 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / General / Motorcycles / September 2008News from Yamaha
What we know: http://tinyurl.com/3ul22f Will take you to: http://www.yamaha-motor.ca/products/products.php?model=2989&class=2&group=M|&LAN G=en&CFID=18205277&CFTOKEN=51357333 Now I have often said the mid weights are an unappreciated segment of the motorcycle market. That said until today I was wondering why Yamaha would introduce a 950 to the existing 650, 1100 and 1200 series of V-Stars. Today I heard from a very credible source as of 2011 the 650 and 1100 will be dropped from the Star line. Now the 950 makes perfectly good sense. If your passion for motorcycles leans to the cruiser/tourer niche there are some exciting things happening out there. The new Voyager looks to me to be a winner. If you can get by the name and the styling the Star Liners are real stump pullers. While waiting for a ferry a few weeks back I had the chance to see the new Victory Vision and chat with the proud owner. It is a very cool bike. Toss in Yamaha's raider and the Motor Company's new 09's, without a doubt this truly is the Golden Age for bikers. Let's enjoy it. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. > What we know: > http://tinyurl.com/3ul22f [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > will be dropped from the Star line. Now the 950 makes perfectly good > sense. A bit of a mystery why they listed fuel economy figures in imperial gallons on the Canadian site. Do Canadians use Imperial Gallons? Aren't the Canadians metric? It has been a while since I've been in Canadianland. The 950 looks great. The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new item. > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd > year of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with > any new item. Hence my last cage purchase: 2004 Chevy Classic, which is identical to the 2003 Malibu except that Chevy kept making the identical car as a fleet-only model. >> The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd >> year of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the 2003 Malibu except that Chevy kept making the identical car as a > fleet-only model. Glad we think alike. The engineers need time to address stuff that breaks, and me the consumer doesn't want to be a victim. >>> The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd >>> year of production. They need time to sort out the various issues [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Glad we think alike. Your most favorite car you ever owned was a '78 Mustang II Mach I too?!?! > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year > of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new > item. Wise man. I was once told: "Never buy the Mark One of *anything*". (I might make an honourable exception for the Kawasaki Z1)  SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools >> The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the >> 3rd year [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (I might make an honourable exception for the Kawasaki Z1) I loved that bike!! >> The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year >> of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new >> item. > >Wise man. Not really. More conservative is not always best. I've bought "first year" cars on more than one occasion, and they were fine. They were not GM or Chryslers, of course... >> What we know: >> http://tinyurl.com/3ul22f [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >A bit of a mystery why they listed fuel economy figures in imperial gallons >on the Canadian site. Do Canadians use Imperial Gallons? We are bilingual in more ways than French and English. We are a metric nation but still speak the imperial language. Fuel economy is expressed as liters per 100 kilometers or MPG. You have to watch the MPG figures to ensure they are using the imperial gallon. >Aren't the >Canadians metric? It has been a while since I've been in Canadianland. > >The 950 looks great. As I said before I like the mid weights. The 950 looks interesting. Although it only has a single disk on the front, it does have a disk on the rear wheel. Some mid weights don't. I thought the gas tank was a little small. I'll take one for a test ride in the spring and see how it feels. >The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year >of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new >item. Yeah, there is a raised element of risk, but life is full of risks and if I want something I might not be willing to wait a year or two to have one. That said I am not looking for a mid weight right now. I could be convinced to buy a Raider though. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. >>The 950 looks great. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have one. That said I am not looking for a mid weight right now. I > could be convinced to buy a Raider though. The 950 would be great for me. I'd like something that has a little more oomph but still gets good mileage. Still, the Shadow 600 ain't that bad. Now that I ride semi-competently I can definitely get on the freeway. The technique I've adopted is to go wide on the ramp curve then get parallel with the freeway traffic as early as possible (I think that might be called "early apexing"). Anyway, I'm reluctant to apply any serious gas on a curved ramp and if I don't get parallel a bit early I tend to scrape the pegs because the higher velocity increases the lean angle to hold the same radius. One skill I need to practice is "car kicking". I'd like to be able to competently kick cars (while moving) that do offensive things. Maybe I could have a friend drive a car and practice in a parking lot. >The 950 would be great for me. I'd like something that has a little more >oomph but still gets good mileage. > >Still, the Shadow 600 ain't that bad. Now that I ride semi-competently I >can definitely get on the freeway. I don't think getting on a freeway is indicative of any form of competency. >The technique I've adopted is to go wide on the ramp curve then get parallel >with the freeway traffic as early as possible (I think that might be called >"early apexing"). Anyway, I'm reluctant to apply any serious gas on a >curved ramp and if I don't get parallel a bit early I tend to scrape the >pegs because the higher velocity increases the lean angle to hold the same >radius. I usually recommend new(er) riders concentrate on the basic techniques required to control a motorcycle such as using the friction zone, looking where you want to go, effective braking, swerving, counter steering, cornering, etc. Once comfortable with the basic techniques then practice being "SMOOTH" with the controls and inputs until controlling their machine becomes as natural as walking. If you have to run all that sh.t through your mind while executing a turn, you might not be quite ready yet. It's like a golf swing, if you have a dozen things running through your mind during the swing, it's probably not going to turn out very well. Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. >One skill I need to practice is "car kicking". I'd like to be able to >competently kick cars (while moving) that do offensive things. Maybe I >could have a friend drive a car and practice in a parking lot. You're getting too wrapped up in those old urban myth/biker tales. I guarantee you on a bike will lose every battle with even the smallest of cars. If you think car kicking is a skill you probably admire those really skilled riders who have had to lay er down to avoid a crash too. Give cars, especially those with erratic drivers a wide berth. I tend to keep them in a position where they cannot hurt me. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. >>The 950 would be great for me. I'd like something that has a little more >>oomph but still gets good mileage. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think getting on a freeway is indicative of any form of > competency. What I meant by that was short and curved ramps and interchanges. One of the problems I had early on was on a curved interchange ramp that is essentially a circle tangent with a short segment where you have to get out of the right lane, I would scrape the pegs or have too high a lean angle. Root cause is that as speed increases, lean angle to hold a certain radius increases. That led to the early apexing technqique, where as I pick up real speed (above 35mph), the radius is increasing rather than remaining constant. >>The technique I've adopted is to go wide on the ramp curve then get >>parallel [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > dozen things running through your mind during the swing, it's probably > not going to turn out very well. I have nearly 15,000 miles and a couple riding seasons behind me. I also have three minor mishaps (two very painful) behind me. The basic skills you mention are long since mastered. The problem I'm describing is more complex than making a turn. I'm talking about getting onto a freeway when: a)The ramp is circular up until it becomes tangent to the direction of travel. b)There isn't a lot of distance to merge. c)The traffic is going over the speed limit. d)The bike is underpowered (so one can't put off the acceleration until the last instant). It is more complex than turning from Street A onto Street B. It is an energy, radius, and risk management thing. I especially don't like pulling a lot of lateral g's where I could slide into traffic. > Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. I'm both. >>One skill I need to practice is "car kicking". I'd like to be able to >>competently kick cars (while moving) that do offensive things. Maybe I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really skilled riders who have had to lay er down to avoid a crash > too. Car kicking is a skill. Look for my instructional DVD soon. > Give cars, especially those with erratic drivers a wide berth. I tend > to keep them in a position where they cannot hurt me. That's why you need to take strong evasive action right after you kick them. There is a small window of time between when you kick them and when they realize that they want to kill you. How to make use of that window will be a topic in my instructional DVD. >>>The technique I've adopted is to go wide on the ramp curve then get >>>parallel [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >d)The bike is underpowered (so one can't put off the acceleration until the >last instant). What you're describing sounds like situations that require your full attention to the road and traffic conditions, which is facillitated by your underlying skills having become automatic (i.e. you just look where you want to go and it happens). That seems to be precisely what Calgary was addressing >What you're describing sounds like situations that require your full >attention to the road and traffic conditions, which is facillitated by >your underlying skills having become automatic (i.e. you just look >where you want to go and it happens). That seems to be precisely what >Calgary was addressing For me and maybe for others, there came a time, and I don't know exactly when it was, when the basic skills of bike handling were so ingrained I stopped consciously thinking of them allowing me to focus on the road, traffic and other influences bombarding my senses. I still read Hough's books. I still practice braking, swerving and slow speed skills. I still try to become a more skilled rider, but I don't have to think about how to swerve when I have to. I don't think about how to best apply the brakes without adopting the Bill Walker swing the rear wheel wildly from one side to the other technique. The actions are ingrained, natural and automatic. And I am still impressed by the many riders I meet on the road who are truly gifted riders who are a reminder I still have a ways to go. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. >I have nearly 15,000 miles and a couple riding seasons behind me. I also >have three minor mishaps (two very painful) behind me. The basic skills you >mention are long since mastered. My bad David. I wasn't aware I was talking to someone who has mastered the art of bike handling, becoming both fast and smooth with an amazing 15,000 miles in the saddle and only crashing three times. Silly me to think I might have something constructive to add to this conversation. As you were. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. >>I have nearly 15,000 miles and a couple riding seasons behind me. I also >>have three minor mishaps (two very painful) behind me. The basic skills [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > As you were. Oh, stop playing hurt puppy. Those Jedi mind tricks don't work on me. In all seriousness, the issue is what skills you consider basic vs. non-basic. The skills you mentioned in your post (braking, turning, etc.) are all basic. I don't think about those. But I still think just a little bit when I have a short entrance ramp with badly placed curves that are adjacent to where one merges. It isn't just a matter of doing it at some reasonable speed ... there is some optimization required so that the lean angle doesn't get too large. One way to avoid a large lean angle is to avoid building up too much speed ... but that isn't consistent with merging. I need to plan just a bit so that I have as much distance as possible to accelerate. My first time scraping the pegs was in that situation. I had never done it before. It scared me ... and of course I realized why boots are good apparel. Your call on whether that optimization is basic. To some, I'm sure it is. : ) >>>I have nearly 15,000 miles and a couple riding seasons behind me. I also >>>have three minor mishaps (two very painful) behind me. The basic skills [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Your call on whether that optimization is basic. To some, I'm sure it is. >: ) No mind tricks here David. I am in awe of your mastery of bike handling in only 15k miles and with just three crashes. Clearly that is an example of a practiced and skilled rider. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. > The skills you mentioned in your post (braking, turning, etc.) are all > basic. I don't think about those. Perhaps you should. I've been riding for 18 years, and I still try to think about, and improve even my basic skills. > But I still think just a little bit when I have a short entrance ramp > with badly placed curves that are adjacent to where one merges. It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it before. It scared me ... and of course I realized why boots are good > apparel. Shift your weight to the inside of the turn. Proper weight transfer can keep the bike more upright while still going around the turn, and at a higher rate of speed. (No, I'm not talking hanging off like a you're on a racetrack - shift your shoulders so they aren't centered over the bike) I find it interesting to watch riders I'm stuck behind. Especially on highway ramps. They'll tend to be leaning slightly opposite the bike, shifting the weight and actually requiring the bike to lean more to make the corner. Signature"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 > But I still think just a little bit when I have a short entrance ramp with > badly placed curves that are adjacent to where one merges. It isn't just > a matter of doing it at some reasonable speed ... there is some > optimization It's time to get out to a track and learn to turn. If a car can make it and get up to merge speed, your line is absolutely horrid if you're having difficulties on a bike. BTW, it's a late apex you had in mind (or whoever wrote that). An early apex into the acceleration segment puts you into the weeds. > I have nearly 15,000 miles and a couple riding seasons behind me. I also > have three minor mishaps (two very painful) behind me. The basic skills [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a)The ramp is circular up until it becomes tangent to the direction of > travel. I can't think of a single thing in nature or built by man that doesn't fit that description. > It is more complex than turning from Street A onto Street B. It is an > energy, radius, and risk management thing. You don't have to re-invent this. The concepts and practice are already well understood and widely taught. > I especially don't like pulling a lot of lateral g's where I could slide > into traffic. Pardon me. Your bike, if it could talk, would be **screaming** for you to get out of its way. >> Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. > > I'm both. You've a thing or two left to learn. Tell us again in a year just how smooth you were on this day, 9/26/2008. >Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. Exactly what I tell people too. Aiming for smooth, fluid maneouvering may seem like a vague goal, but I think people get it. Once they think in those terms they tend to look further ahead to plan their path and don't get themselves into binds which require abrupt changes. It's then not the speed so much as it is the *grace* of handling, which is a good thing because that's the way to keep the bike most stable and, ultimately, to get the best handling out of it. Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisał(a): >>Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which is a good thing because that's the way to keep the bike most > stable and, ultimately, to get the best handling out of it. It works on a racetrack too. People are fastest when they are told to ride at estimated 70% of their abilities. The mechanism for it is not totally clear, but one often quoted involves degenerating of technical skills under stress. If you ride "slow", that is relatively safe, you don't screw up so often, which improves the times. IOW it can be proved that smooth is fast. It is not just an "opinion", it's a fact. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisa³(a): >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >IOW it can be proved that smooth is fast. It is not just an "opinion", >it's a fact. I agree, the factor of "stress" can't be stressed too much. ;) Especially for someone new to riding, if they're pushing their limits too far they can't learn to ride in a confident, relaxed way and it then might take them longer to become good at handling a bike. What amounts to that "70%" rule is what I've told my wife when teaching her to ride too. And it's not just for smooth handling either. Sooner or later the rider will miscalculate or get surprised at something on the road surface in a curve. Then, suddenly, they will find out that 70% turns into a near 100% and be thankful they held something back in reserve. That's just one of the things necessary to factor in when riding on public roads, as opposed to a racetrack where the conditions can be determined pretty closely (and the danger associated with losing control is reduced). Unfortunately, many people ride on public roads as if that's not the case and, sooner or later, the odds will probably catch up with them. I suspect that some such people seek a form of absolution by wearing the best, armoured head-to-toe racing gear but, in the final analysis, it's way more important to just ride sanely and save the other stuff for the racetrack, if that's what you have to do. What you're going to wind up hitting (or being hit by) on a public road if you fall off is just too unpredictable and dangerous, no matter what you've got on. Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisał(a): [Snipped parts where we obviously agree.] > That's just one of the things necessary to factor in when riding on > public roads, as opposed to a racetrack where the conditions can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unfortunately, many people ride on public roads as if that's not the > case I don't know anybody like it. Even those "crazy" riders leave proportionally big safety margins. Not enough for you, not enough for me, but still more than they would on a racetrack. > and, sooner or later, the odds will probably catch up with them. > I suspect that some such people seek a form of absolution by wearing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to wind up hitting (or being hit by) on a public road if you fall off > is just too unpredictable and dangerous, no matter what you've got on. Here I just don't agree. I crashed, I don't know, about ten times? Having good gear is important. Period. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisa³(a): >[Snipped parts where we obviously agree.] [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Here I just don't agree. I crashed, I don't know, about ten times? >Having good gear is important. Period. Just above, you stated, "I don't know anybody like it." I think your statement about crashing 10 times proves you *do* know somebody, Andrzej. Someone veeeeery close to you, in fact. A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on safety gear instead. Seen that over and over again here. Basically what I have to say to someone who has lost control of his motorcycle 10 times is, "How's that workin' for ya?" Any one of those 10 crashes could have resulted in you spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair, regardless of how much safety gear you had on. While applauding the importance of safety gear, you show you leave out the most important one; using the gray matter between your ears. Neglecting that most important ingredient makes other claims to safety vaccuous. Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisał(a): [...] >>> and, sooner or later, the odds will probably catch up with them. >>> I suspect that some such people seek a form of absolution by wearing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think your statement about crashing 10 times proves you *do* know > somebody, Andrzej. Someone veeeeery close to you, in fact. It was nothing unusual among guys I used to know and ride with. One crash a year was expected if you put some miles on the tires. Now I average less, but I don't ride so much. > A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what > I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on > safety gear instead. Seen that over and over again here. > > Basically what I have to say to someone who has lost control of his > motorcycle 10 times is, "How's that workin' for ya?" Fine. I never injured anything if I had good gear on me. I mean like really nothing, not a scratch. That was most of the times. > Any one of those 10 crashes could have resulted in you spending the > rest of your life in a wheelchair, regardless of how much safety gear > you had on. And you know it because? > While applauding the importance of safety gear, you show you leave out > the most important one; using the gray matter between your ears. You do the same. Bikes are inherently dangerous, even if you ride "safely". I'm fairly curious how you rationalize your choices. What is it? Picking up guys "worse" than you to have something favorable for comparison? I could do that too... > Neglecting that most important ingredient makes other claims to safety > vaccuous. Just no. Everybody crashes, those who ride "safely" and those who do not. Without the gear they are going to be in the world of pain. Both of them. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisa³(a): >[...] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It was nothing unusual among guys I used to know and ride with. Hmmm. Should I read something into that phrase, "used to know"? How many of those guys have died or been seriously injured, Andrzej? >One >crash a year was expected if you put some miles on the tires. Now I >average less, but I don't ride so much. Now THAT is quite a statement of squid mentality if I ever heard one. I'll bet you guys consider yourselves excellent riders too, don't ya? I'll let you in on a little secret. There's a lot of experienced riders here in this newsgroup. Lots of them ride pretty spirited too, yet I'll bet not one will look at your history of having one accident per year for 10 years and not say, "That guy obviously has a problem handling a motorcycle." A lot of them have zero accidents over the span of decades of riding. >> A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what >> I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Fine. I never injured anything if I had good gear on me. I mean like >really nothing, not a scratch. That was most of the times. Well lucky you. It's funny how people measure their success when it comes to bikes. I used to drive for a living. If were getting into a crash every year I'd be considered as not a very good driver and have been out of a job. >> Any one of those 10 crashes could have resulted in you spending the >> rest of your life in a wheelchair, regardless of how much safety gear >> you had on. > >And you know it because? I know that because, public roads have things like curbs, light poles, trees, fences, moving vehicles and such. I also know that a crash is a temporary loss of control. If you are temporarily out of control (like sliding down the pavement) on a public road, it is only LUCK that you don't get killed because it can just as easily happen that you hit one of those obstacles as miss them. It's only when you're in control of your bike that you don't need luck. Which is why I ask how many of your friends who ride like you have been seriously injured or killed? Maybe look at it this way: This is an international newsgroup and literally thousands of people read it every day. 99% don't post and you can be sure that the advice given here shapes the attitudes some new riders will adopt. Probably many of them would like to believe that crashing a motorcycle is not a big deal and are ready to embrace your advice. Problem is, these people may not realize that the only people who talk like you are the lucky ones. The 9 other people who weren't won't be here to contradict you. The fact that you happened to survive isn't the critical issue here. If you and 9 of your friends put blindfolds on and ran across a busy intersection and you were the only one who made it to the other side without getting killed or injured, would you call it advisable because you're still around? >> While applauding the importance of safety gear, you show you leave out >> the most important one; using the gray matter between your ears. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it? Picking up guys "worse" than you to have something favorable for >comparison? I could do that too... First, you don't know what protective gear I wear. Second, it wouldn't even matter if you did. Why? Because, since I've yet to crash (aside from a slow-speed tip-over on a muddy road), it could have ridden frickin' butt-naked the entire time and STILL have been safer than you, a guy wearing all the safety gear in the world and crashing 10 times. You're an intelligent person. You should know the difference between talk and actual results. In terms of actual safety, I've been way safer than you have, regardless of what you or I might have worn. >> Neglecting that most important ingredient makes other claims to safety >> vaccuous. > >Just no. Everybody crashes, those who ride "safely" and those who do >not. Without the gear they are going to be in the world of pain. Both >of them. Really? I'll bet there's a whole lot of people here who have ridden more than you and have never crashed. This is not the same as saying they shouldn't wear safety gear. It just means that, if you are crashing once a year, your main safety problem is not safety gear. It's how you are riding your bike. Dnia 2008-09-27 Road Glidin' Don napisał(a): >>Dnia 2008-09-26 Road Glidin' Don napisał(a): [...] >>It was nothing unusual among guys I used to know and ride with. > > Hmmm. Should I read something into that phrase, "used to know"? How > many of those guys have died or been seriously injured, Andrzej? We just moved our ways. >>One >>crash a year was expected if you put some miles on the tires. Now I >>average less, but I don't ride so much. > > Now THAT is quite a statement of squid mentality if I ever heard one. > I'll bet you guys consider yourselves excellent riders too, don't ya? Me? How many times I need to write that I suck until you believe me? (Now, with all honesty, I don't remember any motorcyclist ever saying that he's good. Those fairly good ones were way too aware of their shortcomings, so they didn't say that. The rest of us knew pretty damn well that we are worse then them, so there was no point in pretending.) > I'll let you in on a little secret. There's a lot of experienced > riders here in this newsgroup. Lots of them ride pretty spirited too, > yet I'll bet not one will look at your history of having one accident > per year for 10 years and not say, "That guy obviously has a problem > handling a motorcycle." A lot of them have zero accidents over the > span of decades of riding. I've heard about one guy like that on the old pl.rec.motocykle newsgroup. He rode for ages and claimed to never have an accident, but I remember him dropping a bike once at almost no speed and once when he swerved too hard to avoid a pedestrian. Either his luck run out, or he wasn't particularly precise with his earlier statements. ;-) No other people even claimed to have no crashes. >>Fine. I never injured anything if I had good gear on me. I mean like >>really nothing, not a scratch. That was most of the times. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'd be considered as not a very good driver and have been out of a > job. Driving is different. >>And you know it because? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Which is why I ask how many of your friends who ride like you have > been seriously injured or killed? It depends how far you gonna stretch the definition of a friend. From none to, I don't know, but above ten. On old pl.rec.moto every year somebody died. I didn't know them personally, because I wasn't into going for meetings and such, but I knew them. Now I don't post, but this year three guys are dead and one crippled in the neighborhood, last year I remember one shot to death by police (by mistake), but probably there was more. > Maybe look at it this way: This is an international newsgroup and > literally thousands of people read it every day. 99% don't post and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > without getting killed or injured, would you call it advisable because > you're still around? What do you mean at all? *You* say that safety gear matters little, I know from experience that it matters quite a lot. So what were you saying above? >>> While applauding the importance of safety gear, you show you leave out >>> the most important one; using the gray matter between your ears. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Second, it wouldn't even matter if you did. Of course it wouldn't. Even with all the proper gear, bikes can kill you. So why do you ride, you "all safety" and what not? > Why? Because, since I've yet to crash (aside from a slow-speed > tip-over on a muddy road), it could have ridden frickin' butt-naked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > talk and actual results. In terms of actual safety, I've been way > safer than you have, regardless of what you or I might have worn. You might have been, but it doesn't mean that safety gear doesn't work. It works. >>Just no. Everybody crashes, those who ride "safely" and those who do >>not. Without the gear they are going to be in the world of pain. Both >>of them. > > Really? I'll bet there's a whole lot of people here who have ridden > more than you and have never crashed. Plenty of people crash every year. Even if "unsafe" riders are overrepresented, all the rest crashes too, just less often. > This is not the same as saying they shouldn't wear safety gear. It > just means that, if you are crashing once a year, your main safety > problem is not safety gear. It's how you are riding your bike. I ride it the way I like it. We all do similarly. Hungarians are even more crazy, if I can guess by what I've seen. They ride with no gear too, just because it's too hot for leathers. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what > I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on > safety gear instead. Seen that over and over again here. We know where we each stand on that. I'm only replying for counterbalance. The fact is, if you can survive a head knock with "only" closed skull injuries, you could have walked away unscathed. The hat makes sense. And if you're going to wear the hat, it follows directly and easily that the same circumstance that makes the hat useful will, unprotected, leave a large, painful rash. You either buy it all, or you don't. It's either all the gear, or none. It's silly to suppose that simply wearing gear changes how one rides. If that were true, wouldn't you expect my risk profile to knock me down at least once every season? Of course not. I don't think you really believe that any more than I think you're a dentist or accountant by your choice of motorbike. ;) >> A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what >> I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that any more than I think you're a dentist or accountant by your choice > of motorbike. ;) When I wear Jeans/nylon jacket there is usually 10mm more of unused chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct link to how I ride that day. >>> A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what >>> I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct link > to how I ride that day. There's room for that in what I wrote. What you're saying is the flip-side, that you gear up for your squid trips. Otherwise, you do as we do, and leave a clear margin of safety. (Good heavens, were you really offering yourself up as representative of the average or the norm? ;) <snip> >>> It's silly to suppose that simply wearing gear changes how one rides. >>> If that were true, wouldn't you expect my risk profile to knock me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > really offering yourself up as representative of the average or the > norm? ;) Squid trips!! I'm not sure if thats an insult or a compliment. For me, the safety margin is way more important than safety gear. The majority of my mates have tested their gear down the road in the last year or so. Off the top of my head there has been a high side, a couple of low sides (one at speed,one on a bridge expansion joint),pillion off the back,being hit by another bike, being hit by a ute,into the ditch and over the bars,head-on (killed by a tourist on the wrong side of the road).........and I just keep going without a scratch. I'll sit at the back and watch them push the limits. Apart from the one death, all incidents have resulted in more hurt pride than ripped flesh and broken bones, so the gear does play a part, but if they weren't riding so hard in the first place, they probably wouldn't have crashed in the first place. 'average'?, 'norm'?, not at all, I'm the slow one. :) >For me, the safety margin is way more important than safety gear. That's basically my point too. I just end up using 10 paragraphs to say it. >> For me, the safety margin is way more important than safety gear. > > That's basically my point too. I just end up using 10 paragraphs to > say it. If we all rode naked the number of high speed crashes would stop, people would take more care in the twisties and car drivers would see everyone! It would also be a good encouragement to stay in shape....rippling beer bellies in the wind and man boobs being blown under the armpits would not be a good look........ :) > If we all rode naked the number of high speed crashes would stop, people > would take more care in the twisties and car drivers would see everyone! > It would also be a good encouragement to stay in shape....rippling beer > bellies in the wind and man boobs being blown under the armpits would > not be a good look........ :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWJPv1T8-4 Signature"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 >>> For me, the safety margin is way more important than safety gear. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > bellies in the wind and man boobs being blown under the armpits would not > be a good look........ :) Never mind the road rash. We'd all die from poking our eyes out. Just blind me with your brights as you approach, please. Dentists in vests and chaps still run off the road without obvious provocation. That's as near as nekkid as we'll commonly find. YouTube is also full of squiddies in flimsy togs, lots of skin showing. They're also obviously not who we mean when we talk about gray matter. I wear the gear, and it doesn't change how I ride. It's a 'stich, BTW, not leathers. Maybe it reflects a differnt mind set. My racing aspirations are all 4 wheel these days, on closed circuits. It's difficult to get in over your head at near legal speeds about town, where I do 90%+ of my riding. (15 over is where I like to keep it, proven safe from enforcement in these parts.) But the consequences of an off at any speed are rather dire. If I believed, truly believed I would become a safer rider for simply giving up the mental crutch of protective gear, I would be compelled also to cancel the insurance. What's the point in paying them when the odds of payout are so near zero that you would comfortably risk your own skin? I can opt out easily on the financial responsibility clause. Would anyone care to advocate that? Don? Brian? ;) >>>> For me, the safety margin is way more important than safety gear. >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the financial responsibility clause. Would anyone care to advocate that? > Don? Brian? ;) I don't have any insurance. It's a con. For the type of riding I do, if I crashed they won't be paying out because if I crash, I'm breaking some law.....speeding, too fast for the conditions, following too close,drinking etc. As it is, I ride with a safety margin and I don't crash, so they would get to keep the (overpriced) premiums anyway. I'm a pay as I go type of person, if I don't crash, I don't pay. >>>> A person with your history of crashing is the best validation of what >>>> I'm saying, so I'm not surprised you prefer to put the emphasis on [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >a clear margin of safety. (Good heavens, were you really offering yourself >up as representative of the average or the norm? ;) I'm going to make it worse yet by also agreeing. ;) Dnia 2008-09-27 BrianNZ napisał(a): [...] >> It's silly to suppose that simply wearing gear changes how one rides. If >> that were true, wouldn't you expect my risk profile to knock me down at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct > link to how I ride that day. You get used to it fairly fast, or at least I do. I was closing tires in my jeans this year. (It was simply impossible to ride in leathers in that heat. I tried, but developed rashes.) SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Dnia 2008-09-27 BrianNZ napisał(a): > [...] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in my jeans this year. (It was simply impossible to ride in leathers in > that heat. I tried, but developed rashes.) I've been doing it for years, especially over summer.....but that was on bevel Ducati's and MotoGuzzi's......when I moved onto Aprilia's and KTM's, there was a sudden urge for more protection as the bikes just encourage anti-social behavior. > When I wear Jeans/nylon jacket there is usually 10mm more of unused > chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct > link to how I ride that day. And does that affect how all the others drive/ride on that day, too? cu .\\arc >> When I wear Jeans/nylon jacket there is usually 10mm more of unused >> chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cu > .\\arc They do their thing, I do my thing and we all stay happy. I don't expect what I'm wearing to effect anyone but me. >>> When I wear Jeans/nylon jacket there is usually 10mm more of unused >>> chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They do their thing, I do my thing and we all stay happy. I don't expect > what I'm wearing to effect anyone but me. If 'their thing' involves hitting you, or forcing you off the road, or whatever else an inattentive driver with a 2 ton car can do to spoil your day, some may not stay happy. cu .\\arc >>>> When I wear Jeans/nylon jacket there is usually 10mm more of unused >>>> chicken strip than if I had suited up. What I'm wearing has a direct [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cu > .\\arc If I get hit or forced off the road, I've put myself somewhere I shouldn't have been. No use blaming an inattentive cage driver.....they are all out to get me anyway! The best way to deal with traffic, is to pass it, then it's out of the way. I'm watching the front wheels of any vehicle that may turn in front of me. As well as the extra chicken strip, my speeds are also lower (damn near legal!!) when I'm not geared up. If I thought about 'what if' getting bowled every time I went for a ride, I'd give it up. As it is, I'll take it as it comes....but I feel lower speeds and safer riding has less chance of road rash than high speed hooning. It's the grey matter between my ears (or the lack of it) that will be the deciding factor in me binning the bike. If the cage driver does hit me, his excuse of "I didn't see him" would probably be totally justified. Dnia 2008-09-27 BrianNZ napisał(a): [...] > If I thought about 'what if' getting bowled every time I went for a > ride, I'd give it up. As it is, I'll take it as it comes....but I feel > lower speeds and safer riding has less chance of road rash than high > speed hooning. If you said "injury" instead of a "roadrash" I'd have no choice but agree. As it is I'd just say that with good gear you can be very dead with no roadrash to speak of. [...] SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Dnia 2008-09-27 BrianNZ napisał(a): > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [...] Fair call....'injury' it is then. >>Get smooth first and fast will come naturally. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >which is a good thing because that's the way to keep the bike most >stable and, ultimately, to get the best handling out of it. Absolutely! I have never seen anyone who was fast who wasn't smooth. It's a beautiful thing watching some riders glide through the bendy bits. I only hope my riding looks half as sweet. -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. <snipped stuff about mid sized bikes and stuff.> > One skill I need to practice is "car kicking". I'd like to be able > to competently kick cars (while moving) that do offensive things. > Maybe I could have a friend drive a car and practice in a parking > lot. Not your best idea. Dnia 2008-09-26 David T. Ashley napisał(a): >> Yeah, there is a raised element of risk, but life is full of risks and >> if I want something I might not be willing to wait a year or two to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pegs because the higher velocity increases the lean angle to hold the same > radius. Why don't you buy a real bike instead? Something which will lean into corners, you know. I've heard that corners are heaps of fun on bikes... > One skill I need to practice is "car kicking". I'd like to be able to > competently kick cars (while moving) that do offensive things. Maybe I > could have a friend drive a car and practice in a parking lot. Famous last words. IOW you try to figure out how to start a fight with five times bigger guy *safely*? What the doctor says? SignatureAndrzej Rosa > We are a metric > nation but still speak the imperial language. <Nods in approval> Rule Britannia ;-) SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools > We are bilingual in more ways than French and English. Leave it to the Canadians to be bilingual in more than two languages... :) Signature"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 >> We are bilingual in more ways than French and English. > >Leave it to the Canadians to be bilingual in more than two languages... > >:) We are talented group. <g> -- See Ya On The Road 2000 Yamaha Venture Millennium 2004 HD Road King Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. On Sep 26, 3:12 pm, Calgary <actual.rider_remove_the_obvio...@telus.net> wrote: ]> >> We are bilingual in more ways than French and English. > >Leave it to the Canadians to be bilingual in more than two languages... > > >:) > > We are talented group. <g> Not to mention inventive. > On Sep 26, 3:12 pm, Calgary > <actual.rider_remove_the_obvio...@telus.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not to mention inventive. And cunning. >> On Sep 26, 3:12 pm, Calgary >> <actual.rider_remove_the_obvio...