New Law???

[Vito]

----- Original Message -----
From:Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: U.S. DOT to require stability control in big rigs, RVs, buses


> http://www.texasgasprices.com/blogs/U-S-DOT-to-require-stability-control-in-big-rigs-RVs-buses/56358_497251/index.aspx
>
>
> GasBuddy Blog -- In a move aimed at saving lives, the U.S. Department of
> Transportation recently proposed a new federal standard that would
> require
> electronic stability control (ESC) on large commercial trucks,
> motorcoaches,
> and other large buses.
>
> According to the agency, the technology, once implemented, could prevent
> up
> to 56% of rollover crashes each year, and 14% of loss of control
> crashes.
>
> "The Department and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> have
> long recognized the potential impact of stability control technology in
> reducing deaths and serious injuries that result from rollover crashes,"
> said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Today's proposal is a major
> step
> forward to improving the safety of large commercial...
>
> Read the Full Article
>
> http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/U-S-DOT-to-require-stability-control-in-big-rigs-RVs-buses/1715-497251-1036.aspx
>

[David T. Ashley]

I believe the stats, but I've never had a stability control system
benefit me. I tend to use old-fashioned rules, like "slow down before
curves" and "drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions".

I did have a stability control system get in my way once. When I got
a new Hyundai and gave it to SWMBO, I took her out to an airport with
snow and applied a lot of throttle in a sharp turn to show her how a
front wheel drive vehicle behaves if you do that. I tried a few
times, but couldn't get the vehicle to misbehave as expected, but
noticed that when I tried a light on the instrument cluster came on
and I wasn't getting as much power as I wanted for the demo.

At that point I realized that it had some form of idiot-proofing. That
negated the necessity of me mentioning to SWMBO the one thing you can
do wrong with a front-wheel drive vehicle; so problem solved.

SWMBO isn't a coward. The Hyundai Accent now has about 10,000 miles
on it. She admitted to me sheepishly that a couple thousand miles
ago, she was curious how fast it would go so she gave it full throttle
on the freeway and found out it will go about 120 MPH while turning
around 5,000 RPM.

I was curious about the top speed myself (it does 80 effortlessly),
but I personally would not have tried it.

DTA

[TOG@Toil]

On May 23, 2:27 pm, David T. Ashley <dash...@gmail.com> wrote:


> I believe the stats, but I've never had a stability control system
> benefit me.  I tend to use old-fashioned rules, like "slow down before
> curves" and "drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions".
>

This is like saying you've never had ABS benefit you.

ESC is a really, really good thing. Got it on my Subaru - it's
switchable, but I've never bothered switching it off. Just throw the
thing into corners and let the computer sort it out :-)

[Tim M.]

On May 23, 9:27 am, David T. Ashley <dash...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the stats, but I've never had a stability control system
> benefit me. I tend to use old-fashioned rules, like "slow down before
> curves" and "drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions".

You can do all that and still encounter a situation where a stability
control system benefits you.

I haven't had a situation where wearing my protective riding gear has
benefitted me in the past 27 years, mainly because I tend to use old-
fashioned rules, like "slow down before curves" and "ride at a speed
appropriate for the conditions" and "look out for moron cagers and
figure out what potentially fatal (to me) boneheaded move they're
going to make next, before they even know that they're going to do it,
and take preemptive action to prevent it from killing or injuring
me," but I STILL prefer to ride with the protective gear.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/23/2012 8:27 AM, David T. Ashley wrote:
> [...]

> SWMBO isn't a coward. The Hyundai Accent now has about 10,000 miles
> on it. She admitted to me sheepishly that a couple thousand miles
> ago, she was curious how fast it would go so she gave it full throttle
> on the freeway and found out it will go about 120 MPH while turning
> around 5,000 RPM.

> [...]

Well, 120 mph on the speedometer is probably about 110 mph actual. Or
did one of you look up the mph/rpm and calculate the speed, or did she
use a GPS?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Jared]

On 5/23/2012 6:20 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 8:27 AM, David T. Ashley wrote:
>> [...]
>> SWMBO isn't a coward. The Hyundai Accent now has about 10,000 miles
>> on it. She admitted to me sheepishly that a couple thousand miles
>> ago, she was curious how fast it would go so she gave it full throttle
>> on the freeway and found out it will go about 120 MPH while turning
>> around 5,000 RPM.
>> [...]
>
> Well, 120 mph on the speedometer is probably about 110 mph actual. Or
> did one of you look up the mph/rpm and calculate the speed, or did she
> use a GPS?
>

Well, freeways presumably have mile markers, so if you do a mile in 30
seconds, there you are.

--
Jared

[TOG@Toil]

<Puzzled>

Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
what it'll do?

[1] Except, I suppose, for owners of 200mph exotica and the like,
where the availability of enough road tends to be a limiting factor. I
have found that you need to think a long, long way ahead when
travelling at 150+ on public roads.

[David T. Ashley]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:20:01 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:

>On 5/23/2012 8:27 AM, David T. Ashley wrote:
>> [...]
>> SWMBO isn't a coward. The Hyundai Accent now has about 10,000 miles
>> on it. She admitted to me sheepishly that a couple thousand miles
>> ago, she was curious how fast it would go so she gave it full throttle
>> on the freeway and found out it will go about 120 MPH while turning
>> around 5,000 RPM.
>> [...]
>
>Well, 120 mph on the speedometer is probably about 110 mph actual. Or
>did one of you look up the mph/rpm and calculate the speed, or did she
>use a GPS?

She just looked at the speedo.

By the way, the reason that 120 indicated is typically 110 actual is
the federal rules about speedometers.

The goverment brackets their required accuracy something like [-1%,
+4%], figuring that it is better to read too fast than too slow.

So, manufacturers tend to center the speedometers into the envelope of
allowable error. Anything else is suicidal, because it increases the
probability the vehicle won't meet federal requirements and you'll get
fined or asked to do a recall.

I doubt that there is a speedometer in any new vehicle that reads low
or accurately. They all read fast, so you're going slower than you
think you are.

DTA

[Bruce Richmond]

On May 23, 6:20 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 8:27 AM, David T. Ashley wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > SWMBO isn't a coward.  The Hyundai Accent now has about 10,000 miles
> > on it.  She admitted to me sheepishly that a couple thousand miles
> > ago, she was curious how fast it would go so she gave it full throttle
> > on the freeway and found out it will go about 120 MPH while turning
> > around 5,000 RPM.
> > [...]
>
> Well, 120 mph on the speedometer is probably about 110 mph actual.  Or
> did one of you look up the mph/rpm and calculate the speed, or did she
> use a GPS?

What difference does it make? She found out what it would do at a
high speed for the vehicle.

['Hog]

Car? 175 uk mph per.
You need to be on brand new rubber for those games. Which will be less than
brand new in very short order.

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not Fucking me, Feeding me or Financing me
...your opinions really don't matter, so you can Fuck off

[Eiron]

On 24/05/2012 18:29, 'Hog wrote:

> TOG@Toil wrote:

>> Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
>> what it'll do?
>>
>> [1] Except, I suppose, for owners of 200mph exotica and the like,
>> where the availability of enough road tends to be a limiting factor. I
>> have found that you need to think a long, long way ahead when
>> travelling at 150+ on public roads.
>
> Car? 175 uk mph per.
> You need to be on brand new rubber for those games. Which will be less than
> brand new in very short order.

A ten mile run at top speed isn't going to do anything noticeable to a
road tire.
And there's a school of thought that says you should take it easy for
the first hundred miles or so.

