600's or SV-650, that's it
_Bob Nixon_
(< five miles from my home), to spectate friends racing. I camped at a
Formula 40's friend, Wallace's Van and watched & helped a little. He's
been racing an SV-650 for a couple of years and recently picked up an 00
R6, so that he can race in both, SS and lightweight twin classes.
Anyway, on his second race of the afternoon he rode the R6 and post-race
he said, "racing the R6 was not as fun as the SV". He also stated the R6
had to be kept between 11K RPM and the redline of 15,500.
This got me thinking about the usefulness of SS's as canyon bikes,
requiring either lackluster 6-10K RPM performance or full blast, on the
pipe, with no happy medium.
Next point: I've recently been advising/mentoring a couple of young
co-worker EE's, who've insisted on buying used 600's as their first
bikes. Youthful vanity I suppose, as try as I might, I couldn't get
either interested in the SV-650 or Hawk GT. They had to have 'cool'
looking bikes or they didn't want anything at all. BTW, Since then, both
have admitted to never really pushing them even close to redline, with
mostly 6-9K, in the twisties or highway. It's really too bad that the
Japanese MC manufacturers don't make a more upscale twin, with first
rate suspension components and "cooler looking body work" as it sure
seems they'd make more usable street bikes. Sure, there are Duc Monsters
but who needs that sort of overpriced aggravation? 90+ HP Mules with
dubious reliability? Not for new riders and pricey to boot.
100HP bragging rights is one thing but 70 (high 11's @ 130TS) nearly all
usable HP just seems smarter, especially off the race track. Even bikes
like the YZF-600R, Katana's, EX-500's & ZX-600E must have their necks
wrung to extract any usable power. And having ridden at least half dozen
SS's & older 600's, even flogging a couple, I can see where they might
be fun once in awhile but like my fellow old fart racing buddy said,
"it's continuous work to extract their capabilities". BTW, he almost
"high sided" that little R6, last Sunday. And a highly modified SV, took
a third in open Superbike $class. Tight course, sure but it does have a
half mile front straight.
Finally, even the old RD-350's (600SS's of yesteryear) had more usable
4000-8000RPM power bands and the RD-400's moved it down to 3500-7500
RPM. These old two smokes topped out at just over 100MPH, with 1/4 mile
times at best, in the mid 13's but they'd do power wheelies in the first
two or three gears, like dirt bikes. Ah...progress or lack there-of?
01 Sprint ST "RED"
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Daniel
equates to some extra effort. It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on a
600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my bike's
neck" at 9K. It is designed to run well at that RPM. I'm not going to pick
on you for wanting a torquier machine. I really don't care what you ride,
but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why are
you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
Daniel
'00 YZF600R
Austin, Texas
"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I4GNPAcYwa8wMf...@4ax.com...
Aspenskyy
>but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why are
>you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
I thought this was a motorcycle newsgroup. Not a 600 Supersport group. In the
36 posts I saw this morning only 3 were about 600's. Am I in the wrong group
or are you?
C.C.
01 Suzuki SV650S
02 Triumph Speed Four (coming soon)
Daniel
news:20020312091744...@mb-fi.aol.com...
It is alt.motorcycle.sportbike. It is about motorcycles. It is about a
type of motorcycle. Bob seems to just like stirring things up by bashing
people who ride bikes that he doesn't seem comfortable with. I was just
wondering why he hangs here when a large portion of the participants ride
the type of bike he is bashing.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
>> 100HP bragging rights is one thing but 70 (high 11's @ 130TS) nearly all
>> usable HP just seems smarter, especially off the race track. Even bikes
>> like the YZF-600R, Katana's, EX-500's & ZX-600E must have their necks
>> wrung to extract any usable power. And having ridden at least half dozen
>> SS's & older 600's, even flogging a couple, I can see where they might
>> be fun once in awhile but like my fellow old fart racing buddy said,
>> "it's continuous work to extract their capabilities". BTW, he almost
>> "high sided" that little R6, last Sunday. And a highly modified SV, took
>> a third in open Superbike $class. Tight course, sure but it does have a
>> half mile front straight.
Learn either to use a real news reader or just stop TOP POSTING. We
shouldn't have to continuously "cut and paste" for the sake of you
USENET neophytes.
>It is funny how some people think that keeping the RPM's up on a bike
>equates to some extra effort. It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on a
>600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my bike's
>neck" at 9K.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1) 9K is off the power on a REAL SS.
2) You don't even ride a REAL SS but a watered down, re-badged, has
been, so who are you to say, one way or the other?
So Daniel, don't try to tell me what I can or can't do or whether I
belong here or not? You OTOH, are merely a wannabee R1, choir boy, who's
technical content & opinions are pretty much daaaaa..status quo. Stick
with oil threads and harassing Phil. You're way otta your league, kid.
>It is designed to run well at that RPM. I'm not going to pick
>on you for wanting a torquier machine. I really don't care what you ride,
Well at least it ain't a rebadged yammi-hopper, wanna-bee R6 but a
purpose built, from the ground up, ST. And not that it need be either.
If one needs the latest greatest on the street, what's that say about
your riding, other that it's driven by advertising; external validation,
there, Mr. Joe Rocket, TEXASS flat lander? Reality is, you exhibit the
same sort of newbee, "cool bike" mentality as these two youngsters, in
my post. And while THEY don't know any better yet, you should -:)
>but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why are
>you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
Who says this group caters to 600SS's. And you with your sanctimonious
drivel about what is and what's not a REAL sport bike, when you don't
even ride one, yourself?
Troy The Troll
> This got me thinking about the usefulness of SS's as canyon bikes,
> requiring either lackluster 6-10K RPM performance or full blast, on the
> pipe, with no happy medium.
>
I dunno. I've ridden a SS in the midrange in the canyons, and if you keep
your cornering speed up and aren't blasting out of the corners like the
space shuttle taking off its perfectly nice. You just don't have full thrust
at your disposal. I've ridden big literbikes in the canyons in the midrange,
and they can accumulate speed in a rush from almost anywhere...but that
doesn't mean you DO that on the street.
I really think its more personal preference than anything. For the kind of
riding I do on the street, a nice loping motor isn't bad, since I don't use
full power on almost anything in the twisties...I tend to just keep my
cornering speed up, and leave the straightaways to the squidlings. The Pace
was always a nice description of a reasonable way to street ride I thought.
> Next point: I've recently been advising/mentoring a couple of young
> co-worker EE's, who've insisted on buying used 600's as their first
> bikes. Youthful vanity I suppose, as try as I might, I couldn't get
> either interested in the SV-650 or Hawk GT. They had to have 'cool'
> looking bikes or they didn't want anything at all. BTW, Since then, both
> have admitted to never really pushing them even close to redline, with
> mostly 6-9K, in the twisties or highway. It's really too bad that the
> Japanese MC manufacturers don't make a more upscale twin, with first
> rate suspension components and "cooler looking body work" as it sure
> seems they'd make more usable street bikes. Sure, there are Duc Monsters
> but who needs that sort of overpriced aggravation? 90+ HP Mules with
> dubious reliability? Not for new riders and pricey to boot.
>
I thought an RC51 and the SuperHawk both qualified as "upscale Twins"? Or
are you thinking something more 600SS looking? TL1000S and R models?
> Finally, even the old RD-350's (600SS's of yesteryear) had more usable
> 4000-8000RPM power bands and the RD-400's moved it down to 3500-7500
> RPM. These old two smokes topped out at just over 100MPH, with 1/4 mile
> times at best, in the mid 13's but they'd do power wheelies in the first
> two or three gears, like dirt bikes. Ah...progress or lack there-of?
>
I remember my old RD400 as a quite nice bike. But for midrange? Didn't seem
like it had that much. It was either on the pipe or off it, and it did do
great wheelies when it transitioned from off-to-on pipe, but I think a
modern 600 has alot more midrange for canyon running than that old bike did.
