Whats the deal???

[ericej2344]

Why does everyone here say if you want your kat to be faster, get a Super Sport. The bike makes decent hp which can be improved upon, and it isn't that heavy. Especially with unnecessary crap stripped off. (STREETFIGHTER BABY) I always see the weight and it having a steel frame cited as a reason for it being slow. In reality it only weighs 36lbs. more than 1990 GSX-R. I don't get why so many people bash the kat for citing it as heavy and slow, and here of all places. Okay, its a Sport/Tourer but so is a busa. I posted this here because my fellow fighters can maybe explain this in a way I can comprehend.

[Zepp]

The Kat wasn't built with speed in mind. It is a sport touring bike.

Your comparing a Kat to an old Gsxr from 1990. The new SS bikes are extremely light, 118 pounds lighter than my old Kat. The weight difference alone makes a HUGE difference in handling and speed. The SS bike has a lot more hp and a huge weight advantage.

As for a Hayabusa or ZX-14, they're classified as Hyper Sport bikes. They're sport bikes built with speed and acceleation in mind. Don't even try and compare them to a Kat, performance wise.

The Kat's performance is nothing like an SS bike. Ride one of these bikes and then compare them again. You will agree.

[chemomche]

the kat is a great bike
fast,in low rpm,perfect for streets
perfect for a street fighter
the sport bikes may be faster in high rpm but under 7 000rpm they are like a bicycle

[dirtd]

If you own it don't bash it, ride it!

[Black_peter]

Actually the GSX-R 750 didn't drop significant weight until the SRAD model of 1996.
Up until then the Kat was within 10 Kg.. Not a lot. As I mentioned in my post about swing arms Aluminum isn't as stiff as steel, so it takes more of it to do the same job.
Steel has 3 times the stiffness at twice the weight. Aluminum however can be cast more easily so frame sections and swing arm pivots can be lighter. The Katana is a bargain in a lot of ways. A few points to remember in over all performance:
Weight distribution: Where was the 199Kg of the GSX-R biased? Lower?
Weight of brackets etc:Sure the GSX-R didn't weigh much less but what parts were heavier? Stressed parts most likely. Not things like handlebars.
Unsprung weight:Your biggest bang for the buck in handling. Did the 1994 GSX-R have lower unsprung weight than the Kat?
HP and HP/Torque curves: Like with Chevy, where no car can make more HP than the Corvette, the GSX-R even with the same engine as another bike needs to make just a little more. Also the curves are set for performance, not MPG or noise.

[ericej2344]

Why compare a 20 year old bike to a brand new one, that's apples and oranges. Was the 1990 GSX-R considered slow in it's day. I doubt it, imo it still isn't slow just not as fast as newer bikes. Zepp I see you have an 07 600rr in your stable, great bike. However, I think a kat is much more streetable bike. I rode many RR's and they handle great, but they are severly track oriented. I know the kat is more comfortable becausing its a sport/tourer, but whats wrong with wanting a fast bike that was made for the street. Also, hows that zx-14 haven't got to throw my leg over one yet. It looks like an angry rocket.