the Game changer bikes

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

The special thing about the fireblade was it was designed to be better than anything else available.
Not a bit better, a fucking whole lot better.
In the 80's, the big 4 launched a bike a month and then looked at what everyone else was doing, and tweaked theirs a bit next year. And so on. Evolution rather than revolution.
When the fireblade was released, it had 1000cc power, 600 handling and weight, ideas straight from the gp's. In 1992, that was as exciting as your first porn mag.
A quantum leap forward in bike design, which stood unchallenged for nearly 6 years whilst the other manufacturers threw away what sports designs they had and started again.
Now remind me how the 675 changed biking again?

I'd agree with that. The R1 was a direct result of the Blade, they didn't come up with the idea themselves they responded to what Honda had done. Hence game changer. The Blade wasn't a direct result of a GSXR750 or EXUP it did something new and nobody had anything to respond with

What did the Fireblade do that was new?

I can't think of any new technology on the Fireblade, the light weight, high power thing had been done before by the GSXR750, tbh the only thing new about the R1 is the stacked gearbox.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Fair enough. My biking memory doesn't go back that far.
I'm not sure that's what Aprilia were thinking when they made the Tuono, though. They were already selling the Mille as a road-legal racer.

The Tuono was a 'factory-made street-fighter', just following the trend of owners rebuilding a crashed fully-faired super-sports bike (fireblade etc) with moto-x bars and no fairing with bodged on lights: street-fighters.

Actually - thinking about it, the Honda Hornet was probably more of a 'game-changer' because it was more than just an unfaired CBR600, it was a whole new frame incorporating a detuned CBR600 engine, and revitalised the 'middle-weight' market because it was as reliable and torquey as the super-sports bike it was based on (CBR600R), but easier to manage and own for those who didn't want a sports bike. The incumbents in the "middle-weight road bike" market were all 'commuter' bikes: basic, simple suspension, unexciting (think CB500, ZR550Zephyr, XJ650 etc), the Hornet was sold, and was, an exciting bike to ride that handled well, but not 'race/sports' oriented. Without the Hornet you might not have got the unfaired Triumph 675 (Street-Triple? I can't remember Triumph's naming convention).

Isn't the Hornet Honda's version of a 600 Bandit

[Mr. Dazzle]

The Hornet was 20bhp up and 20kg down on the Bandit, much less of a Budget UJM.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

The Hornet was 20bhp up and 20kg down on the Bandit, much less of a Budget UJM.

Agreed, but it was aimed at the same market.

[Supermofo]

What did the Fireblade do that was new?

I can't think of any new technology on the Fireblade, the light weight, high power thing had been done before by the GSXR750, tbh the only thing new about the R1 is the stacked gearbox.

It wasn't parts it was philosophy IMO. Concentrate on weight over power. When it came out it was lighter than a 750 with more power. Before the Blade you had race rep 750's and big brute 1000s. The Blade took the best bits of all of them to give a perfect blend. If it wasn't fairly revolutionary how comes it took 6 years for anyone to beat it. That's a long time in the 90's when new bikes were on a 2 year cycle. It pretty much killed the 750 class overnight. Without WSB 750s would have died in the 90s. Yamaha took the Blade philosophy and turned it up to 11 with the R1 but the EXUP and Thunderace were where Yamaha were at before the Blade.

[Taipan]

NC700X with its DCT gearbox!

[Rockburner]

The Hornet was 20bhp up and 20kg down on the Bandit, much less of a Budget UJM.

Agreed, but it was aimed at the same market.

That's the point - it was aimed at the 'road-bike/commuter' market, but was a far better quality machine than everything else in that market.

Bevvo - you're right the Hornet isn't torquey per se, I was saying that it was very similar to it's donor CBR600, rather than similar to it's competition.

[Bigjawa]

The Hornet was 20bhp up and 20kg down on the Bandit, much less of a Budget UJM.

Bandit was a bit of a parts bin special though, wasn't detuned in the 600, only the 750 and "1200" I think it was a rush job that sold so well it didn't make commercial sense to change it.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I don't know what prompted Suzuki to make the 600 Bandit, but they got it right because they sold loads of them.

There's a JDM 750 Bandit that's the same bike with a Teapot 750 engine, I wonder whether good 400 Bandit sales in Japan prompted development of that and the rest of the world said "It'll sell better as a 600 here"

BTW Bandit's don't have detuned GSXR engines, the engines are GSXR based but there are so many differences it's a different engine of the same family.

[Bigjawa]

I have the 750, it's really odd, front part of the frame is the same as the 600, the rear is like the 1200 with the bolt on pillion hangers. There's 128k on it. I've derestricted it to take off the 180kph limiter.

