Much of our older content has been stored on the back shelves of our offices... we always have fun looking back at days gone by and we hope you enjoy these little gems as well.
Suzuki’s GSX-R750 has effectively eliminated its three-quarter-liter competition by excelling at everything a great sportbike should. Meanwhile, liter-bikes were getting lighter, 600s faster and the 750 death knell could be heard echoing off the walls of Kawasaki and Yamaha. But not Suzuki. So we stuck the 750 into our Best Superbike balloting and guess what? Balance won the day. The Best Superbike of 2006 award sat on the light-and-lithe GSX-R750. Last year, Superbike was spelled Superb bike.
Now let’s meet our second Ten Bester of 2006, Triumph’s Daytona 675. Some cried foul when this overbored Britbike took Best Middleweight honors, but consider two things: We define the categories around here, dang it, and secondly, this Triumph is magic. It had to win something! It runs hard through the revband, handles like a racebike, shrieks like heaven’s own four-stroke and looks sensational from every angle. And like our Superb Bike winner, it possesses that magical balance of chassis and engine that makes every rider better.
Can you see where this is going? Here we have two Ten Best winners within 75cc of each other but neither really belongs in the category it won. What should we do with these two "Outclassts?” I know…let’s lever on some Pirelli SuperCorsas for a day of hot lapping at Spring Mountain Motorsports Park with SoCal Trackdays (www.socaltrackdays.com) and create a new Best Track-Day Bike category!
Bikes unloaded and tire pressures checked, Mark Cernicky and I leathered up while both agreeing the GSX-R would leave the 675 in the dust to the tune of about 3 seconds a lap. "That Suzuki is just so good. I mean, I like the Triumph but it’s up against one of the best track bikes I can think of,” Mark said.
Thirty minutes later the helmets came off and we both confirmed the superiority of the Suzuki. Okay, its stock suspension settings permitted too much movement as the pace came up, but the GSX-R was just so incredibly rideable in every aspect of track lapping. Sure, we’d like more power, but one of the beauties of the 750’s power delivery is the precise amount of acceleration the rider can dial-in from apex to exit. Several of Spring Mountain’s corners have the rider playing with rear grip in long, sweeping exits, and it took a very good liter-bike rider to pull away from our hooked-up 750.
The GSX-R turned a bit too heavily in the quick transition before the start/finish straight and that problem goes hand-in-hand with the overly soft stock suspension settings that allowed us to drag things just a bit. We added two turns of rear spring, three turns in the front and cranked in more rebound and compression damping at both ends.
The initial laps on the Triumph went well, but it couldn’t quite run the Suzuki’s pace for several reasons, the most notable being instability during hard braking transitions. Getting into 5A quickly at Spring Mountain has the rider going from the left footpeg to the right as the bike brakes over a crest while snapping right into an uphill second-gear corner. Both Mark and I were forced to hold back the speed and aggressiveness because the 675 had to settle before turning.
Let’s look at some numbers to help illustrate our first session impressions: The Triumph makes a maximum of 47.8 foot-pounds of torque at just over 10,000 rpm, while the Suzuki peaks at 52.4 ft.-lb. at 10,720 rpm, which sounds relatively close until you consider that the Suzuki makes 45 ft.-lb. or more from 7700 rpm to 13,900, while the Triumph climbs over 45 at 8200 rpm and drops below at 12,300 rpm. I apologize for all that number jargon lumped together in one sentence, but it explains one of the problems both Mark and I experienced during our lapping. With the nervous corner entrances and less torque to jump off the corner, making passes during a busy track day took significantly more planning and effort on the Triumph. While the 675 pilot was trying to figure a way around a cluster of liter-bike riders, the GSX-R could run a variety of entrance lines and still jet off the corner.
But don’t run straight to the Suzuki showroom just yet. The Triumph needed a ride-height change, so we slipped the fork tubes down to put the caps flush in the top triple-clamp and went from five lines showing on the front preload adjusters to 3.5. We both felt the 675 was transferring too much weight onto the front end under braking; our changes were aimed at calming that weight transfer and giving us more relaxed steering geometry.
