TVS Apache RTR 160: Riding Impression

TVS Apache RTR 160: Riding Impression

I've managed to get quite busy again, so when I finally had the time to take a look at the blog again, I realised that I had completely forgotten to not put up the TVS Apache RTR 160 riding impression. By now, I think most of you already know all of the tech specs of the machine, and I'd be very surprised if you all hadn't already pored through the mags. The question is, is it really that good?

Engine/Gearbox/Performance
The motor is still heavily based on the Apache 150's (which in turn, I'm told, is based on the Fiero motor). However, vibration has been reduced, and power/torque have both gone up. Even conceding that the speedometer, now digital, incorporates a optimistic seven per cent error, seeing 120+ kph on the speedo is ridiculous easy. Anyone could do this with one arm tied behind their back. Just make sure that it's the left arm that's tied, not the other one.

The motor doesn't actually feel that powerful, though. It feels roughly as powerful as the 150, no more. However, it's when you ride it next to another machine that the difference become more obvious. Until that point, all you'll notice is that the speedo tends behave like a new MBA – all big numbers in bold text. I happened to ride it 'versus' a CBZ X-Treme and blow me down if it didn't cream the Hero Honda. The CBZ X-Tremehad no answer, at any speed, to the way the 160 builds velocity. Again, sensation-wise, I'd pick the CBZ X-Treme as the one with more 'feel.' But bring a lap timer or a stopwatch into this brawl and the 160 will absolutely kill any current Indian 150. The TVS chaps on hand were quite confident too, adding that a Pulsar 180 would find the 160 a fair handful to deal with.

As has become normal of TVS gearboxes, you won't notice it, which is exactly how it should be. I'm told that there was a bit of debate about whether the gear ratios (identical to the Apache 150) needed to be longer or shorter, but there was no consensus on that front... Personally, I thought the gears, especially third and fourth ran out a bit too early. I have a feeling ridden at a track like Sri'dur or Coim'tore, there will be some corners where leaned over gearshifts will spoil some fun. But that's nitpicking.

Chassis/Ride/Handling/Braking
The chassis is also evolved from the old one, with the most major change being the lengthening of the swingarm. TVS's 160 now is a 1300mm wheelbase, which is still quite bit shorter than its competition. However, I found no instability in the package beyond a mild, short-lived weave when leaned over fully going through a really bumpy corner. The extra wheelbase has not dulled the 160's ability to eagerly attack apexes or change direction as quickly as most women change their minds (no reference to The Wife, just a often used general analogy). The 160, in short, is still a lovely, lovely handler. And now it feels a heck of a lot better with the (finally) rearset footpegs and the low and narrow clip-ons.

The new brakes are great too. The wave or petal discs look rather cool and at first glance, I thought 260mm rotors were overkill. I'm happy to report that I was mistaken. The brakes are very strong in feel and still friendly enough at low speed. Stoppies should be ridiculously easy and my only crib is a lack of feel from the lever about midway through a hard braking maneuver. Again, I'm nitpicking to make this review feel authoritative.

Features/Miscellaneous
Since I've already told you most of the dynamics of bike, I'll now focus purely on the features. You have seen most of the stuff I am talking about, so feel free to skip a couple of paras ahead if you're short on time/attention span. There are a lot of detail changes that add up to make the 160 look really, really stylish. There are aluminum footpegs all round (rubber tops for the rider), a very neat, clean subframe to mount the pegs on, red coloured pinstriping on the wheels, a neat engine cowl, the lovely racing stripe (tail to tip, and on tacho face), the superbly done speedo console (clock, two trips, odo, speedo, fuel gauge), lots of idiot lights (usual plus service indicator, battery status and fuel level), and finally, the neat clip-ons. They mount with an allen bolt under a nice looking plastic cover. The mounting holes are actually elongated, so you can move the clip-ons into two positions, obviously, one of the two positions is sportier – and that's one I liked more. I've thought the 150 seat was made of rocks earlier, but as I type this, I don't even remember the 160's seat, so that must have been fixed too.

Verdict
It's kind of presumptuous to have a fledgling blog offer a verdict on a bike, but then again, it sounds better than 'Net, Net' or 'Summary.' I quite liked the Apache 160. The extra displacement certainly pulls its weight and I for one won't be questioning the 'morality' of a 160cc motorcycle fighting 150s. It simply does not matter to me. I'd be even happier if TVS had made a 180 for the same price. In one sense, they have, right? The 160s output numbers are similar to the first generation Pulsar 180, are they not? And while I'm building this castle, why not a 200? You get the drift.

The price is expected to be more than 150, and TVS will officially announce it soon (the commercial launch is scheduled for May 2007). I think it's going to be at the top-end of the 150cc segment, or about Rs 60,000-ish ex-showroom.

What I don't like is that TVS, despite getting more aggressive on the product package front, refuse to fully let go of their conservative traits. So the 150 will continue to take up showroom space until the smart ones among you turn a total blind eye to it. India's so large, there will always be suckers...

So, between the new Unicorn, CBZ X-Treme, P150 and the new 160, what would I pick? I'm not entirely sure since I haven't ridden the bikes back to back so far, but I have a feeling the Apache RTR 160 will smack a lot of butt and the competition is going to see a lot more of that slightly silly white and red tail lamp than they would really like to.