Now an FZR400....THAT was like the old RD. Either it was on the pipe or off
it...nothing in between, and the way to ride it quickly was to wring its
neck. And it was more work than a modern 600 to ride well....but that wasn't
necessarily a BAD thing.
Rich Lesperance
"Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote
>I really don't care what you ride,
> but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why
are
> you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
>
> Daniel
> '00 YZF600R
> Austin, Texas
>
To be fair, this group caters to _all_ sportbikes, not just "supersports",
and I think a SV 650 or Superhawk has as much right to be here...
Rich L
Daniel
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:08:37 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> 100HP bragging rights is one thing but 70 (high 11's @ 130TS) nearly
all
> >> usable HP just seems smarter, especially off the race track. Even bikes
> >> like the YZF-600R, Katana's, EX-500's & ZX-600E must have their necks
> >> wrung to extract any usable power. And having ridden at least half
dozen
> >> SS's & older 600's, even flogging a couple, I can see where they might
> >> be fun once in awhile but like my fellow old fart racing buddy said,
> >> "it's continuous work to extract their capabilities". BTW, he almost
> >> "high sided" that little R6, last Sunday. And a highly modified SV,
took
> >> a third in open Superbike $class. Tight course, sure but it does have a
> >> half mile front straight.
>
> Learn either to use a real news reader or just stop TOP POSTING. We
> shouldn't have to continuously "cut and paste" for the sake of you
> USENET neophytes.
You need to cut down on the coffee. Who died and made you USENET cop?
> >It is funny how some people think that keeping the RPM's up on a bike
> >equates to some extra effort. It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on a
> >600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my bike's
> >neck" at 9K.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 1) 9K is off the power on a REAL SS.
> 2) You don't even ride a REAL SS but a watered down, re-badged, has
> been, so who are you to say, one way or the other?
I ride what I want to ride and I can do it without belittling what others
ride. What I ride was the racing platform for Yamaha up until the R6 took
over in '98, I think. Hardly watered down.
Head on over to Motorcycle.com. They have these things called graphs. They
will show you that most inline 4 bikes are well inside their powerbands at
9K. I've included some dyno graphs below.
> So Daniel, don't try to tell me what I can or can't do or whether I
> belong here or not? You OTOH, are merely a wannabee R1, choir boy, who's
> technical content & opinions are pretty much daaaaa..status quo. Stick
> with oil threads and harassing Phil. You're way otta your league, kid.
Name calling. Very supportive of your argument. As far as what you can and
cannot do, I can only assume from your posts. I assume that you have
trouble with precise clutching. I can also assume that you have trouble
keeping your needle up... RPM that is.
At least I know enough that I wouldn't say something like "9K is off the
power for a REAL SS.
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/600ss/horsepower.html
Notice how linear the power is. : )
And since my 600R is such a relic. Here is another chart. Linear and 9K is
right up there.
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/99_600s_charts2.html
Put them side by side. You will notice similiarities in the curve all the
way up to almost 12K. You will also notice that there is not much juice
left in the R6 after about 13K.
>
> >It is designed to run well at that RPM. I'm not going to pick
> >on you for wanting a torquier machine. I really don't care what you
ride,
>
> Well at least it ain't a rebadged yammi-hopper, wanna-bee R6 but a
> purpose built, from the ground up, ST. And not that it need be either.
> If one needs the latest greatest on the street, what's that say about
> your riding, other that it's driven by advertising; external validation,
> there, Mr. Joe Rocket, TEXASS flat lander? Reality is, you exhibit the
> same sort of newbee, "cool bike" mentality as these two youngsters, in
> my post. And while THEY don't know any better yet, you should -:)
Again, while my bike is heavier, the engine performance is not much off the
R6. If I had wanted an R1 or an R6, I would have purchase one. I bought
mine to have a middle ground between performance and comfort. A 7 hour ride
day on a 600R is not as gruelling.
Your purpose built from the ground up is a sporty touring bike according to
Triumph.
I can tell that you have not seen much of Texas, probably none of central
Texas. We have some great roads here.
If I needed the latest and greatest to validate my ego, I would not be
riding a 600R, now would I? As far as wannabee posters? Are you also
referring to Troy?
>
> >but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why
are
> >you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
>
> Who says this group caters to 600SS's. And you with your sanctimonious
> drivel about what is and what's not a REAL sport bike, when you don't
> even ride one, yourself?
I certainly did not state that this group caters ONLY to 600SS. I stated
that there are a large number of SS posters here and I was wondering if your
posts were just trolling. Now I know.
>
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Daniel
news:a6l8b4$fcvol$1...@ID-133319.news.dfncis.de...
I concur 100%. It certainly was not my intention to state that this group
was entirely for supersport bikes. I was just wondering why Bob seems to
enjoy bashing them so much. I feel that I am the victim of a trolling. Oh
well.
Daniel
If I did have an motorcycle related ego problem, I would probably manifest
it by making inaccurate statments about other people's motorcycles.
culprit
"Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:eiqj8.94293$dj3.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
that's just what bob does. he doesn't have a very interesting life, so he
instead chooses to show the world what a bitter old man he is through the
medium of usenet. if he thinks you're young, enjoying yourself, have a more
interesting life, make more money, etc, he'll make sure to go out of his way
to harrass you, over and over again, for his own entertainment.
for example, just watch his responses to any of my posts, and you can see
how much time he must have on his hands.
you'd think that with all the fantastic roads and great weather they
supposedly have in arizona, he'd spend more time riding.
--
-kelly
01 Aprilia Falco
00 Aprilia Pegaso
jenner
news:p5nj8.94255$dj3.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com:
> It is funny how some people think that keeping the RPM's up on a bike
> equates to some extra effort.
Not extra effort so much as the bike is busier. I know from
this as I put 15K on a Ninja 250, which would make your 600ss
sedate by comparison. You do have to get used to it and
that may take some time. If you do let the rpm's fall, you
have to get them back. All that does take away a little
from the ride itself because you have to manage the machine.
>It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on
> a 600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my
> bike's neck" at 9K.
I've had people say that I have to wring my bikes neck at 12K
on the Ninja 250. That isn't an apt description because the
bike is designed for that. However, I will acknowledge that
the bike is a while lot busier at 12K then at 7K.
>It is designed to run well at that RPM. I'm not
> going to pick on you for wanting a torquier machine. I really don't
> care what you ride, but if you really don't like supersport bikes as
> much as you claim, why are you hanging around in a newsgroup that
> caters to people who do like 'em?
Maybe, Daniel, because not every sportbike is an in-line four
that needs to be wring at 9K.
--
-- jenner
Tom
> like the YZF-600R, Katana's, EX-500's ..must have their necks
> wrung to extract any usable power.
Excuse me? Putting the Yamaha 600R in the same catagory as the Katana and
EX-500 tells me that you were probably riding some old wreck with a dry
crankcase. These are *very* different bikes and the YZF needs no
"wringing." Try sitting on something a bit newer ('99 and up) and then
giving us a report based upon a more recent experience. :)
Tom
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>> Learn either to use a real news reader or just stop TOP POSTING. We
>> shouldn't have to continuously "cut and paste" for the sake of you
>> USENET neophytes.
>
>You need to cut down on the coffee. Who died and made you USENET cop?
MSIE= crap newsreader.
>> >It is funny how some people think that keeping the RPM's up on a bike
>> >equates to some extra effort. It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on a
>> >600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my bike's
>> >neck" at 9K.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 1) 9K is off the power on a REAL SS.
>> 2) You don't even ride a REAL SS but a watered down, re-badged, has
>> been, so who are you to say, one way or the other?
>
>I ride what I want to ride and I can do it without belittling what others
>ride.
Now does it feel after flogging others that they don't ride real Sport
bikes and as such, are not deserving to post here.
>Head on over to Motorcycle.com. They have these things called graphs. They
>will show you that most inline 4 bikes are well inside their powerbands at
>9K. I've included some dyno graphs below.
>
>> So Daniel, don't try to tell me what I can or can't do or whether I
>> belong here or not? You OTOH, are merely a wannabee R1, choir boy, who's
>> technical content & opinions are pretty much daaaaa..status quo. Stick
>> with oil threads and harassing Phil. You're way otta your league, kid.
