Rode the '00 VFR up to the Triumph dealer today and took a 30 mile test ride on a Triumph Sprint. The biggest difference was how much bigger the Sprint felt. It felt taller, longer and wider. That fuel tank seemed HUGE! Comfort: the Sprint's pegs were further away and the bars were closer, the Sprint was easily roomier and more comfy. Handling: I'll take the VFR anyday here, the Sprint's larger feeling size made it not as flickable. Are these 2 bikes really about the same weight? just doesnt seem possible. Engine: yeah, the Sprint had more but not near as much as a 30 hp advantage would make you think. What was really strange was going from 80-100 the accellaration of the Sprint felt the same whether it was in 6th gear or 4th gear. I can't understand why downshifting twice didnt make the bike feel any faster. I'd also like to say at 70mph+ the Sprint had pretty bad wind buffeting, and the mirrors and faring shook bad. My VFR has never done that, always rock solid. All in all I liked the ride, but I don't like trading off handling for a little more power. I wasnt really serious about the Sprint anyway, but now my curiosity is satisfied.
Thanks for the post. I have to admit that I had given some thought to buying a Sprint instead of the VFR. The higher displacement looked appealing. It just came down to the fact that the VFR is a solid, fantastic bike. It's another confirmation that I made the right decision.
Yes, they are quite a bit heavier than the VFR, not to mention the seat height isn't so tall, to the steering feels slower. As far as power, I have no idea (other than weight?) because its the same motor as the Speed Triple, and that bike freaking rips! Probably tuned down a bit for more torque or something. I was kinda eyeballing one too until I test rode one, decided I would need something more ST1300-ish.
The engine while strong seemed very sewing-machine-like. And Sprint owners like to say the VFR has no soul? whatsupwitdat?