@telus.net> wrote: >>> We are talented group. <g> >> Not to mention inventive. > And cunning. ... and ruthlessly efficient! o http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20080913.html Signature.. Be Seeing You, .. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA .. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX .. 68° — Wind S 6 mph >>> On Sep 26, 3:12 pm, Calgary >>> <actual.rider_remove_the_obvio...@telus.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > o http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20080913.html Any more of this, and I'll poke you with the soft cushions. Signature"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 >>>> On Sep 26, 3:12 pm, Calgary >>>> <actual.rider_remove_the_obvio...@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> We are talented group. <g> >>>> Not to mention inventive. >>> And cunning. >> .... and ruthlessly efficient! >> o http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20080913.html > Any more of this, and I'll poke you with the soft cushions. I'm made of sterner stuff. Signature.. Be Seeing You, .. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA .. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX .. 58° — Wind N 7 mph — Sky overcast. > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year > of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new > item. Funny, speaking with people in automotive development (engineers on the floor, not management), they suggest 9-12 months after mfg start as the sweet spot. According to their logic, that's when the big bugs are out and the savings have not yet started. cu .\\arc > > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd year > > of production. They need time to sort out the various issues with any new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sweet spot. According to their logic, that's when the big bugs are > out and the savings have not yet started. Now *that* is interesting.... SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools >> > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the 3rd >> > year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Now *that* is interesting.... Probably true. I'm just interested them finding stuff like premature cracking and gas tank explosions, etc., which in my estimation may require a few years. However, for a bike, probably not really relevant. For one thing, I ride like an old lady most of the time, and standard testing techniques will find weak points. There may be a frame somewhere that cracks in half, but it probably won't be mine. > Probably true. I'm just interested them finding stuff like premature > cracking and gas tank explosions, etc., which in my estimation may require a > few years. I think you'll find they have a pretty good grasp of materials handling and this is unlikely to happen > However, for a bike, probably not really relevant. For one thing, I ride > like an old lady most of the time, and standard testing techniques will find > weak points. There may be a frame somewhere that cracks in half, but it > probably won't be mine. Frame breakage is very rare. The early Suzuki TL1000s had a rash of it. I've known of two early VF750Ss which had it. The Honda CB450/500T was known for it (one such bike I owned had actually been repaired) and someone I know had a mid-1990s Ducati 900SS frame break. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools >>> > The downside is that I never buy a car or bike until at least the >>> > 3rd year of production. They need time to sort out the various [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cracking and gas tank explosions, etc., which in my estimation may > require a few years. Mmmh. Real ugly stuff, I think, doesn't happen anymore. Things like frames braking from stress that wasn't expected. For one, computer aided construction and stress testing have progressed, and then there's not so much happening that is really 'new' in convential motorbikes. And then, something may be up that requires 6 or 8 or 10 years to show - would you hold off a purchase for that long to make sure the product's 'watertight'? It may be, but it'll be obsolete. > However, for a bike, probably not really relevant. For one thing, I > ride like an old lady most of the time, and standard testing > techniques will find weak points. There may be a frame somewhere that > cracks in half, but it probably won't be mine. Most bugs are things in manufacturing/assembly like 'this bit fits nicely, but when mounting it the worker scrapes it along that widget which causes a slight pull on the cabling', and three months later the injection computer fails when it is raining. After a year or so, they let the bean counters loose, and they'll figure that if 0.1 of protective coating works, so does 0.08, or the supplier of a given module is pressurized into lowering their price and decides to use a slightly cheaper and more brittle plastic, or stuff like that. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-26 Marc Gerges napisał(a): [...] >> However, for a bike, probably not really relevant. For one thing, I >> ride like an old lady most of the time, and standard testing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of a given module is pressurized into lowering their price and decides > to use a slightly cheaper and more brittle plastic, or stuff like that. Well, that is true, and it happens at times for sure, but from my experience a late model is overall best anyway. For example I have an easy comparison with oil-cooled engines by Suzuki. They were thought to be a "bulletproof" design from the day one, and justly so, but still Bandit 12 has the best motor of them all, despite bean counter interferences. The only part which is weaker than on Gixxers is the clutch, but it is strong enough for non-abusive riding. Everything else is better, like exhaust headers (great), undercut gearbox, screw-adjusted valves, lower compression motor, lower rev-limiter, properly sized carburetors, better cam chain and shallower oil pan with better clearance. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >However, for a bike, probably not really relevant. For one thing, I ride >like an old lady most of the time, and standard testing techniques will find >weak points. There may be a frame somewhere that cracks in half, but it >probably won't be mine. How long will they need to have fuel-injection out and "debugged" before you lose your fear of it? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.