[...]
>At least I know enough that I wouldn't say something like "9K is off the
>power for a REAL SS.
Sure it is. look at your own stats.
>http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/600ss/horsepower.html
>Notice how linear the power is. : )
Oh it's linear all right. 60-65HP on the best of them at 9K. My point
exactly. 60-65% of the available power, where 'as an SV-650 has the
same, but without that screamy, meany buzzing. IOW, why waste your
money, when ALL the power is only usable on a 10 lap race, with numb
hands and feet afterwards.
>And since my 600R is such a relic. Here is another chart. Linear and 9K is
>right up there.
>http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/99_600s_charts2.html
The R6 is the weakest of the lot. 37 foot pounds at 9K. And this is not
even the same as your bike. Look for the 97 for something close.
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/value600spex.html
Granted, this one comes on a bit lower down but only 75 peak HP.
>Put them side by side. You will notice similiarities in the curve all the
>way up to almost 12K. You will also notice that there is not much juice
>left in the R6 after about 13K.
They do run 00&> R6's above 15K at the track.
[...]
>> Well at least it ain't a rebadged yammi-hopper, wanna-bee R6 but a
>> purpose built, from the ground up, ST. And not that it need be either.
>> If one needs the latest greatest on the street, what's that say about
>> your riding, other that it's driven by advertising; external validation,
>> there, Mr. Joe Rocket, TEXASS flat lander? Reality is, you exhibit the
>> same sort of newbee, "cool bike" mentality as these two youngsters, in
>> my post. And while THEY don't know any better yet, you should -:)
>
>Again, while my bike is heavier, the engine performance is not much off the
>R6. If I had wanted an R1 or an R6, I would have purchase one. I bought
>mine to have a middle ground between performance and comfort. A 7 hour ride
>day on a 600R is not as gruelling.
It's all relative I suppose. 20 years ago, I might has said the same
about an even buzzier RD-350.
>Your purpose built from the ground up is a sporty touring bike according to
>Triumph.
>
>I can tell that you have not seen much of Texas, probably none of central
>Texas. We have some great roads here.
I knew this was coming, when I wrote it. Ah... to the hill country. Only
100 odd miles from San Anton... And lots of redneck Texas cops waiting.
Ask Beth.
>If I needed the latest and greatest to validate my ego, I would not be
>riding a 600R, now would I? As far as wannabee posters? Are you also
>referring to Troy?
Not Troy, he's not the one running around this NG regulating just what
is a SB and what is not, then getting into endless pissing contests with
Phil. That was you dude and your paying for your cockiness now -:)
>> >but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why
>>are you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
>> Who says this group caters to 600SS's.
[...]
>I certainly did not state that this group caters ONLY to 600SS. I stated
>that there are a large number of SS posters here and I was wondering if your
>posts were just trolling. Now I know.
>
No you don't. I ride with your brethren nearly every weekend. Great
kids. That's exactly how I know the bottom line when it comes to many,
who ride the 600s. Now, go back to my original post and tell me it was a
troll attempt. It was all rational talk. You just got all defensive and
started dropping sanctimonious comments about things for which you
haven't a clue.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
Changing your tune now. And you got exactly what you deserved -:)
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>that's just what bob does. he doesn't have a very interesting life,
Maybe if I had an interesting life, I'd sacrifice all, to live where
gunshots could be heard nightly. Don't get me started Kelly, cause
you've not even read my original post and besides, I like you and your
bikes too much to get REAL nasty and personal. BTW, what you call
interesting seems: staring out your window, watching the rain, while
less interesting folks are riding their bikes in the twisties and not
just commuting in the Seattle drizzle.
I'm way down the list Kelly. Next time, "read the original message"
before trying to get revenge for my teasing you on your reeky ramblings.
IOW, do join the party but do buy a clue first.
2181 100.00% (probe count)
97 4.45% jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX>
95 4.36% "Troy The Troll" <f4...@attbi.com>
64 2.93% "mjt" <mtobler@removeit_sbcglobal.net>
56 2.57% Larry xlax Lovisone <nett...@earthlink.net>
54 2.48% Denise Howard <den...@invalid.domain>
47 2.15% "RAM" <rm9...@albany.edu>
42 1.93% Beth <bef...@texas.net>
41 1.88% phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott)
40 1.83% _Bob Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.nospam.com>
39 1.79% Daniel Bannon <daniel_...@hahtmail.dott.c0mm>
33 1.51% tzr...@DONTEVENTHINKABOUTSPAMMINGyahoo.com (Andy Burnett)
32 1.47% sadd...@aol.com (Saddlebag)
32 1.47% "Graham" <graha...@shawnospam.ca>
32 1.47% "Rich Lesperance" <ri...@ufl.edu>
31 1.42% "Andrew" <yo...@hotmail.com>
28 1.28% super...@aol.comJUNK (SUPERKAOSS)
23 1.05% kayb...@aol.comical (Kaybearjr)
21 0.96% "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
21 0.96% chateau...@btinternet.com (The Older Gentleman)
21 0.96% Michael Fell <mfel...@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
21 0.96% "culprit" <kelly_...@msn.com>
>you'd think that with all the fantastic roads and great weather they
>supposedly have in arizona, he'd spend more time riding.
Nice try Kelly. Next time, read thread's original message.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
>
>> This got me thinking about the usefulness of SS's as canyon bikes,
>> requiring either lackluster 6-10K RPM performance or full blast, on the
>> pipe, with no happy medium.
>>
>
>I dunno. I've ridden a SS in the midrange in the canyons, and if you keep
>your cornering speed up and aren't blasting out of the corners like the
>space shuttle taking off its perfectly nice. You just don't have full thrust
>at your disposal. I've ridden big literbikes in the canyons in the midrange,
>and they can accumulate speed in a rush from almost anywhere...but that
>doesn't mean you DO that on the street.
Why have a 100HP bike, when you only use 60 on the street? A ride on
your same route on an SV is far more relaxed with a nice pull from 5K
up.
>I really think its more personal preference than anything. For the kind of
>riding I do on the street, a nice loping motor isn't bad, since I don't use
>full power on almost anything in the twisties...I tend to just keep my
>cornering speed up, and leave the straightaways to the squidlings. The Pace
>was always a nice description of a reasonable way to street ride I thought.
Sound good in AMS Troy but is the PACE, really the way you ride?
>
>> Next point: I've recently been advising/mentoring a couple of young
>> co-worker EE's, who've insisted on buying used 600's as their first
>> bikes. Youthful vanity I suppose, as try as I might, I couldn't get
>> either interested in the SV-650 or Hawk GT. They had to have 'cool'
>> looking bikes or they didn't want anything at all. BTW, Since then, both
>> have admitted to never really pushing them even close to redline, with
>> mostly 6-9K, in the twisties or highway. It's really too bad that the
>> Japanese MC manufacturers don't make a more upscale twin, with first
>> rate suspension components and "cooler looking body work" as it sure
>> seems they'd make more usable street bikes. Sure, there are Duc Monsters
>> but who needs that sort of overpriced aggravation? 90+ HP Mules with
>> dubious reliability? Not for new riders and pricey to boot.
>>
>
>I thought an RC51 and the SuperHawk both qualified as "upscale Twins"? Or
>are you thinking something more 600SS looking? TL1000S and R models?
Not for beginners. These are first bikes, for these guys.
>> Finally, even the old RD-350's (600SS's of yesteryear) had more usable
>> 4000-8000RPM power bands and the RD-400's moved it down to 3500-7500
>> RPM. These old two smokes topped out at just over 100MPH, with 1/4 mile
>> times at best, in the mid 13's but they'd do power wheelies in the first
>> two or three gears, like dirt bikes. Ah...progress or lack there-of?
>>
>
>I remember my old RD400 as a quite nice bike. But for midrange? Didn't seem
>like it had that much. It was either on the pipe or off it, and it did do
>great wheelies when it transitioned from off-to-on pipe, but I think a
>modern 600 has alot more midrange for canyon running than that old bike did.
