Dropping a Honda ST1300, Twice
Datesfat Chicks
Yesterday, about 5 miles from the rental place, stopped at a light on a
sidestreet, was just sitting there, bike started to go over to the right. I
fought with it for about 10 seconds, but couldn't gain any ground, I had to
let it go over eventually, but softened it all I could. The skid pad on the
right came to rest on my foot. So I was on the ground working hard to free
my foot from under it. Luckily, I didn't break my foot. Got my foot out,
got the bike back up again. A guy behind me got out of his car and helped,
and double-checked to be sure I was OK. It must have been quite a sight.
I thought I was used to the bike. Nice bike.
Today, in a parking space, I did the same thing again, again to the right.
This time I was better at getting it up. I was so pissed at myself I wasn't
even embarrassed.
I looked it up on the Internet. I had no idea it was about 715 lbs. (I was
thinking it was maybe 550 lbs.).
I have no idea how I did it the second time.
My Honda Shadow in Michigan is 460 lbs. I haven't dropped that in years.
Anyway, when I return the bike tomorrow I'll fess up and offer to pay for a
new skid pad on the right (about $20, and I think technically it is called
an engine cover or engine protector). I think there is no other damage.
I'm clearly not the first one to do it. The bike has 28,000 miles on it and
is scuffed up a bit, so I know it has been on its side a few times, probably
under similar circumstances.
Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing.
Datesfat.
MikeWhy
news:cdmdnblt1a8lrKXW...@giganews.com...
> I'm in Orlando, rented a Honda ST1300 yesterday.
>
> Yesterday, about 5 miles from the rental place, stopped at a light on a
> sidestreet, was just sitting there, bike started to go over to the right.
> I fought with it for about 10 seconds, but couldn't gain any ground, I had
> to let it go over eventually, but softened it all I could. The skid pad
> on the right came to rest on my foot. So I was on the ground working hard
> to free my foot from under it. Luckily, I didn't break my foot. Got my
> foot out, got the bike back up again. A guy behind me got out of his car
> and helped, and double-checked to be sure I was OK. It must have been
> quite a sight.
>
> I thought I was used to the bike. Nice bike.
>
> Today, in a parking space, I did the same thing again, again to the right.
> This time I was better at getting it up. I was so pissed at myself I
> wasn't even embarrassed.
I was convinced only bad things happened to you. One may scoff at statistics
and averages, but balancing the karma books using someone else's bike can
only be seen as good fortune. (The opposite view, of course, is that you're
a walking accident waiting to happen, and the uncharacteristically mild
outcomes are par for your course. In either case, count yourself lucky. It's
good to acknowlege your gentle fates when they bother to make themselves
known.)
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
> stopped at a light on a
> sidestreet, was just sitting there, bike started to go over to the right. I
> fought with it for about 10 seconds, but couldn't gain any ground, I had to
> let it go over eventually
<snip>
>
> Today, in a parking space, I did the same thing again, again to the right.
<snip>
>
> Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing.
I'll say. What's wrong with you? An inner ear infection perhaps? Or
are your legs not long enough to reach the ground on that bike?
Btw, how can a guy who worries about the remotest of potential
problems (new handlebar clamps, rust in the swingarm) not worry about
the really important things (keeping the bike balanced while standing
still)? ;)
Jack Hunt
<datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway, when I return the bike tomorrow I'll fess up and offer to pay for a
>new skid pad on the right (about $20, and I think technically it is called
>an engine cover or engine protector).
It's called a tip-over wing and I bet it's more than $20. Ain't nothin' on an ST
for $20.
On heavy bikes like the ST, you have to be very careful not to let it get leaned
too far to one side. As you've learned, once it starts over, it continues. You
can't stop it at that point, you can only bust a gut trying.
--
Jack Hunt IBA#12795, STOC 1870
'99 ST1100, FaST Forward
'95 Suzuki DR250SE
http://www.huntslodge.com
Outback Jon
> It's called a tip-over wing and I bet it's more than $20. Ain't nothin' on an ST
> for $20.
Well, there are the valve stems... And you could probably replace the
handgrips with aftermarket... :)
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outba...@g.no.sp.am.mail.com
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 32
2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
Gaidheal
wrote:
> I looked it up on the Internet. I had no idea it was about 715 lbs. (I was
> thinking it was maybe 550 lbs.).
The St is not only heavy, it has a high center of gravity with that
longitudinally-mounted V-4 engine.
And, with the skinny tires, it's like an elephant on roller skates...
The Older Gentleman
Oh dear, more Krusty bollocks.
> The St is not only heavy, it has a high center of gravity with that
> longitudinally-mounted V-4 engine.
Not really, no, because the crank (the heavy bit) is low down and ditto
the gearbox.
You might as well accuse a Guzzi of having a high C of G because of its
engine layout.
As well, if you think about it, because of the V configuration, its
heads and cams are actually *lower* than they would be with a
conventional transverse four engine (slant-block lumps excepted).
You've never ridden one, so what do you know?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> As well, if you think about it, because of the V configuration, its
> heads and cams are actually *lower* than they would be with a
> conventional transverse four engine (slant-block lumps excepted).
Moments related of CoM work along all three axes, Bertie.
>
> You've never ridden one, so what do you know?
Dood, you do not know that for certain, fer sure.
Outback Jon
No, but you're probably related to someone that has.
Vito
| I'm in Orlando, rented a Honda ST1300 yesterday.
|
| Yesterday, about 5 miles from the rental place, stopped at a light on a
| sidestreet, was just sitting there, bike started to go over to the right.
Orlando? M. Mouse prolly pushed it over on you.
The Older Gentleman
Call it a well-educated guess.
You haven't. Your motorcycle experience ends with the Yamaha FZR1000 of
fifteen years ago.
Datesfat Chicks
> a new skid pad on the right (about $20, and I think technically it is
> called an engine cover or engine protector).
Here is how that story ended ...
Turned it in today, fessed up my crimes. The part was about $19, and with
shipping and Florida sales tax I paid $29. They concurred with my
assessment that nothing else was damaged.
When I told them I expected to be gouged, they only said that they
appreciated my honesty and they had no need to replace anything other than
what I damaged. They indicated that my honesty wasn't typical.
I know that is true. When I rented a Shadow 750 Aero a year ago, I brought
it back after 24 hours to point out to the guy that there was headlight
damage that wasn't detected on the rental inspection. He believed me and
documented it and that was that. He was amazed that one of the previous
renters had done a rather convincing job of covering the damage with some
sort of silver paint.
Personally, if I spilled a bike and damaged a headlight I'd just fess up.
On a little Honda it is probably at worst a $100 part.
Of course, part of the reason people don't fess up could be that they don't
want to defraud the rental place, but they are embarrassed that they spilled
a bike. I can understand that.
Really nice bike once I got used to it. Transmission is much nicer than my
Honda Shadow 600, and of course better brakes, better suspension, a cool
electrically-adjustable windscreen, and one hell of a lot more power. The
engine is far smootther, too. I was often doing between 90 and 100 on I-4.
