[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
From what i hear, starting out at 600 can be dangerous. A friend of mine that rides said its like giving a kid who’s never driven a car before a Lamborghini. Makes sense I suppose.
Anywhoo, I’m taking the MSF course this August, and planning to get a used 250 for a grand for around 2-3 months just to bang around, get my skills set on. Then go for the 600.[/quote]
I could not disagree more. Clearly all bikes are inherently dangerous. My first bike was an 1100. My current bike is a 1700. To assume that the latter is more dangerous due to the bigger engine is simply stupid. A fool will die just as quick on a big bike as he will on a small one.
Enjoy the MSF. You will learn a lot. It is good to make your mistakes and learn from them in the parking lot than on the road.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
…IMO a dual sport or cruiser is a little easier, everyone is different tho. You better know your personality, risktakers should stick to Mopeds if they want to live. [/quote]
QFT. I would look at a good used Jap cruiser. They are usually reliable, relatively inexpensive and have decent resale. Lots of aftermarket accessories and relatively cheap to insure too.
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Not knowing a damn thing about bikes other than they’re works of industrial art … I’ve always been partial to the Ducati Monster. What’s the opinion of guys who know. Cool bike or poser machine? I assume it’s $30,000 too …
A Ducati is a Posers’s MV. Get a Brutale instead.
[/quote]
If I had my choice, I think I would get a Triumph Street Triple(if they actually make the things). That bike is sweet.
[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
Not knowing a damn thing about bikes other than they’re works of industrial art … I’ve always been partial to the Ducati Monster. What’s the opinion of guys who know. Cool bike or poser machine? I assume it’s $30,000 too …[/quote]
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
From what i hear, starting out at 600 can be dangerous. A friend of mine that rides said its like giving a kid who’s never driven a car before a Lamborghini. Makes sense I suppose.
Anywhoo, I’m taking the MSF course this August, and planning to get a used 250 for a grand for around 2-3 months just to bang around, get my skills set on. Then go for the 600.
I could not disagree more. Clearly all bikes are inherently dangerous. My first bike was an 1100. My current bike is a 1700. To assume that the latter is more dangerous due to the bigger engine is simply stupid. A fool will die just as quick on a big bike as he will on a small one.
Enjoy the MSF. You will learn a lot. It is good to make your mistakes and learn from them in the parking lot than on the road. [/quote]
The displacement numbers don’t apply the same for cruisers as they do for sport bikes.
[quote]If I had my choice, I think I would get a Triumph Street Triple(if they actually make the things). That bike is sweet.
[/quote]
My ex-GF has both an Indian and a Triple. That Triple is sweet and she really knows how to work it. I was looking long and hard at the new Tiger last spring, which I understand to be built on the triple platform. Bike was getting stellar reviews and the local dealership was looking to move it. Wish I had some extra coin laying around - I probably would have pulled the trigger and bought it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
The displacement numbers don’t apply the same for cruisers as they do for sport bikes.[/quote]
Not sure what your point is. If it is about a larger bike being “more dangerous”, I will stick by my original argument. Clearly, a rider should be able to handle his bike, regardless of the size, but to make a statement that directly correlates safety to the size of the bike’s engine is kinda’ silly. It is not the size of the engine, but the skill of the rider that determines how long he keeps the rubber on the road. Would you argue that a unskilled rider is safer on a smaller bike than a bigger bike? Anyone that rides on a regular basis knows better. My point is that regardless of the size bike that you ride, if you are an unskilled/unsafe rider, you will soon be riding in the back of a meat wagon.
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
The displacement numbers don’t apply the same for cruisers as they do for sport bikes.