--
Eiron.

[J. Clarke]

In article <a27nu9...@mid.individual.net>, Evelyn....@live.com
says...

Never been that fast on a bike but I had my old Corvette over 150 a
couple of times, and a borrowed Maserati once. While you do need to pay
attention to what you're doing it's not nearly as hair raising as you
make out. Didn't do anything interesting to the tires either.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

I disagree about ESC being a good thing, since I would rather see cagers
pay for their lack of prudence by crashing.

Especially the two arseholes that deliberately ran stop signs today,
forcing me to take evasive maneuvers.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 5/24/2012 9:00 AM, TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> <Puzzled>
>
> Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
> what it'll do?

> [...]

Multiple times today when running errands at lunch.

Of course, this was on the NHX110.

[High Plains Thumper]

TOG@Toil wrote:

> Just throw the thing into corners and let the computer sort it out
> :-)

I throw my bike into corners and I sort it out. :-)

--
HPT

['Hog]

Well this was P Zero Rossos, they were not new, the 911 S was using a lane
anna alf, they went "off" and I replaced them. Plenty of miles over 150 and
a couple around 175. I'm not sure road tyres would be constructed to cope
with the heat of sustained max speed?

[Vito]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote

| Never been that fast on a bike but I had my old Corvette over 150 a
| couple of times, and a borrowed Maserati once. While you do need to pay
| attention to what you're doing it's not nearly as hair raising as you
| make out. Didn't do anything interesting to the tires either.

Might not even be noticed. SWMBO and I tried to catch a Merc gull wing
once. All was fine until my Honda V45 began buckin' and missing and her
GSXR went by in a flash. Thot I'd blown the motor til I realized I'd hit
the rev limiter at something over 150 without even noticing. After all the
Mercades was still pulling away :-) Then we both remembered that we
hadn't checked tire pressures for several days and sanity returned.

[Vito]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote

| I disagree about ESC being a good thing, since I would rather see cagers
| pay for their lack of prudence by crashing.
|

One wag even proposed a shotgun shell in the steering column set to fire
instead of an air bag. Darwin rules ....

[Vito]

"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote

| I throw my bike into corners and I sort it out. :-)
|

Yes but you're having too much fun. God might get jealous and smite you.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

I like that idea.

[High Plains Thumper]

Vito wrote:
> "High Plains Thumper wrote

>
>> I throw my bike into corners and I sort it out. :-)
>
> Yes but you're having too much fun.

True. :-)

> God might get jealous and smite you.

That He did.

http://cmausa.org/

--
HPT

[Jared]

ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive like an
idiot. If somebody has statistics purporting to show that, I assume that
people with nicer cars that have ESC tend to drive more conservatively
and people are confusing cause and effect.

--
Jared

[TOG@Toil]

On Jun 7, 3:06 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 10:55 AM, TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 2:27 pm, David T. Ashley <dash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I believe the stats, but I've never had a stability control system
> >> benefit me.  I tend to use old-fashioned rules, like "slow down before
> >> curves" and "drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions".
>
> > This is like saying you've never had ABS benefit you.
>
> > ESC is a really, really good thing. Got it on my Subaru - it's
> > switchable, but I've never bothered switching it off. Just throw the
> > thing into corners and let the computer sort it out :-)
>
> ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
> suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive like an
> idiot.

I would say you're just as likely to need to swerve suddenly as you
are to need to brake suddenly. And that's when you want ESC.

[Twibil]

On Jun 7, 7:39 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
> > suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive like an
> > idiot.
>
> I would say you're just as likely to need to swerve suddenly as you
> are to need to brake suddenly. And that's when you want ESC.

True. But this isn't a either/or choice.

There have been times when I've needed to swerve *and* brake at the
same time.

[The Older Gentleman]

Heh. Me too.

--
Kawasaki GTR1000 Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple
Yamaha Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

['Hog]

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 7:39 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
>>>> suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive
>>>> like an idiot.
>>>
>>> I would say you're just as likely to need to swerve suddenly as you
>>> are to need to brake suddenly. And that's when you want ESC.
>>
>> True. But this isn't a either/or choice.
>>
>> There have been times when I've needed to swerve *and* brake at the
>> same time.
>
> Heh. Me too.

I had 3 cars collide in front of me in the Porker on the M1, exploding body
parts at random across three lanes. They were doing 80ish. I was approaching
at <sorry officer xxx> mph. I was able to brake to a halt (ABS) and swerve
round all the bits of car (PASM) across 2.5 lanes and preserve all 4 tyres,
stopping just behind the leading carcass. I'd defy anyone in a Caterham to
achieve the same trick.

[Twibil]

On Jun 7, 11:39 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older

Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
> > > I would say you're just as likely to need to swerve suddenly as you
> > > are to need to brake suddenly. And that's when you want ESC.
>
> > True.   But this isn't a either/or choice.
>
> > There have been times when I've needed to swerve *and* brake at the
> > same time.
>
> Heh. Me too.

Oh, I 'spect that nearly *all* of us who have survived to become Older
Gentlemen have been down that road more than once.

Lord knows I have.

[High Plains Thumper]

Twibil wrote:

> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>>> There have been times when I've needed to swerve *and* brake at
>>> the same time.
>>
>> Heh. Me too.
>
> Oh, I 'spect that nearly *all* of us who have survived to become
> Older Gentlemen have been down that road more than once. Lord knows I
> have.

You know what they say, "There are old riders and bold riders, but no
old bold riders".

Take a look at this Vid:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/27/video-moscow-motorcyclists-crazy-high-speed-commute/#continued

http://tinyurl.com/2bovbyh

--
HPT

[Vito]

"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote

| ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
| suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive like an
| idiot. If somebody has statistics purporting to show that, I assume that
| people with nicer cars that have ESC tend to drive more conservatively
| and people are confusing cause and effect.
|

IMHO ESC would be a major benefit on modern 4-stroke sport bikes,
especially those with transverse 4 cylinder engines mounted high to
provide cornering clearance. The extra weight of a multi-valve, multi-cam
head mounted above the bikes' natural roll centers makes them inherently
unstable. That's why "stunters" love them, but it's a problem whenever
the machine is pushed hard. Then, instead of simply sliding their tires
or low siding - something a good rider can deal with - they buck
uncontrollably like a rodeo bull.

Tire and chassis engineers have wonderfully masked this instability so
most will never push their bikes to that extreme but if they do, oft not
by choice, corrective actions are beyond most humans' ability - sort of
like flying the stealth fighter. And, like the stealth fighter, I hope
computers in the form of ESC will come to our rescue and make these bikes
safe to ride.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/7/2012 8:09 PM, Vito wrote:
> "Jared"<jare...@gmail.com> wrote
> | ABS is useful because you can't predict when you will need to stop
> | suddenly. I'm not so sure ESC makes you safer if you don't drive like an
> | idiot. If somebody has statistics purporting to show that, I assume that
> | people with nicer cars that have ESC tend to drive more conservatively
> | and people are confusing cause and effect.
> |
>
> IMHO ESC would be a major benefit on modern 4-stroke sport bikes,
> especially those with transverse 4 cylinder engines mounted high to
> provide cornering clearance. The extra weight of a multi-valve, multi-cam
> head mounted above the bikes' natural roll centers makes them inherently
> unstable. That's why "stunters" love them, but it's a problem whenever
> the machine is pushed hard. Then, instead of simply sliding their tires
> or low siding - something a good rider can deal with - they buck

> uncontrollably like a rodeo bull.[...]
>
Most street bikes are designed to run out of lean angle before tire
traction (assuming warmed tires on clean and dry pavement), so as to
make high-side crashes less common. Hence the saying in advanced riding
classes, "trust your tires" (originated by Keith Code?).

