Harley $$ loss
Dean Hoffman
A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Also on my 'things I like' list are 'electricity' and 'heat in the
winter time'.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Vito
Dean Hoffman| <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
|
| >http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
| >
| > A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
| >were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
|
| Also on my 'things I like' list are 'electricity' and 'heat in the
| winter time'.
|
Road Glidin' Don
That's right. Where's the dedication? <g>
BryanUT
I just got back from kicking tires. I looked at a 2007 FJR AE, they
were asking $10k while Kelley blue book retail is $9800 (http://
www.kbb.com/motorcycle/retail/2007/yamaha/fjr1300ae/176243). And that
was the mark down price.
They also had a 2004 SV1000 Vstrom for $5500, Kelley blue book retail
is $5k. WTF?
I visited the local H-D dealer last week, they sure weren't offering
any obvious discounts. Just business as usual.
I also looked (out of morbid curiosity) at the new Honda Fury ($14k),
the fit and finish is what you'd expect from a Chinese bike, man the
welds and paint were pathetic.
Mark Olson
> I just got back from kicking tires. I looked at a 2007 FJR AE, they
> were asking $10k while Kelley blue book retail is $9800 (http://
> www.kbb.com/motorcycle/retail/2007/yamaha/fjr1300ae/176243). And that
> was the mark down price.
You can buy a brand new 08 FJR, AE or non-AE, your choice for $10k.
Email or PM me at the other place if you're interested. I'll even
volunteer to ride it to Utah for you for the price of a plane
ticket back.
The Older Gentleman
Meanwhile, Triumph's sales and profits are up, and it's outselling BMW
in the US of A.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Road Glidin' Don
> On Jan 23, 9:48 am, Dean Hoffman <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
>
> > A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
> > were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
>
> I just got back from kicking tires. I looked at a 2007 FJR AE, they
> was the mark down price.
>
> They also had a 2004 SV1000 Vstrom for $5500, Kelley blue book retail
> is $5k. WTF?
>
> I visited the local H-D dealer last week, they sure weren't offering
> any obvious discounts. Just business as usual.
>
> I also looked (out of morbid curiosity) at the new Honda Fury ($14k),
> the fit and finish is what you'd expect from a Chinese bike, man the
> welds and paint were pathetic.
We saved about $6,000 on the '09 Softail we bought this year, having
waited until very late in the year to snap up a 2009 bike. The
dealers seem a bit nervous about moving bikes in time to make way for
the new models.
Fortunately for HD, they came out with some significant improvements
in their '09 models that still make them attractive, when compared to
an HD even just a year older (n the FLs, those things being better
heat management and a more rigid frame). But 2010's versus '09s? Not
much difference that I see there...
BryanUT
> On Jan 23, 1:04 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 9:48 am, Dean Hoffman <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
>
> > > A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
> > > were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
>
> > I just got back from kicking tires. I looked at a 2007 FJR AE, they
> > were asking $10k while Kelley blue book retail is $9800 (http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/retail/2007/yamaha/fjr1300ae/176243). And that
> > was the mark down price.
>
> > They also had a 2004 SV1000 Vstrom for $5500, Kelley blue book retail
> > is $5k. WTF?
>
> > I visited the local H-D dealer last week, they sure weren't offering
> > any obvious discounts. Just business as usual.
>
> > I also looked (out of morbid curiosity) at the new Honda Fury ($14k),
> > the fit and finish is what you'd expect from a Chinese bike, man the
> > welds and paint were pathetic.
>
> We saved about $6,000 on the '09 Softail
If I walked into my local H-D dealer and saw a $6k discount on a
RoadGlide, the deal would be sealed. Or a $2k discount on an XR1200.
But fuck all the haggling with the salesman.
Since I am a cheap/poor bastid this is on the radar because I could
pay cash and keep the sportbike:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=9424008&cat=144&lpid=1
BryanUT
yeah, my friend at work bought his Suzuki M109 from that dealer and
rode it home to SLC. The SLC dealers wouldn't match the price
including his travel expense.
I may need to look closer at this option... the FJR is a sweet bike.
Road Glidin' Don
> On Jan 23, 1:26 pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:04 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 9:48 am, Dean Hoffman <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
>
> > > > A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
> > > > were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
>
> > > I just got back from kicking tires. I looked at a 2007 FJR AE, they
> > > were asking $10k while Kelley blue book retail is $9800 (http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/retail/2007/yamaha/fjr1300ae/176243). And that
> > > was the mark down price.
>
> > > They also had a 2004 SV1000 Vstrom for $5500, Kelley blue book retail
> > > is $5k. WTF?
>
> > > I visited the local H-D dealer last week, they sure weren't offering
> > > any obvious discounts. Just business as usual.
