Sin City Stan
10-30-2011, 04:50 PM
Someone suggested when I first got my 2004 Nomad that I should write a comparison between the saddlebags. Well, I have never been a person who was ever at a loss for words I wrote a comparison between both bikes.
1500/1600 vs. 1700
Saddle Bags
The 1700 saddle bags are some sort of plastic extrusion and are much lighter than the fiberglass 1500/1600 bags. The 1500/1600 bags feel more substantial; however the 1700 bags feel just as substantial when the bags are closed. We have not taken a trip yet but in everyday use I prefer the top-loaders. I know this is heresy but it’s the way I see it. :D
Handling
The 1500 surprised me when steering into a turn. Even with a 150 vs. the 1700s 130 front tire it turns easier into the turn to a point where I consider it over-steer. It takes a little getting used to. The 1700 is not as twitchy in a turn. This may be caused by the tires. I don’t really know (Metzeler 880s). :shrug:
Suspension
The progressive shocks :tup: bear no resemblance to the air shocks to make a comparison. The only drawback is that the bags have to come off to make adjustments. Other than the shocks the suspension is similar between both models.
Braking
I think the 1700 brakes better than the 1500 and have better feel. However, something I noticed is that I locked the rear wheel up :wtf: when I had to react to an idiot cager who decided to merge left at a traffic light. No big deal. I counter-steered to a stop. After some reflection I credited this lockup to my previous experience with a CT which will handle more braking pressure than a MT. I applied the rear brake as I did with my previous bike which had a CT and it locked up. I’ve adjusted my habits since and use a lighter touch on the rear brake.
Engine
The most significant difference and I mean significant is the amount of HEAT the rider is subjected to. >:( The best comparison I can come up with is the 1700 is like living in Las Vegas in the summer compared to living I northern Illinois in the summer. Hands down the 1500 is MUCH cooler. :tup: Because of the engine modifications that were made to my engine there cannot be a fair performance comparison between the two.
Transmission
The 1700 trans was clunky, noisy and neutral was sometimes hard to find. The 1500 trans is smooth, quiet and neutral is always there. Kind of like comparing a big truck transmission to a car transmission. The 1700 has 6 gears though.
Ergonomics
The 1500 has the same wheelbase as the 1700 but somehow, someway it has more room. In fact too much room, although different highway pegs helped the legs. I’m looking for a set of 1700 handlebars to help the arms. Also, the floor boards on the 1700 were further forward. :tup: I sat on the 1700 with my knees bent a little less than 90 degrees. On the 1500 my knees are bent well beyond 90 degrees. The shifter is tighter on the 1500. My boot barely fits between the front and rear pedals. I have to pivot my foot outward a little bit to comfortably shift. This was not the case with the 1700. I looking for a longer pedal. Front or rear, don’t care.
Gas Mileage
The 1700 on its best day got 41 MPG, 2 up from Silverton, CO to Gunnison, CO. That involved a 3000 foot drop in elevation. More often I would expect 32 MPG when 2 up and 37 MPG solo. The 1500, even with a heavily modified engine is getting 35-37 MPG when 2 up and 41-44 solo.
Speedo/Odo
The stock speedometer and odometer on the 1700 were both off by 4% on the high side with OEM tires. They were both dead on with the CT installed. The 1500 is 2.7% high on the odometer and 10% high on the speedo. This is really odd to me as it had to be done on purpose as both meters use the same pulse stream. For some reason MaKaw wanted the odometer and speedo to register at different rates. :wtf: Which is further puzzling as it’s just as easy to make them both accurate.
Rolling Resistance
Last Saturday I took a ride to Mt. Charleston. On the way back there is a mostly straight downhill grade nine miles long. It starts at 8300’ and ends a Hwy 95 at 2500’. With the 1700 I could hold the clutch in until the bike was going 65 mph. The limit is 55 MPH. I would let the clutch out in 6th four or five times on this road to slow the bike down. With the 1500 I got tired of holding the clutch. I was coasting 45-55 and with three miles to go I was down to 41. I let the clutch out and motored the rest of the way.
Based on this completely unscientific comparison I have to say the 1500 has considerably more rolling resistance. Maybe that resistance is from turning all those extra gears at the rear wheel.