[Robert Bolton]

That rider certainly is not old.

--
Robert

[Fraser Johnston]

Not any more. It is a combination of being older, becoming a parent,
speed cameras and being able to afford stuff that goes faster than I
think my abilities allow. My Blackbird was the first vehicle I bottled
on a top speed run. At 265km/h the dotted white lines became solid and
a voice in the back of my head started saying "One roo now and you
aren't living to see your son grow up."

--

Fraser

[The Older Gentleman]

Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote:

> > <Puzzled>
> >
> > Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
> > what it'll do?
> >
> > [1] Except, I suppose, for owners of 200mph exotica and the like,
> > where the availability of enough road tends to be a limiting factor. I
> > have found that you need to think a long, long way ahead when
> > travelling at 150+ on public roads.
>
> Not any more. It is a combination of being older, becoming a parent,
> speed cameras and being able to afford stuff that goes faster than I
> think my abilities allow. My Blackbird was the first vehicle I bottled
> on a top speed run. At 265km/h the dotted white lines became solid and
> a voice in the back of my head started saying "One roo now and you
> aren't living to see your son grow up."

Mm. I've never owned a 170mph+ bike, so ISWYM. Fastest I've ever been
on pubic highways is about 150+, I think. And, on reflection, that was a
couple of decades ago.

['Hog]

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> <Puzzled>
>>>
>>> Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
>>> what it'll do?
>>>
>>> [1] Except, I suppose, for owners of 200mph exotica and the like,
>>> where the availability of enough road tends to be a limiting
>>> factor. I have found that you need to think a long, long way ahead
>>> when travelling at 150+ on public roads.
>>
>> Not any more. It is a combination of being older, becoming a parent,
>> speed cameras and being able to afford stuff that goes faster than I
>> think my abilities allow. My Blackbird was the first vehicle I
>> bottled on a top speed run. At 265km/h the dotted white lines
>> became solid and a voice in the back of my head started saying "One
>> roo now and you aren't living to see your son grow up."
>
> Mm. I've never owned a 170mph+ bike, so ISWYM. Fastest I've ever been
> on pubic highways is about 150+, I think. And, on reflection, that
> was a couple of decades ago.

You didn't max out my Gioxxer thou on the M25?
Faggot.

['Hog]

When I go out on my Ducati I think about family, "you're on your own now,
motherfuckers" :o)

[The Older Gentleman]

'Hog <sm91...@chipshotmail.couk> wrote:

> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>> <Puzzled>
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't everyone[1] max out their vehicle at least once, just to see
> >>> what it'll do?
> >>>
> >>> [1] Except, I suppose, for owners of 200mph exotica and the like,
> >>> where the availability of enough road tends to be a limiting
> >>> factor. I have found that you need to think a long, long way ahead
> >>> when travelling at 150+ on public roads.
> >>
> >> Not any more. It is a combination of being older, becoming a parent,
> >> speed cameras and being able to afford stuff that goes faster than I
> >> think my abilities allow. My Blackbird was the first vehicle I
> >> bottled on a top speed run. At 265km/h the dotted white lines
> >> became solid and a voice in the back of my head started saying "One
> >> roo now and you aren't living to see your son grow up."
> >
> > Mm. I've never owned a 170mph+ bike, so ISWYM. Fastest I've ever been
> > on pubic highways is about 150+, I think. And, on reflection, that
> > was a couple of decades ago.
>
> You didn't max out my Gioxxer thou on the M25?
> Faggot.

Didn't take it that far :-)

[High Plains Thumper]

Robert Bolton wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:

>> Twibil wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I 'spect that nearly *all* of us who have survived to become
>>> Older Gentlemen have been down that road more than once. Lord
>>> knows I have.
>>
>> You know what they say, "There are old riders and bold riders, but
>> no old bold riders".
>>
>> Take a look at this Vid:
>>
>> http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/27/video-moscow-motorcyclists-crazy-high-speed-commute/#continued
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2bovbyh
>
> That rider certainly is not old.

And he won't be around for long.

--
HPT

[Keith]

Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote in
news:a3dn2p...@mid.individual.net:

> Not any more. It is a combination of being older, becoming a
> parent, speed cameras and being able to afford stuff that goes
> faster than I think my abilities allow. My Blackbird was the first
> vehicle I bottled on a top speed run. At 265km/h the dotted white
> lines became solid and a voice in the back of my head started
> saying "One roo now and you aren't living to see your son grow
> up."
>

I had my Blackbird up to 160 once, on a long stretch of an empty Nevada
highway. I did not spend much time at that speed, as it was scary to
me, and things were whizzing past a clip that I didn't much care for.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

I max out my NHX110 every time I ride it.

Of course, I have to go on a 45 mph speed limit road to get anywhere.

[High Plains Thumper]

Tom $herman wrote:

> I max out my NHX110 every time I ride it. Of course, I have to go on
> a 45 mph speed limit road to get anywhere.

Iowa has a lot of rural roads. Of course you are only limited to your
instincts and the Iowa Highway Patrol. :-)

Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get somewhere. I
thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to smell the flowers down
some rural path.

--
HPT

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/9/2012 3:59 AM, High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Tom $herman wrote:
>
>> I max out my NHX110 every time I ride it. Of course, I have to go on
>> a 45 mph speed limit road to get anywhere.
>
> Iowa has a lot of rural roads. Of course you are only limited to your
> instincts and the Iowa Highway Patrol. :-)
>

Also limited by the ~50 mph governor, and ~7 HP[1] at the rear wheel. :)

I can also max out the Yamaha TW200 on the expressway with the police
clocking me and not get a ticket, but that is not much fun as the
vibration in the grips gets really bad over 60 mph.

Did get to 95+ mph on the freeway on the NT700V while getting by a
couple of semi-trucks (aka articulated HGVs), but slowed back down to
mid 70 mph range as soon as I was past them.

> Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get somewhere. I
> thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to smell the flowers down
> some rural path.
>

I rode my NT700V on some gravel back roads at 25-35 mph yesterday.
Wasn't bad, except for one corner where the loose 1"+ plus rock had
piled up (braking from traffic?), which made the bike squirm sideways
way too much for comfort. I stayed upright mainly by letting the bike
do what it wanted.

[1] Rated at 8.9 SAE net, so the ~7 HP at the rear wheel is an estimate.

[Kevin Bottorff]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
news:jqvptl$rc0$1...@dont-email.me:

How do you like your NT700v overall? I have a pc800 but am not really
that happy with the riding position, makes my hand go numb, My old CB750
doesn`t do that, been wondering if the nt would be a sutible replacement
for a light weight tourer. KB

[Twibil]

On Jun 9, 11:31 am, Kevin Bottorff <kb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>   How do you like your NT700v overall? I have a pc800 but am not really
> that happy with the riding position, makes my hand go numb, My old CB750
> doesn`t do that, been wondering if the nt would be a sutible replacement
> for  a light weight tourer.

Um, the NT *IS* a lightweight tourer, but it's *sport* tourer, which
means it could be made more comfortable for all-day rides by raising
the bars about 2" and moving 'em back towards the rider another 2".