>
> > > I also looked (out of morbid curiosity) at the new Honda Fury ($14k),
> > > the fit and finish is what you'd expect from a Chinese bike, man the
> > > welds and paint were pathetic.
>
> > We saved about $6,000 on the '09 Softail
>
> If I walked into my local H-D dealer and saw a $6k discount on a
> RoadGlide, the deal would be sealed. Or a $2k discount on an XR1200.
>
> But fuck all the haggling with the salesman.
Oh, you don't have to haggle. You just say you'd like to have the
bike and say you would, if it were 'X' dollars. If they need to move
the bike, they'll get busy.
> Since I am a cheap/poor bastid this is on the radar because I could
> pay cash and keep the sportbike:
>
> http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=9424008&cat=144&lpid=1
Yeah, that's getting pretty reasonable. You shoulda bought my wife's
old Sportster, which we traded in on the Softail. We were at the
dealership on Thursday and talked to the salesman we made the deal
with. He told us they just sold it. Whoever bought it has an
excellent ride now.
Outback Jon
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:48:37 -0600, Dean Hoffman
> <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
>>
>> A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
>> were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
>
> Also on my 'things I like' list are 'electricity' and 'heat in the
> winter time'.
>
>
Well, I see the "electricity" part ruling out Brit bikes with Lucas
electrics...
--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outba...@g.no.sp.am.mail.com
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 32
2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
saddlebag
The other thing to consider is useful mods. They make the FJR soooo
much nicer than stock and would cost you a small fortune to do
yourself. I would pay extra for a used one with the right goods on it.
saddlebag
Let's see, they put a balloon on the front of a Sportster, cut all the
useful suspension off the Wide Glide, and neglected to put clear coat
on the Fat Boy. I think that about covers it.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> Dean Hoffman <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yehsp54
>
> > A motorcycle would be one of the last things I would buy if times
> > were tough. I like riding but eating comes first.
>
> Meanwhile, Triumph's sales and profits are up, and it's outselling BMW
> in the US of A.
You have to give them credit for gritting their teeth and marketing
huge toys like the 2.3 liter Racket III and the 1.6 liter Thunderturd
Twin to American riders who would never be seen on a "toy" bike like
the 675cc Street Triple R, for example.
It's been a hugely successful marketing ploy for them, even if the
first [Hinkley] generation Trident triples and Triumph Trophy 1200
I4's were *much* better motorcycles.
At least they still sell the Bonneville, Speed Triple, and Street
Triple....
saddlebag
Unless your legs are two inches long, you will want a seat with
considerably more padding. With those mid mounts, even a midget like
me would be riding around with my knees in my chest on that thing.
They're kinda fun though:
The Older Gentleman
> You have to give them credit for gritting their teeth and marketing
> huge toys like the 2.3 liter Racket III and the 1.6 liter Thunderturd
> Twin to American riders who would never be seen on a "toy" bike like
> the 675cc Street Triple R, for example.
I didn't think I'd ever be seen dead on one, either. Until I test rode
one, and rationality went out the window. The 675cc Street Trip is a
fabulous motorcycle. Really.
Cubes aren't everything. It reminds me of the time when I downsized from
a liutre-bike to a Yamaha RD350 Power-Valve. Just immense fun and
capability.
>
> It's been a hugely successful marketing ploy for them, even if the
> first [Hinkley] generation Trident triples and Triumph Trophy 1200
> I4's were *much* better motorcycles.
I don't think they were, actually, and I speak as an ex-owner. Certainly
they were built like tanks, because Triumph knew reliability was key to
success, but they were heavy and a bit.... well, lacking compared to
much of the Japanese competition.
The 1200 Trophy was different: more BMW-ish, but just not as good a bike
as the BMW K equivalent. Triumph had a better engine and handled better,
mind.
> At least they still sell the Bonneville, Speed Triple, and Street
> Triple....
I thought you said American riders wouldn't be seen dead on the Street
Trip? Or do you mean Speed Trip here?
Bonneville: a triumph (hah!) of marketing over function. Nice enough
bike, but too big, too slow and the Scrambler is awful.
S'mee
Really because I'd be selling the cage and buying motorcycle...if I
needed a new / new to me motorcycle. I'd save a bundle and be able to
eat etc... cages are a losing game ime.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
I'm afraid you missed my point, or I failed to make it properly. The
Street Triple is a great motorcycle (as is the Speed Triple) and the
Rocket III and the Thunderbird 1600 are big, heavy, ponderous, slow
steering, low, poor ground clearance, lumbering, behemoths. So the
latter appeal to American riders (thus Triumph's most recent success
in the U.S.) and sell well, even though the older Tridents and
Trophies were actually better motorcycles.
