Rockster handling vs. roadster handling?

[Grey Thumper]

I know the differences in spec and parts. What kind of difference in handling do all the changes result in? (Granted, I know it's pretty hard to separate the differences in "feel" caused by suspension/rake/trail/ numbers and those caused by the ergos, but hey).

[riceburner]

ime... Rockster is a little quicker to turn in, the steering is quicker due to the "lifted" rear but I'm not sure if there's any difference in the actual ride-height setups of the front of the bikes (the Rockster has the R1100S front end, the Roadster is (IIRC - could be wrong) the same as the R1150RS/RT).

apart from that, there's not a lot in it, I don't think.

[sweatmark]

I tend to agree with riceburner: there's not much difference in handling, at least when compared to a broader selection of motorcycles.

When we had both bikes (wife's hand-me-down Roadster and my Rockster), the handling difference was easy to discern. Based on combination of handlebar bend, ergonomics (body position effect on both center of gravity and weight/leverage on grips), and suspension setup, the Rockster was definitely the "quicker handling" bike.



But when either R1150R variant is compared with a range of moto-options spanning sportsbikes to cruisers, I'd say the Roadster/Rockster feels like a nice unibody SUV (BMW X3, Ford Edge, or equivalent). Using such analogy, my Buell handles like a Shelby Cobra (twitchy & inelegant, yet invigorating), most 600/1000cc crotch rockets perform like true sportscars ( Porsche Boxster, BMW M3 being good well-balanced examples), and Bad Boy cruisers are like ladder-frame pickup trucks that despite big torque/tires/V-motor exhaust decibel barrage just cannot and will not handle well.

[Grey Thumper]

Isn't the front shock of the Rock slightly shorter than the Roadster (and the rear shock slightly longer)? I vaguely remember reading this on the forums. So I assume the Rock has a slightly steeper rake and less trail. Maybe not enough to make a significant handling difference between the two, just something to note for the obsessive

[riceburner]

Isn't the front shock of the Rock slightly shorter than the Roadster (and the rear shock slightly longer)? I vaguely remember reading this on the forums. So I assume the Rock has a slightly steeper rake and less trail. Maybe not enough to make a significant handling difference, between the two, just something to note for the obsessive

Not sure about the fronts (I'm still on my original front shock!!!), but the rears are quite definitely different. I have a R-R shock on my Rockster at the moment and it drags its arse like a sheepdog with terminal piles.

I think the difference in length is about 1/4"-1/2" - not sure exactly although I think I do have a photo somewhere of the two shocks side-by-side.

[Grey Thumper]

Whoah, it makes that big a difference? Gonna be problematic for Rockster owners then. I'll bet Roadster shocks will be cheaper and/or easier to find.

[jas]

Any of the shock companies can build a Rockster spec'd shock. I had Ohlins built by the speed shop and the cost was comparable to ebay prices.

[sweatmark]

Check out this thread for additional info about shock length:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21295