R/S Questions and 1999 vs. 2000 S/T performance

[Chezfreddie@xxxxxx]

Anyone notice a difference in engine performance between the  S/T and the 
R/S?  The review of the S/T in MOTORCYCLIST asserted that the R/S "lacked the 
S/T's hellacious midrange."  Also, the  July 2000 Motorcyclist test profile 
showed a DECREASE of nearly 10 HP and 4 ft-lbs of torque from the figures 
from the S/T test in '99.  The same article referenced the smaller computer 
than the '99 S/T and conjectured as to whether this was the reason.  I am 
aware that the 2000 S/T also has a smaller computer with SUPPOSEDLY no change 
in performance.  Has anyone noticed a performance difference between the '99 
and 2000 S/T?  Wonder if Triumph has snuck in a "cleaner combustion" computer 
into their 2000 models to cater to the tough German and California emissions 
standards.  We're aware that the Japanese manufacturers have very quietly 
top-speed limited their 2000 superbikes.  Is the part number for the S/T 
computer in 2000 the same as for the part number for the computer in 99 even 
though it is a physically different box?

I'm very interested in a new R/S but I don't want a "wuss" tuned engine.  If 
there is a valid performance issue related to the new computer and it's as 
simple as replacing it with a '99 part from the S/T, the problem becomes one 
of slightly additional cost.

Strangely, the Motorcylclist article also states that the R/S requires more 
steering effort/input than the S/T and I simply don't understand this.  It 
seems contrary to everything else I've read.  Also, anyone notice stability 
problems due to 1/2" narrower rear wheel (but same tire size)?

Thanks for any help on this.

All the best, Fred


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