In days of old, there were many things one could do to one's motorcycle to make it lighter, and therefore faster. In fact you still can, but the gains are less and you have to go to further extremes.

Take Wayne's GSXR 1216 R for instance. This is probably one of the lightest large capacity sports bikes I have ever encountered, but over the years he has had to got to great lengths to reduce the overall weight of the bike - which was produced as a light bike anyway, the first with an ally frame. There are titanium and ally bolts and brackets everywhere, even the battery housing is reduced in size and weight to fit a smaller and yes, lighter, battery. One of the headlights has been removed and there are probably a few lighter bits in the engine too. All these things help immensely and Wayne's bike is testament to the fact that light weight and good BHP make for a good power to weight ratio. Other than the nuts, bolts, brackets, pistons etc. there are Dymag wheels, lighter callipers, single seat unit, etc. etc. the only thing left is the remainder of the bodywork and using more carbon fibre, but how far do you really go?

Well, you can still do all these things to shed weight on a modern bike, but is it as necessary? It really depends on what you want and what you have. From my point of view, I'm not so sure it is. My Fireblade weighs in at 170kgs (dry). This is about the competitive benchmark for sports road bikes nowadays and when you start taking it apart you see where Honda have made these savings in weight. It has a magnesium rocker cam cover, lightweight plastic front sprocket cover, titanium exhaust headers and rear wheel adjustment blocks, even the massive exhaust end can is lighter than a titanium Micron race end can I put on it, but of course the original doesn't sound as good. The wheels have lesser spokes and big hollow type hubs. The Exup type valve is made of titanium too and blow me if I didn't fit a Renthal rear sprocket last night to find the weight saving there was minimal too - although this was only part of the exercise as the sprocket is one tooth larger than normal. For me to get really serious about weight saving I would have to spend a fortune. Is it worth it when next year there'll be a more powerful Blade that's probably a couple of kilos lighter?

See how light Dean's race bike is, floating just above the road. So, you can even make a Triumph weigh a bit less!

All the manufacturers are doing it now. Lightweight sports bikes are closer to their brother racing bike than ever. I guess World Superbike has had a lot to do with this, but it is really Yamaha, Suzuki and Honda that lead the field. Kawasaki (Heavy Industries) still have a way to go, the ZX7-R is a joke when it comes to the dry weight and so too is the ZX9-R, and these are supposed to be superbikes. Both of these get beaten hands down when tested on the road and track by mags etc. against their direct opposition. I guess Kawasaki are working on something ... ? They certainly need to. This brings me nicely onto Triumph. I always said that when Triumph start to produce sports bikes that can equal or beat their Japanese counterparts, I'd buy one, but I'm still waiting. The latest incarnation of the 595i is the 2001 955i, this was supposed to be the shit hot sports bike from the UK that would level the playing field with the Japs, but alas, no. It doesn't cut it. The claims Triumph have for the BHP is about 16 BHP lower. (OK, they all do that), but, the weight saving and shorter wheel base advertising was still encouraging until it was unveiled. It's dry weight is a lardy 185kgs, that's what a 1992 Fireblade weighed and the torque is 1lb/ft less than my Blade, which has a smaller engine. I think Triumph still have a long way to go. I guess it really should be tagged and compared as a Sports tourer, they're too far behind when it comes to technology, which is a shame. Ducati, Aprilia and all the others? Well, you can go mad with after market carbon fibre bits for your 916/996/748, but again it's loads of wonga for little gain, unless of course you want the best "looking" bike parked at Box Hill and then of course it really is worth every single pound spent .

There are one, or two, items that are worth considering which still make a real difference - wheels. Decent mag-alloy wheels such as Dymags which are designed for the road can save a fair bit of weight over standard and offer a noticeable benefit, particularly to the steering. The rotational mass of a wheel has a large gyroscopic effect at speed, and the more you can reduce this the easier the bike will be to turn. Be careful of wheels intended purely for track/race use - they aren't designed to stand up to the potholes and surface damage of public roads.

The benefit of lighter wheels, as with lighter callipers and discs, is also the reduction in unsprung weight. Handling is most affected by the action of the bike's unsprung mass, which must react instantly to changing forces with only the tyre to act as a damping force. Reducing the weight of modern bikes involves much lightening of the frame, engine, chassis parts and bodywork. It is a good deal more expensive to make similar reductions in the unsprung weight, so the ratio of sprung to unsprung mass can worsen. So, if you're looking to put your bike on a diet, consider wheels, brakes, swingarm etc. as well as cans and carbon fibre bodywork.

'Course, the current Gixer1000 has put paid to all this with superlightness, amazing steering and far too much horsepower for a chap to properly deal with in a confined space. So, ignore all this bollocks and go and buy a K6.