[Author Index] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: test rides(Re: [ST] still wishy-washy)



Jim, you missed the context of this paragraph in my message, which is
what I was replying to (and implying that the RS & ST should be the
same):

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:53:13PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
>>> you probably realize this -- but the RS and ST definitely ride
>>> differently. the RS is a little lighter feeling, both because of the
>>> weight (natch), and also the higher rear ride height. seating position
>>> may have something to do with it as well.


On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:29:46PM -0400, Jim Karl Gagné wrote:
> > I do know they are different.  But the test ride would at least give me
> > a good sense of the engine's strength and powerband, which should be
> > similar to the ST.
> 
> wrong man just check top gear roll-ons 60-80 mph     st 3.83  vfr 5.23,
> that says a lot about midrange or in the vfr case, lack of.      8^)

Not that I'm disputing the difference between the ST & the VFR.  :)

Laters,
Brian

     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
          http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=