Well ya know....I rode the very same RED bike that I own about three years before I bought it. I also rode a RED one at Sturgis in '93 and BLUE one at Sturgis in '94.
Both my wife and I got off the BLUE one and said how much of a nice bike it was, but the colour was awesome. I even said then that the BLUE bike would be very hard to pick over the RED bike. So why pick RED, the GTS was only imported to Canada in '93, so RED was where it was at. Re-paint, no thanks. I am sure there are going to be people who will say that there were '94's imported into Canada, but I have yet to here from a dealer who sold one. If there was, there was only a few and possible only demo bikes. My .02. Grant Gall Derek Baylor wrote: > The regularity and conviction with which you red GTS owners brag about your > bikes being the fast ones, even without provocation from us blue guys, > definitely indicates a powerful inferiority complex at work. > > I don't care what the red GTS supposedly does that the blue GTS does not, > the blue bike is MUCH prettier, and always will be. Maybe we just ride a > little slower so everyone can better appreciate the color... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Diesel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:50 PM > Subject: Flufff: Re: Re: Trip Report > > > Wait? Isn't that the blue one? It's proved to be slower than the (fast) > red > > one. > > Blue apparenly contains more colorpigments than red, hence it weighs more, > > not only that, but it also absorbs more light in all ranges, not only UV, > > which increases weight. Since light doesn't have a smooth surface, it also > > appears a little 'rough' in the wind, hence, it slows down the bike by > > increasing drag. > > > > Interesting stuff. :) > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill Sowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Mine is the fast '94. > > >