How soon we forget. The RD's has half the RPM range of the 600SS's.
Basically, at <10MPH in first, you were on the pipe. They had no torque
to speak of, so 6th at 60MPH was lugging those poor little two smokes.
My point is, due to short gearing, they weren't all that hard to keep at
>3500RPM.
[...]
Andrew
:
: Why have a 100HP bike, when you only use 60 on the street? A ride on
: your same route on an SV is far more relaxed with a nice pull from 5K
: up.
Then why did you trade in your SV-650 for a Sprint?
You now have a 100+HP bike when you used to have a ~60HP bike...
C'mon Bob, you feelin' particularly crusty today or sumthin'?
--
Andrew
00 Daytona
http://ultrasupercool.com
The Bikes of Reeky
http://www.ultrasupercool.com/reeky/bor.htm
Troy The Troll
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> This got me thinking about the usefulness of SS's as canyon bikes,
> >> requiring either lackluster 6-10K RPM performance or full blast, on the
> >> pipe, with no happy medium.
> >>
> >
> >I dunno. I've ridden a SS in the midrange in the canyons, and if you keep
> >your cornering speed up and aren't blasting out of the corners like the
> >space shuttle taking off its perfectly nice. You just don't have full
thrust
> >at your disposal. I've ridden big literbikes in the canyons in the
midrange,
> >and they can accumulate speed in a rush from almost anywhere...but that
> >doesn't mean you DO that on the street.
>
> Why have a 100HP bike, when you only use 60 on the street? A ride on
> your same route on an SV is far more relaxed with a nice pull from 5K
> up.
Yep....sounds like the reason why I want an SV650. To be honest though, if
I'm not riding with anyone else I'm as likely to be on the KLR650 as the
Honda. It can be pretty nice in the twisties...particularly since its the
street and you don't go all that fast anyway. A SuperHawk would work also.
>
> >I really think its more personal preference than anything. For the kind
of
> >riding I do on the street, a nice loping motor isn't bad, since I don't
use
> >full power on almost anything in the twisties...I tend to just keep my
> >cornering speed up, and leave the straightaways to the squidlings. The
Pace
> >was always a nice description of a reasonable way to street ride I
thought.
>
> Sound good in AMS Troy but is the PACE, really the way you ride?
> >
Depends on the moment I suppose. When its just me and my old riding buddy,
we pretty much PACE along, no blasting down the straights, just lots of
cornering speed, as little brake as possible. When I'm by myself I go
slower. When I ride with the local squidlings...which happened twice on the
street last year, I ride a little less....how do I say
this...conservatively. If only to watch the antics and near misses...or in
the case of the second time, an actual impact.
>> Finally, even the old RD-350's (600SS's of yesteryear) had more usable
> >> 4000-8000RPM power bands and the RD-400's moved it down to 3500-7500
> >> RPM. These old two smokes topped out at just over 100MPH, with 1/4 mile
> >> times at best, in the mid 13's but they'd do power wheelies in the
first
> >> two or three gears, like dirt bikes. Ah...progress or lack there-of?
> >>
> >
> >I remember my old RD400 as a quite nice bike. But for midrange? Didn't
seem
> >like it had that much. It was either on the pipe or off it, and it did do
> >great wheelies when it transitioned from off-to-on pipe, but I think a
> >modern 600 has alot more midrange for canyon running than that old bike
did.
>
> How soon we forget. The RD's has half the RPM range of the 600SS's.
> Basically, at <10MPH in first, you were on the pipe. They had no torque
> to speak of, so 6th at 60MPH was lugging those poor little two smokes.
> My point is, due to short gearing, they weren't all that hard to keep at
> >3500RPM.
I don't remember having trouble doing almost ANYTHING with my old
RD400....but I remember what it felt like coming on the pipe. Especially
with a passenger onboard. i lugged mine too much, was always having to clean
the points and plugs. Got 20,000 miles out of it without a rebuild though.
Phil Scott
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:43:09 GMT, "Troy The Troll" <f4...@attbi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> This got me thinking about the usefulness of SS's as canyon bikes,
>>> requiring either lackluster 6-10K RPM performance or full blast, on the
>>> pipe, with no happy medium.
>>>
>>
>>I dunno. I've ridden a SS in the midrange in the canyons, and if you keep
>>your cornering speed up and aren't blasting out of the corners like the
>>space shuttle taking off its perfectly nice. You just don't have full thrust
>>at your disposal. I've ridden big literbikes in the canyons in the midrange,
>>and they can accumulate speed in a rush from almost anywhere...but that
>>doesn't mean you DO that on the street.
>
>Why have a 100HP bike, when you only use 60 on the street? A ride on
>your same route on an SV is far more relaxed with a nice pull from 5K
>up.
My 30 hp 500 single dirt bike chewed up 1000cc bikes in the mountains 20 years
ago, I hear its about the same today even with knobbies... the motards eat the
crotch rockets alive with dual purpose tires.
A 250 lb flat tracker with road race rubber, that pulls from 1500 rpm to 8,000
rpm even with 40 hp will be very hard to touch in the mountains...
with 70 hp to the rear wheel, impossible to touch under 100 mph. and a lot more
fun ...and safer to ride in my experience. The bike is always on cam, will
wheelie in any gear, and is completely flickable. Ive had that type of bike so
low it slid off the sides of the tires and by just stabbing a foot down kicked
it back up, no problem. Thats not going to happen with a heavier bike,
especially one with clip-ons.
Phil Scott
Troy The Troll
> My 30 hp 500 single dirt bike chewed up 1000cc bikes in the mountains 20
years
> ago, I hear its about the same today even with knobbies... the motards eat
the
> crotch rockets alive with dual purpose tires.
>
Gee Phil...wow....another 20 year old biker tale. Care to expound on
anything more modern? Besides how great magnesium is for your "alleged"
motorcycle which you don't actually RIDE because you spend so much time
"allegedly" working on it?
Phil Scott
Yes thats right. next the motor gets some internal lightening, larger valves
and exhaust ports, a cam, and headers so it will breath better. With luck this
will take all summer and i won't have to actually ride it.
I might have the engine cases polished and black anodized while its down too.
that will be slick looking.
Now look, Troy... what you need to do is lower that KTM of yours, put some 18"
rims on it with sport bike rubber (that you can still do graded fire roads
with), and have some fun chasing crotch rockets in the mountains. A grand or so
will do the trick.
Phil Scott
>
>
_Bob Nixon_
>
>"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:GcKOPBBDDnqJDc...@4ax.com...
>:
>: Why have a 100HP bike, when you only use 60 on the street? A ride on
>: your same route on an SV is far more relaxed with a nice pull from 5K
>: up.
>:
>
>
>Then why did you trade in your SV-650 for a Sprint?
>You now have a 100+HP bike when you used to have a ~60HP bike...
>
>C'mon Bob, you feelin' particularly crusty today or sumthin'?
All 100HP of the Sprint is as usable as was the 68 of the SV. And
crusty, you ridden one of those buzzy little 600's on the pipe, lately?
That'll make you crusty -:)
TDWFL
>crusty, you ridden one of those buzzy little 600's on the pipe, lately?
>That'll make you crusty -:)
I rode my "buzzy" 2001 GSXR600 last night. Every time I ride it I'm amazed at
how smooth it is. I like my bigger bikes but it sure is fun to ride something
that you can rev without reaching totally insane speeds in a matter of seconds.
tim
TDWFL
chewed up 1000cc bikes in the mountains 20
>years
>> ago, I hear its about the same today even with knobbies... the motards eat
>the
>> crotch rockets alive with dual purpose tires.
>>
>
>Gee Phil...wow....another 20 year old biker tale. Care to expound on
>anything more modern?
I vowed not to waste my time (or anyone elses time) ever responding to any Phil
stupidity ever again but this is too good to pass up.
Let's think about what a 1000cc bike looked like back in 1982. What was the
hottest thing on wheels? A GS1000? KZ1000? Not exactly race tackle.