But that was just for survival in the left lane. Those people is crazy.
I now believe that there is a substantial difference between a $5,000 bike
and a $16,000 bike. But I'm afraid I won't be owning a $16,000 bike anytime
soon. It is not just the initial cost--it is the worse gas mileage, the
insurance, etc. My little lawnmower with wheels will do for now.
Datesfat
Mark Olson
> I now believe that there is a substantial difference between a $5,000
> bike and a $16,000 bike. But I'm afraid I won't be owning a $16,000
> bike anytime soon. It is not just the initial cost--it is the worse gas
> mileage, the insurance, etc. My little lawnmower with wheels will do
> for now.
There is a middle ground, you know. You can probably still pick up a
brand new non-current FJR for about $10k, and a nice low mileage used
one for $7k. Insurance for someone your age isn't much more than it
would be for a cheap bike. Gas mileage? You've got to be kidding.
mayner
<datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
If it's any consulation, I'd been riding an '06 for 3 and a half years
and when I was out in Wendover, NV a couple of months ago I tipped
over at a stop light. Felt pretty stupid and I was on a road with a
weird camber to it and for the life of me I couldn't get the damn
thing up. Struggled for 5 minutes until a couple of youngfellas came
by and helped the old man out. We grunted and groaned and up she came.
Damn, that about did it for me. I mean, yeah, I'm 54 and not as strong
as I once was but still...Geeze. :-(
Anyway, those Tip-over "Wings" as they're called do come in handy.
Saved my bacon, and the bike's, more than once.
S'mee
wrote:
Glad you are okay and the bike was barely dinged.
> Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing.
Well yeah, that's life though innit? I mean rarely does anyone drop a
motorcycle when noboy is around...but whoo-boy when your friends or a
large group is present? BANG! down you go and always in a manner to
make you look incredably silly.
mayner
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Gaidheal <breogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 10:24 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>> Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> > As well, if you think about it, because of the V configuration, its
>> > heads and cams are actually *lower* than they would be with a
>> > conventional transverse four engine (slant-block lumps excepted).
>>
>> Moments related of CoM work along all three axes, Bertie.
>> >
>> > You've never ridden one, so what do you know?
>>
>> Dood, you do not know that for certain, fer sure.
>
>Call it a well-educated guess.
>
>You haven't. Your motorcycle experience ends with the Yamaha FZR1000 of
>fifteen years ago.
Nice bike, but no ST. ;-)
mayner
I regularly get 40 to 45mpg. That's riding slab, twisties, whatever.
You can find lightly used, 3 to 4 year old ST's for under 9k. The bike
hasn't changed, except for a few bits here and there, and the color,
since it came out in '03.
Jack Hunt
<datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was often doing between 90 and 100 on I-4.
That's easy to do. You can't "feel" how fast you're going on an ST. 60 feels
just like 90.
>I now believe that there is a substantial difference between a $5,000 bike
>and a $16,000 bike.
You can get a used ST1100 for less than $5,000. I've compared them. The 13 is
a very nice bike, but it's not nice enough to make me switch. It gets 50mpg, it
will run 300 to 350 miles per tank of gas, and with a good Corbin seat you can
do Iron Butt days on it with no discomfort. The first time I got out of town
with my first ('91) ST, I rode 1300 miles before stopping to sleep, then another
400 miles the next morning.
When it comes to tires, the 1100 is *hugely* more friendly to an at-home tire
change. Changing the rear tire on a 13 is the hardest tire switch I've ever
done. I hope I never have to do another. I used to put three sets a year on my
1100 so I thought nothing of it when a campground guest asked me to help him
change the rear tire on his 1300. I won't do that again unless there's a lot of
money or a threat of violence involved. Actually the violence wouldn't work.
I'd prefer the violence to changing that tire.
mayner
Just remember to let go of the handlebars and you'll be OK. A little
tap dance and you're clear. Hold on and you can find yourself 10 feet
down the road in an instant. ;-)
Gaidheal
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:55:18 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
> >You haven't. Your motorcycle experience ends with the Yamaha FZR1000 of
> >fifteen years ago.
>
> Nice bike, but no ST. ;-)
I can afford to buy any new motorcycle I want, cash. But the FZR1000
fits me better than any I-4 literbike on the market, so I kept it.
Anyway, TOG doesn't understand the physics of the ST's high CG, so he
has to attack me on the basis of what I own.
S'mee
Once you trim away his lies Krusty has nothing to say.
Twibil
>
>
> Anyway, TOG doesn't understand the physics of the ST's high CG, so he
> has to attack me on the basis of what I own.
You poor pathetic twit. The ST doesn't have a "high CG" as average
motorcycles go. (Yes, I've ridden them.)
At around 700 pounds, it *is* quite heavy, and at 31.5" the seat
height *is* a bit high for short-legged riders, which probably
combined to explain Sean's drops; but the bike is no more top heavy
than are a thousand others.
In fact, if you want a bike with a CG high enough to affect tip-overs
you're going to have to look at big dual-sports such as my old KTM
"Adventure", that featured a seat height of 36" and a CG to match.
Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
Gawd, but you're a brain-dead jackass.
Road Glidin' Don
> Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
> signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
> both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
If, at your 6'+ height, even you have to tippy-toe to reach the
ground, what race of human beings are these bikes intended for? ;)
The Older Gentleman
> On Dec 28, 3:26 pm, mayner <jeffmay...@gagmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:55:18 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> > >You haven't. Your motorcycle experience ends with the Yamaha FZR1000 of
> > >fifteen years ago.
> >
> > Nice bike, but no ST. ;-)
>
> I can afford to buy any new motorcycle I want, cash. But the FZR1000
> fits me better than any I-4 literbike on the market, so I kept it.
You've not tried every "I-4 literbike on the market" so how do you know
this? Answer: you don't.
>
> Anyway, TOG doesn't understand the physics of the ST's high CG, so he
> has to attack me on the basis of what I own.
TOG does understand the physics. TOG has ridden the ST. The ST does not
have a high C of G (it is heavy, but it's remarkably agile). You have
not ridden the ST, or you'd understand this. TOG pointed this out. You
called it an attack.
Pathetic.
The Older Gentleman
> Personally, if I spilled a bike and damaged a headlight I'd just fess up.
> On a little Honda it is probably at worst a $100 part.
I rather doubt that.
Well done for sorting out the ST, by the way. As you say, many wouldn't
have.
Gaidheal
>
> At around 700 pounds, it *is* quite heavy, and at 31.5" the seat
> height *is* a bit high for short-legged riders, which probably
> combined to explain Sean's drops; but the bike is no more top heavy
> than are a thousand others.
Pay closer attention, Twitbull. It was David T, Ashley who rented the
tippy ST, not
Sean.
>
> In fact, if you want a bike with a CG high enough to affect tip-overs
> you're going to have to look at big dual-sports such as my old KTM
> "Adventure", that featured a seat height of 36" and a CG to match.