I wasn't saying that the older Tridents and Trophies were better
motorcycles than the current Speed Triple or Street Triple.
And I think the current Bonneville is a fine bike, it's just not
cutting edge or filling the same marketplace niche in today's
motorcycle world that the original Bonneville did; but one that didn't
exist back in the 60's or 70's. I wouldn't buy one, but I think
anyone who does is getting an eminently more sensible machine than the
Rocket III or the Thunderbird 1600.
If you think the Bonneville is too big (and it *does* look like a
1.25:1 scale replica of the Meriden twins) then you can only describe
the Rocket III and Thunderbird 1600 as monstrous.
The Older Gentleman
> I'm afraid you missed my point, or I failed to make it properly. The
> Street Triple is a great motorcycle (as is the Speed Triple) and the
> Rocket III and the Thunderbird 1600 are big, heavy, ponderous, slow
> steering, low, poor ground clearance, lumbering, behemoths. So the
> latter appeal to American riders (thus Triumph's most recent success
> in the U.S.) and sell well, even though the older Tridents and
> Trophies were actually better motorcycles.
>
> I wasn't saying that the older Tridents and Trophies were better
> motorcycles than the current Speed Triple or Street Triple.
>
> And I think the current Bonneville is a fine bike, it's just not
> cutting edge or filling the same marketplace niche in today's
> motorcycle world that the original Bonneville did; but one that didn't
> exist back in the 60's or 70's. I wouldn't buy one, but I think
> anyone who does is getting an eminently more sensible machine than the
> Rocket III or the Thunderbird 1600.
>
> If you think the Bonneville is too big (and it *does* look like a
> 1.25:1 scale replica of the Meriden twins) then you can only describe
> the Rocket III and Thunderbird 1600 as monstrous.
OK, right, yup. I'd agree with all the above, in this context, yes.
Neither the Rocket nor the T'bird has been a sales success over here. In
the UK, Triumph's top-selling bike is the 675 Street Triple, and it's
easy to see why.
Great looks, excellent performance from a barnstorming engine (*nothing*
that revs to 13,500 rpm should have so much mid-range drive: it just
isn't right), and a riding position and handling that make it perfect
for Uk roads. Oh, and a keen price tag.
Only gripe I've got is the poor steering lock (almost Ducati-like) which
makes it les than ideal in town (not a problem for you Yanks because you
aren't allowed to lane-split and filter) and a fiddly-to-use instrument
console (changed on the 2010 models).
Vito
| Cubes aren't everything. It reminds me of the time when I downsized from
| a liutre-bike to a Yamaha RD350 Power-Valve. Just immense fun and
| capability.
Second that! Only street bike I ever owned that I could intrepidly slide
(drift) tires on.
| >
| Bonneville: a triumph (hah!) of marketing over function. Nice enough
| bike, but too big, too slow and the Scrambler is awful.
|
Like Tom said, a 1.25 scale replica. Wonder why it is impossible to
make/sell real Bunnyvilles using modern materials and mfgring. I'd buy one
...
Vito
[ We saved about $6,000 on the '09 Softail we bought this year, having
[ waited until very late in the year to snap up a 2009 bike. ....
By contrast, our local dealer is no longer open Sunday or Monday and has
reduced hours, allowing him to lay off half his employees. SWMBO considered
trading on a new bike but he wanted list price plus a $500 "dealer charge"
and offered her $1500 less than blue book for her trade.
Vito
| http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=9424008&cat=144&lpid=1
Thanks for the tracking cookies - I needed to test my firewall.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
Mark Olson
>> Like Tom said, a 1.25 scale replica. Wonder why it is impossible to
>> make/sell real Bunnyvilles using modern materials and mfgring. I'd buy one
> It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
> Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
I just love the "I'd buy one" comment. If everyone who uttered those words
had followed through, Indian, Excelsior-Henderson, Buell, and countless other
failed makes would still be in existence. And you'd be able to buy a brand
new W650, too.
The Older Gentleman
> | Bonneville: a triumph (hah!) of marketing over function. Nice enough
> | bike, but too big, too slow and the Scrambler is awful.
> |
> Like Tom said, a 1.25 scale replica. Wonder why it is impossible to
> make/sell real Bunnyvilles using modern materials and mfgring. I'd buy one
Yes, Tom's is a good description. I mean, it's a nice enough bike in its
way, but stnd it next to an older Bonnie and it's a giant.
The Scrambler: the different wheels and tyres have screwed up the
handling, and the engine is horrible. It uses the 270 degree crank from
the cruisers (God alone knows why) whereas the roadster Bonnies have a
360 degree crank.
