I'll say it again. unless you plan on running a 636 above 10,000rpm all the time, it is a DOOOOGGG! no power. and this isn't up for debate. its a fact. if you've ridden the two bikes, there's no disputing it. for those with a soft spot for I-4 600's, I sympathize. but it wasn't even close. and it shouldn't feel close. 636 - approx 45ft/lb of torque max. below 10,000rpm...please. maybe 30ft/lb. vs. the hawk which starts pulling at 2,000rpm, and makes 65-70ft/lb of torque. besides wanting to desperately be wrong, why would you even try to dispute this?

 

I've ridden a 636 along with all the other 600's. I had three 600's before the SH. All of which are compltely different animals than the Hawk. The Hawk can pull away out of turns alot easier and quicker than I4 600's. There is a difference between quicker and faster. It's only up top and on the ragged edge where 600's will edge out a SH. If you're just a straight line kind of rider than yeah the SH is going to feel alot different and seem perhaps slower than the I4 600's but its all in perspective. But put them in some technical stuff where you need to power out of turns and the SH really starts to shine then, and I'm on the crappy stock suspension lol. I can drop my friends who are competent riders in their 600s with no problem coming into or out of a turn. Engine braking is a great thing to have and get used to. Something you won't notice or be able to use a I4 600. Then there's the torque. Ah that lovely torque. As mentioned by someone else earlier, 600s just feel anemic under their respective powerbands. Dyno plots show it and your butt dyno sure as hell feels it. But, you get a big rush of speed up top with I4 600 and that's where all the power is. They make great track tools as you can ring their neck out and make em beg for mercy. But in a real world on the street they are pretty useless IMO. Sure they sound good but there's no grunt. There's no character. I always felt "detached" from my 600. Like I wasn't part of the equation but more so just an observer on the bike. I don't feel that way with the Hawk. I feel part of the machine and power pulses are something God intended humans to experience.

Anyways I'm rambling. Enjoy your Hawk and you'll get used to it. It's a big change from riding a I4 600 but hopefully you'll come around. Welcoem to the forum

 

Okay, you guys love your bikes. Thats great. I like my hawk too. Over the last day and a half that I've owned it its grown on me. Guess what swordfish- they're not fast bikes! Maybe you took out your little brothers stuntah/street fighter 03' 636 with crappy timing a and a chipmonk in the airbox and decided it was slow.

The argument about twisties is debatable. If you know how to ride a racebike (600) and enter a corner so that you will be in the power band on exit you can ripp out of it just like on a hawk. The hawk makes a LOT more torque so you can get lazy, enter a corner in 4th and still pull hard out. Its a nice luxery but a good sport rider will think a lot further ahead than that and even if hes on a 636 (which is obviousy a wicked slow bike) he'll enter the turn faster, get lower in the turn, and exit just as hard as a rider of equal skill on a hawk.

Not up for debate? Your right, check out quarter mile stats. A quarter mile is not just a long straight road. Its a really short straight road and most bikes wont get out of 3rd running one.

The hawk is an amazing machine. Seriously. But its not a race replica. Its not. Its heavier, its suspension is softer, its brakes are smaller, it does not cut and edge like one and it pulls like a chiwawa at speeds over 90. Do yourselves a favor and focus on what makes these things cool and how we can make them cooler (stiffen suspension etc.) and not giving me 10 reasons why they're better than race bikes.

I agree that hawks are a better bike for off the track- especially in urban or suburban environments. All that low end is a blast. On state roads passing a line of 10 cars who are all going 60 it'd be nice to have that supersport top end. But you are right- most of us don't need it most of the time.

I'll admit that they excell in the twisties. I just ripped my favorite mountain gap on mine (albeit with my girlfriend on the back) and I was impressed. I need to go back without her and really give it the onions and I'll form an opinion on whether I like the hawk or the ninja more for canyon carving.

 

Wow, ok this is getting kinda heated almost. I'm not going to get involved in any debate because it would fall of deaf ears. Not a kncok at your personally but more so what anyone says isn't going to alter ones opinion so it would be a waste.

FWIW I'm sure many here will agree with you that the SH is not a race replica. That is what the RC51 was for.

 

other than being lowered 2" cause it belonged to a girl, it was bone stock. I guess you answered my question. you want to be wrong. I never denied that the 636 would be faster on top. I even confirmed it. or maybe not using the correct vernacular by saying "faster" instead of "quicker" is where I lost you. (rediculous but whatever) if you don't think the hawk has enough "nut" for you, then maybe you should have kept the ninja. as its soo fast. how will you manage without an improved quarter mile time? will your friends make fun? if you keep the 636 under 10,000rpm at either the drag strip or the track I'll take you any day. that's all I said before anyway. STREETABILITY. if its not screaming, its suckin wind. I'm gonna try this one more time: ON THE STREET, COMPARED TO THE HAWK, A 636 IS A DOOOOOG UNDER 10,000RPM.

