why are modern bikes so heavy?

[to v or not to v]

current bike which is from 1996, according to MCN stats-
198kg 145bhp 4 cylinders

bikes ive been looking at as potential replacements

Honda Rebel 1100 223kg 86bhp 2cyl
Moto Guzzi V7850 233kg 64bhp 2cyl
R Enfield S Meteor 650 241kg 46bhp 2cyl
BSA 650 213kg 45bhp single
Honda Hornet 750 190kg 91bhp 2cyl

am i being a bit daft because looking at the weight/bhp figures that hardly seems like progress.














9
____________________
current bike Yamaha Thunderace.
Moto Guzzi V7.

[sickpup]

That's the dry weight, look at nearer to 240kg wet.

Modern bikes are weighed kerb weight as well, oil and some fuel. Not really directly comparable.

[stinkwheel]

The cat exhausts are really heavy on a lot of bikes.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

Don’t believe late ‘90s weights, if true they were ‘dry’ meaning no fuel, coolant, battery and even tyres. I weighed my ‘99 ZX6R (“176 kg”) and ‘03 R1 (“175 kg”) and they were both 200kg. But yes, modern bikes can’t hide even greater weight.

Fashionable parallel twin ‘sportsbikes’ can’t compete with that period’s in-line 4s either.

[MarJay]

About ten or 15 years ago manufacturers stopped using 'dry' weights and started using 'wet' weights, which are generally about 30kg different. Apparently when they weighed stuff like the CBR600FX they used to dry out the forks and the tank etc, so it was literally dry. No battery, no oil, no coolant, no fork oil, no fluid in the shock...

Basically weights suddenly got closer to reality.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Easy-X]

Readying the bike (actuality: fiddling with zips on my jacket and gloves) an old couple in the car park remarked on my XSR. "It's a big one!" (fnarr, fnarr) my response: "oh no, this is considered a middle weight bike these days" (~200kg wet weight)
____________________
Royal Enfield Continental GT 535, Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter

[Robby]

As well as the comments above - essentially there are fewer lies in bike weights - you're not comparing apples with apples. Nothing on the list is a high performance sports bike (where weight matters), some are A2 compliant or restrictable (where being too light is a problem, because of the power to weight restriction).

That said, I'm seeing a lot more use of steel instead of aluminium alloy, and I hardly ever see magnesium alloy engine casings any more. What I do see is much better tyres, brakes and suspension on cheap bikes.

[A100man]

[thx1138]

Bexta Xtrainer 99kilos

absolute POS on the road though

[to v or not to v]

[MarJay]

[sickpup]

[MarJay]

[to v or not to v]

[Villers]

[Capt Sisko]

[that_impulse_guy]

I always found this interesting.
Top one:
2stroke, aluminium frame, square 4

middle:
4 stroke, aluminium frame, inline 4

bottom:
4stroke, steel frame, inline 4

(same restricted power output...japanese license laws at the time)...weights are...interesting...... Also widths are weird, considering differences in engine config. iirc the 2 stroke square 4 has carbs on the sides, so maybe its that...but also shows that once packaged, you dont win much.

sauce: https://www.suzukicycles.org/1980-1989/1986c.shtml#gsc.tab=0
____________________
Gone: Yamaha DT50lc, Suzuki DR500, Suzuki A100, Kawasaki z250ltd, RD350YPVS, Suzuki DR Big, Kawasaki AR125, Kawasaki KMX200, Suzuki GS1000S, Katana 1100, GS550M, Suzuki RGV250
Now: Suzuki GSX400X, Suzuki RF900R, NS400R

[A100man]

[that_impulse_guy]

[MarJay]

Bearing in mind that the RG500 was not the best packaged or lightest two stroke that Suzuki could build even at that time. It also has 4 expansion chambers. It's essentially a bike to capitalise on GPs from the era. The actual race bikes were lighter and more powerful than their four stroke counterparts and weren't built to mile wide tolerances and still be reliable on the road.

I reckon a modern road version of an RG500 would weigh about 120kg and make about 110bhp and would be hysterically fun.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[that_impulse_guy]

I suppose I'm badly trying to make a weird side point...the RG400 is not an RG500 £20k bike...but its still getting up to the 10k bracket at times.
The exact same power to weight ratio is available in the gsxr400 of that era, and the one in the picture isnt the pretty one...theyre less than 1k. And no extra expense of 2 stroke oil etc.

desirability is totally out of whack with actual performance. At least, at this particular level.

And yes...those little bikes can be lighter in race trim, but even in standard trim theyre lighter than modern bikes.
____________________
Gone: Yamaha DT50lc, Suzuki DR500, Suzuki A100, Kawasaki z250ltd, RD350YPVS, Suzuki DR Big, Kawasaki AR125, Kawasaki KMX200, Suzuki GS1000S, Katana 1100, GS550M, Suzuki RGV250
Now: Suzuki GSX400X, Suzuki RF900R, NS400R

[MarJay]