It's muffled and detoxed to oblivion so it feels completely antiseptic
and whirry, like an old GS450 twin or something. And with about as
little power, as it's shed something like a dozen horses from the
roadster.
Most disappointing bike I've ridden in years. And then, as an
afterthought, I tried the Street Trip....
The Older Gentleman
> It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
> Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
Agreed, without actually having ridden one.
Smaller, lighter, as good-looking and (IMHO) better engineered.
Mark Olson
> tomo...@erols.com <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
>> Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
>
> Agreed, without actually having ridden one.
>
> Smaller, lighter, as good-looking and (IMHO) better engineered.
One of the US bike mags[1] did a head-to-head comparison between a
modern Bonneville and the W650, and mixed in a ride on an original
Bonnie. The reviewers unanimously agreed the W650 was the best of
the bunch, and was also most akin to the original bike.
[1] Pretty sure it was Motorcycle Consumer News since I haven't
subscribed to any of the others for some years.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> tomo...@erols.com <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
>>> Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
>>
>> Agreed, without actually having ridden one.
>>
>> Smaller, lighter, as good-looking and (IMHO) better engineered.
>
>One of the US bike mags[1] did a head-to-head comparison between a
>modern Bonneville and the W650, and mixed in a ride on an original
>Bonnie. The reviewers unanimously agreed the W650 was the best of
>the bunch, and was also most akin to the original bike.
>
Am I reading this right. The reviewers compared a modern Bonnie, a
W650 and an original Bonnie and found among other things, the W650 was
most akin to the original Bonnie than the original Bonnie?
Mark Olson
No, I guess I could have worded that better. The W650 was a more
faithful rendition of the old bike when compared to the new Bonnie.
The old bike was of course the most "original" but in fact the W650 was
the best bike of the three, in every functional way.
Actually now that I think about it, there was something in the article
about one of the bikes being more of a copy of a BSA than it was of
a Triumph. I've got the issue lying around somewhere but I'm too lazy
to look for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_W_series
Now I remember (I think) - Kawasaki had marketed the W650 as a
continuation of their earlier W series, but as the Wikipedia article
says, the only connection was the W prefix as the W1-W3 were obviously
more BSA-like than Triumph-ish.
The Older Gentleman
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>
>>>> Smaller, lighter, as good-looking and (IMHO) better engineered.
>>> One of the US bike mags[1] did a head-to-head comparison between a
>>> modern Bonneville and the W650, and mixed in a ride on an original
>>> Bonnie. The reviewers unanimously agreed the W650 was the best of
>>> the bunch, and was also most akin to the original bike.
>>>
>> Am I reading this right. The reviewers compared a modern Bonnie, a
>> W650 and an original Bonnie and found among other things, the W650 was
>> most akin to the original Bonnie than the original Bonnie?
>
>No, I guess I could have worded that better. The W650 was a more
>faithful rendition of the old bike when compared to the new Bonnie.
>The old bike was of course the most "original" but in fact the W650 was
>the best bike of the three, in every functional way.
Which is pretty much the same as what I have heard and read about the
W650.
For what it is worth, aside from it being a blatant copy of a classic
motorcycle [1], I quite liked the W650.
[1] I suppose one could make the case the recent Triumph version is
also a blatant copy of the original.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Am I reading this right.
>
>No ;-)
Well actually I did, but it doesn't surprise me the Ankle Biter
Supreme could not pass up the opportunity to take a nip.
Consistency is a wonderful thing! :-)
The Older Gentleman
Actually, you missed the smiley. Go back and have a look at what you
wrote.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:12:02 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Am I reading this right.
>> >
>> >No ;-)
>>
>> Well actually I did, but it doesn't surprise me the Ankle Biter
>> Supreme could not pass up the opportunity to take a nip.
>>
>> Consistency is a wonderful thing! :-)
>
>Actually, you missed the smiley. Go back and have a look at what you
>wrote.
As per your track record, now you want to argue about it.
As I said, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
The Older Gentleman
> Which is pretty much the same as what I have heard and read about the
> W650.
>
> For what it is worth, aside from it being a blatant copy of a classic
> motorcycle [1], I quite liked the W650.
I vaguely considered one at one point. What attracted me was the gear
drive to the cam, a la Ducati.
And then I realised that I already owned a relatively low-powered
lightweight twin, and didn't see the need for a second, which was
another reason why I didn't buy a new Bonnie last year.
>
> [1] I suppose one could make the case the recent Triumph version is
> also a blatant copy of the original.
Not really, no. Styling-wise, absolutely. It takes all the visual cues
and styling tricks, but as Tom pointed out, it's 25% bigger in every
direction. The original Bonnie was small, lean and lithe and the present
one, erm, isn't. It's also slow for a 900cc twin.
