Joined Jan 2008
43 Posts | 0+
Seattle, WA
Friends
I posted previously a question about the differences between a priller and a SV1000S. I finally got a chance to ride a 2004 Aprilia RSV 1000 Factory the other day. Here's my comparo between the two bikes. To take the mystery out of this, I'm going to go buy it this week.
When you sit the priller next to the SV, here's what you see . . .
* Very similar sized bike. Without checking, I would imagine the wheel base is very close
* Saddle is lower on the RSV by a touch, and bars are much lower
* Pegs seem a touch lower and maybe just a bit back. The over all effect in any case is tons of ground clearance
* Better components all the way around: suspension, brakes, wheels, etc.
* 30+ more horsepower.
All of which should be the case given the price difference when new: $18k vs. 8k.
So what's it like to ride? I didn't put a lot of miles on and didn't wring it out by any means, but here goes . . .
The RSV feels like it carries its weight just a big higher and the overall feeling is that you're up higher. It's not a bike for folks with short legs.
The bike I rode had a weak battery so I had to pay attention coming off idle. The motor is considerably smoother across the rev range than the SV. In some respects it feels much more like a Japanese I4. Very low vibration. Everything feels in balance.
Because it's a twin, it pulls hard from just off idle until the redline. And it pulls very hard. I believe it's common for RSV owners to swap sprockets, but at least on first ride, I can't imagine why. It's a beast. I wasn't anywhere where it made sense to crank it hard (traffic, recent rain), but I have no doubt the front wheel goes up without any problem in the first two gears.
The bike wants you forward. I tend to crowd the tank anyway, so I had to be conscious of moving back in the saddle a bit. Any way you do it, you feel much more on top of the front forks than you do with the SV. Some of this is also due to the much lower clips ons. I found that my head was tilted all the way up and then I was very conscious of the top of the opening in my helmet. Unless I pushed back, I couldn't see the gauges directly, but I could if I looked down through the top of the windscreen. To that point, i have no idea how you would tuck in on this bike and still be able to see further ahead of you than ten feet. Maybe Dani Pedrosa could, but at 6' 2", I wasn't able to do it easily or even at all.
The bike shifts very smoothly. Much more so than the SV. Very snick, snick, snick. That may be due to the direct shift linkage, the transmission design, or both. As is true with any twin unless you're really on the boil, gear selection hardly matters at all.
Give it some gas and it gets with the program. I know I already said this, but it pulls much harder than the SV. Not a big surprise given the HP difference. I haven't ridden a modern liter bike, but my sense is that it's similar but different. The RSV would be a very hard bike to catch on the road. In fact, the 2006 Master Class winner at Jerez was an RSV Factory. Even today, there are only two bikes that will lap the Nurembergring faster: the MV Agusta 312 and the Yamaha R1.
I didn't get to go corner hunting but I did cruise some freeway on and off ramps. Hats off to anyone who regularly gets his/her knee down. This bike has a lot of clearance and seems like it will go to absurd lean angles. The track would be the only logical place to find out about all that.
In comparison to the SV, and keep in mind that mine has $1200 of suspension upgrades, the RSV feels much more precise from tip in to exit. It drops in beautifully and holds a line without a lot of effort (again, track time would tell). It also feels like it would care far less than the SV about a mid corner correction or taking a tighter line. My suspicion is that with some practice and familiarity, the same rider could run away from the SV on an RSV in the corners, irrespective of the horsepower differences. Or to state it another way, the RSV will allow you to brake later and harder, carry more speed through the corner, and certainly come out harder. On race tires or race-biased street tires, it would be a beast. Like I said, it would take a very, very good rider to get the best of a good rider on the RSV.
Where the SV is a clear winner is in the distance department. The more relaxed riding position, coupled with a taller double bubble screen, make my SV feel almost like a sport touring bike by comparison. Interesting how different that is coming from a bike like the FJR, in which case the SV feels tiny and hard core. I know there are people who put big miles on their RSVs. They must surely be some combination of smaller, younger, more flexible, and/or crazier than me. I couldn't do it. Just holding my head at full tilt for more than 20 minutes at a time would be excruciating.
in many ways, it's not an obvious comparison other than I own a nicely modded SV and am lusting after an RSV. But for the fact that they're both twins, they don't have a lot in common. The SV was built at a price point. It was never intended to go head to head with the Honda RC51, the 999, or the RSV. I know there are people who've ridden the latter three and could comment more authoritatively. They all have first rate components, brilliant motors, tons of race-cred, and phenomenal performance. But that's subject of another discussion.