See the following URL for ergonomic comparisons to other bikes.

http://cycle-ergo.com/

[High Plains Thumper]

Twibil wrote:

> Um, the NT *IS* a lightweight tourer, but it's *sport* tourer, which
> means it could be made more comfortable for all-day rides by raising
> the bars about 2" and moving 'em back towards the rider another 2".
>
> See the following URL for ergonomic comparisons to other bikes.
>
> http://cycle-ergo.com/

IOW, a fix may entail a new handlebar with the usual ramifications to
lengthen wiring harnesses and possibly replacing cables with longer ones.

But if you have longer arms, may not be a problem.

--
HPT

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/9/2012 1:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
> news:jqvptl$rc0$1...@dont-email.me:

>[...]

>> I rode my NT700V on some gravel back roads at 25-35 mph yesterday.
>> Wasn't bad, except for one corner where the loose 1"+ plus rock had
>> piled up (braking from traffic?), which made the bike squirm sideways
>> way too much for comfort. I stayed upright mainly by letting the bike
>> do what it wanted.
>

> How do you like your NT700v overall? I have a pc800 but am not really
> that happy with the riding position, makes my hand go numb, My old CB750
> doesn`t do that, been wondering if the nt would be a sutible replacement
> for a light weight tourer. KB

I would buy one again, but would prefer to get one with ABS (my dealer
*really* wanted to get mine off the showroom floor, as it was 23 months
old).

Compared to the Pacific Coast, the NT700V is a bit more raw (you can
actually hear and feel a bit of V-twin thump), lighter, faster, better
handling and brakes - more of a motorcycle, and less of a scooter.
(Please note the "compared to the Pacific Coast" bit.) If you want a
two-wheel Accord, the Silver Wing is a better choice.

Some of the build quality is a bit dodgy by Honda standards (pannier
covers/latches, glove boxes), but the power-train should last forever by
motorcycle standards. And just as much of a pain to work on as the PC,
with everything covered by a hard to remove panel.

Not a bike you would want to take to a track day, but perfectly fine at
7/10th on the road. Same for the engine - absolutely no "hit" to the
power-band, but perfectly happy from 2000 rpm to redline (some shaft
shudder below 2000 rpm), with enough power for passing while riding
one-up, or to lift the front wheel in first gear if you goose it hard.

Not the best choice for short people, as the wide saddle and placement
of the foot pegs makes it relatively hard to hold up and back up, and
since the tires do not touch the ground after it tips over, it is harder
to pick up than some touring bikes that weight 350+ pounds more.

As for comfort, the saddle is very good, as is the ride quality over
broken pavement. It is a sport-touring position, with some forward lean
and slightly rear-set foot pegs - better for hanging off in corners, but
not the chair-like position you get on a Gold Wing or Electra-Glide.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/9/2012 7:34 PM, Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:31 am, Kevin Bottorff<kb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> How do you like your NT700v overall? I have a pc800 but am not really
>> that happy with the riding position, makes my hand go numb, My old CB750
>> doesn`t do that, been wondering if the nt would be a sutible replacement
>> for a light weight tourer.
>
> Um, the NT *IS* a lightweight tourer, but it's *sport* tourer, which
> means it could be made more comfortable for all-day rides by raising
> the bars about 2" and moving 'em back towards the rider another 2".
>

That is a matter of personal preference, not a hard and fast rule.

> See the following URL for ergonomic comparisons to other bikes.
>
> http://cycle-ergo.com/

Too bad they do not show the alternate "rear-set" foot position on the
Honda Elite/Lead 110.

[Vito]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote

| Most street bikes are designed to run out of lean angle before tire
| traction (assuming warmed tires on clean and dry pavement), so as to
| make high-side crashes less common. Hence the saying in advanced riding
| classes, "trust your tires" (originated by Keith Code?).

Yes, that's why riders "hang off" to go faster. But what happens when one
'runs out of lean angle'? Typically the part that touches down takes some
weight off of one or both tires and they begin to slide. This is where a
squid, or a wise man on a UJM bails out, opting for a low side. Or a good
rider on a well balanced bike picks it up with a knee and continues on.
Trying that on a top heavy bike usually results in disaster that ESC
could, perhaps, prevent.

Odd you would quote a man who thinks the world is ruled by aliens who live
in volcanos and that counter-steering, vs leaning, makes a bike corner.

[Vito]

"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote

| Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get somewhere. I
| thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to smell the flowers down
| some rural path.
|

Only thing I can figure is that their bikes are so miserably uncomfortable
to ride that they want to get it over ASAP.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

It's not? ;)

Cite? A Google search returning nothing.

> and that counter-steering, vs leaning, makes a bike corner.

I think you misunderstand. Counter-steering is necessary to make the
bike lean enough to steer. Rider weight shift alone mostly makes the
bike wobble in a straight line.

Is this a blatant lie?
<http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php>

I can do gradual lane changes with weight shift alone on my NHX110
Elite, but then it is only 254 lbs. wet, has small diameter wheels, and
in general handles more like a bicycle than a motorcycle. And of
course, most pedal bikes can be ridden no hands, but then they are
generally 1/5 to 1/10 of the weight of the rider.

Coasting in neutral and hanging onto the mirror bases or edge of the
windshield on both the CBR600F4i and NT700V produced results similar to
the KC link posted above.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

I like riding low-traffic back roads on both my NHX110 and TW200, on of
which will not exceed 50 mph, and the other starts to resemble a
paint-mixer above 55 mph.

[Twibil]

On Jun 10, 11:55 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>
> > Um, the NT *IS* a lightweight tourer, but it's *sport* tourer, which

> > means it **could** be made more comfortable for all-day rides by raising

> > the bars about 2" and moving 'em back towards the rider another 2".
>
> That is a matter of personal preference, not a hard and fast rule.

Nobody ever said it was "a hard and fast rule". And nobody but you
would have ever thought it was intended that way, because most folks
know what "could" means. (See above.)

Your mastery of the obvious -and your compulsion to needlessly point
it out- do not combine to give one the idea that you have more active
neurons than, say, the average fire hydrant.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

You really are an idiot.

[High Plains Thumper]

Tom $herman wrote:
> Vito wrote:

>> High Plains Thumper wrote

>>
>>> Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get
>>> somewhere. I thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to
>>> smell the flowers down some rural path.
>>
>> Only thing I can figure is that their bikes are so miserably
>> uncomfortable to ride that they want to get it over ASAP.

Yup, you have a point.

> I like riding low-traffic back roads on both my NHX110 and TW200, on
> of which will not exceed 50 mph, and the other starts to resemble a
> paint-mixer above 55 mph.

I've taken my 1971 Honda CB100 on rural farm roads. If one crosses the
border into Texas, the speed then goes up to 70 MPH (110 kmh). However
it is limited on its top end to around 55 MPH. At that speed, after an
hour of riding, one's hands feel uncomfortably tingly due to the
thumper's (tiddler's to TOG) engine.

These smaller cc bikes including yours were not intended for high speed
travel. However, that does not diminish the fun factor, which is a more
important criteria.

--
HPT

[Twibil]

On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>
> > Your mastery of the obvious -and your compulsion to needlessly point
> > it out- do not combine to give one the idea that you have more active
> > neurons than, say, the average fire hydrant.
>
> You really are an idiot.

Translation: "I sure do hate it when somebody points out that I've
done something stupid."