Hasn't stopped it selling well, mind you.
(Digression alert)
The parallel twin that should, and could, have been developed was
Yamaha's XS650. That engine was stunningly good, and it could have been
given a new lease of life if Yamaha had just dropped it into a new
chassis. Instead, they paraded the new XJ fours and XV vees and XS
triples and pulled the 650 from the catalogues.
In the UK, the story is even more bizarre. Norton Villiers Triumph,
which had close ties with Yamaha (it built Yamaha DT125 and 175 dirt
bikes under licence, and converted XS750 triples to police bikes) wanted
to drop the XS650 engine into a Commando chassis. They tried it, and it
fitted. Genius. The best parallel twin engine and the best parallel twin
frame, in one anti-vibration sweet-handling package.
It was a completely secret project, all set to go, and then a senior
director of NVT decreed that if it couldn't be put on the road for a
certain (allegedly, stupidly low) price, the project wouldn't go ahead.
And it didn't.
Then when Triumph, in its last throes before the Meriden Co-Op
disintegrated, started work on its Diana DOHC 900cc parallel twin, they
used the XS650 as a benchmark. It was that good. In fact, they copied
the rocker breather and oil mist recycling system completely. The (very)
confidential assessment document produced by Weslake in the early 1980s,
for presentation to the local council in order to win desperately-needed
grants for the tooling, repeatedly referred to the XS650.
Some years ago, I was at a Yamaha dinner somewhere, and was sitting next
to some Yam honcho (Japanese) and mentioned my immense respect for this
bike. He nodded vigorously and beamed. He'd owned one. And when I asked
why Yamaha didn't resurrect it, he looked sad. "Tooling all gone," he
said. There was genuine regret in his voice.
The Older Gentleman
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:08:12 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:12:02 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >>
> >> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Am I reading this right.
> >> >
> >> >No ;-)
> >>
> >> Well actually I did, but it doesn't surprise me the Ankle Biter
> >> Supreme could not pass up the opportunity to take a nip.
> >>
> >> Consistency is a wonderful thing! :-)
> >
> >Actually, you missed the smiley. Go back and have a look at what you
> >wrote.
>
> As per your track record, now you want to argue about it.
>
I'm not arguing. I have merely referred you to your previous posting.
> As I said, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
Yes, you are about to kick off another flame war.
Not a good idea. Now go and have a look at my other posting, in reply to
up, up there somewhere.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:08:12 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:12:02 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Am I reading this right.
>> >> >
>> >> >No ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Well actually I did, but it doesn't surprise me the Ankle Biter
>> >> Supreme could not pass up the opportunity to take a nip.
>> >>
>> >> Consistency is a wonderful thing! :-)
>> >
>> >Actually, you missed the smiley. Go back and have a look at what you
>> >wrote.
>>
>> As per your track record, now you want to argue about it.
>>
>I'm not arguing. I have merely referred you to your previous posting.
>
>> As I said, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
>
>Yes, you are about to kick off another flame war.
It can be anything you want it to be Neil. Your track record in Reeky
is clear and enlightening.
Just recently you have been on a trip to Chile. Now this would be a
journey of interest for even the experienced traveler. Reading between
the lines I would guess you are looking to relocate there. Possibly
thinking of it as a retirement home, or maybe semi retirement. Either
way, pretty exciting stuff.
Whatever the reason, you have been monitoring and contributing to
Reeky during this journey. Without going back and tallying up your
messages I would bet you my last two dollars more then 75% of them
were devoted to the pissing contest you are involved with. Now you are
back, and are trolling to start another one.
What I find interesting is with all you could contribute to the group,
you choose to engage in these mindless arguments. .
>
>Not a good idea. Now go and have a look at my other posting, in reply to
>up, up there somewhere.
I have no desire to. If you think there is something buried there that
supports your contention, you go back and find it. Personally I'd
rather not waste my time.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Which is pretty much the same as what I have heard and read about the
>> W650.
>>
>> For what it is worth, aside from it being a blatant copy of a classic
>> motorcycle [1], I quite liked the W650.
>
>I vaguely considered one at one point. What attracted me was the gear
>drive to the cam, a la Ducati.
>
>And then I realised that I already owned a relatively low-powered
>lightweight twin, and didn't see the need for a second, which was
>another reason why I didn't buy a new Bonnie last year.
>
>>
>> [1] I suppose one could make the case the recent Triumph version is
>> also a blatant copy of the original.
>
>Not really, no. Styling-wise, absolutely.
So you agree with me.
<snip>
>
>Some years ago, I was at a Yamaha dinner somewhere, and was sitting next
>to some Yam honcho (Japanese) and mentioned my immense respect for this
>bike. He nodded vigorously and beamed. He'd owned one. And when I asked
>why Yamaha didn't resurrect it, he looked sad. "Tooling all gone," he
>said. There was genuine regret in his voice.
