Those who have more than one bike

Yeah, I realize there are faster bikes, I’m thinking more in terms of torque. How it feels when your wrist demands power now. I spend 97 percent of my riding under 100 mph. Compared to your cbr 1100 xx do you feel like you are waiting for “spool up” compared to the Rocket or is the pull equally satisfying? I’m just wondering if I would be disappointed with say a 1000 cc bike with 80 pounds of torque. Thinking of a GSXS 1000. Thanks
No, I don't feel that at all
 
Now if you're looking at Harleys....... my slowest bike, other than antique sidecar rig and my CL175, is my R1100S. "The Fastest Harley in Town" got embarrassed by it, badly, he bought me a beer afterwards, said "****, I thought my bike was fast, how fast were we going"? I said not that fast, I hit 135, but you were definitely not going that fast. 🤣🤣🤣
 
I understand the question and believe torque is the quality being discussed.
I own three Indians and none is gutless but none are in stock form. The Roadmaster is the weakest but it does have a tuned 116 big bore kit. It is the best touring platform I have with a six speaker stereo system with a tour pack, saddle bags and lowers for great wind protection. It’s pretty stout for a Road pig.;)

The Springfield has a Lloyds 126 kit and produces 151 foot pounds of torque. It makes 135 ft/lbs at 2000 rpm and I goes from the twist at any rpm. It’s a very strong cruiser.

The tuned Challenger will out run either of the other two and is a serious performance bagger.

The TFC has a Penner tune and it surely crushes the Indians but lacks wind protection and the comfort of the baggers.

The Roadster has Lush and Bryant components and scores 203 hp and 166 tq. It’s a monster.

Pick your priorities and enjoy what you ride.
 
My other bike is a Hayabusa, and yes it can feel a little gutless in comparison., but only a little.

Note that a Hayabusa and Rocket III have pretty much the same torque to weight ratio - the difference is how low in the revs the Rocket makes the torque, so it feels noticeably more urgent when suddenly rolling on from cruising at lower revs.

But when rolling at higher rpm, the Busa leaves the Rocket well behind.
The Rocket is all about getting up and going but falls flat after that, it never gets any better.
However the Busa has no prob getting up and going, just not as immensely sweeping as the Rocket does, but once up and going it gets faster and faster as the revs climb.

EDIT: Of course if you modify the Rocket, it can become an absolute monster, to which almost nothing compares.
 
Last edited:
My other bike is a Hayabusa, and yes it can feel a little gutless in comparison., but only a little.

Note that a Hayabusa and Rocket III have pretty much the same torque to weight ratio - the difference is how low in the revs the Rocket makes the torque, so it feels noticeably more urgent when suddenly rolling on from cruising at lower revs.

But when rolling at higher rpm, the Busa leaves the Rocket well behind.
The Rocket is all about getting up and going but falls flat after that, it never gets any better.
However the Busa has no prob getting up and going, just not as immensely sweeping as the Rocket does, but once up and going it gets faster and faster as the revs climb.
Thanks for all the replies.👍
 
The Rocket 3 is a big heavy bike. I'm afraid it couldn't keep up with the KTM 1290 Super Duke GT that is only 500 lbs fueled up. With 1301cc and 173hp it accelerates pretty hard. The Kawasaki H2 SX would be embarrassing too.
According to specs Kwaka H2 SX has 137nm of torque and weighs 266kg.
R3R 221nm 300kg.
Imo, the extra 84nm would take care of the extra 34kg admirably.
These big girls are no slouch, especially when mapped for 100% throttle opening.
"Horsepower sell engines. Torque wins races."
What Eroy is asking is a valid point.
Once used to that kick in the pants, each time you roll your wrist, it will be less satisfying to have to kick it down two to overtake, when riding a litre bike.
 
Back
Top