Shrug.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/10/2012 8:24 PM, High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Tom $herman wrote:
>> Vito wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote
>>>
>>>> Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get
>>>> somewhere. I thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to
>>>> smell the flowers down some rural path.
>>>
>>> Only thing I can figure is that their bikes are so miserably
>>> uncomfortable to ride that they want to get it over ASAP.
>
> Yup, you have a point.
>
>> I like riding low-traffic back roads on both my NHX110 and TW200, on
>> of which will not exceed 50 mph, and the other starts to resemble a
>> paint-mixer above 55 mph.
>
> I've taken my 1971 Honda CB100 on rural farm roads. If one crosses the
> border into Texas, the speed then goes up to 70 MPH (110 kmh). However
> it is limited on its top end to around 55 MPH. At that speed, after an
> hour of riding, one's hands feel uncomfortably tingly due to the
> thumper's (tiddler's to TOG) engine.
>

About 5 minutes at freeway speeds is enough on the TW200 (if I ride it
the shortest way to work, I end up spending about 4 minutes on the
freeway). But the 9 miles at 50-55 mph to the OHV park is not bad. Or
a couple of hours at 20-50 mph on a mix of paved, gravel, and dirt back
roads.

The Elite does not vibrate much, and one can move around to several
different positions on the seat, as well as a couple of different foot
positions, so several hours on it is not bad. Does not do well in mud,
however:
<https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401149_2725065337314_1033755898_n.jpg>.

> These smaller cc bikes including yours were not intended for high speed
> travel. However, that does not diminish the fun factor, which is a more
> important criteria.
>

Still looking for the best compromise between highway use and not being
twitchy on gravel. Wish I could rent a KLR650, G650GS, and a Wee-Strom
for a couple of days each.

[Kevin Bottorff]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in

news:jr2qfj$2pn$1...@dont-email.me:

ya I kind of wondered about the silver wing no more miles than I get to
put on any more, but have never had a chance to ride one. Might have to
try one for fun. Thanks. KB

[David T. Ashley]

I rented an ST1300 a couple years ago in Orlando ... it did just fine
on I-4 at maybe 90 - 95MPH. It was a rather smooth machine.

I was naturally curious about the NT700V when I saw one in the
showrooms, so I read up a bit.

One review I read said there was some buffeting at 70-75 MPH and it
wasn't a good interstate machine. But I ran into an NT700V owner in a
coffee shop less than a year ago and he said it was just fine on the
freeway at those speeds.

BTW, I tipped over the ST1300 either two or three times while in
Orlando. They all happened while stopped. It had something to do
with muscle memory and normally riding a lighter bike with a lower CG.
The high CG was definitely a contributing factor.

One of the 2-3 tips was highly embarrassing. It was at an
intersection, and the guy behind me got out of his car to help. I
still remember the words "Sir, are you alright?". It made me feel
old. The other 1-2 happened with no known witnesses.

The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...

DTA

[Twibil]

On Jun 11, 5:43 am, David T. Ashley <dash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I was naturally curious about the NT700V when I saw one in the
> showrooms, so I read up a bit.
>
> One review I read said there was some buffeting at 70-75 MPH and it
> wasn't a good interstate machine.  But I ran into an NT700V owner in a
> coffee shop less than a year ago and he said it was just fine on the
> freeway at those speeds.

He was correct. Mine's perfectly happy at 85 on the freeway -with
reserve left for passing- and there's no noticable "buffeting" at any
speed unless you're riding 25 yards behind a semi.

FWIW, yes, there's wind noise because I'm 6'2" and my hat sits well
above the top of the windscreen, but if you want a smoother airflow
all you have to do is lower the screen down a notch or two so that the
turbulence hits you in the neck and upper chest rather than face-on.
(I'm told you can get an add-on lip for the top of the screen as well,
but I've never bothered.)

> The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...

Not so's you'd notice. I've had mine for years now and have found it
to have no bad habits at all. Never dropped it.

If it had 25 more horses and one more gear it would be the perfect
bike.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/11/2012 12:21 PM, Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 11, 5:43 am, David T. Ashley<dash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was naturally curious about the NT700V when I saw one in the
>> showrooms, so I read up a bit.
>>
>> One review I read said there was some buffeting at 70-75 MPH and it
>> wasn't a good interstate machine. But I ran into an NT700V owner in a
>> coffee shop less than a year ago and he said it was just fine on the
>> freeway at those speeds.
>
> He was correct. Mine's perfectly happy at 85 on the freeway -with
> reserve left for passing- and there's no noticable "buffeting" at any
> speed unless you're riding 25 yards behind a semi.
>

I have been able to eliminate buffeting with windscreen height
adjustments - takes only a second or two (without dismounting) when
waiting at a stop sign or stop light. Some people report adjusting the
windscreen on the fly, but I am not that brave. Makes all the systems
that require tools look stupid.

The only issue with speeds above 70 mph is increased vibration through
the grips - a 6th gear would really help here.

> FWIW, yes, there's wind noise because I'm 6'2" and my hat sits well
> above the top of the windscreen, but if you want a smoother airflow
> all you have to do is lower the screen down a notch or two so that the
> turbulence hits you in the neck and upper chest rather than face-on.
> (I'm told you can get an add-on lip for the top of the screen as well,
> but I've never bothered.)
>
>> The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...
>
> Not so's you'd notice. I've had mine for years now and have found it
> to have no bad habits at all. Never dropped it.
>

It helps that you are 6'2", so you have more leverage. I would be
hesitant to recommend the NT700V to a short rider, as the seat is
relatively high and wide, and the foot pegs make backing the bike up a
slope difficult for its weight.

The rubber triangles up front do a good job of providing fall-over
protection if the bike is dropped. (I have the standard pannier lids -
the over-size lids are *not* imported into the US.) However, since it
lies with the wheels off the ground, you have to pick the bike most of
the way up frontally, before you can turn around and back it upright,
unlike say a Gold Wing or most cruiser based tourers, where you can
start backing up into the bike to right is=t as is.

> If it had 25 more horses and one more gear it would be the perfect
> bike.

And higher rate springs - the rear spring is *not* stiff enough for a
solo rider over 200 pounds and a bit of luggage, not to mention two-up.
(I had the rear sag on mine measured by someone who knows what he is
doing, and was at 45mm at full preload.) It would also be nice if
someone made an emulator for the fork.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

That is the "problem" with large sport tourers - they are all too happy
to run at go to jail speeds.

> I was naturally curious about the NT700V when I saw one in the
> showrooms, so I read up a bit.
>
> One review I read said there was some buffeting at 70-75 MPH and it
> wasn't a good interstate machine. But I ran into an NT700V owner in a
> coffee shop less than a year ago and he said it was just fine on the
> freeway at those speeds.
>

I find the NT700V fine for 700 miles/day on the interstate at those
speeds. And I do *not* have the optional wind-blockers.

> BTW, I tipped over the ST1300 either two or three times while in
> Orlando. They all happened while stopped. It had something to do
> with muscle memory and normally riding a lighter bike with a lower CG.
> The high CG was definitely a contributing factor.
>
> One of the 2-3 tips was highly embarrassing. It was at an
> intersection, and the guy behind me got out of his car to help. I
> still remember the words "Sir, are you alright?". It made me feel
> old. The other 1-2 happened with no known witnesses.
>
> The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...

If you get sloppy and come to a stop leaned over, you probably will go
down on the NT700V, while you would not on say a 250 pound scooter or
280 pound dual-sport. Good footing is needed too - watch for loose
gravel in the country, and the oily stripe down the center of the lane
in urban areas when wet.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Translation - "I have no real point, so I insult."