 

man, people get upset. im glad i got the hawk. I'd like to get another supersport (gsxr 750 would be great) but the hawk is a great bike and hopefully in a year or two I'll have the means to get another bike without getting rid of it. It would make a great addition to the garage of anyone who already has a 600.

each bike has strengths

low end: hawk
top end: ninja
handling: ninja
sound: hawk
gas mileage: ninja (got 33mpg on my first SH tank, ouch!)
wheelies: hawk!
corners: toss up -pros and cons for both (ninja has more clearance)
looks: toss up (my hawk looks a **** load better than my ninja cause it was beat)
comfort: hawk
top speed: ninja
0-60: hawk

just my opinion and certain catagories mean more to each of us. I'm not gunna argue about which bike is better cause its not that simple.

End of discussion , 636s are wicked slow and superhawks are gunna be on the motoGP circuit next year.

 

I'd say you summed it up pretty well. And, I agree that you can come off the corners just as hard with a 600 as you can with a hawk if you keep it on the boil.

 

[

quote:
(The hawk is an amazing machine. Seriously. But its not a race replica. Its not. Its heavier, its suspension is softer, its brakes are smaller, it does not cut and edge like one and it pulls like a chiwawa at speeds over 90.)

As far as pulling like a chihuahua over 90mph. do you self a favor and drop it down to 3rd or 4th gear. That **** will move. Just because you dont have to redline the Hawk doesn't mean you cant.

 

This is the same debate that you used to hear about 2 strokes vs. 4 strokes on the street. For me it's always been about a nice fat powerband and I never really got into the blue smoke thing. But for my "half as many strokes" friends they felt like having a 2000RPM wide band was what the fun was all about. Their measure of skill was how well you could keep the bike in band while cornering. Thats more work than I want to do while I'm out huggin the corners. Its all about usable torque for me.

 

I think it was Carroll Shelby that said "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"

 

I have to agree with the poster that said that the 636 is a dog compared to the SH. I rode a friends broken in (1,000 miles) 636. A 636 is gutless, at low RPM's.

While the superhawk will not be a race bike, for a multitude of reasons, on the street she can still hold her own. Other members have shown that they do quite well at the track as well.

While inlines may have more power on top, I have shown many 600cc riders my backside in the twisties. I am not a incredible rider, nor do I claim to be.

Its all about useable power, and how you enter into the corner. As you said on a 600 you have to plan your corner entance and exit RPM. On the superhawk you can just pull the throttle and hang on. Or as you said "be lazy".

While hp keeps you at speed, torque gets you there. Torque is a great thing.

 

I wouldnt mind having a couple year old 600 as my second bike.. use that one the days when i want to suit up an really push the twisties... cuz if i crash one of those o well.... But im gonna cry like a lil school girl if my precious shawk ever goes down lol

 

Yes I can--the Hawk is simply more fun to ride on the street.Which is what it was designed for.You felt it lacked the "Nut" you were looking for.Well you did not say which ones you wanted Bigger Nuts or More Nuts.Bigger is what you got with the Hawk(torque). If you wanted more(horsepower) Nuts then you should have looked into a liter bike(i-4). I see that by your profile that you are still a young man.Most of us on this site have lets say--been around the block a time or too.Motorcycles are like dating.Sure the fast girls were fun but most of us did not end up marring one.If this bike is not fast enough to scare you then you need to get yourself one with numbers on it and find a race track.Then we can all say Hey! remember when that kid was on the Superhawk Forum?

 

Ok... First nutter that can in complete honesty say he cannot (And I mean can not, not will not...) scare himself on a hawk riding hard (but witout deliberatly trying to kill himself)... And I will sponsor a full ride to IoM... If that doesn't scare you, get a shrink... Then there obviously is something very wrong...

 

I guess scaring onself is relative and not necessarily something to strive for. I don't like to scare myself but its nice to have a bike with more power than you'll regullarly access. In riding the hawk over the last few days in remote locations I've been been routinely accessing all 100 of those ponies. Thats fine, I've had a blast on it, its an amazing machine. But its predictable linear powerband lacks the "oh f*ck" factor of an I4. I knew this before buying the bike and frankly that's why most people like these things so much.

The only time I've been scared on the hawk was once when I got distracted reading a "hay for sale call 454-????" sign on the side of a barn and entered a turn a bit too fast and when I scraped the peg feeler for the first time and it barked loudly at me as it hit the pavement. Other than that, no dice on the fear front.

Like I said, i'm not bummed about that. Its not like I'm into S&M and like riding an unstreatable bike that whops me into submission. The hawks a great bike, very user friendly, fast, ballsy, but relatively non intimidating.

 

After reading all these posts, maybe a Gixxer 1K would be a better bike for you. You seem to have a "thing" for the I4, so why stray? Here, I'll give you a start:
http://www.gixxer-forum.net/

All I hear is you saying how our bikes a so un-impressive. What do you expect to hear in reply? Stop downin' the thing already!!

