Geez, these magazines keep saying how much better the Ninja is on a track than the Honda. How is it that Honda didn't really beat the Ninjette despite all the advantage of getting to engineer a bike with your competitor's specs known so well? Probably for the same reason they screwed up the bug-like look of the front end and the god-awful looking exhaust, I guess.
http://www.bsmotoring.com/news/honda...mikraze/3756/6
Quote:
|
Overall, the CBR is a great handling motorcycle, even though the chassis and suspension lag behind the ever-willing motor. If we were at a race track, the Ninja would’ve run rings around the CBR, thanks to its more sorted handling and that bonkers rev-happy motor. . . if it’s outright performance that you want, wrapped in that shade of green, the Kawasaki is still the one for you.
|
Gosh, getting really tempted to head to your forum and start bashing the CBR. Nah, still really unfair to do that. After all, this magazine calls it really close and notes that (in India at least where the CBR is made and therefore a bit cheaper) it is a better value. Still too much of a passive aggressive thing to goto the forum of a competitor bike and say their bike is slow. You know anyone who might do something like that Warapura?
__________________________________________________
"Improvement makes straight roads, but the crooked roads without improvement, are roads of genius." — William Blake