I own a KLR600, which has a 35" seat height, unladen. However, the
rear suspension sags at least 3" when somebody sits on it. And, at
under 400 pounds, the high CG doesn't cause problems at all.
>
> Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
> signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
> both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
I stalled the KLR's engine on top of a ridge once. It was 10 feet down
into one channel of a creek bed on the left, and 5 feet down to the
channel on the right.
I struggled with trying to keep the KLR from falling over for about
five minutes before I gave up and let it fall over to the right,
breaking off the less important front brake lever...
> Gawd, but you're a brain-dead jackass.
Henry, Bob Nixon, and I form a quorum that says you're the jackass,
Pete.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> You've not tried every "I-4 literbike on the market" so how do you know
> this? Answer: you don't.
Now you're arguing like a yeshiva shul boy, Bertie...
> TOG does understand the physics. TOG has ridden the ST. The ST does not
> have a high C of G (it is heavy, but it's remarkably agile).
The ST is "remarkably agile" because sport touring riders (an
*extremely rare breed*) unreasonably demand sportbike agility out of
their touring bikes. They can't get it through their head that the
ride is *not* the destination, and continue to flail at remote twisty
roads as if they were on a race track.
To achieve the demanded agility, Honda engineers have fitted the ST
with under-sized narrow tires, turning the machine into an elephant on
rollerskates and compromising the high speed handling characteristics.
We went all through this a few years ago when the Limey cop was killed
or injured (or whatever, don't quibble about it) and the ST1300 was
grounded.
> TOG pointed this out. You called it an attack.
Yes, it was an ad hominem attack. You've been following me around in
order to provoke arguments for the last ten years, Bertie.
> Pathetic.
Why, yes, you *are* pathetic. Why don't you *do* sometime better with
your time, besides hang around Useless net trying to start meaningless
debates over insignificant issues?
The Older Gentleman
> > You've not tried every "I-4 literbike on the market" so how do you know
> > this? Answer: you don't.
>
> Now you're arguing like a yeshiva shul boy, Bertie...
Well, it's what you said....
>
> > TOG does understand the physics. TOG has ridden the ST. The ST does not
> > have a high C of G (it is heavy, but it's remarkably agile).
>
> The ST is "remarkably agile" because sport touring riders (an
> *extremely rare breed*)
Where you are, maybe. In Europe, very common.
>unreasonably demand sportbike agility out of
> their touring bikes. They can't get it through their head that the
> ride is *not* the destination,
Says who? It often is.
> and continue to flail at remote twisty
> roads as if they were on a race track.
What a lovely generalisation. And it's utter crap.
>
> To achieve the demanded agility, Honda engineers have fitted the ST
> with under-sized narrow tires, turning the machine into an elephant on
> rollerskates and compromising the high speed handling characteristics.
It has 120/70x18 and 170/60x17 tyres, a quick Google reveals. These are
not especially narrow.
>
> We went all through this a few years ago when the Limey cop was killed
> or injured (or whatever, don't quibble about it) and the ST1300 was
> grounded.
That had absolutely *nothing* to do with tyre sizes. I had to write an
article on this a few years ago, and did a lot of research into the
phenomenon of the wobbly Pan. You haven't, evidently.
>
> > TOG pointed this out. You called it an attack.
>
> Yes, it was an ad hominem attack.
No, it wasn't.
>You've been following me around in
> order to provoke arguments for the last ten years, Bertie.
No, I haven't.
>
> > Pathetic.
>
> Why, yes, you *are* pathetic. Why don't you *do* sometime better with
> your time, besides hang around Useless net trying to start meaningless
> debates over insignificant issues?
When someobody posts something, especially comething technical, that is
utterly *wrong* don't you think it ought to be corrected? And you post
things that are wrong a lot. Which is why you're corrected a lot. And
you don't like it.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
Jack Hunt
<datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>if I spilled a bike and damaged a headlight I'd just fess up.
>On a little Honda it is probably at worst a $100 part.
Last time I checked, an ST headlight glass was $250. The bulbs are cheap, the
outer glass shell is not. They sell a Lexan headlight protector that covers the
glass part. It's supposed to guard against stone chips.
When I crashed my '91, both the glass and the protector survived. Little else
did, though.
The Older Gentleman
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:34:31 -0500, "Datesfat Chicks"
> <datesfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >if I spilled a bike and damaged a headlight I'd just fess up.
> >On a little Honda it is probably at worst a $100 part.
>
> Last time I checked, an ST headlight glass was $250. The bulbs are cheap,
> the outer glass shell is not. They sell a Lexan headlight protector that
> covers the glass part. It's supposed to guard against stone chips.
>
> When I crashed my '91, both the glass and the protector survived. Little else
> did, though.
>
ISTR that the complete twin headlight unit for my old Triumph Trophy
1200 was something like US$400 (converted from sterling). I bought a
perfect used one on eBay for about $40 and just stashed it in the
garage, against the evil day (I do this sort of thing often).
A few weeks later, the subframe that carries the headlight and most of
the wiring loom, and on which all the main fairing panels are hung,
appeared on eBay as well - brand new, stock clearance, another $40. They
cost about $500, and I thought that any serious impact might well damage
the subframe too, so I snapped that up and hung it on a hook in the
garage beside the headlight.
Sure enough, a year later I smashed the headlight to fragments. I also
bent the subframe (and without a jig, you'll never, ever get them
properly straight again).
I was *so* pleased I'd listened to my 'squirrel instinct'.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> When someobody posts something, especially comething technical, that is
> utterly *wrong* don't you think it ought to be corrected?
No, not unless the bad advice would hurt somebody physically or
financially.
> And you post things that are wrong a lot.
And your chosen porfession is to follow me around from newsgroup to
newsgroup and correct me? I'm so unworthy!
> Which is why you're corrected a lot.
Just by *you*.
> And you don't like it.
Who *would* like being followed around by a panty-prancing hankie
waver?
> If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
You are not the boss of me. You don't tell be what to do.
And, if you ever tried your conversational burglary with bikers around
here, IRL, you'd get your head torn off and handed to you.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> I was *so* pleased I'd listened to my 'squirrel instinct'.
You've been a rodent all your life, Bertie.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>I was *so* pleased I'd listened to my 'squirrel instinct'.
Hide your nuts ? :-)
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
The Older Gentleman
> On Dec 29, 5:23 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > When someobody posts something, especially comething technical, that is
> > utterly *wrong* don't you think it ought to be corrected?
>
> No, not unless the bad advice would hurt somebody physically or
> financially.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha! So you think you can post any old crap, whatever
comes into your head? That explaines *a lot*.
>
> > And you post things that are wrong a lot.
>
> And your chosen porfession is to follow me around from newsgroup to
> newsgroup and correct me?
No, I don't. You, however, go looking up my home page details, examining
my eBay record, and other stalker-like things. Very starnge.
>
> > Which is why you're corrected a lot.
>
> Just by *you*.
Nope. Others, too. ISTR Olson taking you to task recently for some piece
of idiocy.