Maybe Suzuki realised that there was a shitload of crashed GSXRs running about with flat bars so decided to make their own, or maybe they had a shedload of excess 600 motors lying about, certainly the 400 wasn't a big seller in the UK in official form.

The 1200 was definitely hobbled at the factory, even changing the end can gave an instant 10 bhp and there can be a huge difference in individual bikes, my GSXR has a B12 motor in it and makes 115bhp at the wheel, my B12 with just a can made 118. My mates B12 is even quicker and it has just a can and a K&N.

You can put 1052 cams in them, but as standard it's a lovely donkey.

[KungFooBob]

The Hornet started life as a 250 in Japan. I wanted one really bad, but ended up with a 400 Bros.

It was a couple of years before they decided a 600 for the European market was a good idea.

[Horse]

Yebbut, did the manufacturer of any of those bikes rip the fairing off and slap on some MX bars?

Do you mean ' ... and sell to the public'?

Dual-sport bikes are hardly new. By some accounts, BSA launched the category in 1965 with its offroad-styled 500cc A50 BSA Wasp and 650cc A65 BSA Hornet. Three years later, the company introduced the BSA Firebird Scrambler, its latest — and arguably best — variation on the theme.

https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/clas ... scrambler/

[img]https://ogden_images.s3.amazonaws.com/www.motorcycleclassics.com/images/2009/07/11080849/4559-558x840.jpg[/img]

Dual-sport bikes are a different matter. I was thinking about 'performance naked' bikes.

Ah, your use of 'stick on high bars' misled me.

As RB has explained, times were simpler. There were, by and large, just motorcycles. If you wanted 'sporty', then you had two options: 1. Buy a faster model, 2. Twist the handle more.

There weren't the options for bikes or accessories that there are now. Until Ken Craven invented the touring add-on market, if you wanted panniers then you got a pair of army surplus packs. Bikes were transport.

The 'cruiser' custom market only came about when the Japanese manufacturers realised that they might able to take sales off HD. 'Choppers' were supposedly created by chopping unwanted bits off to make bikes go faster. The Triumph custom was an aberration.

About the only British bike builder to produce a standard bike, sporty, and touring, versions was Vincent.

[Mr. Dazzle]

The Hornet started life as a 250 in Japan. I wanted one really bad, but ended up with a 400 Bros.

It was a couple of years before they decided a 600 for the European market was a good idea.

Yeah the Hornet 250 was the unobtainable dream bike to the 33bhp restricted me. You just never saw any for sale!

[KungFooBob]

Yeah the Hornet 250 was the unobtainable dream bike to the 33bhp restricted me. You just never saw any for sale!

I went to Transit Motorcycles in York with £2800 in my back burner, to look at a Bros a Goose and a Hornet.

I couldn't persuade them to let me have the Hornet (it was £3500 iirc), so I ended up with a 400 Bros with 500km on the clock... it was mint externally, but the inside of the tank was as rusty as fuck... that would have been 1996ish.

[KungFooBob]

As if by magic (or some cookie related bollocks), this just popped up on my Friendface...

https://www.visordown.com/features/top- ... g9Gi0dWgWI

Few of them mentioned on this thread.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Has there been anything "game changing" since the R1 in 1998, 23 years seems a long time for there not to have been any major leaps in bike design. Genuine question btw as I've not owned a modern bike since 2003 and haven't paid any attention to them.

[KungFooBob]

I suggested the K5 GSXR1000, but I was wrong.

The V4 Panigale was supposed to be special... but the ZX10 is will more winning.

Tiepin might have been joking, but the 'half a car engine' NC7x0 bikes were a departure from the norm, in the chase for MPG/Reliability/cheap servicing, etc...

[Yorick]

Most of these bikes were negligible.
Some advanced things 1 or 2 %

Apart from stuff like RC30 etc, it was just evolution

[KungFooBob]

What about the V-MAX, it was in a class of one for many years... until stuff like the V-Rod and Diavel came along.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

As if by magic (or some cookie related bollocks), this just popped up on my Friendface...

https://www.visordown.com/features/top- ... g9Gi0dWgWI

Few of them mentioned on this thread.

Surprised the FZ750 didn't make this list and the 85 GSXR750 did, the FZ inspired the CBRs and FZRs (if you don't agree compare the bottom end of a CBR600 with the FZ bottom end), the GSXRs engine is a direct descendant of the 1976 GS750, which is very similar to the 1972 Z1 (both engines were designed by the same person) and the GSXRs frame is a very traditional design but in ally.

Saying that I loved my 85 GSXR, I think I had it four years, my first FZ750 was gone within 4 weeks as the brakes couldn't stop 220Kg from 150mph in the space I would have liked.