 |
 | 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 / Sportbikes / January 2008Ping Tim Duc 1000GT vs SV-650
Tim, I ot a subscription to Cycle World for Christmas and in the Jan issue a face off the replica's of older versions of the Bonneville, Harley 1200 Sportster and the Duc GT-1000 (used to be bevel drive GT-900). Anyway, except for the lurchy throttle response the Ducati it easily kicked a.s but I did notice that a certain very popular 650cc 90degree Japanese made V-twin with a price tag of $4500 less had nearly identical specs, save ~10 lbs extra Torque of the 1000cc bike, seat height, 1 inch taller, and 50 extra pounds. 1/4 mile and top speed were almost identical. Also the Duc two valve air cooled engine topped out about 8000, where'as the SV-650 is 11,000RPM.  SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, Chandler, AZ. > Tim, I ot a subscription to Cycle World for Christmas and in the Jan issue a > face off the replica's of older versions of the Bonneville, Harley 1200 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > two valve air cooled engine topped out about 8000, where'as the SV-650 is > 11,000RPM. I'm not sure what the point of your post is, other than to denigrate Ducati again. If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati GT1000, than I happily and agreeably concede that point to you. Do you think that people considering the Ducati GT1000 are cross shopping it against the Suzuki SV650? I don't. Do you think that the people who buy Ducati GT1000s are getting seeing riders of SV650s ont he street and wistfully thinking "Sheesh, if only I had been a smart consumer, I could have bought one of those instead and saved $3,996?" I don't. Perhaps I'm wrong, and lots of other people really ARE comparing the SV650 to the Ducati GT1000 and at least some of them are making the decision that they would rather spend their money on a Ducati GT1000 than on an SV650, even though they have to spend a lot more money to do so, and even thought they're not getting anywhere near the performance "bang for the buck" that they would have with an SV650. So what? It's their money, and their choice, and if they're not happy with it after the fact, well then, caveat emptor and all that. I presume that you are happy that you chose the SV650 and that the magazine article validated your choice? That's great! >If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better >performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati >GT1000, than I happily and agreeably concede that point to you. He shoots! He scores!!!! >>If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better >>performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati >>GT1000, than I happily and agreeably concede that point to you. > > He shoots! He scores!!!! I need to ride an SV so I can fairly make a comparison to the GT. Cuz ya know I really liked the GT, there really isn't a bike out there the has my attention the way the DUC does. > >>If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better > >>performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cuz ya know I really liked the GT, there really isn't a bike out there the > has my attention the way the DUC does. I think Timsey had a religious awakening or took some estrogen tonight. I wouldn't concede that point. Just because the engines have a similar top speed is meaningless. You can change that by changing the size of the stinkin sprockets. That extra 10 ft*lbs of torque is telling of an increased power output ACROSS the rpm band. And the power characteristics of the Ducs I've owned improved dramatically with the addition of slip-ons and an chip. And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. This also neglects the additional year of warranty on the Duc, a hydraulic clutch, or free kool-aid under the Duc tent on race day. Personally, besides the ergos of the GT I'd prefer the other Classic bikes. They use much lighter Aluminum Rims, come with better stock tires, don't have that fugly 70's chrome rear fender, and have the lowest end suspension components in their inventory. >> >>If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better >> >>performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And the power characteristics of the Ducs I've owned improved > dramatically with the addition of slip-ons and an chip. Calm down Saddle. At least I bought it at the Ducati store and I'm stuck living on a fixed income now...booo...hooo-:) And BTW, I still like Triumph's better than Suzuki's. It's just that Suzuki's generally have the most bang for the buck with Honda like Quality. Don't you remember me dissing my 03 GSXR-1000 because I thought it was built flimsy. The SV's are a bit more robust but their cheapness still shows. BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD with only 5K miles on it. But the mileage barely hits 40 on a good day. > And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an > order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. I don't know about that in those basic $10,000 Ducs. The SV I have now has a vastly improved suspension and brakes compared to my 00 SV. They do race em' a lot you know? And which do you think has less vibs? The big 1000 twin or the little 650 that's vastly more mass produced than the Ducati's? > This also neglects the additional year of warranty on the Duc, a > hydraulic clutch, or free kool-aid under the Duc tent on race day. Boy...Saddle you're stretching it now. Frankly, I never saw the advantage of a hydraulic clutch anyway, especially if it's a noisy dry one.And I know guys who sat at the Ducati tent but didn't have Ducati's at Seca. All it takes is 1 guy in the group and all can sit. > Personally, besides the ergos of the GT I'd prefer the other Classic > bikes. They use much lighter Aluminum Rims, come with better stock > tires, don't have that fugly 70's chrome rear fender, and have the > lowest end suspension components in their inventory. Well, you can't have everything;) BTW, when are you getting another new Ducati??? 