<snip>
>
> And, if you ever tried your conversational burglary with bikers around
> here, IRL, you'd get your head torn off and handed to you.
Oooh. Big. Man.
ISTR the last bozo who threatened something like that trotted out some
excuse like "the address you gave me was a vacant lot." ISTR you chiming
in on that as well, now I think of it.
S'mee
> On Dec 28, 11:44 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > At around 700 pounds, it *is* quite heavy, and at 31.5" the seat
> > height *is* a bit high for short-legged riders, which probably
> > combined to explain Sean's drops; but the bike is no more top heavy
> > than are a thousand others.
>
> Pay closer attention, Twitbull. It was David T, Ashley who rented the
> tippy ST, not
> Sean.
heh, both have screwed that pooch lately moron.
>
> > In fact, if you want a bike with a CG high enough to affect tip-overs
> > you're going to have to look at big dual-sports such as my old KTM
> > "Adventure", that featured a seat height of 36" and a CG to match.
>
> I own a KLR600, which has a 35" seat height, unladen. However, the
> rear suspension sags at least 3" when somebody sits on it. And, at
> under 400 pounds, the high CG doesn't cause problems at all.
Nice looking up on the net...LIAR. You don't own any moorcycles. Hell
you can't even ride a tricycle or bicycle! You insane, incompetant
lying chickenhawk.
> > Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
> > signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
> > both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
>
> I stalled the KLR's engine on top of a ridge once. It was 10 feet down
> into one channel of a creek bed on the left, and 5 feet down to the
> channel on the right.
That was ALMOST a believable LIE...except I know you can't ride and
they don't let prisoners at the minimum security geriatric prison own
vehicles.
> I struggled with trying to keep the KLR from falling over for about
> five minutes before I gave up and let it fall over to the right,
> breaking off the less important front brake lever...
Bullshit you can't even ride, you were just attempting to sit on a
moorcycle at the stealership.
> > Gawd, but you're a brain-dead jackass.
>
> Henry, Bob Nixon, and I form a quorum that says you're the jackass,
> Pete.
Yeah but your the cock sucker...swallows also or so the guys in the
7th claim.
S'mee
Pathetic lying geriatric chickenhawk attempts something...but he's so
incoherent even my connections at foggy bottom couldn't translate it.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> That had absolutely *nothing* to do with tyre sizes. I had to write an
> article on this a few years ago, and did a lot of research into the
> phenomenon of the wobbly Pan. You haven't, evidently.
IIRC it was determined to be all the "cop gear" that was placed in the
hard bags and trunk, correct? I don't think the ever figured out a
cure that works.
S'mee
> On Dec 29, 5:23 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>
> Gentleman) wrote:
> > When someobody posts something, especially comething technical, that is
> > utterly *wrong* don't you think it ought to be corrected?
>
> No, not unless the bad advice would hurt somebody physically or
> financially.
Which you regularly do post you stupid brain dead waste of the states
resources.
> > And you post things that are wrong a lot.
>
> And your chosen porfession is to follow me around from newsgroup to
> newsgroup and correct me? I'm so unworthy!
Actually chickenhawk...you've been on his ass and mine for years. I'd
be careful, that could come back to rip your throat out...I know the
left hand of the grey panthers.
> > Which is why you're corrected a lot.
>
> Just by *you*.
actually by damned near everyone. You stupid ignorat bitch.
> > And you don't like it.
>
> Who *would* like being followed around by a panty-prancing hankie
> waver?
>
Yeah why do you follow me around maggot?
> > If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
>
> You are not the boss of me. You don't tell be what to do.
Oh go pick up your rattle little bitch and STFU.
> And, if you ever tried your conversational burglary with bikers around
> here, IRL, you'd get your head torn off and handed to you.
No you'd get gutted and flayed alive IRL. But he's a nice guy...me I'd
draw and quarter you.
The Older Gentleman
That was one factor, yes. The old airhead BMWs, back in the day, could
wobble with cop kit as well, only they were going much slower.
Honda had a recall to tighten the engine mounting bolts - they said
bolts not correctly tightened set up play in the frame/engine set-up.
Others found that suspension settings were critical. Ditto tyre
pressures.
There was some mention of aerodynamics, as well. It was probably a
combnation of any/all of the above, really, but certainly the amount of
stuff loaded onto the Plod bikes was a factor.
Whatever, it killed the ST13 pretty much dead in the UK. They sold a
few, but the old 1100 is still highly regarded and sought-after and
nobody really wants the 1300.
What it *wasn't* was too narrow yres, like out Mechanical Genius claims.
Gaidheal
> heh, both have screwed that pooch lately moron.
How could anybody screw the pooch with you around? You're still
humping Zhukov's corpse.
Gaidheal
> Actually chickenhawk...you've been on his ass and mine for years. I'd
> be careful, that could come back to rip your throat out...I know the
> left hand of the grey panthers.
Why don't you ask "Mr. Murray" what his finger size is, so you can
have a set of silver "friendship" rings made before he visits you in
Cut Bank next spring?
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>That had absolutely *nothing* to do with tyre sizes. I had to write an
>article on this a few years ago, and did a lot of research into the
>phenomenon of the wobbly Pan.
I would like to read this article. Was it published? Is it available
online?
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> What it *wasn't* was too narrow yres, like out Mechanical Genius
claims.
Narrow sport tires with stiff carcasses do NOT work well on top heavy
overweight
motorcycles like the ST1300.
Been there, done that with my GS1100 over twenty years ago.
The solution was wider rims and tires, suspension tuning, careful
adjustment of inflation pressures, and, most important of all,
adjusting the chassis balance by
pulling the fork stanchion tubes up through the triple trees as far as
possible.
Factory teams who raced the old style 1000cc superbikes in the late
1970's used to cut the frame and rake out the forks several extra
degrees and they also
had special triple trees made to avoid killing off the extra trail.
But all this has nothing to do with why David T. Ashley dropped the
rental bike at zero speed twice.
That was because the damned thing is top heavy, even to a 250 pound
dude that stands 6 foot 4 inches tall.
S'mee
what's the matter old fraud? Upset I have your number? Pissed that
it's OBVIOUS you aren't half the man I am? Or is it you hate me just
becuase I'm better than you in every way? 8^) Hell I bet I sign my
name in the snow with a better flourish than you could adn that's
using some gal to do the leaking. 8^) See unlike you I have more
skills than a fat diseased putrid mouth...which is all you got.
Failures like you are a disgrace to the species.
S'mee
So you claim the tires on the ST1300 are narrow? Damn you just proved
ME right again, you don't know SHIT about motorcycles.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> No, I don't. You, however, go looking up my home page details, examining
> my eBay record, and other stalker-like things. Very starnge.
> ISTR the last bozo who threatened something like that trotted out some
> excuse like "the address you gave me was a vacant lot." ISTR you chiming
> in on that as well, now I think of it.
Oh, BTW. I wonder if there is a retail plumbing supply company near
"Chateau Murray" in Sutton?
