Don't think the RC45 was anywhere near as successful on the racetrack as the 888, was it? And that was despite the millions thrown at it by HRC. Straight from the crate, its handling was considered suspect. Even Hislop didn't get on with it. A 16inch front wheel, and decidedly 'iffy' weight distribution meant cash needed to be splashed on it to make it competitive.
Moreover, with its gaudy multi-colour paint scheme it looks much like any other early '90s pocket-rocket Japanese UJM. No, if 'cool' can be measured by the number of turned heads as you pass by the crowds, the 888SP wins hands down. (IMHO!)
Adorning myself with the 'Jacket of Pedantry', or is it the 'Anorak of Minutiae', I can never decide...but first i'm pretty sure the RC45 had 17 inch wheels, it was only the blade that started life with a 16 incher? And wasn't Robert Dunlop on an NC35, the 400cc little bro of the RC/RVF?
And wasn't Robert Dunlop on an NC35, the 400cc little bro of the RC/RVF?
Nah mate. [anorak mode on] It was the '94 TT.Robert was on the Medd Racing RC45 when his rear wheel collapsed just after the jump at Ballaugh Bridge.[/anorak mode off]
Sorry RSF, but the RC45's front wheel was a 16". (The RVF400, on the other hand, had a 17").
However, the small front wheel wasn't blamed for the RC45's handling peculiarities. Steve Hislop thought it had to do with weight distribution. Wayne Gardner too said he thought the '93 Factory RVF's (and the RC45) went in the wrong direction as far as engine placement in the frame and it's effect on turning/handling. Even though Honda claimed the engine sits 10mm further forward in the frame (compared to the RC30), both Factory team racers Arron Slight and Doug Polen talked about chasing the front end as it pushed wide, and of its lack of feedback through the turns.