The history of most motorcycle manufacturers is littered with
questionable research and marketing decisions.
The Older Gentleman
<snip>
OK, here we go.
Mark said: (c&p)
"The reviewers unanimously agreed the W650 was the best of
the bunch, and was also most akin to the original bike."
You asked: (c&p)
"Am I reading this right. The reviewers compared a modern Bonnie, a
W650 and an original Bonnie and found among other things, the W650 was
most akin to the original Bonnie than the original Bonnie?
I'm assuming you meant "more akin" rather than "most akin" because the
latter makes no sense. And this isn't what Mark said. He said it was,
simply, most akin. Not more akin. *Most* akin.
In other words, no, you weren't reading it right, and you didn't answer
his post right either. And a brief jocular answer to your question, with
a smiley added to show no ill-will, has set you off again like a
clockwork toy.
Don't do this. Don't take this any further. Please, don't. It does you
no favours.
>If you think there is something buried there that
> supports your contention, you go back and find it.
There. I just have. If you want to bury a hatchet rather than wave it,
you should acknowledge this.
The Older Gentleman
> >> [1] I suppose one could make the case the recent Triumph version is
> >> also a blatant copy of the original.
> >
> >Not really, no. Styling-wise, absolutely.
>
> So you agree with me.
As regards styling, yes. But that's the only similarity between the two
bikes, really. It's just a styling copy, rather in the way that the
current VW Beetle apes the styling of the original Beetle. Or (to a
leser etent) the new Mini apes the styling of the original.
In terms of engineering and technology, there's no similarity between
the cars and the bikes.
don (Calgary)
To Ankle Biter Supreme I will add Net Nanny Supreme. You are
hilarious!
I will reiterate, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
The Older Gentleman
> I will reiterate, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
Sure is. Your father was evidently useless and his genes run true.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I will reiterate, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
>
>Sure is. Your father was evidently useless and his genes run true.
Well there is a new low for you Neil. In a desperate attempt to troll
for a new argument you insult my father. And you think this somehow
reflects badly on me.
Sad to be you.
The Older Gentleman
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:00:02 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I will reiterate, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
> >
> >Sure is. Your father was evidently useless and his genes run true.
>
> Well there is a new low for you Neil. In a desperate attempt to troll
> for a new argument you insult my father.
what was that expression? Oh, yes.
Suck it up.
Tell us more about the claimed war record, then, and I might revise my
genetic opinion.....
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:00:02 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I will reiterate, consistency is a wonderful thing. :-)
>> >
>> >Sure is. Your father was evidently useless and his genes run true.
>>
>> Well there is a new low for you Neil. In a desperate attempt to troll
>> for a new argument you insult my father.
>
>what was that expression? Oh, yes.
>
>Suck it up.
>
>Tell us more about the claimed war record, then, and I might revise my
>genetic opinion.....
I do not think there is anything, anyone could say right now that
would make you look worse than you do at this moment.
Even Bill Walker had boundaries.
Vito
"Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Like Tom said, a 1.25 scale replica. Wonder why it is impossible to
> make/sell real Bunnyvilles using modern materials and mfgring. I'd buy one
> ...
[ It's actually been done, but not by Triumph. Research the 1999-2000
[ Kawasaki W650. Great bike, terrible sales (in the U.S.)
Yes. Nice bike {A good friend had one) but a limited market. I looked for
one b4 buying my Sportster but found them discontinued. Looks like I'm a
minority.
Vito
| I just love the "I'd buy one" comment. If everyone who uttered ....
Bad timing. When Kawasaki was building them I had no use for one, needing
touring bikes instead. Now I live in suburbia it is too late - they don't
make them any more.
J. Clarke
Not just motorcycles. Look at the SR-71 and the Saturn V (and the Arrow and
the TSR-2)--tooling all gone there too. Damn politicians.
Vito
|
| The Scrambler: the different wheels and tyres have screwed up the
| handling, and the engine is horrible. It uses the 270 degree crank from
| the cruisers (God alone knows why) whereas the roadster Bonnies have a
| 360 degree crank.
Some would say it was done to mimic the H-D V-twin's power delivery that has
worked well on our dirt "flat tracks". Others say it was to mimic the H-D
exhaust note. You be the judge ... :)
don (Calgary)
If you are referring to the Avro Arrow, that was one of the strangest
political decisions I have heard of. Not only did they destroy all the
patterns and tooling, they cut up five functioning planes and
dismantled several others, still on the assembly line. All for scrap
metal. I believe the jet's engines were also of Canadian design and
they were also scrapped.