I'm not impressed.
tim
Troy The Troll
> >Gee Phil...wow....another 20 year old biker tale. Care to expound on
> >anything more modern? Besides how great magnesium is for your "alleged"
> >motorcycle which you don't actually RIDE because you spend so much time
> >"allegedly" working on it?
>
> Yes thats right. next the motor gets some internal lightening, larger
valves
> and exhaust ports, a cam, and headers so it will breath better. With luck
this
> will take all summer and i won't have to actually ride it.
Now why does it not surprise me you'd admit that if your lucky, you won't
actually have to ride your alleged newfound toy?
Troy The Troll
> >Gee Phil...wow....another 20 year old biker tale. Care to expound on
> >anything more modern?
>
> I vowed not to waste my time (or anyone elses time) ever responding to any
Phil
> stupidity ever again but this is too good to pass up.
> Let's think about what a 1000cc bike looked like back in 1982. What was
the
> hottest thing on wheels? A GS1000? KZ1000? Not exactly race tackle.
> I'm not impressed.
>
> tim
I'm coming close to the conclusion that Phil doesn't actually have a bike,
he's just using the "threat" of one to torture more people around here.
I suppose since he got shot down on the whole "layin'er down" thing he's
switched tactics so he has something to talk about...if only for a little
while.
Daniel
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:44:47 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Learn either to use a real news reader or just stop TOP POSTING. We
> >> shouldn't have to continuously "cut and paste" for the sake of you
> >> USENET neophytes.
> >
> >You need to cut down on the coffee. Who died and made you USENET cop?
>
> MSIE= crap newsreader.
Awwwww. That hurt. LOL!
>
> >> >It is funny how some people think that keeping the RPM's up on a bike
> >> >equates to some extra effort. It is very easy to keep the RPM's up on
a
> >> >600SS. That is how the engine is designed. I'm not "wringing my
bike's
> >> >neck" at 9K.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> 1) 9K is off the power on a REAL SS.
> >> 2) You don't even ride a REAL SS but a watered down, re-badged, has
> >> been, so who are you to say, one way or the other?
> >
> >I ride what I want to ride and I can do it without belittling what others
> >ride.
>
> Now does it feel after flogging others that they don't ride real Sport
> bikes and as such, are not deserving to post here.
Where did you get this? From my response to your post about buzzy little
600's. Read it again. You missed it.
>
>
> >Head on over to Motorcycle.com. They have these things called graphs.
They
> >will show you that most inline 4 bikes are well inside their powerbands
at
> >9K. I've included some dyno graphs below.
> >
> >> So Daniel, don't try to tell me what I can or can't do or whether I
> >> belong here or not? You OTOH, are merely a wannabee R1, choir boy,
who's
> >> technical content & opinions are pretty much daaaaa..status quo. Stick
> >> with oil threads and harassing Phil. You're way otta your league, kid.
> [...]
>
> >At least I know enough that I wouldn't say something like "9K is off the
> >power for a REAL SS.
>
> Sure it is. look at your own stats.
I did. See the below chart. Try reading it this time.
>
> >http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/600ss/horsepower.html
> >Notice how linear the power is. : )
>
> Oh it's linear all right. 60-65HP on the best of them at 9K. My point
> exactly. 60-65% of the available power, where 'as an SV-650 has the
> same, but without that screamy, meany buzzing. IOW, why waste your
> money, when ALL the power is only usable on a 10 lap race, with numb
> hands and feet afterwards.
You must be having some trouble with the concept of charts. It is almost
80HP on most of them. Since they peak below 100HP, I would call this well
into the power range.
To the point. The SV is designed to run in a different RPM range. Why is
this better? If you want your power in a smaller RPM range, good for you.
Why should I have to ride the bike you like?
I have no trouble keeping the RPM up on a 600cc bike. This seems to be a
problem you are having though.
>
>
> >And since my 600R is such a relic. Here is another chart. Linear and 9K
is
> >right up there.
> >http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/99_600s_charts2.html
>
> The R6 is the weakest of the lot. 37 foot pounds at 9K. And this is not
> even the same as your bike. Look for the 97 for something close.
>
> http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/value600spex.html
>
> Granted, this one comes on a bit lower down but only 75 peak HP.
Such a weak motor, but still pulls high 10's in the quarter. Again, if you
cannot keep the needle up, that is your problem.
>
>
> >Put them side by side. You will notice similiarities in the curve all
the
> >way up to almost 12K. You will also notice that there is not much juice
> >left in the R6 after about 13K.
>
> They do run 00&> R6's above 15K at the track.
"run 00&>"? Do you have some support for this statement? Other than missed
shifts, it would be pointless to run an R6 above 15K. Check the dyno again.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Well at least it ain't a rebadged yammi-hopper, wanna-bee R6 but a
> >> purpose built, from the ground up, ST. And not that it need be either.
> >> If one needs the latest greatest on the street, what's that say about
> >> your riding, other that it's driven by advertising; external
validation,
> >> there, Mr. Joe Rocket, TEXASS flat lander? Reality is, you exhibit the
> >> same sort of newbee, "cool bike" mentality as these two youngsters, in
> >> my post. And while THEY don't know any better yet, you should -:)
> >
> >Again, while my bike is heavier, the engine performance is not much off
the
> >R6. If I had wanted an R1 or an R6, I would have purchase one. I bought
> >mine to have a middle ground between performance and comfort. A 7 hour
ride
> >day on a 600R is not as gruelling.
>
> It's all relative I suppose. 20 years ago, I might has said the same
> about an even buzzier RD-350.
I was riding when CB400's, 550's and 750's were current Honda products.
Current bikes much better in every respect than any bikes I have ridden in
the past.
>
> >Your purpose built from the ground up is a sporty touring bike according
to
> >Triumph.
> >
> >I can tell that you have not seen much of Texas, probably none of central
> >Texas. We have some great roads here.
>
> I knew this was coming, when I wrote it. Ah... to the hill country. Only
> 100 odd miles from San Anton... And lots of redneck Texas cops waiting.
> Ask Beth.
Ride there every other weekend. It starts about 20 miles from my house. I
sometimes ride all day without seeing a single cop.
>
>
> >If I needed the latest and greatest to validate my ego, I would not be
> >riding a 600R, now would I? As far as wannabee posters? Are you also
> >referring to Troy?
>
> Not Troy, he's not the one running around this NG regulating just what
> is a SB and what is not, then getting into endless pissing contests with
> Phil. That was you dude and your paying for your cockiness now -:)
No, Troy posted a response to your crack about SS's as canyon bikes.
If you had been around for the last couple of years, you would know that
Phil got a return on his investment. You can search google about Phil and
you will see that with the exception of one group, he thrives on belittling
others, starting flame wars and generally making himself the center of
attention.
So you want to extract payback on behalf of Phil? Oh Please. And if that
is your aim, thank you for letting me know in advance. I will not be so
quick to succumb to your trolling next time.
>
>
> >> >but if you really don't like supersport bikes as much as you claim,
why
> >>are you hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like
'em?
> >> Who says this group caters to 600SS's.
>
> [...]
>
> >I certainly did not state that this group caters ONLY to 600SS. I stated
> >that there are a large number of SS posters here and I was wondering if
your
> >posts were just trolling. Now I know.
> >
> No you don't. I ride with your brethren nearly every weekend. Great
> kids. That's exactly how I know the bottom line when it comes to many,
> who ride the 600s. Now, go back to my original post and tell me it was a
> troll attempt. It was all rational talk. You just got all defensive and
> started dropping sanctimonious comments about things for which you
> haven't a clue.
You started making generalizations. If a response to your post is "getting
all defensive", get over it. If all the "kids" you ride with on the weekend
are squids, maybe you should look for some new friends.
I at least tried to support my arguments. Sanctimonious. LOL! So I guess
anyone that disagrees with you is somehow defective. LOL!
