I'd like to know what, if any, qualifications this writer has to judge motorcycles.
He seems to be missing the point of a "sportbike", stating physical discomfort. IMO, he should just rate the bikes as to their qualifications for intended purpose. He doesn't even realize the VFR800 is not a sportbike, but rather a sport-tourer. Also, he generalizes the categories too much, and leaves out all the sub-categories.
But then again, how can you take a motorcycle evaluation seriously when it's coming from "The Globe and Mail"??
I totally agree. Bikes are very specific to a type of riding and should be rated as such. Obviously a race bike is not going to tour as well as a Goldwing. What the hell was this guy thinking, comparing a Viffer to a Gixxer?I'd like to know what, if any, qualifications this writer has to judge motorcycles.
He seems to be missing the point of a "sportbike", stating physical discomfort. IMO, he should just rate the bikes as to their qualifications for intended purpose. He doesn't even realize the VFR800 is not a sportbike, but rather a sport-tourer. Also, he generalizes the categories too much, and leaves out all the sub-categories.
But then again, how can you take a motorcycle evaluation seriously when it's coming from "The Globe and Mail"??
This guy is a journalist? That's pretty sad.his is a toughie. What constitutes a sport bike? Is it the one with the most power? The fastest? The one with the best brakes? The best-handler? And how do you decide?
He's writing for the Globe and Mail.This guy is a journalist? That's pretty sad.