Super sport test.
 

In MCN this week they tested the R6, CBR600RR and D675.

They were all pretty similar in track times (R6 worst CBR best, D675 in the middle). What I was shocked to find out was that the Dry weight of the D675 is 200KG's!!!!! WTF? jeez.

The CBR was 175KG's and R6 185, big difference there then!

Crazy.

Power wise R6 was best with 111BHP, and the D675 and CBR 600 leveled on 107BHP each. Torque was D675 49ft-lb's, CBR 44ft-lb's and R6 43ft-lbs.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Is this where you wade in and compare them all to a Falco again!!!!

Re: Super sport test...
 

[quote=ThEGr33k;1607183]What I was shocked to find out was that the Dry weight of the D675 is 200KG's!!!!! WTF? jeez.
quote]

You sure it was dry weight? According to Triumph's website, it is 165kg dry, which sounds far more reasonable.

Re: Super sport test...
 

For that extra weight then it keeps up well, I'm sure you could easy do some weight saving though. Unless its a printing mistake.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Having ridden both a Bandit 650 (approx 200kgs) and the 675, there is no way the 675 is that heavy...surely that is a typo?

Re: Super sport test...
 

It is a printing error! Jeez, 200kg is approaching Falco lardyness ;) I think it is about 165/170kg dry

Re: Super sport test...
 

It must be the wet weight or something - the CBR (assuming latest model) is quoted at 155kg dry, not 175kg. Mind you I think 175kg is a tad light for wet on the CBR? Thought it was in the 180s...

Re: Super sport test...
 

Wet weight is going to be dry weight plus, what, 18 litres of fuel, a couple of litres of oil and a litre of coolant? 175kg or so sounds fairly reasonable if it's 155kg dry.

Re: Super sport test...
 

No print error as they say that the 675 gives away 25KG to the CBR. Dont go on claimed weight... they arnt likely to admit it weighs as much as it does... especially that much.

Wet weights were:-

D675 210KG's
CBR600RR 187KG's
R6 191KG's

Dry does liturally mean NO liquids or batteries, this test probably means no fuel looking at the numbers... The battery, Engine oil, fork oil, brake fluid etc etc (factory takes these off for dry weight) can soon add up! This is more like a real world dry weight. :rolleyes:

Also dont compair what they feel like. Because a bike hides its weight well doesnt mean it weigh's less. E.G. an SV isnt much heavier maybe 5KG's than a SS600 but it feels WAY heavier ;)

No wont compair to the Falco... You are welcome to if you like.


175 is dry, 185KG wet for the CBR. 155KG is approaching MotoGP weights... :smt044

Cheers.


Side note, this wasnt a MCN run thing... their Journalist was mearly there. The numbers came from the people running this.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Well, the Honda web site unfortunately is only showing wet weight (184kg for the 600RR, clearly not the dry weight).

I get the feeling any other links will be ridiculed as being wrong :p but here's Wikipedia as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR600RR

Dry weight on the RR went down from 164kg to 155kg for the 07 model. Of course I didn't anticipate "dry" and "drier-than-dry" weights! :p

Re: Super sport test...
 

Btw, wouldn't 155kg be a moto GP bike's wet weight?

Re: Super sport test...
 

<looks at sig>

Sounds a bit bloaty to me.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Aye thats the thing... its like the claimed power is at the crank... pointless. I thought id post this just to show people the real numbers, thought you'd be interested.

In the end the actual numbers dont really matter, its how it feels like to ride and tbh on the road you probably wont tell the difference.

On the track where they tested them they said the extra weight made the bike a little slower to flick from lean to lean. They also said that the extra weight made moving around on the bike mid corner better and that it didnt upset the bike, and that it was more stable mid corner too, where the others were skitish.


I think the MotoGP bikes are 138KG Dry as far as rules go. How dry though I cant say. Fully wet Id guess about maybe 155-160KG... but they have big tanks (21L I think they are allowed). Not sure if they have much of a battery.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Lol, who's sig? Maybe being dumb - couldn't see any obvious moto-gp-wet-weight references ;)

I reckon the full wet weight is of use, but probably no others...although it doesn't tell you much about the weight distribution of course...

Do they not use one of them that total loss systems (no battery)?

Re: Super sport test...
 

no battery or starter (hence the car-jack lookalikes they wheel under the back wheel to bump start the engines)

but i'd imagine the computer systems need DC power from somewhere, so they probably have a small battery for them, easier than running power from the engine i'd have thought?:confused:

edit: a total loss system does have a battery, it just doesn't get charged by the engine so it runs down over time

Re: Super sport test...
 

No wasnt sure about batteries. I heard they didnt have them. They must run streight off of the alternator. :confused:

You are right muffles its the distribution of weight that counts the most not the actual amount. Thats very obvious when like I mentioned people compair GSX-R's to SV's. The weight is similar but pretty much everyone says the SV feels heavier. (This is imo down to weight distribution, e.g. SV will have heavier wheels which will slow the steering, the Gixxer will have most weight up top so it will fall into corners and the main thing is probably the rear ride height...).

Re: Super sport test...
 

would make more sense to have a small rechargable Li-ion battery and not have the hassle of extra cogs/chains/casing weight shirley

Re: Super sport test...
 