I posted previously a question about the differences between a priller and a SV1000S. I finally got a chance to ride a 2004 Aprilia RSV 1000 Factory the other day. Here's my comparo between the two bikes. To take the mystery out of this, I'm going to go buy it this week.
When you sit the priller next to the SV, here's what you see . . .
* Very similar sized bike. Without checking, I would imagine the wheel base is very close
* Saddle is lower on the RSV by a touch, and bars are much lower
* Pegs seem a touch lower and maybe just a bit back. The over all effect in any case is tons of ground clearance
* Better components all the way around: suspension, brakes, wheels, etc.
* 30+ more horsepower.
All of which should be the case given the price difference when new: $18k vs. 8k.
So what's it like to ride? I didn't put a lot of miles on and didn't wring it out by any means, but here goes . . .
The RSV feels like it carries its weight just a big higher and the overall feeling is that you're up higher. It's not a bike for folks with short legs.
The bike I rode had a weak battery so I had to pay attention coming off idle. The motor is considerably smoother across the rev range than the SV. In some respects it feels much more like a Japanese I4. Very low vibration. Everything feels in balance.
Because it's a twin, it pulls hard from just off idle until the redline. And it pulls very hard. I believe it's common for RSV owners to swap sprockets, but at least on first ride, I can't imagine why. It's a beast. I wasn't anywhere where it made sense to crank it hard (traffic, recent rain), but I have no doubt the front wheel goes up without any problem in the first two gears.
The bike wants you forward. I tend to crowd the tank anyway, so I had to be conscious of moving back in the saddle a bit. Any way you do it, you feel much more on top of the front forks than you do with the SV. Some of this is also due to the much lower clips ons. I found that my head was tilted all the way up and then I was very conscious of the top of the opening in my helmet. Unless I pushed back, I couldn't see the gauges directly, but I could if I looked down through the top of the windscreen. To that point, i have no idea how you would tuck in on this bike and still be able to see further ahead of you than ten feet. Maybe Dani Pedrosa could, but at 6' 2", I wasn't able to do it easily or even at all.
The bike shifts very smoothly. Much more so than the SV. Very snick, snick, snick. That may be due to the direct shift linkage, the transmission design, or both. As is true with any twin unless you're really on the boil, gear selection hardly matters at all.
Give it some gas and it gets with the program. I know I already said this, but it pulls much harder than the SV. Not a big surprise given the HP difference. I haven't ridden a modern liter bike, but my sense is that it's similar but different. The RSV would be a very hard bike to catch on the road. In fact, the 2006 Master Class winner at Jerez was an RSV Factory. Even today, there are only two bikes that will lap the Nurembergring faster: the MV Agusta 312 and the Yamaha R1.
I didn't get to go corner hunting but I did cruise some freeway on and off ramps. Hats off to anyone who regularly gets his/her knee down. This bike has a lot of clearance and seems like it will go to absurd lean angles. The track would be the only logical place to find out about all that.
In comparison to the SV, and keep in mind that mine has $1200 of suspension upgrades, the RSV feels much more precise from tip in to exit. It drops in beautifully and holds a line without a lot of effort (again, track time would tell). It also feels like it would care far less than the SV about a mid corner correction or taking a tighter line. My suspicion is that with some practice and familiarity, the same rider could run away from the SV on an RSV in the corners, irrespective of the horsepower differences. Or to state it another way, the RSV will allow you to brake later and harder, carry more speed through the corner, and certainly come out harder. On race tires or race-biased street tires, it would be a beast. Like I said, it would take a very, very good rider to get the best of a good rider on the RSV.
Where the SV is a clear winner is in the distance department. The more relaxed riding position, coupled with a taller double bubble screen, make my SV feel almost like a sport touring bike by comparison. Interesting how different that is coming from a bike like the FJR, in which case the SV feels tiny and hard core. I know there are people who put big miles on their RSVs. They must surely be some combination of smaller, younger, more flexible, and/or crazier than me. I couldn't do it. Just holding my head at full tilt for more than 20 minutes at a time would be excruciating.
in many ways, it's not an obvious comparison other than I own a nicely modded SV and am lusting after an RSV. But for the fact that they're both twins, they don't have a lot in common. The SV was built at a price point. It was never intended to go head to head with the Honda RC51, the 999, or the RSV. I know there are people who've ridden the latter three and could comment more authoritatively. They all have first rate components, brilliant motors, tons of race-cred, and phenomenal performance. But that's subject of another discussion.