You are hardly the person to lesson me. This is evident in your posts. It
is obvious to me that the true intention behind these posts are less than
the sum of their content, which is minimal in itself. I'm done with it.
Your ranting about the shortcomings of SS bikes are a matter of opinion, and
not much of one at that.
>
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Nice home page there. Hope your bikes works better than your site.
Daniel
"The group caters to supersport riders" does not equal "This group is only
for supersport riders".
It is English Bob. It is not difficult.
You are really showing me up there, Bob.
Daniel
Found this dyno for the Spint.
http://www.triumphnet.com/st/faq/dyno/wolfram.jpg
It is usuable if you keep the needle above 7K. Same argument you used
against 600's.
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Daniel
'00 YZF600R
Austin, Texas
Sandra Whitney
How about the 1982 GS1000SZ Katana? The 1982-83 GS1100E and ES?
Compared to the current 1000's, they are slow steering heavy pigs, but put in
context of what was available back then, they _were_ state of the art.
Sandra
Old enough to have ridden 1982 model year bikes when they were originally released.
=8~O
culprit
| On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:44:24 -0800, "culprit" <kelly_...@msn.com>
| wrote:
| [...]
|
| >that's just what bob does. he doesn't have a very interesting life,
|
| Maybe if I had an interesting life, I'd sacrifice all, to live where
| gunshots could be heard nightly. Don't get me started Kelly, cause
| you've not even read my original post and besides, I like you and your
| bikes too much to get REAL nasty and personal. BTW, what you call
| interesting seems: staring out your window, watching the rain, while
| less interesting folks are riding their bikes in the twisties and not
| just commuting in the Seattle drizzle.
wow, you've lost me yet again bob. must be cuz i'm just a young, newbie,
girl, that i just don't have a clue what you're talking about. gunshots?
where exactly is it that you think i live? sitting around watching it rain?
so you've been stalking me, eh? following me around, watching my every
move... what in the world are you talking about? have you ever met me?
no. have you ever seen my home? no. do you have a clue about when/where/how
i ride? no. do you have any purpose in life other than constantly
attacking people who are here for the information, the conversation, maybe
to meet some cool people? apparently not.
i started reading this ng cuz it wasn't as obnoxious as reeky. it seemed to
be more about bikes and less about trashing people you know nothing about.
guess i was wrong. bummer.
Brutus
> Found this dyno for the Spint.
> http://www.triumphnet.com/st/faq/dyno/wolfram.jpg
>
> It is usuable if you keep the needle above 7K. Same argument you used
> against 600's.
Daniel, very interesting dyno chart--you rarely see curves posted for the
crank, gearbox and rear wheel--
This particular dyno run (results)seems a bit lower then most of the other
published ones that I've seen, Bike magazine measured 99hp/9500--No mater,
using this dyno run curve does help illustrate the point Bob has been trying
to make (sans histrionics).
Lets use the 1999 Suzuki GSXR 600 numbers v the Sprint ST
GSXR600 ST
40(hp) - 6,250 (rpm) 40(hp) - 3,700 (rpm)
50 - 7,250 50 - 4,300
60 - 8,000 (est) 60 - 5,000
77.2 - 9,500 70 - 6,000
85-10,500 80 - 7,300
91.9- 11,750 (peak) 93 - 8,882 (peak)
I believe Bob is saying that when he is loping along at 3,700 rpm he has 40
hp available were-as the GSXR must be turning 6,250 rpm to have the same
available hp...
Your counter-point is that the higher (necessitated) rpm of a properly
designed 600cc I4 is equally smooth and part of the enjoyment that you and
many others get out of using (typically) more gear changes while out
riding...An endless argument that has no final arbitration other than
individual preference....
Daniel
news:_ANj8.12746$P4.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
> news:OsKj8.1002$Dv6....@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> > Found this dyno for the Spint.
> > http://www.triumphnet.com/st/faq/dyno/wolfram.jpg
> >
> > It is usuable if you keep the needle above 7K. Same argument you used
> > against 600's.
>
> Daniel, very interesting dyno chart--you rarely see curves posted for the
> crank, gearbox and rear wheel--
I know... but it was the only one I could find for the Sprint. Kind of cool
to see it though!
> This particular dyno run (results)seems a bit lower then most of the other
> published ones that I've seen, Bike magazine measured 99hp/9500--No mater,
> using this dyno run curve does help illustrate the point Bob has been
trying
> to make (sans histrionics).
>
> Lets use the 1999 Suzuki GSXR 600 numbers v the Sprint ST
>
> GSXR600 ST
> 40(hp) - 6,250 (rpm) 40(hp) - 3,700 (rpm)
> 50 - 7,250 50 - 4,300
> 60 - 8,000 (est) 60 - 5,000
> 77.2 - 9,500 70 - 6,000
> 85-10,500 80 - 7,300
> 91.9- 11,750 (peak) 93 - 8,882 (peak)
>
> I believe Bob is saying that when he is loping along at 3,700 rpm he has
40
> hp available were-as the GSXR must be turning 6,250 rpm to have the same
> available hp...
Which would be more significant if they had the same RPM range. The higher
RPM does not matter to me as it is what the engine was designed around.
>
> Your counter-point is that the higher (necessitated) rpm of a properly
> designed 600cc I4 is equally smooth and part of the enjoyment that you and
> many others get out of using (typically) more gear changes while out
> riding...An endless argument that has no final arbitration other than
> individual preference....
>
>
Absolutely. I don't see the difference since the HP on the GSXR is spread
over a wider RPM. I don't see this is a limitation. I'm not poking fun at
Bob for what he rides. Its what he wants. He rides. Its okay with me.
I'm just not sure why Bob has a personal agenda to deride supersport bikes.
After the last posts, I feel that it is just trolling. He also seems to
want to get me back for my rant with Phil. I'm done with it.
Thanks for the perspective though.
jenner
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:44:24 -0800, "culprit" <kelly_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>that's just what bob does. he doesn't have a very interesting life,
>
> Maybe if I had an interesting life, I'd sacrifice all, to live where
> gunshots could be heard nightly. Don't get me started Kelly, cause
> you've not even read my original post and besides, I like you and your
> bikes too much to get REAL nasty and personal. BTW, what you call
> interesting seems: staring out your window, watching the rain, while
> less interesting folks are riding their bikes in the twisties and not
> just commuting in the Seattle drizzle.
I have met culprit, Bob. I don't think you have.
You are way off here, somewhere a galaxy or two past left field.
--
-- jenner
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>Such a weak motor, but still pulls high 10's in the quarter. Again, if you
>cannot keep the needle up, that is your problem.
Oh..please. Don't make me laugh. Take your bike to your local drag strip
and I'll bet you don't even make 12.3 seconds. Stop believing in that
crap in the rags. Their times are corrected & the factories supply
Wringers.
[...]
>"run 00&>"? Do you have some support for this statement? Other than missed
>shifts, it would be pointless to run an R6 above 15K. Check the dyno again.
>
They shift the R6's @ 15K at the racetracks. Over revving is quite
common as long as you don't hit the rev limiter. I can see the pattern
beginning to unfold now. It's all from the rags with you. Post some
shots of you "bitch strips" or I'll forever label you as, just another
mouthy poser.
[...].
>> It's all relative I suppose. 20 years ago, I might has said the same
>> about an even buzzier RD-350.
>
>I was riding when CB400's, 550's and 750's were current Honda products.
>Current bikes much better in every respect than any bikes I have ridden in
>the past.
I wasn't disagreeing with that. "even buzzier RD-350's". Do work on
those reading comprehension skills, Daniel -:)
[...]
>No, Troy posted a response to your crack about SS's as canyon bikes.
Read it again Daniel. It was not a crack but an opinion. And Troy voiced
a counter opinion without getting all pissy like you did.
>If you had been around for the last couple of years, you would know that
>Phil got a return on his investment. You can search google about Phil and
>you will see that with the exception of one group, he thrives on belittling
>others, starting flame wars and generally making himself the center of
>attention.