Summary
I like both bikes and would be happy with either. However, I prefer the 1500 mostly because of the heat issue with the 1700. But I really miss the cruise control.
1500/1600 vs. 1700
Saddle Bags
The 1700 saddle bags are some sort of plastic extrusion and are much lighter than the fiberglass 1500/1600 bags. The 1500/1600 bags feel more substantial; however the 1700 bags feel just as substantial when the bags are closed. We have not taken a trip yet but in everyday use I prefer the top-loaders. I know this is heresy but it’s the way I see it. :D
Handling
The 1500 surprised me when steering into a turn. Even with a 150 vs. the 1700s 130 front tire it turns easier into the turn to a point where I consider it over-steer. It takes a little getting used to. The 1700 is not as twitchy in a turn. This may be caused by the tires. I don’t really know (Metzeler 880s). :shrug:
Suspension
The progressive shocks :tup: bear no resemblance to the air shocks to make a comparison. The only drawback is that the bags have to come off to make adjustments. Other than the shocks the suspension is similar between both models.
Braking
I think the 1700 brakes better than the 1500 and have better feel. However, something I noticed is that I locked the rear wheel up :wtf: when I had to react to an idiot cager who decided to merge left at a traffic light. No big deal. I counter-steered to a stop. After some reflection I credited this lockup to my previous experience with a CT which will handle more braking pressure than a MT. I applied the rear brake as I did with my previous bike which had a CT and it locked up. I’ve adjusted my habits since and use a lighter touch on the rear brake.
Engine
The most significant difference and I mean significant is the amount of HEAT the rider is subjected to. >:( The best comparison I can come up with is the 1700 is like living in Las Vegas in the summer compared to living I northern Illinois in the summer. Hands down the 1500 is MUCH cooler. :tup: Because of the engine modifications that were made to my engine there cannot be a fair performance comparison between the two.
Transmission
The 1700 trans was clunky, noisy and neutral was sometimes hard to find. The 1500 trans is smooth, quiet and neutral is always there. Kind of like comparing a big truck transmission to a car transmission. The 1700 has 6 gears though.
Ergonomics
The 1500 has the same wheelbase as the 1700 but somehow, someway it has more room. In fact too much room, although different highway pegs helped the legs. I’m looking for a set of 1700 handlebars to help the arms. Also, the floor boards on the 1700 were further forward. :tup: I sat on the 1700 with my knees bent a little less than 90 degrees. On the 1500 my knees are bent well beyond 90 degrees. The shifter is tighter on the 1500. My boot barely fits between the front and rear pedals. I have to pivot my foot outward a little bit to comfortably shift. This was not the case with the 1700. I looking for a longer pedal. Front or rear, don’t care.
Gas Mileage
The 1700 on its best day got 41 MPG, 2 up from Silverton, CO to Gunnison, CO. That involved a 3000 foot drop in elevation. More often I would expect 32 MPG when 2 up and 37 MPG solo. The 1500, even with a heavily modified engine is getting 35-37 MPG when 2 up and 41-44 solo.
Speedo/Odo
The stock speedometer and odometer on the 1700 were both off by 4% on the high side with OEM tires. They were both dead on with the CT installed. The 1500 is 2.7% high on the odometer and 10% high on the speedo. This is really odd to me as it had to be done on purpose as both meters use the same pulse stream. For some reason MaKaw wanted the odometer and speedo to register at different rates. :wtf: Which is further puzzling as it’s just as easy to make them both accurate.
Rolling Resistance
Last Saturday I took a ride to Mt. Charleston. On the way back there is a mostly straight downhill grade nine miles long. It starts at 8300’ and ends a Hwy 95 at 2500’. With the 1700 I could hold the clutch in until the bike was going 65 mph. The limit is 55 MPH. I would let the clutch out in 6th four or five times on this road to slow the bike down. With the 1500 I got tired of holding the clutch. I was coasting 45-55 and with three miles to go I was down to 41. I let the clutch out and motored the rest of the way.
Based on this completely unscientific comparison I have to say the 1500 has considerably more rolling resistance. Maybe that resistance is from turning all those extra gears at the rear wheel.
Summary
I like both bikes and would be happy with either. However, I prefer the 1500 mostly because of the heat issue with the 1700. But I really miss the cruise control.