1098 maybe? SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, Chandler, AZ. > >> "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Calm down Saddle. If I were any calmer I'd be dead. > At least I bought it at the Ducati store and I'm stuck > living on a fixed income now...booo...hooo-:) I'm not discounting the SV, just pointing out that there are justifiable reasons to spend more for a Duc. > And BTW, I still like > Triumph's better than Suzuki's. It's just that Suzuki's generally have the > most bang for the buck with Honda like Quality. Don't you remember me > dissing my 03 GSXR-1000 because I thought it was built flimsy. The SV's are > a bit more robust but their cheapness still shows. Yes it does. Like when my friend lowsided his and snapped the crappy cast footpeg assembly in half and we had to spend half the day waiting for someone to reweld it for him. > BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD with > only 5K miles on it. But the mileage barely hits 40 on a good day. That's one area the SV is definitely king. That thing gets better mileage than any bike I've ever seen. > > And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an > > order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. > > I don't know about that in those basic $10,000 Ducs. The SV I have now has a > vastly improved suspension and brakes compared to my 00 SV. They do race > em' a lot you know? On stock springs? > And which do you think has less vibs? The big 1000 twin > or the little 650 that's vastly more mass produced than the Ducati's? Ducs vibration has never been an issue for me. Any twin is better than a four. But if you're going to subject yourself to torture rack riding positions, a smidgen of vibration is hardly going to seem like a discomfort. > > This also neglects the additional year of warranty on the Duc, a > > hydraulic clutch, or free kool-aid under the Duc tent on race day. > > Boy...Saddle you're stretching it now. Frankly, I never saw the advantage of > a hydraulic clutch anyway, especially if it's a noisy dry one. Well, if you'd had been waiting with me for four hours in a corn field waiting for a tow truck...at night...with a dying cell phone, because your stinking "cable" broke after a whooping 3k miles of use, then I'd bet you'd see the light on the advantage of hydraulics. And the clutch on the Sport Classics is now a wet one. I read an article about the 848 last night and they really liked the wet clutch. Too bad the big brother is stuck with the rattly, grabby one that needs replacement parts every 12k miles...if not sooner. > And I know guys who sat at the Ducati tent but didn't have Ducati's at Seca. All it > takes is 1 guy in the group and all can sit. Ducatisti are a warm and loving bunch. Timsey is the blacksheep of the family. > Well, you can't have everything;) BTW, when are you getting another new > Ducati??? 1098 maybe? When they build a "Street Triple" replica with an 848 in it. On Jan 19, 12:30 am, _Bob_Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.com> wrote: > saddlebag wrote: > > On Jan 18, 8:17 pm, "BryanUT" <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Calm down Saddle. If I were any calmer I'd be dead. > At least I bought it at the Ducati store and I'm stuck > living on a fixed income now...booo...hooo-:) I'm not discounting the SV, just pointing out that there are justifiable reasons to spend more for a Duc. > And BTW, I still like > Triumph's better than Suzuki's. It's just that Suzuki's generally have the > most bang for the buck with Honda like Quality. Don't you remember me > dissing my 03 GSXR-1000 because I thought it was built flimsy. The SV's > are > a bit more robust but their cheapness still shows. Yes it does. Like when my friend lowsided his and snapped the crappy cast footpeg assembly in half and we had to spend half the day waiting for someone to reweld it for him. > BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD with > only 5K miles on it. But the mileage barely hits 40 on a good day. That's one area the SV is definitely king. That thing gets better mileage than any bike I've ever seen. > > And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an > > order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vastly improved suspension and brakes compared to my 00 SV. They do race > em' a lot you know? On stock springs? > And which do you think has less vibs? The big 1000 twin > or the little 650 that's vastly more mass produced than the Ducati's? Ducs vibration has never been an issue for me. Any twin is better than a four. But if you're going to subject yourself to torture rack riding positions, a smidgen of vibration is hardly going to seem like a discomfort. > > This also neglects