The definitive Gen 5 Vs Gen 6 weight Thread

my 00 weighs 38lbs lighter than my 05 non abs did on same scale, both unloaded with no extra crap. as a comparison my fjr13 weighed 10 @#$# tons!! Compared to it the vfr is a feather....

I can sleep now......

 

My '99 was 236/266 front/rear, 502 total wet. That's with the RC51 front end, Givi racks, tank bag, etc.

 

I wonder what the wet weight of a Honda goldwing is ... Prolly so heavy it comes with power steering lol

 

they dont come with power steering but they do have a reverse gear.

 

I own a 6th gen and I have no problem w/ real tight twisties.
I also have riden a 5th gen ( 5th gen was set up for 200lb rider )
might have been set up on 5th gen, but I prefered the handling of the 6th gen hands down.

 

Oh dont get me wrong it can go though the tight stuff, just not that fast that's all. It's just I am much faster going through those in my 750, I have more confidence in doing so as well.

 

Have to add that the stock shock on the 6th Gen is pretty lousy. Upgrading that is my next priority.

 

Confidence is everything whilst riding and my bet is that that is the reason for your quicker cornering on the Gixxer, not weight. Equally talented pros, one on the GSXR and one on a VFR would produce differant results for obvious reasons but I can tell you from experience the VFR if ridin properly, rides very well in the extreme tight stuff that Colorado has to offer. I have personally bested the likes of 1098's,ZX-10's, R1's etc. in very tight stuff. On paper each of those bikes should just leave me in the dust. The VFR did require some tweaking to my riding style, but once the adjustments were made and I was confident in them I found that not many people could hang in situations where ability is far more critical than weight or horsepower.

 

There are some great points on this Thread and this is one of them. The things I notice are:
It really frustrates me that it is next to impossible to get an honest answer about wet and dry weights of various bikes. First, most manufacturers lie about both, many companies interpret dry weight differently (some include some fluids but not others, some take out the battery), etc.(And why does dry weight really matter? You don't ride without fluids and a battery!) Most magazine reviews either parrot back the manufacturers claims or their "actual" weights they measure differ from other reviewers! And it is true, the real weight of a bike doesn't matter as much as many think, it is more of how the bike feels and the power to weight ratio of the bike. However, if one is trying to compare different bikes it IS worthwhile to look at weights at least once since it reveals something about the manufacturers strategy for the bike (super light performance vs. cost-savings heaviness or robustness/reliability).
I agree that the VFR carries it's weight well and can keep up with lighter bikes. But, my Daytona 675 is amazingly light and narrow so it carves corners in a whole different manner. There is something about the way a lighter bike accelerates that is just wonderful. I LOVE having BOTH!!
So I agree, are YOU happy with YOUR bike? That is the only thing that matters.

 

We're putting too much emphasis on weight as it relates to the handling of the motorcycle. My Moto Guzzi V11 Sport's dry weight is 16lbs more than my 2004 VFR, and maybe about 8 llbs heavier wet (no coolant needed) and it runs circles around my VFR in the tight stuff. Most of this is a steering geometry issue (though the Moto Guzzi's stock shock and forks are much better than the Honda's). The price paid is in stability, and the Honda feels like it is on rails on faster, less extreme angled curves compared to the Guzzi. Each to his own, which in turn will dictate which bike works best for them.

I will say, though, for the price of a new VFR and Honda's inclusion of it as a "sport bike" in their marketing materials, a better suspension setup would have been welcome.

 

Of course...a bike is a synthesis of everything: the weight, the motor, the geometry, the suspension, the tires, the set-up, the rider's weight and skill, etc. It is difficult to pick it apart and be sure what is influencing what. Only when you change one thing and ride it again can you start to get a feel about what impact that area has on the bike as a whole. So when you compare one bike to another it gets murky really quickly. When you read comparisons between bikes in mags and on-line, you can get a feel whether a tester is bright or full of...um, incorrect assumptions and simplistic conclusions. So again, it comes down to whether you like the bike you ride. I may like it and you might hate it. Bikes are different, we are all different. Weight is only one very small part.

 

Yes strange how the result hasn't been tested by scales yet, then again in an odd way it has come full circle as discusions of Sports touring v sports Touring handling characteristics during the 2 years before spun off the definitive weight thread in the first place. :smile:

 

Weight placement as alot to do with it as well, you can have a 550lb bike handle well if the weigh is distributed in the right places. Moto Guzzi's ive always seen had those big motors hanging out the side like some of those Bimmer bikes, the're so big they can work as sliders in a crash.