The "draw" of the "hard-edge" sportbikes -- especially as they've evolved to the performance levels of track bikes -- makes little practical sense to me for street riding.
It's kinda like the old snow ski biz; everyone wanted the skis that racers used (presumably to ski better), but very few ski at that level or on those conditions to have it make sense. Worse yet, the enjoyment and skill progression actually gets hampered by mis-applied equipment, hyped my makers looking for the marketing edge. Too much equipment gets bought for image, rather than practical substance.
10 years ago, I struggled over a decision between a CBR (harder edge at the time, but nothing like some of the bikes discussed above) and a VFR (heavier, slower, in need of springs, but much more "civilized"). I had only ridden in-line fours on the street (with the exception of a Kaw Mach III deathtrap and a Yamaha RD350). I knew the CBR was lighter and a better turning bike.
Finally, an old racer told me that I could not "out-ride" either bike, very few could; so choose the bike that would deliver more practical street-riding enjoyment. I went with the VFR, but honestly, I often longed for the CBR, because of agility and weight. The new VFR looks great to me (lighter, better suspension, F/I power, linked braking?)
Personally, I like the powerband of a V-motor, especially in the canyons, my favorite riding. I like the tempered intensity of lower RPM in the corners, rather than the demands of hi-RPM throttle sensitivity when you're trying to hold powerband and corner. It makes for smooth and fast cornering, because I can focus more on handling than controlling engine output.
Anyway, sorry to ramble but consider whether you'll get the practical enjoyment from a "hard-edge" bike versus one with a little wider powerband, a little lower peg height, a little higher bar height (fetal position on a bike starts hurting pretty quick) and suspension tuned for street, not track.