the additional year of warranty on the Duc, a > > hydraulic clutch, or free kool-aid under the Duc tent on race day. > > Boy...Saddle you're stretching it now. Frankly, I never saw the advantage > of > a hydraulic clutch anyway, especially if it's a noisy dry one. Well, if you'd had been waiting with me for four hours in a corn field waiting for a tow truck...at night...with a dying cell phone, because your stinking "cable" broke after a whooping 3k miles of use, then I'd bet you'd see the light on the advantage of hydraulics. And the clutch on the Sport Classics is now a wet one. I read an article about the 848 last night and they really liked the wet clutch. Too bad the big brother is stuck with the rattly, grabby one that needs replacement parts every 12k miles...if not sooner. ------- I read that article too. And I read the Chris Ulrich piece on riding in Spain with Rueben Xauss. I might be looking at the 848 as well as the 1125R this year. SignatureAndrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo >>>>> If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better >>>>> performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD with > only 5K miles on it. But the mileage barely hits 40 on a good day. And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's :) > And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an >> order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. > > I don't know about that in those basic $10,000 Ducs. The SV I have now has a > vastly improved suspension and brakes compared to my 00 SV. They do race > em' a lot you know? Yes, they do race 'em. But most of 'em, at least here in the midwest stick a butload of money on suspension and brake upgrades. Find me an SV650 racing with stock suspension and brakes, and he'll be nothing but traffic to pass. Great bikes, but lets not get carried away here. > And which do you think has less vibs? The big 1000 twin > or the little 650 that's vastly more mass produced than the Ducati's? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Well, you can't have everything;) BTW, when are you getting another new > Ducati??? 1098 maybe? >> BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD >> with >> only 5K miles on it. But the mileage barely hits 40 on a good day. > > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's :) The reason why mine doesn't have a pipe, filter and jet kit is because it hammers the mileage. I haven't seen anyone yet who "cures" the sv650 when it comes to mileage, change it from stock and you get hammered. Its a given, as best I can tell. But if mine ever becomes a more dedicated trackbike, it'll get the changes to beef up the midrange, plus it sounds cool with a pipe. >> And the cheapest crap suspension Ducati puts on a bike is still an >>> order of magnitude better than the OEM Suzuki parts. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, they do race 'em. But most of 'em, at least here in the midwest > stick a butload of money on suspension and brake upgrades. $900 on my suspension, and the basic changes to the brakes aren't good enough, you do have to do more. I'm still not happy with mine for trackwork. > >> BTW, Mine has a full system Yosh pipe & a PC too. All for $5200 OTD > >> with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The reason why mine doesn't have a pipe, filter and jet kit is because > it hammers the mileage. It might even get better mileage with a pipe and correct jets. Keep in mind Bob's riding style i.e. a morning excersise route to Canyon Lake. Most every liter bike I've owned gets 40+ mpg in everyday riding. But far less in the hammer and brake world of Bob's daily reality. >> > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's >> > :) > >> The reason why mine doesn't have a pipe, filter and jet kit is >> because >> it hammers the mileage. >It might even get better mileage with a pipe and correct jets. Keep >in mind Bob's riding style i.e. a morning excersise route to Canyon >Lake. Most every liter bike I've owned gets 40+ mpg in everyday >riding. But far less in the hammer and brake world of Bob's daily >reality. Nearly every bike I've ever owned can crack 40 mpg...except the ones I put a pipe and jet kit on. All my Honda sportbikes, old ZX-10, dualsports, RD400. But the ones with jet kits and exhausts just all got worse mileage. And after reading alot of posts over on the sv650 forums, they sure don't claim better mileage after the pipe/kit either. Admittedly, the way you ride makes a huge difference. My sv650 is a solid 26-28 mpg at the track. The Gixxer750 was 22mpg. The 929 did 22-23 with a pipe, stock and on bigger tracks I could get 30mpg. My VMax and ZL900 were the only 2 stockers I've ever owned which couldn't do 40 mpg to save their lives. 33-38, thats it. I've always assumed your initial statement is correct, that a proper jet kit and pipe should improve mileage, I just don't know anyone who has EVER succeeded in it. Including the 3 or 4 bikes I've owned with pipes and kits and such. I think Steve has made some noises which sound like he doesn't get worse mileage with the work he does on his bikes, maybe his experience is different? >>> > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's > :) >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > worse mileage with the work he does on his bikes, maybe his experience > is different? I just think the HD motor, being such a long stroke is less likely to lose mileage from rejetting and a pipe. On one run I did achieve 61 MPG on my '98 S3T with a Buell "race kit"(Complete exhaust+ignition+air cleaner), and larger primary and secondary jets. Even my HD engineer buddie's EFI S3T doesn't get that kind of mileage. 