[Omegaman]

BMW?

Ya gotta be kiddin me?

They have their cult following, and to those that love them, I say best of luck. They are incredibly smooth, reliable bikes.

But for racetrack wannabee's and knucklehead stunters, forget it.

Nice for touring with Gold Wings, but BMW's do not race ANYTHING but other BMW's for a reason.

If torque was king, we would all be ridin Harleys.

It is the high revving (see RPM's) with a mixture of torque that wins.

That is the reason that inline fours (with a few exceptions) have dominated the tracks for so long. Yes we have the V-twin Ducks and some V-fours that made some statements, but when all the chips fall, we have the Japanese inline fours looking at the checkers first.

Less than 1% of the people that read this board can ride a STOCK R6 anywhwere even close to the full potential. If you think you are in that 1%, you are wrong. So how much of a displacement bump do you need?

Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday.

Carl-

[WildKat]

Less than 1% of the people that read this board can ride a STOCK R6 anywhwere even close to the full potential

The average everyday rider, from anywhere, that walks into a dealer and buys a new 600 super sport or liter bike will never ride the bike to its full potential. That much is clear for anyone. But yet they still sell like wildfire each and every year.

[The CyberPoet]

BMW? ... They have their cult following, and to those that love them, I say best of luck. They are incredibly smooth, reliable bikes.

EVERYTHING HERE IS STRICTLY IMHO:

If you've never ridden one, pop by your local BMW dealer and try one out (great outing for a day off). Most BMW dealers are very nice about permitting test rides... Smooth, rich torque is lovely and is never to be under-rated... One of the core problems with HD (& Buell) in such a comparison is that their torque isn't smooth (in addition to all their other issues).

As for the BMW legendary-reliability issue, I think their reliability numbers are high not because of some innate special engineering magic, but because people who can afford to pay those kind of prices for their bikes can afford to keep them maintained by the book on schedule and fix every niggley little thing whenever it crops up, resulting in low field failure rates compared to other brands (which IMHO is mostly down to less well maintained bikes). I've never had a Kat fail on me on the road either (that's over 50k miles between 2 kats so far) aside from tire punctures and one case of total user error (I left the key-in, headlights-on when I walked into eat at one place -- starving, they were getting ready to close the kitchen & resteraunt, and I wasn't thinking well).

Cheers
=-= The CyberPoet

[Omegaman]

BMW's are nice, no doubt.

My buddy has owned 2 of them.

Carl-

[SOUPDADY]

I FEEL THAT THE BEST BIKE FOR U IS THE ONE YOU WANT! IF YOU WANT TOURQE OR RPM'S,
A SUPERFAST 1K+ OR JUST SOMETHING TO TOOL AROUND ON WHILE SAVING GAS DURING THE WEEK. DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS U R HAPPY WITH IT

[freight dog]

For myself, if I had to replace the Kat tomorrow and I had $30k to spend, no ifs ands or buts, I would buy this bike right here:

http://www.racetaylormade.com/czecher/index.htm

...and its a 750

[gsxr6racer]

OK, maybe torque is over rated when you have a bike that weighs that little!!! That is SWEEEEEEETTTTTT!!!!

[freight dog]

Youbetcha!!!!