Just read the August 2009 edition of SuperBike Magazine - get one at Borders, or wherever - has a plenty of good articles. Unfortunately, I can't link to the article - you have to buy the mag.
There is no question the authors are aware the 10R is FAR superior then any other bike profiled in the mag including the R1. They only have one article on the 10R and all other brands have specs like “top speed” 140s-160s and nothing has a ¼ mile time in the 10s. The 10R does 9s with a good rider. Enough of the magazine’s bias against the 10R by lack of information - guess Kawi doesn’t have to pay money to these mags to advertise and promote their product - they know it sells based on word of mouth.
What caught my interest is an article on page 8 titled, "The Truth is in There - a lot has been written about the R1’s cross-plane crank engine. But the big question remains. Why does it feel so good to ride on the road when performance and dyno tests show it to be se average? Superbike uncovers the facts.” Where'd all the power go in the R1? It goes into length about how folks feel it rides better; however, the 10R shows much more power on the dyno. Where did the power go they ask? They finally answer their own question (I think they were paid good by Yamaha) and here it is, it's a ridiculous assertion:
First they show a dyno chart (below). As you can see the 10R hp line towers over the R1 from left to right at all RPM ranges, and I mean towers.
![]()
Then they ask again, where did the missing power go and show a second dyno chart. This chart both lines are almost together across the chart from left to right. This dyno was performed at 40% throttle. They did this because dyno's are always based on max throttle position.
Then they answer their own question and say, "the power is not missing, it didn't go anywhere". They found R1s perform with exceptional power at 40% throttle which supports why folks who test drive rave about how it feels powerful - (in and around town or at less than 1/2 throttle).
Reality is the R1 performs just like the 10R and others around 40% throttle.
What is up with the magazine bias or have I just not noticed it? Does the flow of advertisement money have anything to do with the bias?
There is no question the authors are aware the 10R is FAR superior then any other bike profiled in the mag including the R1. They only have one article on the 10R and all other brands have specs like “top speed” 140s-160s and nothing has a ¼ mile time in the 10s. The 10R does 9s with a good rider. Enough of the magazine’s bias against the 10R by lack of information - guess Kawi doesn’t have to pay money to these mags to advertise and promote their product - they know it sells based on word of mouth.
What caught my interest is an article on page 8 titled, "The Truth is in There - a lot has been written about the R1’s cross-plane crank engine. But the big question remains. Why does it feel so good to ride on the road when performance and dyno tests show it to be se average? Superbike uncovers the facts.” Where'd all the power go in the R1? It goes into length about how folks feel it rides better; however, the 10R shows much more power on the dyno. Where did the power go they ask? They finally answer their own question (I think they were paid good by Yamaha) and here it is, it's a ridiculous assertion:
First they show a dyno chart (below). As you can see the 10R hp line towers over the R1 from left to right at all RPM ranges, and I mean towers.
Then they ask again, where did the missing power go and show a second dyno chart. This chart both lines are almost together across the chart from left to right. This dyno was performed at 40% throttle. They did this because dyno's are always based on max throttle position.
Then they answer their own question and say, "the power is not missing, it didn't go anywhere". They found R1s perform with exceptional power at 40% throttle which supports why folks who test drive rave about how it feels powerful - (in and around town or at less than 1/2 throttle).
Reality is the R1 performs just like the 10R and others around 40% throttle.
What is up with the magazine bias or have I just not noticed it? Does the flow of advertisement money have anything to do with the bias?
