|
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Went to the Fuel It demo yesterday, the Victory guy said the reason the 2011 Ness Vision doesn't have ABS is because the seat is lower and it didn't have room for the module. Give up ABS for a lower seat? Doesn't sound right. The seat is lower because they us a stiffer foam and took an inch off the top, not the bottom. Yes? With all the voids under the rear end, it would seem easy to relocate an ABS module. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1359
New Bohemia, Va | I like the idea of having a choice NOT to have ABS even if I would have to pay more. Not being an engineer, nor did I sleep at a Motel 6, I couldn't give you any other reason for this absurity. |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 669
Peachtree City, GA | Could be true - it is a different seat between the 2010 Visions with ABS and the ones without it...
|
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 395
Moravia, IA | Nozzledog - 2011-02-23 1:26 PM
Went to the Fuel It demo yesterday, the Victory guy said the reason the 2011 Ness Vision doesn't have ABS is because the seat is lower and it didn't have room for the module. Give up ABS for a lower seat? Doesn't sound right. The seat is lower because they us a stiffer foam and took an inch off the top, not the bottom. Yes? With all the voids under the rear end, it would seem easy to relocate an ABS module.
Im a huge fan of the Vision and a Polaris stock holder....but every time I go to talk bikes at the Fuel It demo's I quickly realize alot of those guys dont know shit.....really.
I had one tell me the Vision weighs 150lbs LESS than a GL1800 Goldwing and that why reverse isnt standard - doesnt need it.
Yeah....a Vision does NOT weigh 150lbs LESS than a GL1800.....actually about 50lbs MORE.
The bike is great....sometimes the support/people arent.
Edited by aaronrkelly 2011-02-25 8:34 AM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | aaronrkelly - 2011-02-25 8:34 AM
Yeah....a Vision does NOT weigh 150lbs LESS than a GL1800.....actually about 50lbs MORE.
When I first got my 2008 Vision Tour Premium, my buddy and I took our bikes (his is a 2001 GL1800) across the local scales. We made sure all the junk was out of the trunks so we were weighing only the bikes. His Goldwing was about 20 pounds heavier than my Vision. We had filled up both bikes with gas, and the GW holds 6/10ths of a gallon more than a Vision, which would account for about 3.6 pounds. His bike isn't all farkled up and is your basic Goldwing. We both have the CB radio options. There's not much practical difference in the weights once the bikes are gassed up and loaded for a ride.
The published numbers are dry weights, with no options installed, and are misleading.
Ronnie |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | The Honda website boasts a 933lb wet weight on the 2009 GL1800ABS with a GVWR of 1338lbs
The Vision specs shows a 909lb wet weight for a comp. equipt (2010 ABS) bike with a GVWR of 1414lbs
The Vision 8-ball shows a 840lb wet weight and the same GVWR.
SO the best I could see is the 8=ball is 97lbs lighter, not 150lbs
The only 150lbs I did get was that the Vision can carry 150+lbs more cargo.
What he should have said is that a 3-5" lower (and narrower) seat gives you more muscle power to push the bike backwards.
I agree with Nemo, it's nice to have a no ABS option, but it shouldn't be on the top model. That's what 8-balls are for. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | I hadn't looked up current model wet weights. My buddy's 2001 GW literature listed dry weight, which is what led to the argument and the trip to the scales. Neither of our bikes have ABS. Neither of us want such a device on our bikes.
Your review of current model wet weights confirms what the scales told us . 933 pounds for the GW and 909 pounds for the Vision is a difference of 24 pounds. Fully equipped, the GW has a 405 pound load capacity for riders and cargo combined. The Vision has a 505 pound load capacity for riders and cargo combined, which is 100 pounds more than the GW. The Vision 8-Ball has a 574 pound load capacity (169 more than a GW), but that's not a fair comparison to a GW.
So, the Vision Tour is 20-24 pounds lighter than the GW and has 100 pounds more load capacity, and a 2.6 inch lower seat height than a GW, plus somewhere to put your feet. Vision wins.
Ronnie
Edited by rdbudd 2011-02-25 12:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1359
New Bohemia, Va | rdbudd - 2011-02-25 12:02 PM
Vision wins.
Ronnie
Who has even doubted this, even of those who have yet to own a Vision. They know they want it, and they want it bad.
Oh wait, "But it's not a GoldWing!" |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 88
Nova Scotia , Canada | I am lookin at purchasing a 2011, Why wouldn't you want ABS?
Don |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 188
Tifton, GA | ABS was one of the reason I wanted to get a Vision. After my wreck last summer I want all the help I can get in emergency situations. The system on the Vision would have given me a better chance at avoiding the wreck IMHO. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | nice rides - 2011-02-25 2:26 PM
I am lookin at purchasing a 2011, Why wouldn't you want ABS?
Don
Bad experiences with ABS on both company vehicles and private vehicles. Great idea when it works. Bad when it doesn't. I've experienced ABS failures resulting in NO BRAKES when something electrical went haywire. No thanks, don't want it. I'll just make do with the good old reliable hydraulic mechanical brakes, if given the choice.
Yes, I know I'm an antique. Lie to me once, shame on you, Lie to me four times, shame on me (ABS).
The ABS is probably more reliable on a Victory than the ones on the Ford, the Dodge, the Kenworth, and the Peterbilt that acted up on me, but I'm not taking the chance. Electrical failures, every time.
Ronnie
Edited by rdbudd 2011-02-25 5:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | As an absolute physics fan, ABS is so much better than trying control braking pressure independently between front and rear to maintain maximum braking force without letting either wheel skid and loose gyroscopic stability and traction, all during a panic situation. To give that up because 'it doesn't fit under the seat' is dumb! |
|
| |
Something sounds fishy to me...