Why is it that every time you read about bikes in articles or on forums some folks try to put certain bikes down because they do 5 (or so) less mph than bike X or their 0-60 is 1 mph less than bike Y?
I (and most other riders that I've ever known) will never get our bikes to their actual top-end speed limits so why does such a small performance margin, relevant to (what seems to me) a very small segment of buyers so often become the major point of debate? It seems like enjoyability is a less-significant priority with some folks but, to me, it's the main reason why I may pick specific bikes.
It just seems like much of what I read is by racers, for racers, or a bunch of guys who like to throw around high numbers for braggin rights. What review writers should do IMHO is to get people who have only been riding for between 5 and 10 years to write reviews. This way I'd get more of a perspective from the average rider.
These mags just become less relevant to me the more I read them.
I (and most other riders that I've ever known) will never get our bikes to their actual top-end speed limits so why does such a small performance margin, relevant to (what seems to me) a very small segment of buyers so often become the major point of debate? It seems like enjoyability is a less-significant priority with some folks but, to me, it's the main reason why I may pick specific bikes.
It just seems like much of what I read is by racers, for racers, or a bunch of guys who like to throw around high numbers for braggin rights. What review writers should do IMHO is to get people who have only been riding for between 5 and 10 years to write reviews. This way I'd get more of a perspective from the average rider.
These mags just become less relevant to me the more I read them.