I concur. All my research suggests that these bikes are so close in speed that I can't figure out what the **** all those extra cc's are doing for the raider. But that's coming from a guy who has rode neither. Hence the birth of this thread. I'm sure it pulls real hard...but the raider just isn't that much faster. Slow enough that rider skill is probably more important than the engine.I'm talking about, literally speaking, pound for pound of the motors and even overall weight of the bikes, there isn't as much difference in comparison to the massive displacement differences..
Absolutely, the only place that the Raider is going to have an advantage is 2 up fully packed fighting headwinds and needing to have that extra torque to pass etc.I concur. All my research suggests that these bikes are so close in speed that I can't figure out what the **** all those extra cc's are doing for the raider. But that's coming from a guy who has rode neither. Hence the birth of this thread. I'm sure it pulls real hard...but the raider just isn't that much faster. Slow enough that rider skill is probably more important than the engine.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
I pulled 0-60 times from 10 or so sources. No one had the Stryker in the 5's. Not one. And those same sources had the Stryker a second down in the quarter mile as well. I'll look again so I can quote more reliable sources than "cuz the new guy said so." But with those kinds of differences, the average person vs the average person in a straight line is going to come down to skill not bike. Most quoted times are from people that take machines and make them go 0-60 for a living. It's why I'm so doubtful of spending the extra cash on a raider. I'll pull those sources.Absolutely, the only place that the Raider is going to have an advantage is 2 up fully packed fighting headwinds and needing to have that extra torque to pass etc.
When it comes to really serious twisties with mountain grades where you can't go more than 35 to 50 mph in curves with 15 to 25 mph hair pin turns, it boils down to the skill levels of the rider and how easily the bike can be thrown back and forth around curves. You can't use the power that either of these bikes have in those conditions. And I'll guarantee you a Stryker will smoke a Raider in those condition 2 up packed or solo riding..
But I think you are mistaken with the Straight line numbers, I don't think they are that close. I don't know where you got the 4. something 0 to 60, the Stryker is 5. something to the Raiders 4.1, and 12.35 to 13,28 in the 1/4 is a bit of difference too. That equates to near 110 mph and the Stryker can't hit 100 mph in the 1/4. Although someone I think on this forum did say that in the family there was a Raider and a Stryker and there wasn't that much difference in acceleration.
Also I think someone said the Raider hits 65 in second but I can tell you the Stryker will hits near 80 in second gear.:thumb:
Oh and their not 100 lbs difference it's only 84 lbs.
I got the 5+ second 0 to 60 time from one of the first articles I read on the Stryker almost two years ago. There was one that said over 6 seconds but I'm not believing that at sll. So ya I would love to see some newer more accurate numbers. And I know the stock Stryker isn't going to get you more than 13.25 in the 1/4 maxed at 97 mph.I pulled 0-60 times from 10 or so sources. No one had the Stryker in the 5's. Not one. And those same sources had the Stryker a second down in the quarter mile as well. I'll look again so I can quote more reliable sources than "cuz the new guy said so." But with those kinds of differences, the average person vs the average person in a straight line is going to come down to skill not bike. Most quoted times are from people that take machines and make them go 0-60 for a living. It's why I'm so doubtful of spending the extra cash on a raider. I'll pull those sources.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
[email protected] right? You wont hit 100 mph with a 13 .29 1/4 mile run, that's got to be a miss print.Right so the times I found are as such:
The Stryker from Cycleworld- 4.3/[email protected]
The Raider from Motorcycle-USA 4.46/[email protected]
A shame I never did find numbers on both bikes from the same source. But all the numbers I found are similar within half a second. There also seems to be quite a debate within forums on times. But these are from reviews from press.
A bit concerning to me when pondering the value in the extra cash. I'm sure torque matters. But how much if we all get to 60 at the same time? Based on the quarter mile it seems like Stryker gets off quicker and the raider catches up. That's all I need to know right there.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
13.29. According to the two times (from two different sources) the raider is actually 4 hundredths of a second slower than the Stryker in the quarter mile. But as you can see by the speed it was catching up real fast. Based on that (and obviously its not science) the Stryker is way faster off the line[email protected] right?
These times are probobly about right.
Again these times are plenty fast for a cruiser and most of the time you are not going to use that power on either bike.
I had seen a quote somewhere for 12.8 on the raider. I had wrote it down at work. It's obviously capable. But that's still barely quicker than the Stryker and not worth 5k to me. And yeah you can tell by the higher speed and slower time it goes 60-80 way quicker than the Stryker.Bike 1/4 mile E.T. Yahama Star Raider 12.09* Suzuki M109R 12.08** HD Rocker 13.30* HD Night Rod Special 12.47** Honda VTX1800F 12.90** Kawasaki Vulcan 2000 Classic 13.30** Victory Hammer S 13.17** Yamaha Star Warrior 13.01**
You need to check around some more to get the correct times. In all my research that's the first I've seen that says any where near 13 seconds for the Raider. You can ask some of the guys here and on the Raider forum that have taken their bikes to the strips and clocked them.
The Stryker will do 50 to 100 mph in forth in about 3 seconds with a 140 lbs rider.:thumb:Having ridden both bikes the biggest difference I noticed was upper gear power like say when ya want to pass at a high speed. Say you're riding at 60 mph and need to get to 80 to pass a couple trucks on a 2 lane, raider will make that pass easily, sometimes ya have to time it right with the Stryker
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
I totally agreeI had seen a quote somewhere for 12.8 on the raider. I had wrote it down at work. It's obviously capable. But that's still barely quicker than the Stryker and not worth 5k to me. And yeah you can tell by the higher speed and slower time it goes 60-80 way quicker than the Stryker.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
I have to wait for the 30th to get my Stryker. Waiting on a house to close. It will be the copper for 9k if they still have it. If not ill buy a new black midnight. That white raider is pretty thoughI totally agree
BTW I'm going down the hill to probobly by a pearl wight Stryker for $10,480 OTD. But its going to be real hard to walk away from that pearl wight Raider setting next to it for $13,800. But wait that's still $3,320 more and that's not the OTD price? Well that's just a no brainer.:nod:
Was at the rally as well. As for speed etc. the Raider wins. Either from the stoplight or from roll on they just have more.I concur. All my research suggests that these bikes are so close in speed that I can't figure out what the **** all those extra cc's are doing for the raider. But that's coming from a guy who has rode neither. Hence the birth of this thread. I'm sure it pulls real hard...but the raider just isn't that much faster. Slow enough that rider skill is probably more important than the engine.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