I've a yearning to collect a piece of pipe about 30 centimeters long
next time I'm in London.
One never knows when he'll need to lay some pipe upside a bloke's
head, yannow.
S'mee
What's the matter? Bitter that you wont get a taste of the real deal?
Poor little baby...thing is unlike you I'm straight and I don't have
sex outside my species. Sentient beings are NOT outside my
species...but I haven't met any cuties from Tau Ceti lately.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> That was one factor, yes. The old airhead BMWs, back in the day, could
> wobble with cop kit as well, only they were going much slower.
>
> Honda had a recall to tighten the engine mounting bolts - they said
> bolts not correctly tightened set up play in the frame/engine set-up.
> Others found that suspension settings were critical. Ditto tyre
> pressures.
>
> There was some mention of aerodynamics, as well. It was probably a
> combnation of any/all of the above, really, but certainly the amount of
> stuff loaded onto the Plod bikes was a factor.
Pretty much what I suspected then. It wasn't anyone thing...but rather
quiet a few things. I'd blame it on a lack of serious testing if I
were to point fingers.
S'mee
> That was because the damned thing is top heavy, even to a 250 pound
> dude that stands 6 foot 4 inches tall.
ROTFLMAO!!! DAMN you are one stupid father fucker aren't you?
ROTFLMAO!!! Been on a coupla' ST's and dude I could flat foot it AND
it wasn't top heavy either you stupid moron. I mean DAMN! how the fuck
can you BREATH when you are so stupid there is no one on earth you are
smart enough to breath without a respirator and 100% O2.
S'mee
Projecting what you aspire to be? I mean you've been a little
braindead worm your whole life...
Outback Jon
> Oh, BTW. I wonder if there is a retail plumbing supply company near
> "Chateau Murray" in Sutton?
>
> I've a yearning to collect a piece of pipe about 30 centimeters long
> next time I'm in London.
No one here really wants to hear about your sexual fetishes, thanks.
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outba...@g.no.sp.am.mail.com
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 32
2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
The Older Gentleman
> Narrow sport tires with stiff carcasses do NOT work well on top heavy
> overweight
> motorcycles like the ST1300.
The ST does not have narrow tyres. I see you have now added 'overweight'
to your description - but only after two people have pointed this out.
Trying to shift your position, I suppose.
>
> Been there, done that with my GS1100 over twenty years ago.
Your GS is an irrelevance. It was a dinosaur when new. It wouldn't go
round any kind of bend if it was strapped to a railway line and towed
behind a locomotive.
The Older Gentleman
It was a fairly small buyers' guide to the ST that I was asked to do. It
was published. It isn't online.
There's plenty on the web, anyway. JFGI.
Marc Gerges
> On Dec 29, 12:44ï¿œam, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
>> signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
>> both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
>
> ground, what race of human beings are these bikes intended for? ;)
>
Those that don't stop :)
In earnest - while I'm not that much into touring the Sahara or Siberia,
which these things are perfectly capable of, I enjoy riding a high bike
with a high CG. They're agile and flickable.
cu
.\\arc
Twibil
>
>
> > Even for someone 6'+ like myself, that bike was a handful at stop
> > signs; but mostly because I had to tippy-toe it if I wanted to get
> > both feet on the ground at once, not because of it's "high CG".
>
> If, at your 6'+ height, even you have to tippy-toe to reach the
> ground, what race of human beings are these bikes intended for? ;)
People who are running in the Paris/Dakar, and who value suspension
travel and ground clearance above all else.
They don't even come with kickstands. I had to weld one up for myself.
Twibil
>
>
> Henry, Bob Nixon, and I form a quorum that says you're the jackass,
> Pete.
YES!!
He GOT it!! (Pumps fist in air.)
Three racist, psychotic fools don't like me.
And the downside is?
Twibil
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! DAMN you are one stupid father fucker aren't you?
> ROTFLMAO!!! Been on a coupla' ST's and dude I could flat foot it AND
> it wasn't top heavy either you stupid moron. I mean DAMN! how the fuck
> can you BREATH when you are so stupid there is no one on earth you are
> smart enough to breath without a respirator and 100% O2.
He really is *incredibly* stupid; and not just about motorcycles.
See above where he actually tried to insult me by writing "Henry, Bob
Nixon, and I form a quorum that says you're the jackass,
Pete."
Were his IQ even as large as his shoe size he'd have known that any
sane person would take that line as incontrovertible evidence of
Sainthood.
Heck, if he's very, very good in future, I *may* let him kiss my ring.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:23:17 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >That had absolutely *nothing* to do with tyre sizes. I had to write an
>> >article on this a few years ago, and did a lot of research into the
>> >phenomenon of the wobbly Pan.
>>
>> I would like to read this article. Was it published? Is it available
>> online?
>
>It was a fairly small buyers' guide to the ST that I was asked to do. It
>was published.
Do you recall who published it?
>It isn't online.
Do you have a copy of the article?
The Older Gentleman
> Do you recall who published it?
Yes, of course. Bike magazine.
>
> >It isn't online.
>
> Do you have a copy of the article?
Oh, somewhere I'll have a copy of the issue it appeared in, yes. I keep
all my copies of Bike. Got just about every issue back to Issue One in
1972, with only a few issues missing.
Daresay I've got the original electronic document somewhere, too, but
not on this machine.
Like I said, it's very well documented now, anyway. Just Google for
"ST1300 instability".
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you recall who published it?
>
>Yes, of course. Bike magazine.
>>
>> >It isn't online.
>>
>> Do you have a copy of the article?
>
>Oh, somewhere I'll have a copy of the issue it appeared in, yes. I keep
>all my copies of Bike. Got just about every issue back to Issue One in
>1972, with only a few issues missing.
>
>Daresay I've got the original electronic document somewhere, too, but
>not on this machine.
If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
article and post it. I would like to read it and I am sure others
would too.
In lieu of scanning it, maybe you could just post the text from your
electronic copy/
The Older Gentleman
>
> If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
> article and post it. I would like to read it and I am sure others
> would too.
Can't be arsed
>
> In lieu of scanning it, maybe you could just post the text from your
> electronic copy/
Can't be arsed.
The Older Gentleman
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
> > article and post it. I would like to read it and I am sure others
> > would too.
>
> Can't be arsed
> >
> > In lieu of scanning it, maybe you could just post the text from your
> > electronic copy/
>
> Can't be arsed.
Just found it, actually, on my ten year-old G4. Document dated 28th
December 2006 - three years ago, almost to the very day. How odd.
Main thing I mentioned in the text for the instability was the recall
for the engine/frame bolts to be checked, plus a recommendation (culled
from owners) for rear damping and spring pre-load settings. Didn't
mention tyre pressures at all, although certainly subsequent lore says
they're critical.
Amusingly, the quoted owners' opinions were both from the US (very hard
to find ST1300 owners in the Uk, as I intimated earlier).
Like I said, if you want chapter & verse, JFGI.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
>> > article and post it. I would like to read it and I am sure others
>> > would too.
