Talk:Suzuki SV1000

POV check
There are a number of lines that offer opinion or unverifiable facts about the bike in this article that need to be rewritten, like:
 * "The SV1000 and SV1000S are quality bikes for the money..."
 * "...it is not uncommon to see a well ridden SV650 or SV1000 pass a faster bike on the track."

I also think the classification of the SV1000 as a sport-tourer is incorrect, it seems to be solidly in the realm of the standard or naked bike by the styling, riding position, etc. But I'll leave that up to people with more motorcycle experience to decide. AKADriver 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the first point; test after test of this bike has confirmed excellent handling, decent finish and easy to ride power characteristics. I don't see many other bikes costing a tad over £6000 offering all this. For my vote, the "quality bikes for the money" is a fair comment....

Second point; SV against an R1 or Gixxer on the track. I don't think so! That's a lot of power and weight difference to be giving away....

Second point: i think it may be fairer to say that its corners that these bikes take many other riders by surprise. It is fairly common in the SV650 relm that becuase of the lack of power it has against faster and better handling bikes that the rider gets more out of their bike and as such learns to use the bike near its limit where as a fast R1/R6 can be a lot for many riders to handle and mess it all up. I have ridden my SV650 against TL1000s which are the beast and have kept up though the corners, ok staights are a no go for me but on corners i am faster through them. Its a well known fact that a couple of the top racing schools use the SV650 for their instructors while the learners have more powerfull bikes to prove that power is not everything to riding. TSM - 9 June 2006

(ld 15-Jun-06) I think some more solid facts/specs rather than vague summaries would make it more like a useful encyclopaedia than a discussion forum post or a magazine review. e.g. "The 2005 and 2006 models got a slight bump in compression and a few other internal items, but it mostly remains the same bike from 2003. The Suzuki SV1000 and SV650 were originally plagued with some problems after their initial introduction, which is to be expected with any new vehicle. However, with the evolution of the product, most of the bugs have been worked out." <> Model year changes, or reference to. <> plauged with some problems - plagued suggests many, some suggests fewer, problems not stated or referenced. Generalisation of expectations, and that the non-stated bugs worked out. <> If opinions are to be given, should be as a quote, name, date.

(mjs 26-jun-06) I have ridden for many years, and find that a v-twin really does outperform inline fours in the corners. Having ridden a v-twin, I wouldn't go back to an inline four either. Now, I'll grant you that the whole world isn't a corner, but it isn't all straight either. <>So onto the specs as one writer put it. Let's take all the following facts, figures, and quotes from CycleWorld's latest issue - August 2006. Page 46 - Horsepower charts; Aprilia RSV (a v-twin) @ 120.82hp, Ducati 999s (a v-twin) @ 121.12hp, and the Kawasaki ZX-10 (an inline 4) @ 151.50hhp. You would assume that the Kawasaki would win in the Masterbike competition that was held at Jerez this year based on the incorrect assumption that one writer made of horsepower being everything. The Aprilia ran 1:52.514 around the circuit, the Duke ran 1:53.624, while the Kawai ran 1:52.573. Not that much of a difference huh? So let's take the average 6 laps CycleWorld did. The Aprilia ran a 1:54.922, the Duke ran a 1:55.670, and the Kawai a 1:53.959.... still not a huge difference, yet the Kawai is sporting ~31hp more then the Aprilia, and ~30hp more then the Duke! The important thing here is that power doesn't mean anything in a racing circuit; it's how you use what power you have, AND how well the bike chassis and handling performs. Just for refence, in the Masterbike test, the fastest bike was the MV Agusta (an inline 4 with 144hp) @ 1:51.172, and 1:54.463 in the same 6 lap average. All testers had racing experience, except for three (page 43). <> <>Sorry, couldn't find exact and RELIABLE specs on the SV1000 or Honda Superhawk - I'd imagine that they can't be more then 110hp - 120hp. I don't count manufacturers claims as reliable. Dyno tests using the same dyno, at approx. the same time, temperature, altitude, and factory onboard computer are what I'd deem as reliable. All dynometers are different, while 1 may read 150hp another may read 151.5, even from the same manufacturer. <> <> In closing; If you ever do get a chance to try a v-twin on the track (Aprilia, Suzuki, Honda, etc), I think you'll be really surprised.

As stated above, this is an encyclopedia not a blog, there are major inaccuracies in this article in that respect: -"The Widowmaker" was a title given to Kawasaki IVs in the 1970's Kawasaki triple -The SV1000 did not "inherit" the engine from the TL1000, any more than it inherited the engine from the VTR1000 -"many motorcyclists believe" re: power - very vaugue -"Although the Suzuki SV1000S and the Honda SuperHawk fall short on power compared with today's 1 litre superbikes,  they are considered superior in handling, braking, and the distribution of power to the ground. " - This is again a statement that relies on "they are considered", these are properties that rely on the laws of physics not opinions. I would support a major cut in this article and a re-write to include technical specifications only, and then separate articles to discuss "big bang" theory (Motorcycles) in relation to traction and any other information relating to v-twin motorcycles or motorcycle geometry individually See the article Honda VTR1000F for an example FzerozeroT 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"problems"
From the article: "The Suzuki SV1000 and SV650 were originally plagued with some problems after their initial introduction...".

What were these problems, exactly, and who is reporting them? All bikes (and cars) have some anecdotal reports of various problems, but that doesn't mean the reports are statistically significant or unusual in any way. --Bk0 (Talk) 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)