grandpaul said:
The KZ can eat just about any Commando in a straight line. The Commando then slips past in the first turn/curve you come to.
People criticise old Triumphs for "having a hinge in the middle", till they soil their first pair of trousers on an early Z/KZ.
While my '80 KZ/A4 is a "better" handling bike, it's still HEAVY and could in no way be described as "nimble". Now, as the basis for a classic/vintage HIGHWAY bike, they're EXCELLENT.
I had a KZ1000 back in 1977, First of the 1000 cc models. I street-raced a JPS Commando back then. I remember it well. He couldn't get past me, and he couldnt catch me. He claimed later that he wasn't trying and he was "amused watching my back wheel bounce around." BS!! He was trying to pass but couldn't.
Now, I own a Commando myself, and a KZ1000 (replacement for the first one that I stupidly sold). The Commando is a hooligan bike, with lots of grunt, and it is nimble, as you say. But it's a bugger to start again if it stalls in traffic, and I have an ongoing battle with the twin Amals (they're synched and tuned OK, they just have a wandering idle setting - no there is no manifold air leak - I suspect it might be the Boyer - that's my next project). The KZ is smooth. It idles great. It gets off the mark - just snap the throttle and it's off!!! It looks cool and gets as many admirers (or more) than my Commando, because most people don't know Nortons.
The early frame wobble is often caused by bad head bearings or suspension and can be fixed. My KZ is no more wobbley than my Commando, at least the way I drive it.
IMHO it is a good highway bike, but it's good around town too. It might not qualify as a canyon carver.
Now, the original question was about a recent KZ1000P. It's not really a classic bike. I haven't actually ridden one, but it seems to me that they're like a Harley in style, but with a smoother engine. They are clearly reliable and parts are available and fairly cheap. You wouldn't buy a KZ1000P to carve canyons, I wouldn't think.