Ally
Well-known member
Phil loaned me the bike & gave me the opportunity of making some personal & 'what matters to me' comparisons with my D-Tracker.
When I rode my first 20km on this bike I felt by bum was too low, my knees too high and my feet resting on the gear & brake pedals at an angle that was more acute than I was comfortable with. The reason I raised the seat on the dtracker was to straighten my leg more. I will admit after 80km I was more comfortable than when I started (I had got used to the different style) but I really would prefer to have a straighter leg position.
Sitting on the CRF, I had to make a conscious effort to bring my toes in as the gear lever is more stubby than the dtracker, plus the knees bent riding position (& my habit style) mean that my toes were actually pointed slightly out. The stubby gear change is 5.5 cm from the casing to it's tip where as the drtacker is a full 7cm!
Another nice thing about the CRF is the mirror view comparison. I was able to see more of the road directly behind me than with the dtracker. I have played for 3 years with the dtracker mirrors and have never found I could improve to this level of satisfaction on the blind spot behind me, up my bum if you like! The reason behind this is the risers of the mirror on the CRF are 48cm apart where as the dtracker is only 43cm apart. The CRF achieves this partly by having wider (longer 79cm) bars than the stock bars on the dtracker 77cm.
Sitting at lights I have both feet flat on the ground. My jeans leg is 31 inches long, so I am not tall, just 5'8". I believe I know 4 people in my social circle that would really enjoy riding this bike over the taller kawasaki options. Not saying they are vertically challenged but slightly shorter in the leg !
I measured from the centre of the bars to a position vertically above the pegs. The CRF is 40cm & the dtracker is 45cm. So the result of my knees being bent is more to do with seat height than the distance the pegs are from the front of the bike in respect of my arm length / seating position as the measurements show, the CRF pegs are 5cm nearer the front of the bike.
I tried to do stupid stuff like pull away in 3rd (on purpose - honest !) and the torque seemed better than the dtracker. I also tried to stall it at low rev's / slow speed and found the CRF coped very well, where as in similar situations the dtracker would stall.
It's quick. Out of the box, the dtracker only did 114km/h on the clock, arms tucked in & a decent wide open road with a following wind. The CRF however, does 126km/h.
As is my want, I checked the speed with my garmin csx. The dtracker consistently shows a difference of -9 (your see 114 on the clock but garmin gps says 105). The CRF had a difference of -10 (the clock says 126 & garmin says 116)
Tomorrow I will wash the CRF & get to know any issues I care about when I touch & look at the bike with a soapy cloth & chamois in hand.
Ally
When I rode my first 20km on this bike I felt by bum was too low, my knees too high and my feet resting on the gear & brake pedals at an angle that was more acute than I was comfortable with. The reason I raised the seat on the dtracker was to straighten my leg more. I will admit after 80km I was more comfortable than when I started (I had got used to the different style) but I really would prefer to have a straighter leg position.
Sitting on the CRF, I had to make a conscious effort to bring my toes in as the gear lever is more stubby than the dtracker, plus the knees bent riding position (& my habit style) mean that my toes were actually pointed slightly out. The stubby gear change is 5.5 cm from the casing to it's tip where as the drtacker is a full 7cm!
Another nice thing about the CRF is the mirror view comparison. I was able to see more of the road directly behind me than with the dtracker. I have played for 3 years with the dtracker mirrors and have never found I could improve to this level of satisfaction on the blind spot behind me, up my bum if you like! The reason behind this is the risers of the mirror on the CRF are 48cm apart where as the dtracker is only 43cm apart. The CRF achieves this partly by having wider (longer 79cm) bars than the stock bars on the dtracker 77cm.
Sitting at lights I have both feet flat on the ground. My jeans leg is 31 inches long, so I am not tall, just 5'8". I believe I know 4 people in my social circle that would really enjoy riding this bike over the taller kawasaki options. Not saying they are vertically challenged but slightly shorter in the leg !
I measured from the centre of the bars to a position vertically above the pegs. The CRF is 40cm & the dtracker is 45cm. So the result of my knees being bent is more to do with seat height than the distance the pegs are from the front of the bike in respect of my arm length / seating position as the measurements show, the CRF pegs are 5cm nearer the front of the bike.
I tried to do stupid stuff like pull away in 3rd (on purpose - honest !) and the torque seemed better than the dtracker. I also tried to stall it at low rev's / slow speed and found the CRF coped very well, where as in similar situations the dtracker would stall.
It's quick. Out of the box, the dtracker only did 114km/h on the clock, arms tucked in & a decent wide open road with a following wind. The CRF however, does 126km/h.
As is my want, I checked the speed with my garmin csx. The dtracker consistently shows a difference of -9 (your see 114 on the clock but garmin gps says 105). The CRF had a difference of -10 (the clock says 126 & garmin says 116)
Tomorrow I will wash the CRF & get to know any issues I care about when I touch & look at the bike with a soapy cloth & chamois in hand.
Ally
