Intereting read

[Tundra]

http://www.f6cforum.com/forum/178-honda-f6c-valkyrie-versus-competition/978-yamaha-rival-f6c-valkyrie-vs-star-vmax.html

[Robert]

 

[_Sheffjs_]

I really like the early 1300 vmax for looks.  But neither is a cruiser in my book, would not be good two up with two middle aged goobs.  Or maybe slightly past middle aged.   

[Moofner]

I really like the early 1300 vmax for looks.  But neither is a cruiser in my book, would not be good two up with two middle aged goobs.  Or maybe slightly past middle aged.   

Slightly?

[dinosnake]

Last year the MOrons at Motorcyclist Magazine (no wonder they have the derogatory "moron" attached, keep reading) tested the Valkyrie against the VMAX and the Diavel.  The verdict?

Interstate riding isn't the best use for these bikes, but passing cars with the barest flick of the wrist is fun and satisfying. Predictably, the Gold Wing was master of this domain with a relaxed riding position, long range, and a carefree ride, letting its pilot relax into a long slog and watch the miles roll by. The stock suspension settings on the Valkyrie are the plushest; the wheels roll over nasty bumps without really disturbing the rider, yet the chassis maintains good pitch control. Honda's done a great job refining this platform.

But sometimes being "nice" is the most backhanded of compliments. And that's why the Honda is third of three in this comparison. While it's definitely not slow, the fact remains that it trailed the mighty VMAX down our rough, slippery dragstrip by 1.33 seconds. And while it always feels willing and able to scorch the back tire, the Valky is just so smooth and composed that it rarely excites. Maybe that's okay for you, and we'd understand completely choosing the Honda as your daily ride. The Honda is more refined and comfortable than the Ducati or Star by quite a sizable margin. But this is a category supposedly populated by rough-and-tumble machines. The Valkyrie is Clark Kent frantically looking for a phone booth.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/cruiser-comparison-cruisers-test-ducati-diavel-vs-honda-gold-wing-valkyrie-vs-star-vmax-deal-devil

That's right, the Valkryie was last place.  Why?  Fundamentally, too refined.

You heard that right: a motorcycle is last place because its just too good and doesn't make you compromise for some other part of the equation.

And then the writers of this cr&p wonder WHY subscriptions and sales of their [useless] rags are down...  

[texrider]

I've not had an opportunity to ride the new 'max, but did own a '05. The new one seems much closer to the GL1800C than the old did, but after big and fast doubt they could really compare. Sitting on the new 'max did not give me the welcome feeling the Valkyrie had in spades, small gas tank/poor mileage also deal killers for me.

[_Sheffjs_]

I really like the early 1300 vmax for looks.  But neither is a cruiser in my book, would not be good two up with two middle aged goobs.  Or maybe slightly past middle aged.  

Slightly?

I had to google middle age, looks like it is 40-60.  I have 5 more years to old fart status.  


Sorry Doug, and now back to the regular scheduled thread.   

[Fla. Jim]

Hmmm read the article and their numbers put the valk @ a 12.5 sec 1/4 mile. I thought these beast were faster than that. The 1500 had a best of 12.1 as I recall and most 1800 riders say they are quicker than the 1500's. Something smells very fishy . Perhaps it was the testers or just the crappy track.

Snip from article: "Frankly, we don't mind too much, mainly because the Diavel actually accelerates quickly. Its 10.83-second run is fairly poor form for the Diavel, an artifact of our dragstrip's crummy surface more than anything else. But on the same day the other two ran, the Ducati aced the tire-spinning Star (by 0.34 second) and the under-powered Honda (by 1.67 seconds)"

10.83 + 1.67 = 12.5

[Kidd]

Well ,at least you use Google , bet there's a lot your age that do not

I really like the early 1300 vmax for looks.  But neither is a cruiser in my book, would not be good two up with two middle aged goobs.  Or maybe slightly past middle aged.  

Slightly?

I had to google middle age, looks like it is 40-60.  I have 5 more years to old fart status.  


Sorry Doug, and now back to the regular scheduled thread.   

[dinosnake]

Because the MOrons at MC Magazine are just that, morons.  Even Cycle World got an 11.92 second quarter out of the Valk

http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/12/22/ducati-diavel-carbon-vs-honda-gold-wing-valkyrie-cruiser-comparison-test-motorcycle-review/

and America's MCN got 11.65

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/articles/2015_01PerfIndex.pdf

Do you get the point that I'm SICK of those fcking punks at MC, who if the the bike isn't at superbike-level performance then its a waste of time??  Every road is a racetrack to test how many wheelies, stoppies and burnouts you can pull off.  Immature racer wanna-be's, every writer apparently above the age of 16 has left the building.

[Fla. Jim]

Cool, glad to see some decent #'s. I know  1/4 mile times are not the be all to end all, but their posted #s left me scratching my head.