[Datesfat Chicks]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:11:10 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)" >>

>>
>> The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...
>
>If you get sloppy and come to a stop leaned over, you probably will go
>down on the NT700V, while you would not on say a 250 pound scooter or
>280 pound dual-sport. Good footing is needed too - watch for loose
>gravel in the country, and the oily stripe down the center of the lane
>in urban areas when wet.

As everyone on this newsgroup knows, I'm a relatively new rider.

However, not so new that I'd come to a stop with the bike leaned.

I really enjoyed learning to ride. It takes a while.

It took a while for me to downshift during rapid stops (I'd
concentrate on the stop, not the shifting). Normal stops were not a
problem, but I'd forget during rapid stops. I think it is all reflex
now.

Of course, once or twice I did stop around a curve and didn't remove
the lean at the end. Fortunately, I had a light bike (460 lbs. with
low CG) so I never fell over doing that (I just _almost_ fell over).
There is a learning curve there. Now it is all instinct and muscle
memory.

The way I fell over on the ST1300 was something different than
stopping around a curve. In one case I was in a parking lot reading a
map (on the bike), and it started to go, and I fought with it, but all
I did was soften the contact of the bike with the concrete. It is
something to do with muscle memory. I don't do that on my Honda
Shadow 600.

The bike did have plastic bumpers or pads at the lowest point, so no
damage.

DFC

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/11/2012 6:57 PM, Datesfat Chicks wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:11:10 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)">>
>>>
>>> The NT700V may have a high CG as well ...
>>
>> If you get sloppy and come to a stop leaned over, you probably will go
>> down on the NT700V, while you would not on say a 250 pound scooter or
>> 280 pound dual-sport. Good footing is needed too - watch for loose
>> gravel in the country, and the oily stripe down the center of the lane
>> in urban areas when wet.
>
> As everyone on this newsgroup knows, I'm a relatively new rider.
>
> However, not so new that I'd come to a stop with the bike leaned.
>

Unless you are distracted, etc.

> I really enjoyed learning to ride. It takes a while.
>

You can always improve, unless your name is Giacomo Agostini. I learned
several new things in ARC 1 this May (will be taking ARC 2 at the end of
July).

<http://www.totalcontroltraining.net/>

> It took a while for me to downshift during rapid stops (I'd
> concentrate on the stop, not the shifting). Normal stops were not a
> problem, but I'd forget during rapid stops. I think it is all reflex
> now.
>
> Of course, once or twice I did stop around a curve and didn't remove
> the lean at the end. Fortunately, I had a light bike (460 lbs. with
> low CG) so I never fell over doing that (I just _almost_ fell over).
> There is a learning curve there. Now it is all instinct and muscle
> memory.
>

One of the reasons why people should spend their first few months on a
relatively small/light bike.

> The way I fell over on the ST1300 was something different than
> stopping around a curve. In one case I was in a parking lot reading a
> map (on the bike), and it started to go, and I fought with it, but all
> I did was soften the contact of the bike with the concrete. It is
> something to do with muscle memory. I don't do that on my Honda
> Shadow 600.
>

I dumped my NT700V over the other day while stopped at intersection of
two gravel roads in BFE with the sign missing - while looking off into
the distance, I leaned the bike over just enough that my foot slipped on
the gravel and over we went. :(

> The bike did have plastic bumpers or pads at the lowest point, so no
> damage.

Crash bars, sliders, etc are not a bad idea, unless like me you are fine
with 50/50 looks (50 feet away at 50 mph).

[TOG@Toil]

On Jun 12, 12:57 am, Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> As everyone on this newsgroup knows, I'm a relatively new rider.
>
> However, not so new that I'd come to a stop with the bike leaned.
>

I don't even think you *can*, can you? Stop with it perpendicular, and
then lean it, or maybe lean it in the last millisecond before
stopping, but rolling to a stop with a bike leaned over? Only if
you're hanging off the other side like an ocean racing yachtsman.

And you're correct - anyone who needs to be told this shouldn't really
be on a bike at all.

(Digression - my Tenere, with its stratospheric seat height, is going
to land me on my arse one day, I know, when I come to a halt, put a
foot down, and find the ground falls away there or something.)

[Vito]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote

| Vito wrote:
| > Odd you would quote a man who thinks the world is ruled by aliens who
live
| > in volcanos
|
| It's not? ;)
|
| Cite? A Google search returning nothing.

An article in a bike rag said Kieth was a Scientologist.

|
| > and that counter-steering, vs leaning, makes a bike corner.
|
| I think you misunderstand. Counter-steering is necessary to make the
| bike lean enough to steer. Rider weight shift alone mostly makes the
| bike wobble in a straight line.

No, I understand very well.

|
| Is this a blatant lie?
| <http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php>

It is a mix of truth and falshood based on the authors limited experience.
You note that your Elite " is only 254 lbs. wet" . Please understand
that, until recently, 254# is heavy for a race bike. SWMBO's MT125 R
Hondas and TZ 125 Yammies weighed over 100# less than that and the TZ250
that blew the fairings off the fastest F-USA bikes at Willow a few years
back weighed about 250#. IIRC the F1 500s were not a lot heavier.
Moreover, most of that weight is carried very low. So, as you and kieth
admit, weight shift plays a significant part in tipping them over into
cornering attitude.

OTOH, the transverse 4's (UJM's) carry so much weight so high that it is
impossible to make them lean even with a good dose of counter steer.
"Steady Eddy" Lawson used to actually bend the bars on his Kaw UJMs doing
so and unbelievable "hang off" riding styles became the rule. So Kieth is
right within his world of UJMs.

Trouble with counter steering is that it makes the bike lean by steering
the front tire out from under the dynamic CG of the bike. This is an
extra load on that tire when it can least be afforded (entering the
corner). It also makes the bike rotate around a line thru the CGs, instead
of the tire contact patches, tending to farther unload the tires at the
worst of times. So, in short, it should be viewed as a necessary evil
that we have been forced to adopt.

Look at your CBR600F4i, deemed one of the better handling bikes today.
Find the head gasket - the joint between the cylinder and head. Now
imagine if you could take everything off the motor above that line - the
head, cams, valves, chains, et al, and replace it with a simple
inch-thick aluminum water jacket. Then imagine it making over 200 HP. Be
quite a bike wouldn't it. In fact, as good as it is, your CBR handles like
that bike would with a car battery taped on top of the tank! Betcha Honda
would love to build it for you, but they cannot. It'd be against the law.

[Tim M.]

On Jun 9, 4:59 am, High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Tom $herman wrote:
> > I max out my NHX110 every time I ride it. Of course, I have to go on
> > a 45 mph speed limit road to get anywhere.
>
> Iowa has a lot of rural roads. Of course you are only limited to your
> instincts and the Iowa Highway Patrol.  :-)
>

> Overall, I don't know why people are in such a hurry to get somewhere. I
> thought the whole purpose of motorcycling was to smell the flowers down
> some rural path.

That is *one* purpose of motorcycling, and one that I indulge in often
enough. But it is hardly the *sole* purpose of motorcycling.

[David T. Ashley]

You actually can easily come to a stop with the bike leaned.

I suspect what has happened is that you are an experienced rider and
you can't get yourself to do it, i.e. you can't easily override the
reflexes you've built up over the years.

There are a few tight curves here with stop lights--the one I'm
thinking of is near a shopping center. Anyway, all you need to do is
brake firmly around the curve and be thinking about something else ...

You will end up with a stopped motorcycle that is leaned over a few
degrees. Your foot needs to come out very rapidly or there will be
little kids pointing at you saying "Mommy, look, the bike just fell
over".

