frank@marvin.contex.com (Frank Perdicaro) writes:   >Well I was wrong.  As I sat on the ST, both feet down, all I could  >think was "big".  Then I put one foot up.  "Heavy" came to mind very >quickly.  With Cindy on the back -- was she on the back?  Hard to  >tell with seat three times as large as a Hawk seat -- the bike seemed >nearly out of control just idling on the side of the road.  It is heavy, the 91 is mid 600's dry, that is the one major drawback of the ST.  >By 3000 rpm in second gear, all the weight seemed to dissappear.  Even  Can you say " tourque monster" The test drive sold me on the bike,  lot's of bite anywhere above 2500 in any gear.  >on bike with 4.1 miles on the odometer, slippery new tires, and pads that   Did you trythe ABS/TCS version?   >Cindy has no difficulty with speed.  3rd gear, 4th gear, purring along >in top gear.  This thing has less low rpm grunt that my Hawk.  Lane  >changes were a new experience.  A big heft is required to move this  >thing.  Responds well though.   No wallowing or complaint.  Behind the >fairing it was fairly quiet, but the helmet buffeting was  After market fairing windshield for 100.00 raises the bubble 6 inches above most heads, but hurts the looks of the bike.  >non-trivial.  Top gear car passing at 85mph was nearly effortless. >Smooth, smooth, smooth.   Not sure what the v4 sound reminds me of, >but it is pleasant.    This is the essence of the bike, move the throttle and itr accelerates  any gear anywhere anytime, I frequently find myself at the DOD min  during a casual passing maneuver.  >The jump on to 133 caused me to be less than impressed with the >brakes.  Its a down hill, reversing camber, twice-reversing radius, >decreasing radius turn.  A real squeeze is needed on the front binder.   This is a function of the weight, you have to be aggresive with the brake squeze, actually as tested by Cycle world and an expert rider the ST stopped faster then the comparable models from BMW, and YAMAHA even with  the extra weight and Gas . >The section of 133 we were on was tight, but too urban.  The ST works ok >in this section, but it shows its weight.  We went by the clam shack  You must countersteer the ST for every turn and movement short of the classic pothole wiggle. Just forget ever leaning into a  turn again. It must be countersteered into every turn and then  responds nicely.  >About half way through the onramp, I yanked Cindy's wrist, our singal >for "hold on tight".  Head check left,  time to find redline.  Second >gear gives a good shove.  Third too.  Fourth sees DoD speed with a  >short shift into top.  On the way to 133 we saw no cops and very light >traffic.  Did not cross into DoD zone because the bike was too new. >Well, now it had 25 miles on it, so it was ok.  Tried some high effort >lane changes, some wide sweeping turns.  Time to wick it up?  I went  >until the buffeting was threating to pull us off the seat.  And stayed >there.  When I was comfortable with the wind and the steering,  >I looked down to find an indicated 135mph.  Not bad for 2-up touring.  Faster then I've ever gone, I 'd hate to buy this bike after your  short "break in period"   >to thread the ST through the cars to the edge of the concrete pad >out front.  Heavy.  It took way too much effort for Cindy and I to put >the thing on the center stand.  I am sure that if I used the side >stand the ST would have been on its side within a minute.  Not true, the side stand is well designed for the weight and will hold  the bike nicely on dirt. I am able to easily get the bike up on the center stand, just step down on the stand instead of pulling up on the bike.  >My demo opinion?  Heavy.  Put it on a diet.  Smooth, comfortable, >hardly notices the DoD speed.   I'd buy on for about $3000 less than  >list, just like it is.  Too much $ for the bike as it is.