Not sure what your point is. If it is about a larger bike being “more dangerous”, I will stick by my original argument. Clearly, a rider should be able to handle his bike, regardless of the size, but to make a statement that directly correlates safety to the size of the bike’s engine is kinda’ silly. It is not the size of the engine, but the skill of the rider that determines how long he keeps the rubber on the road. Would you argue that a unskilled rider is safer on a smaller bike than a bigger bike? Anyone that rides on a regular basis knows better. My point is that regardless of the size bike that you ride, if you are an unskilled/unsafe rider, you will soon be riding in the back of a meat wagon. [/quote]
The size of the bike does matter to some degree. I started riding on a 600 Yamaha (R6). Yes, you can still kill yourself on a smaller bike…but there is no doubt that I was NOT ready back then for the CBR1000 I own right now. This bike gets up too fast and is overall too powerful for a shaky beginner.
What you are saying may have been true in the 90’s, but liter bikes today are nothing to sneeze at. the only way you are passing up a liter bike on the freeway is if they let you.
I agree with the Prof, both on size and size relative to the rider. I still argue, as I did when Pfaltz was looking, that the SV650 is a great beginner bike – not too much, but enough to allow room for improvement. And relatively comfortable.
Also agree with having a knowledgeable friend help you hunt. A cruiser-style bike is less likely to have been ragged or used for hooliganism, and thus may have more mileage left. But a conscientious sportbike rider can have taken fine care of their ride and may have simply upgraded – a good, experienced eye will know what to look for.
You need to be able to get your hands on a used bike to feel good about buying it. Most area dealers will have used bikes, and craigslist will have more. Look at lots before you make decisions.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
The displacement numbers don’t apply the same for cruisers as they do for sport bikes.
Not sure what your point is. If it is about a larger bike being “more dangerous”, I will stick by my original argument. Clearly, a rider should be able to handle his bike, regardless of the size, but to make a statement that directly correlates safety to the size of the bike’s engine is kinda’ silly. It is not the size of the engine, but the skill of the rider that determines how long he keeps the rubber on the road. Would you argue that a unskilled rider is safer on a smaller bike than a bigger bike? Anyone that rides on a regular basis knows better. My point is that regardless of the size bike that you ride, if you are an unskilled/unsafe rider, you will soon be riding in the back of a meat wagon.
The size of the bike does matter to some degree. I started riding on a 600 Yamaha (R6). Yes, you can still kill yourself on a smaller bike…but there is no doubt that I was NOT ready back then for the CBR1000 I own right now. This bike gets up too fast and is overall too powerful for a shaky beginner.
What you are saying may have been true in the 90’s, but liter bikes today are nothing to sneeze at. the only way you are passing up a liter bike on the freeway is if they let you.[/quote]
Even the 600s are stupid fast now.
A lot of people want to shun newbs away from big motors, and for good reason. But what it boils down to is people not knowing how to ride. Some goof on a XT350 almost ended up in my back seat last week just because he had no clue how to corner at speed. He just kept drifting farther outside, afraid to lean with the bike. Had I not known he was there and floored it, the guy would have probably hit me, and then been run over by the 7 cars and trucks behind me.
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
VanderLaan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
The displacement numbers don’t apply the same for cruisers as they do for sport bikes.
Not sure what your point is. If it is about a larger bike being “more dangerous”, I will stick by my original argument. Clearly, a rider should be able to handle his bike, regardless of the size, but to make a statement that directly correlates safety to the size of the bike’s engine is kinda’ silly. It is not the size of the engine, but the skill of the rider that determines how long he keeps the rubber on the road. Would you argue that a unskilled rider is safer on a smaller bike than a bigger bike? Anyone that rides on a regular basis knows better. My point is that regardless of the size bike that you ride, if you are an unskilled/unsafe rider, you will soon be riding in the back of a meat wagon. [/quote]
An 1100 cruiser makes a small fraction of the power compared to a 1000 sportbike.
The cruiser power is more linear while the sportbike is far peakier. I have never seen anyone accidentally wheelie a cruiser but I have seen people wheelie and dump their sportbikes by giving it too much throttle right out of the parking lot.
I am not arguing that Liter bikes are not fast, do not have lots of power or crazy torque to weight ratios. They clearly do.