Changes made, the pace went up and the grins widened. We added another half-turn to each of the Suzuki’s damping adjusters and put in two more turns of front preload to further tighten the chassis. The bike remained absolutely wonderful to ride and we simply couldn’t find much to fault. The recalibrated Triumph made Cernicky laugh out loud after 15 hard laps. The increased ride height and spring preload in front helped enormously and we both continued to experiment with the chassis, adding more and more corner speed and lean angle. We slowed the front compression damping two clicks and the rebound one click. Passing became significantly easier because the Triumph no longer required a moment to sort itself before getting zipped off into a corner and consequently carried significantly more rpm into and out of the turn, improving drive. Get the exit right and the Triumph hangs surprisingly close to the GSX-R.
We removed and rebalanced the Triumph’s front wheel during lunch (thanks, Racer’s Edge) and strapped on the lap-timers. "Man, I don’t know now,” Cernicky remarked.
When the dust settled, we both went quicker on the GSX-R but the margin was much smaller than we initially estimated. Mark was 0.3-second quicker on the GSX-R and I was 0.9-second quicker. The GSX-R’s horsepower advantage (121 at 13,200 versus 106 at 12,550) became more usable as we continued to firm up the chassis, getting away from streetbike comfy to racebike efficiency. Mark described the GSX-R750 as a 600 on steroids, entering corners with 600-like speed and confidence yet exiting with a verve no stock 600 can match. Sure, the 750’s acceleration will disappoint most liter-bike riders, but that loss is balanced against the time gained at corner entrance, the early throttle application and the less dramatic/scary/traumatic rear-tire traction dilemma. The majority of riders will reel off more fast laps on this 750 than on a 1000 during a track day, especially on worn tires. Mark’s background combines roadracing and supermoto, so in this 2x2 he gravitated to the bigger hit packed by the Suzuki. The Triumph’s abilities surprised him but the Suzuki fits his style perfectly.
I left Spring Mountain most impressed with the Triumph. Wow…what a fun bike, especially for an ex-250 GP pilot like myself. It’s narrow, revvy, on the edge of being nervous and loves to rail off into a curve. Now factor in its $1200 less expensive MSRP–that’ll pay for six track days, just about the most fun you can have on a streetbike.
Our smiles lasted through dinner and we honestly couldn’t think of two bikes we would have enjoyed more. The Best Track-Day Bike of 2007? Triumph 675 for me, Suzuki GSX-R750 for Mark.
Source: cycleworld.com
Now let’s meet our second Ten Bester of 2006, Triumph’s Daytona 675. Some cried foul when this overbored Britbike took Best Middleweight honors, but consider two things: We define the categories around here, dang it, and secondly, this Triumph is magic. It had to win something! It runs hard through the revband, handles like a racebike, shrieks like heaven’s own four-stroke and looks sensational from every angle. And like our Superb Bike winner, it possesses that magical balance of chassis and engine that makes every rider better.
Can you see where this is going? Here we have two Ten Best winners within 75cc of each other but neither really belongs in the category it won. What should we do with these two "Outclassts?” I know…let’s lever on some Pirelli SuperCorsas for a day of hot lapping at Spring Mountain Motorsports Park with SoCal Trackdays (www.socaltrackdays.com) and create a new Best Track-Day Bike category!
Bikes unloaded and tire pressures checked, Mark Cernicky and I leathered up while both agreeing the GSX-R would leave the 675 in the dust to the tune of about 3 seconds a lap. "That Suzuki is just so good. I mean, I like the Triumph but it’s up against one of the best track bikes I can think of,” Mark said.
Thirty minutes later the helmets came off and we both confirmed the superiority of the Suzuki. Okay, its stock suspension settings permitted too much movement as the pace came up, but the GSX-R was just so incredibly rideable in every aspect of track lapping. Sure, we’d like more power, but one of the beauties of the 750’s power delivery is the precise amount of acceleration the rider can dial-in from apex to exit. Several of Spring Mountain’s corners have the rider playing with rear grip in long, sweeping exits, and it took a very good liter-bike rider to pull away from our hooked-up 750.
The GSX-R turned a bit too heavily in the quick transition before the start/finish straight and that problem goes hand-in-hand with the overly soft stock suspension settings that allowed us to drag things just a bit. We added two turns of rear spring, three turns in the front and cranked in more rebound and compression damping at both ends.