>>
>> Can't be arsed
>> >
>> > In lieu of scanning it, maybe you could just post the text from your
>> > electronic copy/
>>
>> Can't be arsed.
>
>Just found it, actually, on my ten year-old G4. Document dated 28th
>December 2006 - three years ago, almost to the very day. How odd.
>
>Main thing I mentioned in the text for the instability was the recall
>for the engine/frame bolts to be checked, plus a recommendation (culled
>from owners) for rear damping and spring pre-load settings. Didn't
>mention tyre pressures at all, although certainly subsequent lore says
>they're critical.
>
>Amusingly, the quoted owners' opinions were both from the US (very hard
>to find ST1300 owners in the Uk, as I intimated earlier).
>
>Like I said, if you want chapter & verse, JFGI.
I think you also said your article was not available on the net. I am
interested in reading your article.
If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
forum.
I am sure I am not the only one who would like to read it.
Road Glidin' Don
Excuse me, could I please be added to the list, or is it too late now?
Twibil
>
>
> > Three racist, psychotic fools don't like me.
>
> > And the downside is?
>
> Excuse me, could I please be added to the list, or is it too late now?
Too late.
Besides, you're not a racist.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> Your GS is an irrelevance.
Bullmurray. The GS1100 was the bike that dethroned the CBX when it was
first produced in 1980. The motomavens couldn't write enough in praise
of *the
one-one-zip-zip engine*.
> It was a dinosaur when new. It wouldn't go
> round any kind of bend if it was strapped to a railway line and towed
> behind a locomotive.
Bullmurray redux. The first two year models handled like giant
motocross bikes.
If you were on slippery macadam (like our favorite back road through
Griffith Park), you could set up really nice power drifts.
But the Helmut Muth re-styled 1982 and 1983 models made the rider sit
three inches further back, unweighting the front tire contact patch
and the damn thing was unstable in a straight line above 120 mph.
The bike would go 140 if you were brave enough to chance it.
Gaidheal
> He GOT it!! (Pumps fist in air.)
So. You're a Guido from Joisey?
Who'da thunk it?
Gaidheal
> Heck, if he's very, very good in future, I *may* let him kiss my ring.
If you have "ring around the collar", UPS your laundry to Cut Bank, MT
and let S'mee suck it clean.
Gaidheal
> Can't be arsed
Hey, you made assertions of expertise, now put up or shut up.
> Can't be arsed.
Put up or shut up Bullmurray.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
> > article and post it. I would like to read it and I am sure others
> > would too.
>
> Can't be arsed
>
>
>
> > In lieu of scanning it, maybe you could just post the text from your
> > electronic copy/
>
> Can't be arsed.
sheesh, you coulda just said no...I doubt feelings woulda been hurt,
much.
Gaidheal
> Excuse me, could I please be added to the list, or is it too late now?
Jump right in, open enrollment in the Peter Roehling Hater's Club
lasts until December 31, 2010.
Road Glidin' Don
But I once ran over an Indian with my Road Glide!!! [1] Brian Walker
decreed that should count.
[1] Okay, accidentally as she tried committing suicide, but let's not
get hung up on details.
Mark Olson
> But I once ran over an Indian with my Road Glide!!! [1] Brian Walker
> decreed that should count.
>
>
> [1] Okay, accidentally as she tried committing suicide, but let's not
> get hung up on details.
You say she, so it couldn't have been a Chief.
S'mee
Nope doesn't qualify and anyway it's long established the HE isn't
qualified to decree a damn thing except that yes he's lying sack of
shit and should let me scalp him with a rusty DULL file. 8^)
S'mee
Really? Then you should be proud that the Krusty haters club has open
enrollment until your posts disappear from usenet and anywhere else
your drivel might be stored.
S'mee
heh you can kiss your own jujenum. I wouldn't let you LIVE if you got
within 300m of me. OBTW would you prefer the pain of a 22 or the
instant end of everything 50 cal provides?
mayner
<steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 6:23�am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> That had absolutely *nothing* to do with tyre sizes. I had to write an
>> article on this a few years ago, and did a lot of research into the
>> phenomenon of the wobbly Pan. You haven't, evidently.
>
>IIRC it was determined to be all the "cop gear" that was placed in the
>hard bags and trunk, correct? I don't think the ever figured out a
>cure that works.
I've owned my ST for close to 4 years. I've had it north of 130mph,
indicated on the Garmin, many times. Some with the top box and some
without. I've stil not encountered the dreaded wobble that some speak
of. I keep the tires at the proper, for me, pressure and keep the
suspension settings on the stiff side, for stock shock and forks
anyway. Even on the highest setting on the shock it's not all that
stiff. This isn't a racebike afterall.
Next summer I'm going to take the bike out on the Salt Flats in
Bonneville and see what she'll do. Of course I'll remove the top box
so we'll see what happens though I'm tempted to keep it on.
Live dangerously is my motto. ;-)
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> Bullmurray. The GS1100 was the bike that dethroned the CBX when it was
> first produced in 1980. The motomavens couldn't write enough in praise
> of *the
> one-one-zip-zip engine*.
Ah. I stand corrected. Over here the GS100 was an extension of the
GS1000, the 2-valver. All four-valve Suzukis got the GSX tag. I was
forgetting that in the US, the model name was different.
The GSX Eleven was still a dinosaur, though.
> If you were on slippery macadam (like our favorite back road through
> Griffith Park), you could set up really nice power drifts.
Under-tyred. What you were saying about the ST. 110-odd bhp on early
1980s narrow tyres....
> But the Helmut Muth re-styled 1982 and 1983 models made the rider sit
> three inches further back, unweighting the front tire contact patch
> and the damn thing was unstable in a straight line above 120 mph.
How odd. I rode one rather faster than that and never had a problem. In
fact, it handled rather better than the original Eleven.
The Older Gentleman
> But I once ran over an Indian with my Road Glide!!! [1] Brian Walker
> decreed that should count.
Because it was an Indian or because you used a Road Glide?
Actually, was she an Indian Indian or an American Indian, in which case
I deem you a racist for not alling her 'Native Ameican'.
There. Don't ever say I don't do you favours ;-)
The Older Gentleman
> On Dec 29, 3:19 pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (Bullmurray) wrote:
>
> > Can't be arsed
>
> Hey, you made assertions of expertise, now put up or shut up.
Not assertions. I am considered (something of) an expert, which is why
I've been paid for doing what I do for a quarter of a century. And
anyway, I didn't claim expertise here. I simply said I had to research
it for a piece, and all the info is out there on the web now for you to
read.
<Thinks> Are you suggesting that I *didn't* write about ST1300
instability in a magazine article?
>
> > Can't be arsed.
>
> Put up or shut up Bullmurray.
See my reply to the Canuck. Interesting to see you pairing up again,
btw.
The Older Gentleman
> I think you also said your article was not available on the net.
Indeed, I did. Go back and read the thread (I'm geting tired of saying
that to you).
For the fourth time, the info on the bike's instability is out there, so
look it up.