 

Maybe what you need is a bottle of NOS. There's your "Oh ****!"

 

Try out a RC-51... There's your "oh f*ck"... The VTR-F is a sport-tourer... the RC is a RR...

 

"The hawk is an amazing machine."
"All that low end is a blast"
"The hawks a great bike, very user friendly, fast, ballsy"
"The thing has great low speed handling characteristics- much better than a super sport. It pulls really hard off the line. Its obviously torquey."
"I really like my new bike though. Its fun and comfortable and looks and sounds sexy as hell"

-ME, vermontzx6r, from this thread at various points in time.


if you think those quotes are downing the superhawk I guess we have different standards of praise. as for the IL4 liter bike, maybe someday. But when I think about all that the hawk offers theres no doubt in my mind it will always occupy a space in my garage (or storage unit for now cause i'm not a home owner).

There's a reason you guys defend them so fiercely and the more miles I log on it the better I understand that. Every minute on the bike I like it more and It's only been a few days and a few hundred miles. Try not to get offended if I note areas it could use improvement and subsequently ask advice and search old posts for ways to make those improvements.

 

Well... I'm not taking part in the heated argument... I do however doubt you have used all 100 hp (BTW there should be 105... ) routinely as you put it... I'm guessing you are wringing it's neck like you would a 600 (not an unfair assumption based on what you used to ride...) ... and then you are above the powerband of the V-twin...

Another reason altogether is that to actually use all the power of the VTR, street or track, you really need better brakes and front suspension than stock... And that is regardless of your weight... It's a rather common known fact that the VTR has more engine than chassie in stock form...

You are saying you are stable in corners, just heavier going in... That tells me you aren't doing the speeds the bike is capable of... If you are using all it's got with stock brakes & suspension, you are either nuts... or you belong on the GP circuit...

Also I'm not sure if you have given the information... But with stock gearing you won't get the full powerdelivery of the VTR... actually even the top end suffers, ie you do get to 150... but it takes a week... +1/+2 in the back or -1 in fron or combinations are common... try it...

However if you still want more... and I mean more... Then consider a set of Moriwaki internals for that engine, add a lighter flywheel, open set of pipes, K&N airfilter and a re-jet...

By now you are in the area of 130+ bhp... and that is by far to much for the stock brakes and suspension... Infact you are at the point where it's time to consider bracing the frame and either bracing the swing or replacing it with a sturdier one... Replacing the front end is more or less a given since long...

If you then ride that bike to the point where it gets a bit squirly under you and still feel it lacks nuts... well... then sell it to me...

I started with the chassie and haven't done that much to the engine, yet... I'm at 118 bhp and I'm quite happy there...

 

"they're not fast bikes!"
"Its heavier, its suspension is softer, its brakes are smaller, it does not cut and edge like one and it pulls like a chiwawa at speeds over 90."
"But its predictable linear powerband lacks the "oh f*ck" factor of an I4"

and your answer:
"Do yourselves a favor and focus on what makes these things cool and how we can make them cooler"

 

Unfortunatey Wolverine, he has some points there... I like the VTR... but it's true...

Straightline speed... not the VTR's strong suit... It gets toppled by a lot of bikes... And I imagine even the kawi...

The stock suspension and brakes are a joke... I know it... You know it... so why bicker about it???

Power delivery is smoother than a new gen big IL4... I have ridden the new GSXR 1k and when it hit peak power I did say "oh f*ck"... and worse...

Now he has put his point across with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop... but that doesn't mean he's all wrong...

 

Grasshopper you must learn to chant the mantra.But I know what your saying,It's lacking
that last little bit.But that's how it is.Last weekend the Angel of Death followed me around for two days,and by sunday afternoon I was kinda spooked.So I turned it down a three or four notch's and I remember thinking you know,This thing is still entertaining.Can't ride like a banshee all the time even tho I try.
Well gotta go ride,welcome again

 

Your calling me grasshopper???

*waves cane in the air and yells in old mans voice*

You just wait...

 

The points aren't in dispute. The fact that he makes all those statments, then turns around and contradicts w/
"Do yourselves a favor and focus on what makes these things cool and how we can make them cooler"

I'm thinkin' do yourselves a favor?

 

Not to sound like an ***, but unless you are Nicky Hayden, you can ride the Hawk quicker than the Kawi on any twisty road. That is to say, if you rode both bikes you would be faster on the hawk. Getting a knee down, some of us get our whole bodies down. (ouch) These things have the torque to break loose at most any rpm in the corners. I ride with a lot of good riders on nice bikes and the Hawk is so linear and predictable that no matter the horsepower deficiet of the bike it usually shows them all the tailpipes by the end of the twisty roads. Who cares how fast you can go in a straight line.