The initial laps on the Triumph went well, but it couldn’t quite run the Suzuki’s pace for several reasons, the most notable being instability during hard braking transitions. Getting into 5A quickly at Spring Mountain has the rider going from the left footpeg to the right as the bike brakes over a crest while snapping right into an uphill second-gear corner. Both Mark and I were forced to hold back the speed and aggressiveness because the 675 had to settle before turning.
Let’s look at some numbers to help illustrate our first session impressions: The Triumph makes a maximum of 47.8 foot-pounds of torque at just over 10,000 rpm, while the Suzuki peaks at 52.4 ft.-lb. at 10,720 rpm, which sounds relatively close until you consider that the Suzuki makes 45 ft.-lb. or more from 7700 rpm to 13,900, while the Triumph climbs over 45 at 8200 rpm and drops below at 12,300 rpm. I apologize for all that number jargon lumped together in one sentence, but it explains one of the problems both Mark and I experienced during our lapping. With the nervous corner entrances and less torque to jump off the corner, making passes during a busy track day took significantly more planning and effort on the Triumph. While the 675 pilot was trying to figure a way around a cluster of liter-bike riders, the GSX-R could run a variety of entrance lines and still jet off the corner.
But don’t run straight to the Suzuki showroom just yet. The Triumph needed a ride-height change, so we slipped the fork tubes down to put the caps flush in the top triple-clamp and went from five lines showing on the front preload adjusters to 3.5. We both felt the 675 was transferring too much weight onto the front end under braking; our changes were aimed at calming that weight transfer and giving us more relaxed steering geometry.
Changes made, the pace went up and the grins widened. We added another half-turn to each of the Suzuki’s damping adjusters and put in two more turns of front preload to further tighten the chassis. The bike remained absolutely wonderful to ride and we simply couldn’t find much to fault. The recalibrated Triumph made Cernicky laugh out loud after 15 hard laps. The increased ride height and spring preload in front helped enormously and we both continued to experiment with the chassis, adding more and more corner speed and lean angle. We slowed the front compression damping two clicks and the rebound one click. Passing became significantly easier because the Triumph no longer required a moment to sort itself before getting zipped off into a corner and consequently carried significantly more rpm into and out of the turn, improving drive. Get the exit right and the Triumph hangs surprisingly close to the GSX-R.
We removed and rebalanced the Triumph’s front wheel during lunch (thanks, Racer’s Edge) and strapped on the lap-timers. "Man, I don’t know now,” Cernicky remarked.
When the dust settled, we both went quicker on the GSX-R but the margin was much smaller than we initially estimated. Mark was 0.3-second quicker on the GSX-R and I was 0.9-second quicker. The GSX-R’s horsepower advantage (121 at 13,200 versus 106 at 12,550) became more usable as we continued to firm up the chassis, getting away from streetbike comfy to racebike efficiency. Mark described the GSX-R750 as a 600 on steroids, entering corners with 600-like speed and confidence yet exiting with a verve no stock 600 can match. Sure, the 750’s acceleration will disappoint most liter-bike riders, but that loss is balanced against the time gained at corner entrance, the early throttle application and the less dramatic/scary/traumatic rear-tire traction dilemma. The majority of riders will reel off more fast laps on this 750 than on a 1000 during a track day, especially on worn tires. Mark’s background combines roadracing and supermoto, so in this 2x2 he gravitated to the bigger hit packed by the Suzuki. The Triumph’s abilities surprised him but the Suzuki fits his style perfectly.
I left Spring Mountain most impressed with the Triumph. Wow…what a fun bike, especially for an ex-250 GP pilot like myself. It’s narrow, revvy, on the edge of being nervous and loves to rail off into a curve. Now factor in its $1200 less expensive MSRP–that’ll pay for six track days, just about the most fun you can have on a streetbike.
Our smiles lasted through dinner and we honestly couldn’t think of two bikes we would have enjoyed more. The Best Track-Day Bike of 2007? Triumph 675 for me, Suzuki GSX-R750 for Mark.
Source: cycleworld.com
Latest News