61 MPG isn't too shabby for a bike that has 98 RWHP IMHO. > >>> > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's > :) > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > kind of mileage. 61 MPG isn't too shabby for a bike that has 98 RWHP > IMHO. Yup. That's stellar. We all should get such good returns. > >> > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's > >> > :) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > worse mileage with the work he does on his bikes, maybe his experience > is different? I generally agree - the performance mods really hurt mileage by 10-25%. Good for hot rodding, but bad for any practical bike that gets a lot of use. However, the lil Suzuki DR-Z 400 does seem to do well with a standard jet kit, filter, and pipe mod. Mileage stays about the same, cause the bike doesn't work as hard. I did a few working commutes on mine and saw 55 mpg a few times. However, if you go railing on it with the mods, it will then take more fuel. > > >> > And here I thought they all got 50+ MPG in the city like Troy's > > >> > :) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 10-25%. Good for hot rodding, but bad for any practical bike that > gets a lot of use. One thing that should be taken into consideration when these changes are made is comparing them in like weather conditions. My FJR has an avg mileage indication right on the dash. In hot weather I've pulled 49 mpg out of it on my daily commute. In cooler weather it's closer to 42 mpg. I also get better mileage with high octane and there is less mechanical clattering. Supposedly, the FJR is built to run on low test, but my ears tell me different. > I've always assumed your initial statement is correct, that a proper > jet kit and pipe should improve mileage, I don't think so. If you install a pipe and a jet kit (or a power commander) and you tune it for maximum power, you should be flowing both more air and more fuel accross the powerband. That would make me expect fuel mileage to go down. Stock bikes are tuned for minimum emissions, and in general are quite lean, leading to higher fuel economy than a bike with an air/fuel mixture optimized for performance. At least, that's my understanding as well as my experience with tuning a few bikes on the dyno. >> Tim, I ot a subscription to Cycle World for Christmas and in the Jan >> issue a face off the replica's of older versions of the Bonneville, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm not sure what the point of your post is, other than to denigrate > Ducati again. Just chatter in a dead news group. No offense meant but I will admit if I were rich like you I might by a Duc some day. > If you simply want to point out that the Suzuki SV650 is a better > performance for the dollar value motorcycle purchase than the Ducati > GT1000, than I happily and agreeably concede that point to you. You really didn't need to even do that. I'm not looking for a fight, just some activity in AMS that's not X-posted to Reeky. > Do you think that people considering the Ducati GT1000 are cross > shopping it against the Suzuki SV650? I don't. Agreed. People buy Ducati's for different reasons than Suzuki's. Check out "Joe 6 pack" at the track days, Tim. Very few Ducati's. You can get a Suzuki 750 to 1000 a couple of years old that dyno's at 165=(1000cc) with all the rear sets and suspension goodies + bodywork for $5000. SV-650's run under $3000 now and dominate the light twin classes. > Do you think that the people who buy Ducati GT1000s are getting seeing > riders of SV650s ont he street and wistfully thinking "Sheesh, if only > I had been a smart consumer, I could have bought one of those instead > and saved $3,996?" I don't. Me neither. I think most Ducati & HD owners feel they bought the Mercedes of the bike world. > Perhaps I'm wrong, and lots of other people really ARE comparing the > SV650 to the Ducati GT1000 and at least some of them are making the > decision that they would rather spend their money on a Ducati GT1000 > than on an SV650, even though they have to spend a lot more money to > do so, and even thought they're not getting anywhere near the > performance "bang for the buck" that they would have with an SV650. I think a better comparison might be an SV-1000 for the budget minded buyer, > So what? It's their money, and their choice, and if they're not happy > with it after the fact, well then, caveat emptor and all that. Right again. > I presume that you are happy that you chose the SV650 and that the > magazine article validated your choice? > > That's great! Yeah, I suppose that article gave me some validation for my choice but if I hated riding the thing it wouldn't mean a thing. I like the little twin more than I did my 00 SV-650. Generally, I'm not crazy about twin vibration after owning the triple but this one just gets smoother the higher you rev it and can be lugged to 3K without complaining in 6th gear. SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, Chandler, AZ. > Just chatter in a dead news group. No offense meant but I will admit if I > were rich like you I might by a Duc some day. No offense taken, but if it's any consolation at all, I'm well below the 50th percentile for family income in my county. In fact, my ability to buy Ducatis and Harleys is directly attributable to my aversion to credit card debt, my 25 years in the same tract house with a fixed rate mortgage, and my lack of desire for expensive cars, stereos, travel and appliances. Rich? It woud be nice. (Although, compared to racist, bigoted, antisemitic trailer trash like Krusty, rich is probably an apt description. Although in fairness, and as he is honest enough to point out himeslf, it's not in monetary terms that I am far richer than he.) Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? Rob KLR 650 > Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? > > Rob > KLR 650 Pardon me? On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: > Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? > > Rob > KLR 650 Pardon me? How often are Harley and Ducati owners called posers because their bikes are apparently too expensive for the performance they deliver. Too often for me. It looks like this thread is another in a string of Ducati bashers. Maybe this is becoming a theme and maybe the group should change its name to alt.jap.sportbike. Rob choice is good > On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: >> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bashers. Maybe this is becoming a theme and maybe the group should change > its name to alt.jap.sportbike. Then where will I post, I have one Japanese bike, but it is not a sportbike. What about the Teutonic Twin owners, and other forms of Eurotrash besides the Ducs? Where oh where shall I post? SignatureAndrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo On Jan 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew" <yogig.no.spamm.spam.n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Where oh where shall I post? Did you get to ride your Buell today? > On Jan 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew" <yogig.no.spamm.spam.n...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Did you get to ride your Buell today? Yeah, get a new OHC Guzzi:) SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, Chandler, AZ. On Jan 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew" <yogig.no.spamm.spam.n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Where oh where shall I post? Did you get to ride your Buell today? ___ Nope I got stuck with Kiddo, and we watched Toy Story & Toy Story 2 about 4x. It will have to be next weekend. SignatureAndrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo "Andrew" > What about the Teutonic Twin owners, and other forms of Eurotrash besides > the Ducs? Yeah, everything I own now is Euro-Bizarro. What'll I do? I kept looking for a nice VTR or RC51 to come along, but the right used specimen never presented itself. And I am totally back in the 90's, with a '98, and a '94. I must be going against the grain of my own evolution. Or perhaps I am de-evolving. Who knows? I might be back riding a Beezer or some other rolling oil slick before I know it. Can't you see me on the side of the highway someplace, wrenching on a Tr-6 with a wiring meltdown? If you do, keep going and don't bother to help, at that point I would be well beyond help of any kind SignatureJim S. 1998 Ducati 916 1994 BMW R1100RS. > On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: >> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Rob > choice is good You've got to be kidding, Rob. The only new bikes discussed here in months are the Ducati-1098, 848, Tim's retro race Ducati's & new Buell with the 72 degree Rotax engine, plus Buell Uly & KTM Duke 990. Hardly any discussion on the 675 Triumph and the only Japanese talk was about Yamaha Falsifying their Tack reading. Maybe it's just the dominate poster's but I see the change more toward three brands or HD, Buell and Ducati. Triumph, Priller Guzzi and the Japanese bikes have definitely taken a back seat of late. I feel I have to walk on eggs when discussing Ducati's or Harley's anymore. Even Saddle's gone Cruiser on us:( SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, SV-650, Chandler, AZ. >> On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: >>> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I feel I have to walk on eggs when discussing Ducati's or Harley's > anymore. Even Saddle's gone Cruiser on us:( To add a PS to my rebuttel to Rob, Most of the Dominate posters here are at least 35 & making a good living. That in itself begs a question. Does old age higher income and bikes bring on a natural tendency toward spending more $$=Harley and Euro on their bikes save a few frugal geesers like TTT and I? OBTW, I missed the recent BMW discussion on my last post and The B-King got mostly negative reviews if at all (as it should, the God awful ugliest bike I've ever seen) or straight out of an Animi cartoon. SignatureBob Nixon, RZ-350, Chandler, AZ. > To add a PS to my rebuttel to Rob, Most of the Dominate posters here are at > least 35 & making a good living. That in itself begs a question. Does old > age higher income and bikes bring on a natural tendency toward spending > more $$=Harley and Euro on their bikes save a few frugal geesers like TTT > and I? Well, naturally I would say that getting older and having a higher income (or more accurately, more