What I am arguing is that if a rider knows his limits, he would be perfectly capable of riding a Brutale or a Monster safely (or deriving a Ferrari). Conversely, a fool could die on a Vespa. In other words, just because a bike has a big engine and loopy amounts of power does not automatically mean that a rider is more likely to die. It is like arguing that a .357 is more unsafe than a .22 because it has a bigger bore. Treat either them unsafely and you are going to get hurt. Your death may be a bit more spectacular on a liter bike or with a .357, than on a vespa or a .22 - but at that point, it is irrelevant, as dead is dead.
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
I am not arguing that Liter bikes are not fast, do not have lots of power or crazy torque to weight ratios. They clearly do.
What I am arguing is that if a rider knows his limits, he would be perfectly capable of riding a Brutale or a Monster safely (or deriving a Ferrari)…
[/quote]
[quote]VanderLaan wrote:
I am not arguing that Liter bikes are not fast, do not have lots of power or crazy torque to weight ratios. They clearly do.
What I am arguing is that if a rider knows his limits, he would be perfectly capable of riding a Brutale or a Monster safely (or deriving a Ferrari).
[/quote]
Gee, but the whole issue here is a rider who is NOT that experienced. An experienced rider can get whatever the fuck he wants to. There is still no way I would recommend a liter bike to a beginner or even someone who isn’t a regular rider.
I got my first bike a couple weeks back, a ninja 250. It only cost me $1300 (talked the guy down a bit). Got it via craigslist…it only had 8400 miles on it, had a few dings on the right side, and that was it for defects. It’s been a good starter bike, but I definitely will be getting a bigger bike in the future now that I’ve got the hang of this. I have gotten a few comments about how I’m almost as big as the bike, but I’d rather start with something cheap to fix (should I dump it) than blow $5000 just to have something cooler and faster.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beginners do not know their limits.[/quote]
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
I learned to ride on a YZ125 dirt bike on trails, backroads, and utility access roads, I trashed that bike, dumped it a dozen times or more and in the end hit a tree with it and totaled the bike. Even with that little 125 engine that bike still made some stupid power and with how peaky the powerband was it was easy to lift the front wheel.
My second bike was a Honda NightHawk 750SC, this bike was odd, if you kept it under 9k rpm it was a mild cruiser but if you pumped the rpm’s over 10k the bike just got stupid which usually lead to me doing stupid things like figuring out that my old Bell Helmet’s visor was not designed for 160mph winds.
I have not ridden in a while and I am actually looking at getting a new bike, I just can’t decide if I want a Yamaha R6S or the FZ6, both are plenty fast for being only a 600cc engine.
I just got my first bike after doing the MSF last fall. It is a Suzuki GS500E '95 and I paid like a grand for it. I wanted something that was reliable and fun that I could learn on, and not freak out when I do something stupid like not put the kickstand down all the way and dump it.
Now compare this to a kid at work who went out and bought a 600cc off the rack sportbike (brand new rider) and was approaching a red light the second week he owned it. A car stopped short and freaked him out and he grabbed the front brake too hard…went over at like 5 mph and ended up with only a bruise. The fairing however didn’t do so well and now it sits in his garage because he’s pulling a Maverick after the spill.
I do have a couple of questions for the riders out there:
I work on a mountain and we went up there today to ride a bit (not fast). I noticed going down the mountain that I could either leave the bike in gear (like a car) and let that slow me but it seemed like it was revving way too high. Or I could coast and break before each corner but I felt like I was going a bit too fast. Is there anything wrong with keeping it in gear and letting that slow me down regardless of RPM?
Also I am having trouble feeling the gear lever with my foot. I keep having to look down because I can’t tell if I’m on it or not. Right now I’m wearing my duty boots…do riding boots make any difference? Or do you just get used to where it is over time (I’ve only ridden the bike twice so far).
Get a Brutale instead.