Many claim the Arrow was the most advanced jet of its kind, for the
era. Some still claim there was an international conspiracy to keep
the jet from going into full production.
If I recall correctly the notice from Diefenbaker (Canada's PM at the
time) came on the same day the Soviets launched Sputnik. Not that
there was any connection, but it is one reason why the sudden stop to
the program was buried in the news. The personnel working on the plane
were told to drop what they were doing and go home. No notice, no
controlled shutdown. Just go home, don't come back and don't take
anything with you.
Very strange.
BrianNZ
<snip childish name calling and nah,nah,nah with tongue poked out
childish response>
>
> Even Bill Walker had boundaries.
What is it with you? You asked a simple question....
>>> Am I reading this right.
And TOG gave a simple (and accurate) answer......
>> No ;-)
>>
Which you totally ignored and went on the offensive....again.....
Have you noticed how often it is that 'interpretation' starts these
hissy-fits?
You must have thought something was not looking right or you wouldn't
have asked the question...."Am I reading this right".....and when it's
shown to you that you weren't reading it right (or reading it another
way)....off you went. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question!!
don (Calgary)
>don (Calgary) wrote:
><snip childish name calling and nah,nah,nah with tongue poked out
>childish response>
>
>>
>> Even Bill Walker had boundaries.
>
>
>What is it with you? You asked a simple question....
>
>
>>>> Am I reading this right.
>
>
>And TOG gave a simple (and accurate) answer......
>
>
>>> No ;-)
>>>
>
>
>Which you totally ignored and went on the offensive....again.....
Geez, Offensive? By Reeky standards I am being unfailingly courteous.
>
>Have you noticed how often it is that 'interpretation' starts these
>hissy-fits?
You and Neil are the ones having a hissy fit. I couldn't care less
about either of you.
>
>You must have thought something was not looking right or you wouldn't
>have asked the question...."Am I reading this right".....and when it's
>shown to you that you weren't reading it right (or reading it another
>way)....off you went. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question!!
First of all, I was talking with Mark. He seemed to understand quite
well what I was asking and he answered me civility.
Neil then started trolling for an argument. I declined to engage. When
Neil realized I wasn't going to bite he decided to toss a little more
chum in the water by insulting my father. I pointed out, quite
correctly he had sunk to a new low.
It's no big deal. You and Neil seem to want to make it one though.
BrianNZ
No big deal at all. Just pointing out the obvious in case you missed it.
You read it wrong.....
The Older Gentleman
> Just pointing out the obvious in case you missed it.
>
> You read it wrong.....
Quite.
End of, as far as I'm concerned.
The Older Gentleman
> If you are referring to the Avro Arrow, that was one of the strangest
> political decisions I have heard of. Not only did they destroy all the
> patterns and tooling, they cut up five functioning planes and
> dismantled several others, still on the assembly line. All for scrap
> metal.
Same with the TSR2. Aircraft and tooling destroyed.
The Older Gentleman
I think both aspects are true, although the silencing is so effective
that there's practically no exhaust note at all.
The Older Gentleman
> >Which you totally ignored and went on the offensive....again.....
>
> Geez, Offensive?
Yes
>
> First of all, I was talking with Mark.
It's a public forum. You want a private conversation, take it to email.
> He seemed to understand quite
> well what I was asking and he answered me civility.
>
> Neil then started trolling for an argument.
No. My reply was writtren *before* Mark's appeared, although as I use an
offline newsreader, and the posts don't appear instantly, it actually
appeared a mere two minutes after his.
And it was not trolling for an argument. It was just answering the
question, as Brian says.
Also, as Brian says, this latest issue was due to your failure to
understand basic English.
Again.
Vito
before managament decided to trade the monopoly for a shot at sellinf
computer time share services ....
TOG@Toil
> Just recently you have been on a trip to Chile. Now this would be a
> journey of interest for even the experienced traveler. Reading between
> the lines I would guess you are looking to relocate there. Possibly
> thinking of it as a retirement home, or maybe semi retirement. Either
> way, pretty exciting stuff.
Yes, rather fun. It's a country I now know well,
>
> Whatever the reason, you have been monitoring and contributing to
> Reeky during this journey. Without going back and tallying up your
> messages I would bet you my last two dollars more then 75% of them
> were devoted to the pissing contest you are involved with. Now you are
> back, and are trolling to start another one.
Don't be silly.
Much of the time I was devoid of any internet access - spending time
in a wooden cabin in the hills above the town of Pucon. Great stuff.
When I was online, I was usually in a hotel, and was posting, checking
emails[1], and also having to sort out a problem that cropped up at
work (a cock-up made while I was absent, and which nobody else had
noticed). Oh, and also when bored rigid in a couple of four-hour
stopovers in airports, waiting for connecting flights.
