| | #61 | |
| Retired Joined: Jul 2005 From: Lynnwood I Ride: Nothing, sold the Rebel, totaled the Ninja 500 :( :( :( | ![]()
I'm sorry, some of the bikes listed as worst bikes are plenty fine for the purpose they are sold for. It'd be nice to have a qualifier like not reliable, or not worthy of hte price they ask, or wasn't good at what the bike was sold for (a slow racing bike, an uncomfortable tourer or had short range). Not just the design is old and htey didn't redesign it. Honestly, really, one could argue you'd have to put those bikes back in the age they were designed. The only way I could see old tech being a good gripe is if they designed the bike in 2000 + and used old tech. Not that they didn't put the money into an old design that just kept selling so they kept making it (until it didn't sell enough anymore to warrant manufacturing them). I'm surprised by those qualifications (using old tech) most 250's didn't get on this list (I know my Rebel is essentially the same bike as it was in 1986 when it was introduced. Some very small design changes, even less change than the ex500 got in 1994 when they updated hte plastics, and a few other changes that no one would even know unless they really liked the Rebel and followed its history). Shoot, I'm wondering how many cruisers would get on the list using that kind of qualification. Certainly most small bikes aimed at being intro bikes would get on the list. Newsflash, you aren't going to get all the new technology and much updated looks in a bike that is just aimed at being an "introductory" bike where they aren't going ot make much money in the first place off of them. (Granted, I'd personally love if they started putting fuel injection into the smaller bikes, heh. But that's cause I'll never fit a larger non-cruiser bike and I don't want a cruiser. But I'm not near the majority of the manufacturer's market). Last edited by Tigress; 12-03-2009 at 03:23 PM.. | |
|
| ||
| | |
| | #62 |
| Peg Dragger Joined: Jan 2009 From: Ventura, California I Ride: 2 wheeled ones | ![]() http://www.suzukicycles.org/GSX-series/GSX1100F.shtml Although the name was originally used on one of the coolest bikes of the 80's ever made. Nothing like the original. ![]() |
|
| |
| | #65 |
| Pit Crew Joined: Sep 2006 From: Beaverton, oregon I Ride: CBR600F4i, Dr350s | Last edited by fun4i; 12-03-2009 at 03:39 PM.. |
|
| |
| | #66 | |
| Pit Crew Joined: Jun 2007 From: South | ![]()
Last edited by Michaelb; 12-03-2009 at 03:49 PM.. | |
|
| ||
| | #67 |
| Pit Crew Joined: Apr 2006 From: Seattle, WA I Ride: Too many | Honda CB125 and Rebel 250 comes to mind, but that's not really fair since it wasn't really a bike designed in the oughts. If the DN-01 wasn't a potential source for a 4-valve head and e.f.i setup for my Hawk GT, I might go with that one. It's been just about impossible to buy a truly bad bike in the last 10 years.....but here's my list of bikes that I think sucked: BMW R1200C - fell apart, chrome was total shit, motor wasn't very good, super heavy Triumph TT600 - EFI was truly bad, Honda F3 wannabe that didn't really work Suzuki DRZ 250 - heavy, slow, why? KTM EXC 250RFS (I own a bike with this motor) - 125 power with 450 weight (but can be overbored to a 350 with ease) Ducati Monster 600 series - just the little ones underpowered for good riders and the chassis was poor for new riders Last edited by Hawker; 12-03-2009 at 04:01 PM.. |
|
| |
| | #68 |
| Pit Crew Joined: Apr 2006 From: Seattle, WA I Ride: Too many | ![]() Oh, and if you put frame sliders on them, they crashed pretty well too. |
|
| |
| | #69 | |
| Pit Crew Joined: Apr 2006 From: Seattle, WA I Ride: Too many | ![]()
| |
|
| ||
| | #71 |
| Shredder Joined: Jul 2008 From: Ferndale washington I Ride: Dazed and Confused | Anything made by BUELL they all look like two wheel turds! ![]() No just kidding I personally like all bikes anymake any size. Not saying I would buy them I just like bikes. |
|
| |
| | #72 |
| Peg Dragger Joined: May 2009 From: talent, oregon I Ride: XB9r FirebolT | ![]() ok...your off the hook... ![]() |
|
| |
| | #73 |
| Licensed Joined: Sep 2008 From: Everett, WA I Ride: Triumph Daytona 675 | ![]() wow really.. bustin on the GS500F a motor thats never changed since 1989 and can do this on the track? http://www.vholdr.com/video/gs500f-track-day |
|
| |
| | #74 | |
| Peg Dragger Joined: May 2009 From: talent, oregon I Ride: XB9r FirebolT | ![]()
i personally dislike the GS because of its long wheelbase, its tacky front fairing that doesnt seem very well constructed, and i just dont like how the bike feels. thats my personal reason for placing it up. | |
|
| ||
| | #75 |
| Track School Dazed ![]() Joined: Oct 2005 From: CENTRAL I Ride: When I can | DN-O1 What was Honda trying to do? Build a bigger scooter, or an over priced under powered automatic motorcycle? The bike has a personality, but DAMN! Its expensive! I'll stick with my 'Silverwing'. |
|
| |
| | #76 |
| Peg Dragger Joined: Dec 2007 From: Eugene, OR I Ride: A bunch of Clown bikes.. | Wow, more B King haters. suprise... Like the styling or not it's an awesome bike! Over half you guys have never seen one and the rest have probably never ridden one. Just know that there's 1340ccs of bare knuckle beat down thumping in those frame rails. Fastest freeking thing I have ever ridden. |
|
| |
| | #78 |
| Superbiker | But you ride a Buell... your opinion is moot... |
|
| |
| | #79 |
| Licensed Joined: Aug 2008 From: Muk-town, WA I Ride: Suzuki! | aside from every buell over made I'm gonna go with can-am even though its not really a motorcycle Notice how nobody there looks pleased except for the retard on the bike? ![]() |
|
| |
| | #80 |
| Superbiker | ![]() Thats just a wheeled snowmobile.... |
|
| |