disposable income for motorcycles) would tend to lead people to buy more expensive bikes, to consider bikes that might not necessarily offer the maximum performance bang for the buck, or that might offer things that were'nt as important to buyers when they were younger and poorer. The thing is, no matter what motorcycle a person likes or wants, it seems very natural to a) want other people to like it, too, and b) want other people to desire it and feel like it is the best bike for *them*, as well. I've gotten past (b) but haven't (obviously) gotten past (a) yet. I suspect that if I had a more rounded life, and other recreational diversions OTHER than motorcycles, I would be more frugal about my motorcycle spending. Thank goodness I don't and I'm not!!!! ;-) > To add a PS to my rebuttel to Rob, Most of the Dominate posters here are > at > least 35 & making a good living. That in itself begs a question. Does old > age higher income and bikes bring on a natural tendency toward spending > more $$=Harley and Euro on their bikes save a few frugal geesers like TTT > and I? Well, naturally I would say that getting older and having a higher income (or more accurately, more disposable income for motorcycles) would tend to lead people to buy more expensive bikes, to consider bikes that might not necessarily offer the maximum performance bang for the buck, or that might offer things that were'nt as important to buyers when they were younger and poorer. ___ My favorite Warren Buffet snippet: Q: What's the difference between rich and poor in America? A: About 40 years. SignatureAndrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo > >> On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: > >>> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > more $$=Harley and Euro on their bikes save a few frugal geesers like TTT > and I? I must be reverting to my childhood too. I now have two Jap bikes in my garage. Maybe I'm a closet mizer. > > On Jan 19, 1:16 pm, "Robert Striemer" <rjstrie...@shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Another pissing match to prove a guy is a poser by the bike he owns? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I feel I have to walk on eggs when discussing Ducati's or Harley's anymore. > Even Saddle's gone Cruiser on us:( That's "power croozer" to you. > How often are Harley and Ducati owners called posers because their > bikes are apparently too expensive for the performance they deliver. I've never really based my bashing on expense, more on people I see and how they use the things. Hardley riders are aweful about it, I know Duck guys who can at least RIDE, even if they like the matching leathers and bike and girlfriend and such, but as long as they can ride, I don't mind them paying more for their bikes for the extra posing value. On Jan 19, 12:52 am, _Bob_Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.com> wrote: >> Just chatter in a dead news group. No offense meant but I will admit if I >> were rich like you I might by a Duc some day. >No offense taken, but if it's any consolation at all, I'm well below >the 50th percentile for family income in my county. Cry me a f.cking river Tim. And I seriously doubt you are below the 50th percentile. (otherwise we'd all be riding Ducs and Storz Flat trackers and $30k H-Ds) I suppose you like Mitt Romeny: >In fact, my >ability to buy Ducatis and Harleys is directly attributable to my >aversion to credit card debt, How judgmental of you. >my 25 years in the same tract house with Yeah me too, I live in a tract house buillt in1947. Only I moved around chasing the Dream. I've been here 8 years. >a fixed rate mortgage, and my lack of desire for expensive cars, >stereos, travel and appliances. Oh please, even I, with my poor memory can recall the trips to Alaska and 454 Chevy Trucks. And repeated multiple trips to Bike Week in Daytona. Not to mention the your racing years. And that ain't cheap. >Rich? It woud be nice. Rich? No. Well above average? Yes. You have been successful. Don't deny your hard work. Many of us have worked as hard and as long. And yet we weren't in the right place at the right time. >(Although, compared to racist, bigoted, antisemitic trailer trash like >Krusty, rich is probably an apt description. Although in fairness, >and as he is honest enough to point out himeslf, it's not in monetary >terms that I am far richer than he.) Krusty is a pathetic piece of trash. Honestly Tim, you let it be known that you are successful in all endevearors (sp?) And you should be be proud, but you seem to have forgotten that many of us have worked just as hard and the results aren't the same. Humility man, humility. Be humble, be proud, and don't be an arrogant prick. Of course this advice is coming from a failure in life, take it for what it is worth. > On Jan 19, 12:52 am, _Bob_Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> No offense meant but I will admit if I > >> were rich like you I might by a Duc some day. > >No offense taken, but if it's any consolation at all, I'm well below > >the 50th percentile for family income in my county. > Cry me a f.cking river Tim. And I seriously doubt you are below the 50th > percentile. (otherwise we'd all be riding Ducs and Storz Flat trackers and > $30k H-Ds) I am well below the 50th percentile for family income in Fairfax County, Virginia. I'm not asking you to cry for me, Bryan; I am merely