Would that be stron enough for the sparkers? If so then id agree. I dont know a great deal about the battery system I have to admit.

Re: Super sport test.
 

I think all the weights they have published are wrong to be honest, the 675 is not 200kg and it is heavier than the Triumph number!

Re: Super sport test.
 

Wish I'd brought a CBR600RR.......hold on a minute. I did! Yay me.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Are we talking about MCN facts and figures here?
Nuff said.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Exactly....

:---)

Re: Super sport test.
 

Like I said it wasnt MCN doing the testing... besides what reason do they have to lie? It was the second fastest bike out there so its not slow. :rolleyes:

Best way might be for someone on here to go get their D675 weighed in.

Re: Super sport test.
 

It was MCN that wrote and printed the article.

As to why should they lie, who knows, but I think you will find that there fact based storys tend to come by what they have been told by a friend of a friend of a friend who is a mole in Ford who knows a mole in Audi who had a drink with a guy that could be a mole in Honda and works for Yamaha Musical Supllies Plc.

Re: Super sport test...
 

If the dry weight is taken with no liquids or batteries, then there can't only be 10kgs difference between the CBR's dry and wet weight. MCN has quoted the figures wrong, simple as.

A battery must weight 5kgs and 16-17 litres of fuel has got to be about 15kgs. Add on the brake fluid, oil, coolant etc and there should be getting on for 25kg's difference.

Don't trust MCN!

There's no way a D675 dry weight is 200kg's, that WILL be the wet weight.

Cheers,
Matt

Re: Super sport test...
 

My sig, of course. 129kg dry (allegedly), so 155 wet is positively barge-like!

Re: Super sport test...
 

Erm... sigh.

MCN's numbers was with the battery in and the oil in, a real world Dry weight... if you run with no brake oil or engine oil or a battery then fair enough you might want to know how much weight you save.

The only difference was the dry was with and empty tank and the wet was with a full tank. 10KG for 17Litre of fuel is about right...

Feel free to believe what you will I dont really care, I just try to show people what the factories claim and what the truth is. Why on earth MCN would lie or how they could get it wrong is beyond me. Like I said it wasnt the MCN people actually doing the test they just wrote about it.

Re: Super sport test...
 

Dude I wasn't having a go at you! Your post on the first page didn't make it clear that the MCN dry weight included the battery and fluids :p

I still don't believe an unfuelled D675 is 200kg's - MCN are notorious for getting things incorrect in print! ;)

Re: Super sport test...
 

I have no worries about MCN's ability to do a test, if they felt so inclined.

Writing about anything, otoh, is where they tend to go wrong.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Fair enough. I agree it sounds high... but tbh I thought hey it might not be wrong... I mean people do still believe that bikes do what the manufacturers say, which 99% of the time is RUBBISH! they make numbers look better to sell a product.

Power at the crank is impossible to test for a start so wtf, tell us power at the wheel, what we can use. Tell us what the real rev limiters are, tell us what the real wet weight is, why do we want to know how light you can get the bike when its unridable in that state. Give is a curb side weight ready to ride.

So what if the D675 does weigh 210KG wet, it still goes like stink and out handles 99% of riders (IE people cant get anywhere near the limit) so who cares? I mean really?

Here is an interesting thread from the 675 forums (I was trying to see if anyone had had the weight measured but found this, cnt find a measured weight :(). the 2nd post down in the interesting bit. (have a look at page 1 as well if you fancy a bit more of a read...) http://www.triumph675.net/forum/show...+weight&page=2

The most recent lie is the rev limit... 600's now can rev to about 15,500RPM 16,000 tops tested, max power around 13,500RPM. Yet some manufacturers have STUPID clocks which go forever and claim that the bikes rev forever and people believe it. :( The obvious one is the R6... was a big thing about that. The best one asin closest to right is the told 675. So fair play there. :D

Re: Super sport test...
 

Wow, I didn't realise the GSX-R was that light!

;)

Nah, that sounds like a fantastic weight, I didn't know they were quite that light.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Agree about the power, what matters most is the wheel power, however it is possible to measure power at the crank - use an engine dyno! ;)

Re: Super sport test.
 

Are you sure there is such a thing? I mean how are you going to take the drive off of the crank without any loss from the gear box? Bah. Not to worry. :rolleyes:

Re: Super sport test.
 

You're all missing the point. The Honda was best.

I thankyou.

:cool:

Re: Super sport test.
 

Poppycock.

The Honda was a *spit* Honda. Therefore it's ineligible for any "what's best" comparison.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Who givea a f*ck they are all stilll quicker and better handling than a Falco!!

Re: Super sport test.
 

Post corrected.

Re: Super sport test.
 

Well, it exists for cars, so I assumed (maybe wrongly! :D) it existed for bikes too - same principle and possibly even same machine. I don't know any details though, whether it uses a gearbox, etc.

Re: Super sport test.
 

I think itll be easier with a car though as the gear box generally is seperate from the Engine... well at least with RWD cars. Im not so sure about the FWD ones :S

Re: Super sport test.
 

200kg for a 675 daytona :laughat: mcn are funny ;) ride a 200kg bike then jump on the iccle daytona, i dont think so some how.