Re: [ST] RE: RS vs. ST

["Darwin Holmstrom" <dholmstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Tim Mitchell <Tim.Mitchell@xxxxxxx> - 7/12/01 4:37 AM >>>
As there any reasons why the ST panniers shouldn't fit an RS -- apart from
the colo(u)r matching ? In any case, Givi lists a fitting kit for RS (anyone
out there tried it?)

The pipe is too high on the RS for the ST bags to fit.

>> I notice a bit in the back of the July Motorcyclist last night, I don't
have it right here to quote figures but the ST excels in every
performance figure they quoted: Horsepower, ET/1/4 mile speed, and 60-80
roll on. IMHO, the conception that an RS is sportier than the ST is an
illusion, nothing more than ad copy. <<

Every U.S. magazine got higher horsepower and torque readings when they dyno'd the ST than they did when they dyno'd the RS, even though the engine is supposed to be identical. My theory? The pre-production ST test bikes Triumph sent to U.S. mags were pumping out a few more ponies than were actual production bikes. This may have been intentional, or they may have had to make some last minute changes to the engine to meet EPA regs. Whatever the reason, by the time they released the RS the following year, the production specs were set in stone (ie. the pre-production bikes had dead-stock engines straight from the production lines). I bet if Motorcyclist tested a new 2001 ST against a 2001 RS, the ST's performance would be just what you'd expect from a bike with the same drivetrain weighing a few pounds more and pushing a bit more plastic through the atmosphere.

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