latest zx10 and make a point of the fact its over 200bhp... I might be reading it wrong but if its for sale now, you need to buy it but when the next thing comes out it suddenly becomes, not very good/shite...
I think you are spot on. Same thing with bikes , cars, mobiles , everything.. It is not their (manufacturers, advertisers , dealers, publishers) interests for a product to be announced which is simply the finished article, never to be superseded, never to be replaced. I still believe it would be interesting to see what people would make of plain products without marketing, research, logos & hype. Most of us are brainwashed by some degree or another..
I ignore much of what is written on reviews. Especially sport bike reviews, they're laughable. People comparing something that has 197 bhp to something that ONLY has 180. Nearly everyone who buys them probably doesn't even use half it's ability anyway.
You claim you ignore much of what is written but you still ride ( as I do ) one of the most written about bikes of 2014. The majority of articles & vids were positive. It is an 'aspirational model & brand'. Not being confrontational but don't underestimate how much marketing, forums & hype play.
I agree with u entirely! I find that the issue is that as soon as a magazine starts to get wind of a new model they start to slate the old one, it's like they are trying to 'help' the manufacturers to stay on side. The 899 is a perfect example, I can't find a single review written in the first year that said that it had 'no midrange' or that it was 'desperately slow down the main straight' like fast bikes quoted in this years superbike of the year, and yet now they are saying the engine is flat etc and it needs this and that. I accept progress is always made, but what they don't stop to talk about is the relative value of buying an old model that's only a year old for example and the price saving and then what that will mean for us average riders. We all want to read about the latest shiniest toy, and in what areas it improves over the existing one but it's the pre release slating of a current model that gets on my nerves. The zx10 is another example of where they have been doing it... It's heavy apparently and slow, compared to an r1, which is crap on the road, and £3000 more money!
Well, I did read that the bloke in charge at ducati said " a naked panigale wont work..." well, it worked for aprilia and has done for years....so reading between the lines its "well, this is what weve come out with so like it or lump it..." or is that too harsh... As I say, I love reading, ive got a few subscriptions active and look forward to them every month...
That's fine mate, this is a forum after all I did read reviews, but honestly I got a Panigale because it's shiny and red and pretty. What laptimes it can do, is irrelevant for me.
I honestly believe that for a road superbike, you can't go wrong with a Fireblade, seriously... Loads of mid range, very well put together and pretty comfy for a sports. But for me I've always purchased whatever I like the look of, and what I think rides well. Not what an ex BSB rider thinks is decent on a track, or the 30 minutes he rode it. But the blades will come at the bottom of the pile with the current GSXR because they haven't got all the electrical bits.
yep - well, fireblade in question here ive always thought....is it really that bad...mcPint can ride one round the TT and still win and its got no electronics to speak of. By the bike magazines reviews youd effectively be able to give McGuiness an RSV4 RF, whip the plate off and wipe the floor with his blade... I cant pin anyone article down but ill read something in say, January last year and then read something this year and think...."ere, you said that was really good last year, now it shit..." Ive come across that scenario quite a few times...
I'd like a naked panigale. After all an 848/1098 street fighter is basically a naked version of the superbike and appealed to those who wanted superbike performance but more comfortable. The fact they are still selling them nearly 3 years after the last 848 superbike went out of production speaks for itself. I naturally thought an 899/1199/1299 street fighter would follow its success. But then I'm not in charge of Ducati just someone who buys bike so I know nothing.
I read recently the Desmosedici was "horrid to ride". I must not be a very good rider, because it seems fine to me. I totally agree about not being able to use 50% of any modern bike's potential. This year's Cinderalla bike always seems to become next year's ugly sister. In reality, a new model is all about evolution, not reinvention. To listen to bike journalists, you'd think the bike they raved over last year has suddenly been discovered to be made from wood and hemp. Do you think bike magazines are justifying their existence?
I used to enjoy keeping up with various s1000rr's and alike when I had my 600RR. Which may I say was a fantastic bike! I think I was having more fun too?
Could be! but its nice to know that lots of us do feel the same way (and its not just me!). I was watching the 44th review on the monster earlier on this morning and while I do really like their reviews - I think theyre very well done I do feel that in the nicest possible way theyre saying - we know its ok, and its really nice, but we also know its not what you were all expecting but, buy it all the same...
If most of us were 100% Honest, and had ridden one, we would have to admit that a Fireblade still is the most versatile superbike you can buy for the road, it's brilliantly set up, it's well priced, it has a decent build quality and great dealer back up and and engine that builds like a turbine with a perfect power curve.... It's not a bike that has loads of character, so it depends on what you want. I do find the mags to be cyclic though so it's good to switch between them a bit!
I might add that as ive said a few times before when I went for a super naked earlier on this year id read all the reviews over and over and the s1000r was the one to go for, I had one lined up, money wasn't an issue and, don't ask me why I went for the first test ride in my life (in 25 years of being on bikes) and hated it. And that's kind of what prompted this thread. I settled with a z1000 in the end (which ironically was at the bottom of the review pecking order) and I love it.
The thing is, is if you were considering a new sports bike if you wanted a Fireblade and read the reviews you wouldn't even touch one with a barge pole....Visor down did a review recently on the fireblade and (in my eyes) totally rubbished it in the nicest possible way! This has sparked quite a busy thread I might add!!
Once you've read the review flick through the mag and see which brand has the most page space of advertising, usually relates.