>I am
> interested in reading your article.
>
> If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
> forum.
>
> I am sure I am not the only one who would like to read it.
I don't think you're interested in reading it at all, actually. Just a
guess.
I have never posted any of my work on the net. Some has been posted by
publishers, but that's a different matter. A quick Google has turned up
something from Classic & Motorcycle Mechanics a few years ago. That's
about it.
It's something I just "don't do". If you're that interested in reading
it, Bauer Media (who now own Bike) may have a back copy they can sell
you. From the date of writing, it would have appeared in February or
March 2007.
There's another reason why not. I don't have the copyright to this
piece. I'm sure Bauer wouldn't mind, though.
But chiefly, I don't "grandstand". My work is my work. People who buy it
get my thanks, because it keeps me in work. I don't see why I should
automatically provide it free for people who don't buy it. But mainly
it's just because "I don't do this".
hth, hand, etc
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I think you also said your article was not available on the net.
>
>Indeed, I did. Go back and read the thread (I'm geting tired of saying
>that to you).
>
>For the fourth time, the info on the bike's instability is out there, so
>look it up.
>
>>I am
>> interested in reading your article.
>>
>> If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
>> forum.
>>
>> I am sure I am not the only one who would like to read it.
>
>I don't think you're interested in reading it at all, actually. Just a
>guess.
Well you guessed wrong. I did want to read it.
>
>I have never posted any of my work on the net. Some has been posted by
>publishers, but that's a different matter. A quick Google has turned up
>something from Classic & Motorcycle Mechanics a few years ago. That's
>about it.
>
>It's something I just "don't do". If you're that interested in reading
>it, Bauer Media (who now own Bike) may have a back copy they can sell
>you. From the date of writing, it would have appeared in February or
>March 2007.
>
>There's another reason why not. I don't have the copyright to this
>piece. I'm sure Bauer wouldn't mind, though.
I agree Banner would not mind.
>
>But chiefly, I don't "grandstand". My work is my work. People who buy it
>get my thanks, because it keeps me in work. I don't see why I should
>automatically provide it free for people who don't buy it. But mainly
>it's just because "I don't do this".
To be fair you are often guilty of grandstanding.
>
>hth, hand, etc
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>See my reply to the Canuck. Interesting to see you pairing up again,
>btw.
You are a lying asshole. And that is being kind to you.
You seem to have a hard on for Krusty. It is an obsession that
permeates through the majority of your posts.
Personally, I have no use for him or other racist jerks that decide to
post in this group.
Your continued attempts to link me with him are becoming tiring.
Either find one instance where I have paired up with him or shut the
fuck up.
Since lies and deception have become second nature for you as of late,
I doubt you will put an end to this deceptive practice. Carrying on
will only reflect badly on you and ironically will link you far more
closely to Krusty than it will me. After all you both seem to be quite
comfortable posting selfagrandising bullshit to this group.
The only question that comes to mind is where does your bullshit stop?
The Older Gentleman
> >See my reply to the Canuck. Interesting to see you pairing up again,
> >btw.
>
> You are a lying asshole. And that is being kind to you.
Ah, here we go again. You're getting quicker. Only half a dozen posts
and you throw the rattle.
>
> You seem to have a hard on for Krusty. It is an obsession that
> permeates through the majority of your posts.
No. You'll note that the reverse is true, though.
>
> Personally, I have no use for him or other racist jerks that decide to
> post in this group.
>
> Your continued attempts to link me with him are becoming tiring.
> Either find one instance where I have paired up with him or shut the
> fuck up.
You're both pestering me about posting a small article that dated from
2007. *And nobody else is*.
I'd call that a link.
>
> Since lies and deception have become second nature for you as of late,
> I doubt you will put an end to this deceptive practice. Carrying on
> will only reflect badly on you and ironically will link you far more
> closely to Krusty than it will me. After all you both seem to be quite
> comfortable posting selfagrandising bullshit to this group.
>
> The only question that comes to mind is where does your bullshit stop?
When people stop paying for it, probably :-)
The Older Gentleman
> >I don't think you're interested in reading it at all, actually. Just a
> >guess.
>
> Well you guessed wrong. I did want to read it.
Tough.
Maybe if somebody else asked....
> >I have never posted any of my work on the net. Some has been posted by
> >publishers, but that's a different matter. A quick Google has turned up
> >something from Classic & Motorcycle Mechanics a few years ago. That's
> >about it.
> >
> >It's something I just "don't do". If you're that interested in reading
> >it, Bauer Media (who now own Bike) may have a back copy they can sell
> >you. From the date of writing, it would have appeared in February or
> >March 2007.
> >
> >There's another reason why not. I don't have the copyright to this
> >piece. I'm sure Bauer wouldn't mind, though.
>
> I agree Banner would not mind.
Bauer.
> >
> >But chiefly, I don't "grandstand". My work is my work. People who buy it
> >get my thanks, because it keeps me in work. I don't see why I should
> >automatically provide it free for people who don't buy it. But mainly
> >it's just because "I don't do this".
>
> To be fair you are often guilty of grandstanding.
To be brutally unfair, I'm still not posting it. Get over it; move on.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >See my reply to the Canuck. Interesting to see you pairing up again,
>> >btw.
>>
>> You are a lying asshole. And that is being kind to you.
>
>Ah, here we go again. You're getting quicker. Only half a dozen posts
>and you throw the rattle.
The fact I take exception to your constant misrepresentation and
deception has nothing to do with my interest in a published article.
Calling you a lying asshole is merely stating the obvious. You now
have a proven track record.
>
>>
>> You seem to have a hard on for Krusty. It is an obsession that
>> permeates through the majority of your posts.
>
>No. You'll note that the reverse is true, though.
I disagree. By far the majority of your posts are directed at or about
Krusty. In fact, racism aside, I see far more similarities between you
two than I do differences.
>
>>
>> Personally, I have no use for him or other racist jerks that decide to
>> post in this group.
>>
>> Your continued attempts to link me with him are becoming tiring.
>> Either find one instance where I have paired up with him or shut the
>> fuck up.
>
>You're both pestering me about posting a small article that dated from
>2007. *And nobody else is*.
>
>I'd call that a link.
Krusty can do what he pleases. The fact you are so preoccupied with
him proves he has successfully gotten under your skin.
Krusty may want to see the article (if it exists) for some other
reason and while that may be a link, it does not mean I have paired up
with him. Considering you are a professional writer it is clear you
wrote exactly what you meant and it is just more of your bullshit.
>> Since lies and deception have become second nature for you as of late,
>> I doubt you will put an end to this deceptive practice. Carrying on
>> will only reflect badly on you and ironically will link you far more
>> closely to Krusty than it will me. After all you both seem to be quite
>> comfortable posting selfagrandising bullshit to this group.
>>
>> The only question that comes to mind is where does your bullshit stop?
>
>When people stop paying for it, probably :-)
Now that is an admission you are posting bullshit. Interesting!
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> To be fair you are often guilty of grandstanding.
