Setting the record straight.
I must say that I have never read so many misinformed comments and utter clap-trap from certain people posting on this forum.
After having covered a fair amount of miles on our demo bike, I
have to question whether Phil West was riding the same model in his review in this week's MCN. Without exception,
everybody who has ridden it has been extremely positive both about its ride and
build quality. I understand that it’s all part of a journalist’s job to make
interesting reading but Mr West has let himself down by seemingly making it his
mission to find as many faults as possible and then to exaggerate them.
that he calls a “crude, fake cover” on the exhaust is what is known as a heat
shield: it keeps clothing away from hot exhaust pipes and often covers the area
where the downpipes meet the silencer. Take a look...most bikes have them. And on the
subject of the silencer, it is nothing like an ER6N exhaust which he says it’s
trying to mimic: it’s actually almost identical to a late model Honda Hornet
600 silencer. He goes on to say “the horn is just tacked on to the frame
downtubes”. It is actually bolted onto a bracket, which is welded to the frame:
again, just like any other bike. Why is this a bad thing on the WK, but it’s
fine for every other manufacturer?
Finally, £4299 is not cheap enough? Come off
it; it’s over £1600 cheaper than the Kawasaki and you get £200 worth of gear
with it! I get the impression that if this bike was priced at £100, Mr West
would say it’s worth £50. I would suggest to anybody who wants to read a fair
and unbiased review of this bike to read Alan Cathcart’s article which can be
accessed via the WK Bikes website, or even better, come and try our demo bike and see for yourself.
Nightingale, Nightingales Motorcycles, Rugby