DTA

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/12/2012 1:01 PM, Vito wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote
> | Vito wrote:
> |> Odd you would quote a man who thinks the world is ruled by aliens who
> live
> |> in volcanos
> |
> | It's not? ;)
> |
> | Cite? A Google search returning nothing.
>
> An article in a bike rag said Kieth was a Scientologist.

While disturbing (probably is true, since if would most likely have
removed if libel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Code>, it does not
by necessity invalidate his theories of motorcycle riding, in particular
those that have been verified by others independently. After all,
several billion people in this world believe in a sky god from some old
Hebrew legends based off the mono-theism created by Amenhotep IV (aka
Akhenaten).

> |
> |> and that counter-steering, vs leaning, makes a bike corner.
> |
> | I think you misunderstand. Counter-steering is necessary to make the
> | bike lean enough to steer. Rider weight shift alone mostly makes the
> | bike wobble in a straight line.
>
> No, I understand very well.
> |
> | Is this a blatant lie?
> |<http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php>
>
> It is a mix of truth and falshood based on the authors limited experience.
> You note that your Elite " is only 254 lbs. wet" . Please understand
> that, until recently, 254# is heavy for a race bike. SWMBO's MT125 R
> Hondas and TZ 125 Yammies weighed over 100# less than that and the TZ250
> that blew the fairings off the fastest F-USA bikes at Willow a few years
> back weighed about 250#. IIRC the F1 500s were not a lot heavier.
> Moreover, most of that weight is carried very low. So, as you and kieth
> admit, weight shift plays a significant part in tipping them over into
> cornering attitude.
>

Most of the weight on the Elite/Lead 110 is carried low, except for that
"squishy bit" on top of the seat. Of course, the small diameter and
narrow front wheel makes a difference, since experience indicates a
smaller diameter front wheel and/or narrower tire decreases the tendency
of the bike to want to stay upright in a straight line.

And as Lee Parks points out, at speed, the rider hanging off the bike
also makes the bike want to turn by asymmetrical aerodynamic drag.
Certainly, a slight push on the grip on the far side from the lean is
needed to continue riding in a straight line, when hanging off the bike.

> OTOH, the transverse 4's (UJM's) carry so much weight so high that it is
> impossible to make them lean even with a good dose of counter steer.
> "Steady Eddy" Lawson used to actually bend the bars on his Kaw UJMs doing
> so and unbelievable "hang off" riding styles became the rule. So Kieth is
> right within his world of UJMs.
>

Well, bungee-cording a bag of cat litter to the seat of the Elite does
change the handling noticeably. If I had a fat pillion, I think I would
have to upgrade to a Silver Wing.

> Trouble with counter steering is that it makes the bike lean by steering
> the front tire out from under the dynamic CG of the bike. This is an
> extra load on that tire when it can least be afforded (entering the
> corner). It also makes the bike rotate around a line thru the CGs, instead
> of the tire contact patches, tending to farther unload the tires at the
> worst of times. So, in short, it should be viewed as a necessary evil
> that we have been forced to adopt.
>

Well, there is deliberately setting up for a corner, and then there is
taking evasive maneuvers to avoid the pothole you see as you crest a
hill, etc. A good shove on the handlebars in the direction you wish to
go is the only way to make a very rapid turn.

> Look at your CBR600F4i, deemed one of the better handling bikes today.
> Find the head gasket - the joint between the cylinder and head. Now
> imagine if you could take everything off the motor above that line - the
> head, cams, valves, chains, et al, and replace it with a simple
> inch-thick aluminum water jacket. Then imagine it making over 200 HP. Be
> quite a bike wouldn't it. In fact, as good as it is, your CBR handles like
> that bike would with a car battery taped on top of the tank! Betcha Honda
> would love to build it for you, but they cannot. It'd be against the law.

Funny thing is my NT700V turns in about as quickly at the CBR600F4i, and
the Dullsville is by no means a "mass-centered" bike (the 150mm width
rear tire likely helps turn in). And the Elite with its soft suspension
(I can bounce it up and down while riding, which is rather entertaining
at night) changes direction much faster than either of them.

However, the F4i is certainly better handling in that it is much more
"composed" when pushed than the NT700V, or the Elite which starts to wallow.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/12/2012 4:17 AM, TOG@Toil wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:57 am, Datesfat Chicks<datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As everyone on this newsgroup knows, I'm a relatively new rider.
>>
>> However, not so new that I'd come to a stop with the bike leaned.
>>
>
> I don't even think you *can*, can you? Stop with it perpendicular, and
> then lean it, or maybe lean it in the last millisecond before
> stopping, but rolling to a stop with a bike leaned over? Only if
> you're hanging off the other side like an ocean racing yachtsman.
>

Yes, tipping the bike generally occurs after forward motion has stopped
or almost stopped. I have to fight this habit from riding pedal bikes,
where it is natural to lean to one side towards the un-clipped foot,
while keeping the other shoe/foot clipped in (since even a slight lean
toward the side one is clipped into results in a fall). (The other
habit I had to unlearn with starting with both feet on the ground,
instead of the right foot on the peg, like I would have it on a pedal.)

> And you're correct - anyone who needs to be told this shouldn't really
> be on a bike at all.
>
> (Digression - my Tenere, with its stratospheric seat height, is going
> to land me on my arse one day, I know, when I come to a halt, put a
> foot down, and find the ground falls away there or something.)

Or if there is something slippery on the ground. Putting your foot down
on a few stray pieces of gravel or a little bit of sand or oil on top of
the pavement can be enough to cause a slip followed by a dump.

We also have a few streets where the gutter in the crossing street
results in quite a camber at the intersection, which makes it hard to
get both feet down on a bike with a tall seat. (Also makes a bump you
had better stand over when crossing at speed, if you value your spine.)

[The Older Gentleman]

David T. Ashley <das...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyway, all you need to do is
> brake firmly around the curve and be thinking about something else ...

Good point. That'd do it.


--
Kawasaki GTR1000 Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple
Yamaha Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

[TOG@Toil]

On Jun 13, 2:05 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 6/12/2012 1:01 PM, Vito wrote:
>

>
> > An article in a bike rag said Kieth was a Scientologist.
>
> While disturbing (probably is true, since if would most likely have
> removed if libel

I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is. I
doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory. Happy to see it
proven otherwise, mind you, because they're a rum bunch and no
mistake.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Code>, it does not
> by necessity invalidate his theories of motorcycle riding,

This, of course, is true.

[High Plains Thumper]

The Older Gentleman wrote:

> David T. Ashley wrote:
>
>> Anyway, all you need to do is brake firmly around the curve and be
>> thinking about something else ...
>
> Good point. That'd do it.

Ah, point fixation, wonderful.

--
HPT

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/13/2012 3:57 AM, TOG@Toil wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:05 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2012 1:01 PM, Vito wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> An article in a bike rag said Kieth was a Scientologist.
>>
>> While disturbing (probably is true, since if would most likely have
>> removed if libel
>
> I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.

Now you are an expert in US law?

> I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.

It should be considered defamatory.

> Happy to see it
> proven otherwise, mind you, because they're a rum bunch and no
> mistake.
>

Since L. Ron Hubbard did not believe in Scientology..., no need to say more.

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Code>, it does not
>> by necessity invalidate his theories of motorcycle riding,
>
> This, of course, is true.
>

Well, Lee Parks bases much of his curriculum on practices developed by
Code, and having taking the ARC class, I have personally verified in
several areas that Parks is correct in what is proper riding technique.

[The Older Gentleman]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:

> > I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.
>
> Now you are an expert in US law?