I have been around here for the last couple of years. Learn the people
and listen, instead of just yapping about nothing all the time. The
original post in this thread is a good example. I posted in ernest, not
wishing to provoke yours or anyone elses venom but instead of addressing
my questions, you got defensive because I questioned that 'vanity' is
the main reason why the decal and plastic laden 600SS's sold & are not
the best formula for the street.
>So you want to extract payback on behalf of Phil? Oh Please. And if that
>is your aim, thank you for letting me know in advance. I will not be so
>quick to succumb to your trolling next time.
I just want you to leave him alone. He's delusional and worse yet, your
constantly badgering, only makes him post even more.
[...]
>You started making generalizations. If a response to your post is "getting
>all defensive", get over it. If all the "kids" you ride with on the weekend
>are squids, maybe you should look for some new friends.
Not squids. Just vanity/advertising ruled under 30 EE's. They want to
look cool but are reasonable. For some shots, looks here.
alt.binaries.pictures.motorcycles.
Senad#1.5, 2 & 3.
[...]
>> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
>
>Nice home page there. Hope your bikes works better than your site.
Hey Daniel, if you'd been around this NG for any length of time, you'd
know:
1) the page was working until COX dumped @home on march 1st.
2) I've been posting photo's from my web page here, prior to that time
for over a year. When was it you said you fell off the Turnip truck and
landed in A.M.S., anyway? Look in goggle.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
>| while
>| less interesting folks are riding their bikes in the twisties and not
>| just commuting in the Seattle drizzle.
>
>wow, you've lost me yet again bob.
Not too hard to believe, Kelly -:)
Andrew
{...}
:Post some shots of you "bitch strips" or I'll forever label you as, just
another
: mouthy poser.
:
: [...].
:
C'mon Bob...
Here's a look at my bitch strips.
http://ultrasupercool.com/PIR/smallSprint_Tire2.jpg
Doesn't prove a thing though because that was done on the track. I have at
least a 1/4 in. all the way around on my street tires, because I can't go
fast enough to get them all the way out to the edges.
Oh yeah, and I suck, so IMO chicken strips really don't prove how good a
rider someone is...
Why are you so crotchety lately?? :-)
_Bob Nixon_
[...]
>I have met culprit, Bob. I don't think you have.
>
>You are way off here, somewhere a galaxy or two past left field.
Did she take a swing at you?
Seriously Jenner. Culprit & I go back at least a couple of years to the
online SV ML. She was a new rider then but just as cocky and
know-it-all, been there, done that, then too. I thought she'd changed
after she left, after getting flogged in reccy for getting all defensive
about her second get-off, 1st on the SV & second on the Falco. She also
posted about not wanting to ride with young squids, but exhibited the
traits herself with show-off wheelie stories. She left for awhile then
came back and was and has been posting pretty good stuff. (Thailand
Vacation and such). However, she's still got a giant chip on her
shoulder and pretty much takes everything literally or out of context.
But as you know, I ain't no saint either. I just wish I could get along
with her, but like most females, save maybe Beth and Denise, she sort of
expects special attention and as you might have seen, I don't kiss
USENET butts, male or female.
jenner
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:10:02 GMT, jenner
> <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>I have met culprit, Bob. I don't think you have.
>>
>>You are way off here, somewhere a galaxy or two past left
>>field.
>
> Did she take a swing at you?
Nope.
--
-- jenner
_Bob Nixon_
>
>"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:tvWPPNhMY1go3c...@4ax.com...
>
>{...}
>
>:Post some shots of you "bitch strips" or I'll forever label you as, just
>another
>: mouthy poser.
>:
>: [...].
>:
>
>
>C'mon Bob...
>Here's a look at my bitch strips.
>
>http://ultrasupercool.com/PIR/smallSprint_Tire2.jpg
Andrew, Track tires and easy to spot, with rubber all melted from heat
generated by sustained speeds. Street tires look different.
My site is down but look here:
alt.binaries.pictures.motorcycles
The post's are: Bob's new front @100 miles, Bob's new rear @100 miles
>Doesn't prove a thing though because that was done on the track. I have at
>least a 1/4 in. all the way around on my street tires, because I can't go
>fast enough to get them all the way out to the edges.
With your 190 rear, it's tough to get leaned over to the edge.
>Oh yeah, and I suck, so IMO chicken strips really don't prove how good a
>rider someone is...
Nobody's talking about you Andrew.
>Why are you so crotchety lately?? :-)
Go back and look at my original post and honestly say that I deserved
the tirade I got from Daniel?
TDWFL
GS1000SZ Katana? The 1982-83 GS1100E and ES?
>
>Compared to the current 1000's, they are slow steering heavy pigs, but put in
>context of what was available back then, they _were_ state of the art.
>
The state of the art sure has marched upward. I really wanted a GS1100 but
somehow I got started on Kawis in 1982 and stayed with them until about 1990
when I bought a GS1150E (what a mistake THAT was) . I rarely see any GSs on the
streets these days.
tim
Daniel
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:34:05 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Such a weak motor, but still pulls high 10's in the quarter. Again, if
you
> >cannot keep the needle up, that is your problem.
>
> Oh..please. Don't make me laugh. Take your bike to your local drag strip
> and I'll bet you don't even make 12.3 seconds. Stop believing in that
> crap in the rags. Their times are corrected & the factories supply
> Wringers.
Please feel free to post some supporting evidence of your above claim. I do
take what I read with a grain of salt. It isn't total crap. I've seen
stock R6 timeslips under 11. The rags have the bike at around 10.75. Close
enough for credibility.
>
> [...]
>
> >"run 00&>"? Do you have some support for this statement? Other than
missed
> >shifts, it would be pointless to run an R6 above 15K. Check the dyno
again.
> >
>
> They shift the R6's @ 15K at the racetracks. Over revving is quite
> common as long as you don't hit the rev limiter. I can see the pattern
> beginning to unfold now. It's all from the rags with you. Post some
> shots of you "bitch strips" or I'll forever label you as, just another
> mouthy poser.
I ride every day. It is about riding for me.
I have to assume that you want a picture of my chicken strips. I'll get a
hold of a camera and post 'em for you. Any other pics you wish to see? I
have no trouble providing facts and evidence.
>
> [...].
>
> >> It's all relative I suppose. 20 years ago, I might has said the same
> >> about an even buzzier RD-350.
> >
> >I was riding when CB400's, 550's and 750's were current Honda products.
> >Current bikes much better in every respect than any bikes I have ridden
in
> >the past.
>
> I wasn't disagreeing with that. "even buzzier RD-350's". Do work on
> those reading comprehension skills, Daniel -:)
My statement said exactly what I wanted it to say. My current bike is
better than any other bike I have ridden in the past. I have 22K miles on
my 600R. I feel this qualifies my opinion.
>
> [...]
>
> >No, Troy posted a response to your crack about SS's as canyon bikes.
>
> Read it again Daniel. It was not a crack but an opinion. And Troy voiced
> a counter opinion without getting all pissy like you did.
Very nice. All I did was counter your experiences with mine. I posted my
disagreement to your opionion. If that is pissy, welcome to the latrine.
Again, if you think I'm out for a personal attack on you, you are incorrect.
>
> >If you had been around for the last couple of years, you would know that
> >Phil got a return on his investment. You can search google about Phil
and
> >you will see that with the exception of one group, he thrives on
belittling
> >others, starting flame wars and generally making himself the center of
> >attention.
>
> I have been around here for the last couple of years. Learn the people
> and listen, instead of just yapping about nothing all the time. The
> original post in this thread is a good example. I posted in ernest, not
> wishing to provoke yours or anyone elses venom but instead of addressing
> my questions, you got defensive because I questioned that 'vanity' is
> the main reason why the decal and plastic laden 600SS's sold & are not
> the best formula for the street.
And I disagreed. You didn't get venom Bob. You got disagreement. Not once
did I personally attack you. I disagreed. I still disagree. My bike is my
daily commuter and my weekend fun machine. It is my only vehicle and it
does a great job. Disagreement is not venom or defensiveness. If that is
what this is all about, you and I need to reset on this argument.