I use an offline newsreader[2], so quite frequently messages will be
stored for a while and then all released in a flood when I go online.
I have *no idea* what pissing contest you're referring to. Unless it's
your bosom buddy KrustyUS, who's been trying to stalk me for some
weeks, although it's a bit like being stalked by a mentally defective
sheep wearing Size Twelve diving boots.
Now read this carefully. You asked a question on a public newsgroup
and got a civil and entirely accurate answer, as has been observed
elsewhere.
You gave an uncivil response, in the process denying that you'd made
any error.
You were politely invited to double check, and at the same time
entirely polite and relevant postings were made to you elsewhere, just
to show absolutely no ill-will.
You spat the dummy again, here.
I asked you, and I quote: "Don't do this. Don't take this any further.
Please, don't. It does you no favours."
And you spat the dummy *again*.
And at that point, I lost patience with you. I cannot figure out what
your problem is. It's either caused by environment or genetics. You
seem to live in a nice part of the world and in the absence of any
knowledge of your personal life (though with your attitude problem, I
may be wrong) I assume it's OK.
So it's probably genetic.
As Brian observes, *every time* you start something up it's because
*you* have made a fundamental error or misinterpretation. You've even
managed to twist Brian's observation that you went on the offensive
into an accusation that you were *being offensive*.
Do yourself a favour. Take some English remedial classes or something.
Read posts carefully before replying. Read your own postings before
hitting 'Send'. We all make mistakes, and I've made them, but most
people (myself included) acknowledge them. You don't.
[1] Domestic
[2] MacSoup, and it's brilliant.
Stephen Cowell
"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote
> If I recall correctly the notice from Diefenbaker (Canada's PM at the
> time) came on the same day the Soviets launched Sputnik. Not that
> there was any connection, but it is one reason why the sudden stop to
> the program was buried in the news. The personnel working on the plane
> were told to drop what they were doing and go home. No notice, no
> controlled shutdown. Just go home, don't come back and don't take
> anything with you.
>
> Very strange.
You sent me on a reading jag...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_arrow
...which led to many interesting articles on
things like 'wave drag' and 'Sears-Haack body'.
Many things conspired against the Arrow... the
election of the Progressive administration, the
cancellation of both first- and second-choice
engine programs, the subjugation of the defense
(defence?) of Canada to NORAD, and money.
*Many* other programs in other countries were
cancelled as well... one of the reasons that both
prime candidate engines disappeared.
As to the destruction of the tooling... well, Saturn
eats his children once in a while, doesn't he?
__
Steve
.
don (Calgary)
It would be interesting to sit down with Diefenbaker for a beer or six
and listen to what he was thinking at the time.
I have heard and read of several compelling reasons for canceling the
Arrow program, which are far more convincing than the various
conspiracy tales.
Whatever the motivation, it is an interesting bit of Canadian history.
A few years ago there was a made for TV movie about the Avro Arrow. I
think Dan Akroyd played one of the leading roles. It was very well
done and I think stayed pretty close to the facts, as they are known.
The Older Gentleman
> I have heard and read of several compelling reasons for canceling the
> Arrow program, which are far more convincing than the various
> conspiracy tales.
You want aircraft conspiracy theories, look at the Miles supersonic
contender and the Bell X1.
I still reckon the TSR2 beats all, though.
Road Glidin' Don
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > I have heard and read of several compelling reasons for canceling the
> > Arrow program, which are far more convincing than the various
> > conspiracy tales.
>
> You want aircraft conspiracy theories, look at the Miles supersonic
> contender and the Bell X1.
>
> I still reckon the TSR2 beats all, though.
Hey! Are you insulting Calgary; trying to infer your favourite
conspiracy stories are better??? <g>
don (Calgary)
I Googled the TSR2 and read a bit if the history, thinking I might be
interesting to discuss the two "conspiracies", but then realized
nothing good would come of the discussion.
It is an interesting story though, but IMHO doesn't have the same
level if secrecy or subterfuge the Arrow was shrouded in. In fact two
of the TSR2's survived the purge and are still on display in aerospace
museums.
Ah crap, look what you have done. Despite my best effort I have gone
and discussed the friggin topic.
The Older Gentleman
> >Hey! Are you insulting Calgary; trying to infer your favourite
> >conspiracy stories are better??? <g>
>
> I Googled the TSR2 and read a bit if the history, thinking I might be
> interesting to discuss the two "conspiracies", but then realized
> nothing good would come of the discussion.
Shame.
Maggie Thatcher is supposed to have asked about resuscitating the TSR2
in the early 1980s, but time had marched on....