Nope. But there is little difference between what constitutes defamation
in US and UK law. And I *do* know about the law of defamation.

> > I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.
>
> It should be considered defamatory.

Perhaps. The fact that you say it 'should be', though, rather negates
your earlier suggestion.

Best you leave this one alone.

[Twibil]

On Jun 13, 11:15 pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older

Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
> > > I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.
>
> > Now you are an expert in US law?
>
> Nope. But there is little difference between what constitutes defamation
> in US and UK law. And I *do* know about the law of defamation.
>
> > > I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.
>
> > It should be considered defamatory.
>
> Perhaps. The fact that you say it 'should be', though, rather negates
> your earlier suggestion.
>
> Best you leave this one alone.

(Wonderment)

You don't really suppose for a moment that he's going to behave
according to the rules he suggests for the rest of us, do you?

[The Older Gentleman]

<Shrug>

I don't really care. If he has any sense, though, he'll drop this
particular hot potato.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/14/2012 1:15 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>>> I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.
>>
>> Now you are an expert in US law?
>
> Nope. But there is little difference between what constitutes defamation
> in US and UK law. And I *do* know about the law of defamation.
>

Of course, in the US it helps a lot to know the judge.

>
>>> I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.
>>
>> It should be considered defamatory.
>
> Perhaps. The fact that you say it 'should be', though, rather negates
> your earlier suggestion.
>
> Best you leave this one alone.
>

<yawn>

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

How is your mutual back-slapping going?

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/14/2012 1:48 PM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Twibil<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 11:15 pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>> Gentleman) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.
>>>
>>>> Now you are an expert in US law?
>>>
>>> Nope. But there is little difference between what constitutes defamation
>>> in US and UK law. And I *do* know about the law of defamation.
>>>
>>>>> I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.
>>>
>>>> It should be considered defamatory.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. The fact that you say it 'should be', though, rather negates
>>> your earlier suggestion.
>>>
>>> Best you leave this one alone.
>>
>> (Wonderment)
>>
>> You don't really suppose for a moment that he's going to behave
>> according to the rules he suggests for the rest of us, do you?
>
> <Shrug>
>
> I don't really care. If he has any sense, though, he'll drop this
> particular hot potato.
>

And if TOG had any sense, he would stop being a bloody arse.

[Twibil]

On Jun 14, 6:27 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>
> How is your mutual back-slapping going?

Fine, thank you. Except that there's no real "back slapping" going
on. Just two guys who both happen to be independently amused /
entertained by your antics; most likely for a lot of the same reasons.

TOG, however, enjoys catching you in factual screw-ups about
motorcycles, a field in which he knows far more than I; whereas I get
more of a kick out of your logical inconsistencies and empty bluster.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/14/2012 10:30 PM, WaIIy wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:15:59 +0100, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think you need to learn a little bit more about what libel is.
>>>
>>> Now you are an expert in US law?
>>
>> Nope. But there is little difference between what constitutes defamation
>> in US and UK law. And I *do* know about the law of defamation.
>>
>>
>>>> I doubt saying someone is a Scientologist is defamatory.
>>>
>>> It should be considered defamatory.
>>
>> Perhaps. The fact that you say it 'should be', though, rather negates
>> your earlier suggestion.
>>
>> Best you leave this one alone.
>

> From reading your posts, you seem like a reasonable guy.
>
Is calling someone a "fuckwit" reasonable? You have quite bizarre
standards of reasonable.

> Sherman is a troll and revealed himself as such quite a while ago.
>
Quite a while ago? You are imagining things now.

> You're wasting brain cells responding to anything he types.

Self-projection here.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

You are indeed a pitiful example of humanity.

[Twibil]

On Jun 14, 8:30 pm, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Sherman is a troll and revealed himself as such quite a while ago.
>

> You're wasting brain cells responding to anything he types.

1.) Yes, pretty much everyone knows he's (?) a troll.

2.) It doesn't take a brain to respond to him, and it's fun watching
his ego shrivel when he's caught out in yet another mistake,
distortion, or outright lie.

[Twibil]

On Jun 14, 8:56 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>
> You are indeed a pitiful example of humanity.

Um, who did you think was going to care what a self-professed troll
says?

The way to stop being made fun of is to stop making yourself into an
easy target.

[The Older Gentleman]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:

> > I don't really care. If he has any sense, though, he'll drop this
> > particular hot potato.
> >
> And if TOG had any sense, he would stop being a bloody arse.

That's good. You've worked out that you've fucked up. The world moves
on.

[The Older Gentleman]

WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

> From reading your posts, you seem like a reasonable guy.
>

> Sherman is a troll and revealed himself as such quite a while ago.
>
> You're wasting brain cells responding to anything he types.

You're probably right.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/15/2012 12:46 AM, Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 14, 8:30 pm, WaIIy<WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sherman is a troll and revealed himself as such quite a while ago.
>>
>> You're wasting brain cells responding to anything he types.
>
> 1.) Yes, pretty much everyone knows he's (?) a troll.
>

Self-projection here by Twibil, since he is the real troll.

> 2.) It doesn't take a brain to respond to him, and it's fun watching
> his ego shrivel when he's caught out in yet another mistake,
> distortion, or outright lie.
>

I doubt Twibil would gratuitously call people liars to their faces.
Doing so from behind a pseudonym on Usenet is a mark of cowardice.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/15/2012 2:59 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> WaIIy<WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>
>> From reading your posts, you seem like a reasonable guy.
>>
>> Sherman is a troll and revealed himself as such quite a while ago.
>>
>> You're wasting brain cells responding to anything he types.
>
> You're probably right.
>
>

Y Y A W W NN N
Y Y A A W W W N N N
Y Y A A W W W W N N N
Y A A W W W W N N N
Y AAAAAAAAA W W W W N N N
Y A A W W W W N N N
Y A A W W N NN

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Y Y A W W NN N
Y Y A A W W W N N N
Y Y A A W W W W N N N
Y A A W W W W N N N
Y AAAAAAAAA W W W W N N N
Y A A W W W W N N N
Y A A W W N NN

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 6/15/2012 2:59 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:

> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>>> I don't really care. If he has any sense, though, he'll drop this
>>> particular hot potato.
>>>
>> And if TOG had any sense, he would stop being a bloody arse.
>
> That's good. You've worked out that you've fucked up. The world moves
> on.
>
>

More self-projection from TOG.

Interesting how he and Twibil exhibit exactly the faults they accuse
others of. :)

[Twibil]

On Jun 15, 10:28 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>
> I doubt Twibil would gratuitously call people liars to their faces.
> Doing so from behind a pseudonym on Usenet is a mark of cowardice.

Oh, everybody here -except you- knows exactly who and where I am, and
has for a long time: Pete Roehling, Redlands California.

I advertise my business all over the webthingy and am really easy to
locate for anyone who'd care to try.

Feel free, Tom.

[The Older Gentleman]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:

> On 6/15/2012 2:59 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't really care. If he has any sense, though, he'll drop this
> >>> particular hot potato.
> >>>
> >> And if TOG had any sense, he would stop being a bloody arse.
> >
> > That's good. You've worked out that you've fucked up. The world moves
> > on.
> >
> >
> More self-projection from TOG.
>
> Interesting how he and Twibil exhibit exactly the faults they accuse
> others of. :)

Jolly good. Refresh our knowledge of defamation law now, please.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Thanks for the information, so I can be sure to *avoid* you in real life
- I prefer not to deal with people who exhibit sociopathic behavior.