Editor's Notes

EDITOR'S NOTES

GO AHEAD. THROW STONES AT ME FOR getting hung up on something as superficial as looks. Based on an early magazine photo of the new Ducati 900SS, I’d determined it to be an ugly Duck, mainly because of its curious-looking seat. I’ve never cared all that much for the tail styling of the 851 Sport or 888 Superbike, but the SS’s stepped, two-level affair really seemed like a mistake.

Two things to note here: First, this bike's other parts, notably the ladder-type frame, semi-exposed motor, upswept exhausts, sexy fuel tank—I could go on and on-are so lovely to look at that the tailsection’s styling sins go all but unnoticed. Second, the 900SS works so well that I wouldn't care if I had to operate it from atop a velourcovered king-and-queen saddle complete with sissy bar and stash pouch.

So, 1 stand corrected. I now know better than to judge a book by its cover. Or a Duck by its tail.

—Don Canet, Associate Editor

BEFORE TELLING THE WORLD WHAT I think of the Ducati 900SS, I’ve got a few confessions to make: I scored an A-pluson Peter Egan’s recent Italianbike test; my office shelf holds a firstplace Battle of the Twins trophy; and I’ve owned a Ducati or two in the past-well, okay, five.

So when I say I’ve got a new favorite Ducati, I hope you take me seriously.

If someone had suggested to me that there was an airand-oil-cooled, carbureted, two-valve-per-cylinder desmo Duck in the works that I would like even better than my previous favorite—the liquid-cooled, fuel-injected, eight-valve 888—1 would have laughed in his face. If he had said that the bike used Japanese suspension and carbs, my sides would have split from laughing.

But if he had told me that the bike was quicker than the Fast By Ferracci 750 Sport I race-tested in the January issue, and that it was 60 pounds lighter and cost $ 12,000 less than an 888,1 would have placed my order right then and there. Now. where's my checkbook?

—Brian Catterson, Managing Editor

Now HERE’S A CONCEPT. INTRODUCE A big-bore sportbike, but forget about going 150 mph or posting killer quarter-mile times. Instead, make the thing as light as possible and tell the engine-design guys to jam-pack the engine with torque. Hang some quality suspension on the frame, mount premium brakes and tires, and what you've got is a superbike for the real world.

Okay, I’d have preferred that Ducati fit a link-type rear suspension. As it is, the non-linkage set-up doesn't quite match the superb action of the 900's new fork. And I wish the bike was sold in the U.S. with the half-fairing that is offered in Europe, putting more of the motor on display, knocking off a little more weight and evoking even more memories of the first 900SS. At least the smaller fairing is listed as an option.

The original 900SS made its share of history and is fondly remembered. Look for this new bike to carry on more than just the model name. —David Edwards, Editor

i WASN'T INCLUDED IN SUZUKI’S GSXl 100G design process. Had the engineers asked for my opinion, i d have suggested that they make the G less of a 1980s retro-bike and more of a larger-scale Bandit 400, in my mind a true 1990s standard.

Sure, this 1 100 has a monster engine and a wonderful saddle, but combined with the softly sprung front suspension, noticeable shaft-drive effect and George Foreman-like weight, the GSX also has its share of problems. For an example of comfort and controllability, Suzuki need have looked no farther than its own Katana 1 100, one of today’s best-suspended big bikes. And why not chain drive? In the 1970s and early '80s, chains were messy and needed constant attention, true, but modern-day C)-ring chains require very little maintenance and weigh a lot less than a shaft. As it is. there's still a lot to like about the GSXl 100G. but it’s definitely not a motorcycle that I’d fall in love with. —Matthew Miles, Associate Editor

FROM THE FIRST MOMENT I SAW IT. I wanted to like Suzuki's GSXl 100G. The old GS 1 100G was a great motorcycle. and with nearly a decade’s dose of technology, I figured the new version would be just as great, and probably even better.

In many ways, it is. It’s got the killer motor, powerful and smooth, wrapped in a chassis that's scaled right for taller riders like me. Its seat-bar-peg relationship is about as comfortable as an unfaired motorcycle’s can be over the long haul. And, say what you will, 1 like the way the bike looks, especially from what the guys in our photo studio call a three-quarters-rear angle.

But that’s where the praise ends and the criticism begins. The GSX is simply too flawed to earn inclusion in my personal Motorcycle Hall of Fame. What’s frustrating is that some of the problems could have been easily fixed at the factory.

Nice try, Suzuki—please try again.

—Brian Cat tersan. Managing Editor

LOOK, THIS BIKE ISN’T PERFECT. SUZUKI never intended it to be. Sure, you can argue that the bike shouldn’t have gained 20 pounds over the 1982 1 100G, and, yes, the guys who dialed-in the front suspension ought to be reassigned to the outboard-motor division, but the engine-refinement design team should all get big raises design team get big for bringing us one of the most enjoyable inline-Fours ever. And with the range of accessories that will be available for the bike, the GSX 1 100G can be anything from a mini-Cavalcade land yacht to a back-and-forth commuter to a wide-band sport-tourer, making it one of the most versatile motorcycles on the market today. That deserves some praise.

If you want something that's sportier. Suzuki will be glad to sell you a GSX-R1100. But bungee a week's worth of luggage to its flanks and pack a passenger onto the rear seat, then come back and tell me just how perfect that bike is. —David Edwards. Editor