>
>To be brutally unfair, I'm still not posting it. Get over it; move on.
Fair enough, however that does not change the fact you are often
guilty of grandstanding.
The Older Gentleman
> >> The only question that comes to mind is where does your bullshit stop?
> >
> >When people stop paying for it, probably :-)
>
> Now that is an admission you are posting bullshit. Interesting!
No, it is not.
When did you actually stop taking English lessons? Do you think I get
paid for this sort of stuff?
*Sigh*
Once again, I'll have to correct your lack of comprehension.
"When people stop paying for it" self-evidently doesn't refer to
"posting", as you seem to think. It refers to my work which, as you
know, is journalism, for which I am handsomely paid because, blushingly,
I am very good at it.
However, I'm also well aware that it really is the last refuge of people
who can't do anything else, and so I am very deprecating about what some
people call a "profession".
There. Don't suppose it'll make any difference, of course, because now
you'll go yammering "you admitted you posted bullshit" like a record
stuck in a groove. Or whatever the modern tech equivalent is.
Now: back to the article. It's a used buyer's guide to the ST. Nothing
more. If you want to find out about its (in) stability problem, there is
vastly more stuff now on the interwebthingy than there is in my piece,
written three years ago.
The Older Gentleman
Absolutely as charged. Now, what are you going to throw at me next? I
mean, you said you intended to jab me in any thread you fancied, and
you've tried and failed woefully[1]. Don't you think you ought to give
it a rest?
[1] Getting to be a habit, is this.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>"When people stop paying for it" self-evidently doesn't refer to
>"posting", as you seem to think. It refers to my work which, as you
>know, is journalism, for which I am handsomely paid because, blushingly,
>I am very good at it.
You know I can randomly pick a dozen journalists and find dozens of
articles attributed to them on the net, but with you there are a
couple of letters to the editor and one ride report.
I'd have to say your journalistic successes are very well disguised. I
trust you get paid by the word and not your exposure.
Now the only other person I have seen grandstand on their dubious
achievements like this is Krusty. There is a definite similarity
there. One might even call it a link.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:24:49 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> To be fair you are often guilty of grandstanding.
>> >
>> >To be brutally unfair, I'm still not posting it. Get over it; move on.
>>
>> Fair enough, however that does not change the fact you are often
>> guilty of grandstanding.
>
>Absolutely as charged. Now, what are you going to throw at me next? I
>mean, you said you intended to jab me in any thread you fancied, and
>you've tried and failed woefully[1]. Don't you think you ought to give
>it a rest?
Hey you were the one who brought it up. I asked a simple question. It
was presented politely, in a non challenging manner and you refused to
respond. That's fair. You can say no, but by doing so raises the
obvious questions.
There was no "jab" here. Trust me, if I intend to throw a "jab" your
way you will know it.
>
>[1] Getting to be a habit, is this.
Looking back, every exchange has resulted in you either backing off or
being shown to be a lying idiot. Starting with Canada refused to send
troops to Europe until five years after we declared war, to comparing
not legislating mandatory vehicle inspections to condoning incest and
leading to anarchy, yes you have taken a few body blows.
And you are correct, it is getting to be a bit of a habit.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>Now: back to the article. It's a used buyer's guide to the ST. Nothing
>more. If you want to find out about its (in) stability problem, there is
>vastly more stuff now on the interwebthingy than there is in my piece,
>written three years ago.
You don't want to post it. That's fine. I don't understand the reasons
you refuse to share it, but it is your choice.
The Older Gentleman
> You know I can randomly pick a dozen journalists and find dozens of
> articles attributed to them on the net, but with you there are a
> couple of letters to the editor and one ride report.
Ah, another stalker.
Once again, you lack comprehension. I said I've been doing this job for
over a quarter of a century - damn nearly thirty years, actually.
How long has the web been up? Well, duh.
Oddly, Bike magazine didn't have a website until very recently, and even
now doesn't have a site as such, and they have precisely *one* back
issue on the web in its entirety.
Superbike, for whom I wrote between 1981 and about 1990 has nothing
older than 2001 on its online road test archive.
>
> I'd have to say your journalistic successes are very well disguised. I
> trust you get paid by the word and not your exposure.
Both. Freelance is per thousand words, and the full-time job is an
annual salary. If you want to read my 'full-time job' stuff, you'll have
to buy a subscription and get a password if you want to read it online.
It'll cost you close to a thousand pounds.
> Now the only other person I have seen grandstand on their dubious
> achievements like this is Krusty. There is a definite similarity
> there. One might even call it a link.
Poor effort. You've tried to denigrate my job, and been made to look a
fool. Anyone who knows me will cheerfully acknowledge that what I've
just posted above is the simple truth. This has been my job, full- and
part-time, for decades.
The Older Gentleman
> Hey you were the one who brought it up. I asked a simple question. It
> was presented politely, in a non challenging manner and you refused to
> respond.
I did respond. I just refused to spend my time either scanning a paper
copy or putting up an electronic document, for the reasons I gave.
>That's fair. You can say no, but by doing so raises the
> obvious questions.
Which are? Indulge me, because I can't think of any.
The Older Gentleman
I gave you the reasons. I don't have copyright. But, chiefly, I don't do
this. I just don't. I have, in the past, emailed stuff privately to
people, mind.
Now, what are these "obvious questions" to which you referred?
don (Calgary)
Oh get off your soapbox.
I did not attempt to denigrate your job. All I did was point out your
journalistic successes are very well disguised. Considering the few
references to your name that pop up on the net, I'd say my
representation is entirely fair.
And this type of unsupported grandstanding is typical Krusty
behaviour.
The Older Gentleman
> >Poor effort. You've tried to denigrate my job, and been made to look a
> >fool. Anyone who knows me will cheerfully acknowledge that what I've
> >just posted above is the simple truth. This has been my job, full- and
> >part-time, for decades.
>
> Oh get off your soapbox.
>
> I did not attempt to denigrate your job. All I did was point out your
> journalistic successes are very well disguised.
They are not 'disguised' at all. The way you put it simply sounds
sceptical.
>Considering the few
> references to your name that pop up on the net, I'd say my
> representation is entirely fair.
No, it's born of ignorance and stupidity.
I have told you precisely why. My bike stuff simply isn't on the web,
due to the policies of the magazine publishers, and my 'full-time' stuff
is only available on subscription to those who want to pay the price
that my employers think fair value for my stuff. In other words, a
thousand quid, cash on the barrel, every year.
Interestingly, we have only just (like in the last few weeks) pulled
down the barrier that shielded us from Google's search engines, because
our new boss wants (rightly) to give the outside world a taste of what
my offer, and if they like it, then to subscribe.
So we shield the main part of our articles in the online version of the
newspaper, and just put up the first few paras as a 'taster'.
Googling my name and the newspaper I edit throws up hundreds of hits. So
the simple answer is - you can't Google well enough.
And, yet again, I've given you a reasoned answer and made you look a
fool. It has to be said it's getting easier every time.