>
>
> >So you want to extract payback on behalf of Phil? Oh Please. And if
that
> >is your aim, thank you for letting me know in advance. I will not be so
> >quick to succumb to your trolling next time.
>
> I just want you to leave him alone. He's delusional and worse yet, your
> constantly badgering, only makes him post even more.
He's a grown man. Let him fight his own battles. He has been posting trash
here for two years now. It just recently escalated on both sides. If you
will note, I have not badgered him much lately, if at all.
>
> [...]
>
> >You started making generalizations. If a response to your post is
"getting
> >all defensive", get over it. If all the "kids" you ride with on the
weekend
> >are squids, maybe you should look for some new friends.
>
> Not squids. Just vanity/advertising ruled under 30 EE's. They want to
> look cool but are reasonable. For some shots, looks here.
Again, if this is who you are riding with, maybe you should find some new
riding partners. The people I ride with just love to ride. Again, I don't
care what they ride. They ride what they wish to ride. I might post the
occasional Harley joke, but hey, who doesn't.
>
> alt.binaries.pictures.motorcycles.
>
> Senad#1.5, 2 & 3.
>
> [...]
>
> >> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
> >
> >Nice home page there. Hope your bikes works better than your site.
>
> Hey Daniel, if you'd been around this NG for any length of time, you'd
> know:
>
> 1) the page was working until COX dumped @home on march 1st.
> 2) I've been posting photo's from my web page here, prior to that time
> for over a year. When was it you said you fell off the Turnip truck and
> landed in A.M.S., anyway? Look in goggle.
Been here under this email address since March 6, 2000. Had another email
addy before that, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
>
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
I'm sorry that you feel this is a pissing contest Bob.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>
>Please feel free to post some supporting evidence of your above claim. I do
>take what I read with a grain of salt. It isn't total crap. I've seen
>stock R6 timeslips under 11. The rags have the bike at around 10.75. Close
>enough for credibility.
You've seen R6's do 10's at 1K foot, hot/humid Texas?
>I ride every day. It is about riding for me.
What commuting on a Sport bike.. er one off SB.
>I have to assume that you want a picture of my chicken strips. I'll get a
>hold of a camera and post 'em for you. Any other pics you wish to see? I
>have no trouble providing facts and evidence.
Keep that belt sander locked up. I'll know -:)
[...]
>And I disagreed. You didn't get venom Bob. You got disagreement. Not once
>did I personally attack you. I disagreed. I still disagree. My bike is my
>daily commuter and my weekend fun machine. It is my only vehicle and it
>does a great job. Disagreement is not venom or defensiveness. If that is
>what this is all about, you and I need to reset on this argument.
Mere disagreement ends when you start suggesting I not do this or that.
As you did in this sentence:
>>>I really don't care what you ride, but if you really don't
>>>like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why are you
>>> hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
Hanging around in a newsgroup where YOU didn't think I belonged.
Had you left out that last sentence, it would be died, right there.
[...]
>> I just want you to leave him alone. He's delusional and worse yet, your
>> constantly badgering, only makes him post even more.
>
>He's a grown man. Let him fight his own battles. He has been posting trash
>here for two years now. It just recently escalated on both sides. If you
>will note, I have not badgered him much lately, if at all.
At this point, protecting my fellow old fart would be more like an
embarrassment. I'm just saying, "don't feed the real trolls". And while
I may seem like one at times, I'm pretty candid and reasonable most of
the time.
>> Not squids. Just vanity/advertising ruled under 30 EE's. They want to
>> look cool but are reasonable. For some shots, looks here.
>
>Again, if this is who you are riding with, maybe you should find some new
>riding partners. The people I ride with just love to ride. Again, I don't
>care what they ride. They ride what they wish to ride. I might post the
>occasional Harley joke, but hey, who doesn't.
Damn 'it Daniel, if you didn't read ALL of that original post then why
don't you just drop it. Those two are the young (under 30 EE's) I've
been mentoring. They're not the only folks I ride with and I use them as
example because they're impressionable in spite of their smarts.
[...]
Daniel
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:44:53 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >Please feel free to post some supporting evidence of your above claim. I
do
> >take what I read with a grain of salt. It isn't total crap. I've seen
> >stock R6 timeslips under 11. The rags have the bike at around 10.75.
Close
> >enough for credibility.
>
> You've seen R6's do 10's at 1K foot, hot/humid Texas?
I've seen an actual timeslip with high 10's. It was a guy I used to ride
with. I had no reason to think he was trying to pull something.
>
> >I ride every day. It is about riding for me.
>
> What commuting on a Sport bike.. er one off SB.
>
> >I have to assume that you want a picture of my chicken strips. I'll get
a
> >hold of a camera and post 'em for you. Any other pics you wish to see?
I
> >have no trouble providing facts and evidence.
>
> Keep that belt sander locked up. I'll know -:)
There is no joy in a belt sander. There is joy in a curvy road.
>
> [...]
>
> >And I disagreed. You didn't get venom Bob. You got disagreement. Not
once
> >did I personally attack you. I disagreed. I still disagree. My bike is
my
> >daily commuter and my weekend fun machine. It is my only vehicle and it
> >does a great job. Disagreement is not venom or defensiveness. If that
is
> >what this is all about, you and I need to reset on this argument.
>
> Mere disagreement ends when you start suggesting I not do this or that.
> As you did in this sentence:
>
> >>>I really don't care what you ride, but if you really don't
> >>>like supersport bikes as much as you claim, why are you
> >>> hanging around in a newsgroup that caters to people who do like 'em?
>
> Hanging around in a newsgroup where YOU didn't think I belonged.
> Had you left out that last sentence, it would be died, right there.
It was simply a question Bob. You were knocking 600cc sportbikes for
practicality. Doing that in this forum is akin to trolling. It would be
like going over to alt.motorcycle.harley and posting that Harley's are self
lubricating. If I had wanted to say "you don't belong here", that is what I
would have typed. What I did type is "I really don't care what you ride"
which is exactly how I feel on the matter.
>
> [...]
>
> >> I just want you to leave him alone. He's delusional and worse yet, your
> >> constantly badgering, only makes him post even more.
> >
> >He's a grown man. Let him fight his own battles. He has been posting
trash
> >here for two years now. It just recently escalated on both sides. If
you
> >will note, I have not badgered him much lately, if at all.
>
> At this point, protecting my fellow old fart would be more like an
> embarrassment. I'm just saying, "don't feed the real trolls". And while
> I may seem like one at times, I'm pretty candid and reasonable most of
> the time.
As long as he isn't cranking out riding advice that could get someone hurt
or killed, you will not hear much out of me. If he starts name calling and
picking a fight, that is going to be hard for me to resist.
Heck Bob, if you were in the neighborhood, we could go riding. There is
nothing better in the world. I might even buy you a beer at some skanky
hill country tavern. Do you shoot pool?
>
> >> Not squids. Just vanity/advertising ruled under 30 EE's. They want to
> >> look cool but are reasonable. For some shots, looks here.
> >
> >Again, if this is who you are riding with, maybe you should find some new
> >riding partners. The people I ride with just love to ride. Again, I
don't
> >care what they ride. They ride what they wish to ride. I might post the
> >occasional Harley joke, but hey, who doesn't.
>
>
> Damn 'it Daniel, if you didn't read ALL of that original post then why
> don't you just drop it. Those two are the young (under 30 EE's) I've
> been mentoring. They're not the only folks I ride with and I use them as
> example because they're impressionable in spite of their smarts.
Consider it dropped. I have a feeling that you and I have more in common
than we might think. I will get a hold of the step-son's camera this
weekend and send you some chicken strip pictures. I looked this morning and
the one's on my D205 are not as impressive as when I was running 207's, but
they will do. This is not a commuter only bike and I'm no track star, but
they are nothing to be ashamed of.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Daniel
'00 YZF600R
Austin, Texas
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>Consider it dropped. I have a feeling that you and I have more in common
>than we might think.
Amen. I thought you were younger too -:)