2016 KTM 1290 Superduke GT 

In many ways we are..... But dont forget the positives.

Sorry to hear about your crash. You’re definitely a true biker accumulating that many miles. I rode both bikes and it’s was an easy choice for me. I feel the Beamer wasn’t even close to the Ktm hence that’s why I own a GT.

A million miles yeh rite what age are you 120 😩

Yours was definitely defective. Mine doesn't have those issues.

Um... he actually said a million billion TRILLION torquey things. Big difference! LOL :)

BHP and RWHP... Bike is claimed to have 180 Base or Crank HP, but only 150hp get's to the wheels. No different from how R1s claim close to 200 but put down 160-170 at the dyno

Figure an average of 12% power loss from the crank to the wheel on most chain-drive bikes. Ducati is about 11% because of an efficient valve train.

Actually, they are riding armoured jeans; just very well used ones, but they have all the ballistic nylon abrasion resistance.

The Bike Show I recommend you don't test the abrasion performance of so called ballistic nylon, it's very poor from the engineering tests we did at university. It's a terrific marketing term, but sadly not matched by real world performance.

That's actually very interesting. Any way you can send us some of your data on that? It could be a good feature for the show. I did actually do a test being dragged behind a bike for a local manufacturer which worked well but it would be interesting to debunk some of the myths.

The Bike Show We tested for a well known manufacturer against their competitors, and, regardless of the outcome, the results were to be held commercial in confidence. The results weren't terrible, but neither were they good. I can say, however, that in the absence of a hybrid weave including Kevlar thread, or better still a Kevlar underlay, ballistic nylon does not provide abrasion resistance for sufficient duration. At speeds in the 80-90 km/h range, a rider would typically come to rest just within failure (ie breach of the outer lining and inner lining). At speeds of 100 km/h there is risk of harm to the rider. At speeds of 120 km/h the likelihood is very high. My comment was based on two observations. First, the speed seemed to be in excess of 120 km/h, thereby substantially raising the risk. Secondly, the garment (in this case the trousers) shows little resistance to wind turbulence, which indicates it is of a very light gauge and consequently will provide minimal protection (rigidity and abrasion resistance are highly correlated - think of how stiff Kevlar is in the hand. For example, the well known Scandinavian product is substantially more rigid than these trousers appear in this video, and would certainly provide better protection, but still inadequate protection at speeds higher than 120 km/h). The other critical factor is the fit - those trouser legs flapping in the breeze because of the light gauge material, would be at very high risk of being pulled up towards the knee upon contact with the asphalt, thereby removing abrasion resistance completely. There's a reason why racers do not wear ballistic nylon - it has a speed limit far exceeded in racing, and one often exceeded on public roads. Cowhide provides far greater protection, and Kangaroo hide has even greater abrasion resistance, but as they are not manufactured by very substantial public companies, they provide no intellectual property. I came to the conclusion that what ballistic nylon lacks in physical protection it made up for with patent protection and marketing, but the test results are irrefutable, and somewhat protected in themselves. There are some test results in the public domain, but to my knowledge they are not from accredited and independent test laboratories.

The Bike Show I should add that the yarn manufacturers themselves often use an abrasion test method that is not only very dated (1978), but which was devised to simulate wear and tear for luggage, not motorcycle garments. For example, FTM5306 is still cited by some US manufacturers of 1050D ballistic nylon, but this test developed in 1978 simply applies a load of 500 grams to a 5" diameter (or square) of cloth which is subjected to contact with vitrified rubber abrasive wheels at 70 rpm, where the testing table revolves for 300 revolutions. This test also permits counterweights to reduce the applied load to as little as 250 grams and 125 grams. This test has absolutely no relevance to motorcycling applications because of the minimal applied weight and the low rpm of the abrasive wheels. The weight applied comes nowhere near the point load weight of a dismounted motorcycle rider, and the 51mm diameter abrasive wheels rotating at 70 rpm come nowhere near the velocity of a dismounted rider. Yet yarn manufacturers still cite this, and similar, tests and simply note "FTM5306 passed". Garment manufacturers then purchase cloth which has passed a US Federally approved abrasion test (for luggage). In our tests we applied a point load of 30,000 grams (not 500 grams), which we calculated to be a realistic point load on the hips or buttocks of an 80 kg rider (the point load is actually a little less than 30 kg but we built in a margin of conservatism for safety). We then applied that load to a custom engineered device similar in design to a large, long belt sander which we could adjust the speed of to accurately represent the velocity of a rider over asphalt roads. I can't give the specific results, but I'm sure you can appreciate that our test method provided very different results. You might have seen motorcycle drag tests on ballistic nylon. The problem with these is that the test is actually terminated around the velocity that a real world accident commences, because they start from zero and end at 60-80 km/h. They cannot simulate the shock of hitting a highly abrasive surface at 120 km/h, for example. We can simulate that. So what you need to bear in mind is that the end damage (in fact, much more than the end damage) is actually realised in the first tenth of a second in the tests we conducted, and as the test proceeds the damage becomes much greater. We know exactly at what point failures occur at different velocities. For obvious reasons you won't find these results in the public domain, but you could engage a university physics department to replicate them. Ballistic nylon is a misnomer. It's a sexy marketing term that plays on the origins of the fibre in WWII, no more, no less. It is predominantly used in the manufacture of luggage, and therefore the approved testing methods were developed for that use, not for motorcycle use. It's not all bad news, as our tests indicated that CE2 armour somewhat lessened the abrasive damage on impact compared to tests where no impact absorbing armour was used, however the damage after the point of impact remained largely the same regardless of whether armour was in place or not.

More sporty - are you having a laugh 🤣😂 , best engine in wsbk history, did they won anything ?

Sounds like you are using it as intended.

You bought an adventure bike expecting not to drop it> ?? LOLOLOLOLOL If you're using it as intended you're going to drop it... If you don't want to drop it as much get a sport tourer and stick to pavement

These blokes ain’t Aussie mate.

Trumps the Man!!!

He's a comb over , Dip shit !

I don't give a rats ass how he combs his hair, he gets the job done moron!

Nothing getting done , He's just pissing of american and Dumb asses like you voted for him.

DR N He's done more before he was Pres then Obama did in 8 years! Idiots like you are why we are in the shape we're in!