refuting the charge that I am somehow "rich" simply because I have bought and own a Harley-Davidson Street Glide and a Ducati S4Rs and that I find myself needing to sell the Harley in order to go roadracing without piling up credit card debt. I find the assertion to be bizarre. > I suppose you like Mitt Romeny: What does that have to do with whether I - working full-time every day since I was 19 (part-time since I was 15), and needing to work for at least another 12 years before I can even consider retiring - am "rich" or not? > >In fact, my ability to buy Ducatis and Harleys is directly attributable > >to my aversion to credit card debt, > How judgmental of you. That's not judgemental. That's a statement of fact. If I had a lot of credit card debt, I would not have been able to afford the payments (or I might not have qualified) for the loans on those bikes. I'm certainly not making a value judgement on you, Bryan. I don't know anything about whether you have credit card debt, or not, or whether it is preventing you from getting things that you want, or not. My parents drilled into me that I should take on as little debt as possible. Hell, my Mom is still disappointed that I don't save up my money and buy my cars with cash. > >my 25 years in the same tract house with > Yeah me too, I live in a tract house buillt in 1947. Only I moved around > chasing the Dream. I've been here 8 years. Congratulations. Does that make you rich? I certainly don't think I'm rich because I have stayed in the same house for 25 years. > >a fixed rate mortgage, and my lack of desire for expensive cars, > >stereos, travel and appliances. > Oh please, even I, with my poor memory can recall the trips to Alaska and > 454 Chevy Trucks. And repeated multiple trips to Bike Week in Daytona. Not > to mention the your racing years. And that ain't cheap. Nope, it wasn't. Of course, the trip to Alaska with my sister and my mother was a once in a lifetime event, fulfilling my mother's dream, and the 454SS Chevy truck was my regular transportation for two years, bought (15 years old at the time) for $15,000 and sold for $12,500. I financed racing from 1999 to 2002 by selling the classic motorcycles I had collected and restored myself over the previous 12 years. None of it was cheap. None of it was indicative of being rich. My neighbors in the same general income bracket chose to spend their money on finishing their basements, building additions onto their homes, remodelling their kitchens and bathrooms, and buying Lexus and Infiniti and Acura cars, minivans, and SUVs. Different strokes for different folks, but I don't mistake them for being rich, either. > >Rich? It would be nice. > Rich? No. Well above average? Yes. Yes, I am well above average in income level compared to the national average. It helps immensely that my wife works full time and that all but one of my children are on their own and financially self- sufficient. Getting here without a college education in a field where most of my peers have master's degrees was an uphill climb. I'm happy and consider myself lucky to be here. > You have been successful. Don't deny your hard work. > Many of us have worked as hard and as long. And yet we weren't in the right > place at the right time. I agree. I have friends who have worked longer, and harder, and have earned less, and been laid off, and had to search for work, and have had to move down the economic ladder several rungs befiore catching themselves and climbing laboriously back up. I have been blessed, and I have been lucky, and I am grateful for the opportunities I've had and the sheer luck of not having had to deal with many of the financial difficulties that my friends and other members of my family have had to face. I'm rich in that I have three great kids, a long and successful marriage, and a brother and sister whom I love, and a Mom who is still alive and independent and enjoying life even without my Dad. I'm definitely not financially rich. I could possibly live about three months without my paycheck before I would have to start spending my retirement assets. And as I've said, they are not going to be sufficient to support me for at least another 12 years. According to some calculators, more like 17-19 years. Depends on how the stock market goes, really. > >(Although, compared to racist, bigoted, antisemitic trailer trash like > >Krusty, rich is probably an apt description. Although in fairness, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forgotten that many of us have worked just as hard and the results aren't > the same. I haven't said anything about anyone else's circumstances anywhere at any time. I'm not sure why you think I have "forgotten" about other people, unless it's because I HAVEN'T mentioned their circumstances. > Humility man, humility. Be humble, be proud, and don't be an arrogant > prick. How on earth does saying that I am not rich and that I have to sell stuff in order to pursue a passion of mine make me an arrogant prick, Bryan? > Of course this advice is coming from a failure in life, take it for what it > is worth. Oh, so my contention that I am not rich and that I have to sell my Harley in order to go racing has somehow convinced you that I think you are a failure in life? I really don't get that. |
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
|
©2010 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.