Absolutely. I'd even go as far as saying that horrific is putting it mildly. Its pretty week and no one can ever dispute that.
I dont know where these bikes fall when they shift. But lets say hypothetically when you are at redline and you shift, it falls to 10000 on the close ration bike, that is the mark you want to compare from for a contest of accerlation as that is the effective part of the powerband you run in at that point forward. For a wider ration box it may fall to 8000. So that is its point for to begin comparison.
I think the Qtr miles bare out that these bikes are equally quick, and its due to the above since that poor midrange is not a big factor in accerlation when using the full gearbox.
Big downside is its just harder to use. And no leaving it in one or two gears on canyon blasts. Which kind of blows.
I saw MCN claims its EXUP, we'll have to see if that does prove to be right. Cat replacing slip-ons seem to fill in the biggest part of that, so its contributes to it for sure even if its not the majority of the problem. Consider everyones gone to those valves now, they sure seem to have missed on this one. Ironic as they are the originators of that system.
So what did you think of what they said about the ZX throttle fluff? I cant seem to understand looking at these dynos why they where saying the ZX was not as torquey (initial reviews) as the others when its right there unless its this other deal. But at the same time, you'd expect them to be blasting the R1 since it seems to really not deliver thru the middle.
Sounds like their road feel doesn't graph so well.
Still would love to get the full article to see how they talked around the soggy midrange of the R1. I cant see that being nice on the street unless it has exceptional tip in at part throttle to make it seem punchier....or something.
The Honda fastest in the quarter.....I'm still trying to come to grips with that one.