[forty6]

Originally Posted by Samarth 619

While I would agree with most part of the message, we can't really compare the Bullet & RD350 pricing to the YZF R3.
Reasonably maintained RD's (the best we can get in this age) can be had for around 1-1.5 Lakhs, while the basic Bullet is also below the R3's pricing by a considerable margin, unless you mean the 650 twins.

And as far as R3 is concerned, the reason it was DOA is KTM. Upgrading the suspension is a good idea on R3, but a firm, controlling suspension and grippy come standard on the KTM.
And Value for money it surely was, at least on its launch. Do you know I got a Duke 390 on launch for Rs. 1.96 lakhs on road? Now, I admit R3 has its own merits like better bite in brakes (without ABS though), more comfortable, better frame, reliability, etc but the common public can't quantify all this.

But yes, I do agree that we customers are fickle minded. I remember many keyboard warriors complaining that we don't have a decent 600cc inline 4 (after Daytona 675 was discontinued), and Kawasaki responded by launching the ZX6R, and within few months it was down to 0 sales. What's the point in the end?

I meant in the 80s the RD wasn't the cheapest. Neither was the bullet a cheap buy. I wasn't comparind them with the cost of the R3.


Yes, the R3 was quite a bit more than the KTM, but if Yamaha would have focussed on it and the price differential wasn't that much, it wouldn't be any bit difficult to choose the R3 over the KTM. The R3 is a better bike, just not cheaper or as powerful. And you are right, the buyers usually don't understand how that sentence makes sense.