Re: RS vs ST (power difference??)

[Jeff Goss <jjgoss@xxxxxxxx>]

Mike Benzon wrote:
> Jeff, my observation on the difference between the RS and ST,( I own a ST).
> If you are heavily inclined to ride a naked bike then the RS might be a
> better choice. If you don't mind the full fairing or like it then consider
> the ST. I think the bikes are very close in performance, maybe the RS is a
> little lighter than the ST. If you truly want a sport tourer with the hard
> bags then the ST is your bike. I find it puzzling that so many people buy
> RS's and then put ST bars on instead of buying a ST which is so close to the
> RS but with higher bars,( must be the naked thing). If you don't mind the
> full fairing and  you want something that will accept very nice looking hard
> bags go with the ST. Besides, there are better choices of wind screens for
> the ST. The heat issue is not an issue to me, the only time it has bothered
> me, was on a 103 F day, stuck in stop and go traffic. I always wear long
> pants and I do feel just a little heat when I am stopped or going very slow.
> I don't think it will be an issue where  you live. I don't think there is
> very much difference in the feel of the two bikes, but if I was going to
> spend a week on the bike, I would make mine a ST.

Thanks for your feedback - I'll be either highway commuting or taking a
trip of a day to a week with the bike.  I already have risers on my
current bike, and getting a new, larger windscreen to help with the
buffeting at speed, so when/if I switch I'd like to make sure I don't
regress in any of these areas.  With that in mind, the RS would have
more to prove than the ST to me.

One other topic - power.  I haven't seen any official reports of
differences (Triumph web site), but does the ST make more power (and
torque) than the RS? From the March issue of Motorcyclist:

          Measured    Measured   1/4 Mile      Top gear  Fuel
            HP         Torque                  roll on   Mileage
'00 RS   93.6@9250   61.5@5250   11.76@xxxxx    4.77       34
'99 ST  102.8@9250   65.2@5250   11.53@xxxxx    3.83       45

Cycle Canada (February) notes that the RS made 92 rear wheel horsepower
on a Hindle dyno, while their previous ST was 101.  With an accessory
exhaust they measured 93 hp on the RS.  They averaged better fuel
economy than Motorcyclist with the RS, at 5.6 l/100km or 50.5mpg
Imperial (I guess about 40US given that the US gallon is 4/5 of an
imperial).

I'm not looking to drag race a Hayabusa, but the top gear roll on and
apparent fuel mileage discrepancies did catch my eye as these are both
features you appreciate every day.  Granted top gear acceleration could
have as much to do with gearing as anything else, but then why the
better fuel economy of the faster bike?  Aerodynamics of the full
fairing?

> Mike Benzon
> 2000 ST
> Tornado Red
> 12.5K miles

- -- 

Thanks.

Jeff Goss

     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

End of st-digest V2001 #87
**************************


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                      End of Triumph ST/RS Digest
            ST/RS Digest 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

          This digest Copyright 1999-2001 TriumphNet.com