|
PuntCuncher posted:They're a great starter bike, and the new model seems hugely popular over here. Unsure when it's getting to other markets. Don't think it is, it's been around the Pacific for some time. I'd love one for city duty.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Wow, those are some awesome pictures. We never got the naked VTR250, only the faired one, and only for a handful of years 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
PuntCuncher posted:That looks like a 180 front tire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
Zool posted:That looks like a 180 front tire.  its a mini replica. Notice the cable actuated front brake and comparatively enormous grips.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
What the gently caress is going on with the "dual swingarm" bike. I'm so confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 02:11
|
|
|
CoolBlue posted:What the gently caress is going on with the "dual swingarm" bike. I'm so confused. That's hub-center steering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Wow, those are some awesome pictures. Erm.. the fared VTR? There never was a fared VTR250 to the best of my knowledge. Larger sports bikes carry the 'VTR' badging as well though. I had one of the carby VTR250's as a starter bike, great fun. One of the new injected models would make a great town-hack if they were cheap enough (and came to Australia)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
PuntCuncher posted:Erm.. the fared VTR? There never was a fared VTR250 to the best of my knowledge. Larger sports bikes carry the 'VTR' badging as well though. The VTR250s were only availiable for a while in the... (late ?) 80's. They were fully faired and cool looking little bikes. We still get the 800 here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 03:42
|
|
|
Was going to put a Hayabusa shock on the Bandit today, but it turns out that it requires filing and cutting of the frame and shock mounts on the 1st-gen Bandit, which I am not down with, so I put the OEM shock back in, and cleaned it up a bit. Click here for the full 576x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 03:49
|
|
|
Bird-o-matic posted:That's hub-center steering. That's loving badass. I've never ever heard of that. Thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Gr3y posted:The VTR250s were only availiable for a while in the... (late ?) 80's. They were fully faired and cool looking little bikes. Well holy cow, looks like the 1988 VTR250 was a fared... and ugly as sin Learn something new every day, I didn't think the VTR250 was in production until they stopped building the naked 'Spada'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 11:19
|
|
|
I honestly wish hub-centre steering had taken off rather than remaining a niche Italian curiosity. It's like the BMW telelever/paralever system but better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
The KTM RC8 has the looks of my dream bike, shame ive heard pretty bad things about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:The KTM RC8 has the looks of my dream bike, shame ive heard pretty bad things about them. Like what? Some of the first batch had some minor gear selector issues, this was fixed at a dealer service interval. Aside from that they're an utterly cracking machine in most every respect. If I didn't want to buy a house again this year I'd be parking one in my garage, no question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
"If you can read this my friend fell off"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
Went up to the local CCS/USGPRU races and got these: Full resolution photos are available free of charge on my website, in the CCS Album (found HERE) Some quick highlights that I liked: 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. Some of the weirdest body positioning I've seen, but if it gets the job done, it works!  6. One fast chica   7. One fast kiddo! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
[insert standard comment about gixxxxxer rider with bad body positioning here]
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 00:43
|
|
|
PuntCuncher posted:Like what? Poor fueling and a twitchy throttle where major issues apparently, and like you said gearboxes where causing alot of problems. KTM have just released the RC8R, all problems corrected and looks stunning. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 10:30
|
|
|
Every review I've read says the RC8R has an even twitchier throttle than the stock RC8. That said, I haven't read a single review whinging about the throttle response on the stock RC8. Where'd you get that opinion from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 10:38
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:KTM have just released the RC8R, all problems corrected and looks stunning. They had one at the tokyo show. It was being molested all day, every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 10:48
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:RC8R That's pretty much the sexiest bike I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 14:55
|
|
|
ranathari posted:Every review I've read says the RC8R has an even twitchier throttle than the stock RC8. That said, I haven't read a single review whinging about the throttle response on the stock RC8. Where'd you get that opinion from? Pretty sure I read it in BiKE magazine. The RC8R had 3 throttle settings though, I think the "race" mode is twitchy, but the other 2 are fine, or so ive read anyway. Regardless i'll still drool over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 15:54
|
|
|
ranathari posted:Every review I've read says the RC8R has an even twitchier throttle than the stock RC8. That said, I haven't read a single review whinging about the throttle response on the stock RC8. Where'd you get that opinion from? The complaints that I read about revolved around fueling...you'd get inconsistant fueling at small throttle openings, making the bike inconsistant when you're rolling on the gas in some situations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 16:28
|
|
|
Z3n posted:small throttle openings What are those?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
FunkyJunk posted:What are those? These:  Click here for the full 1200x800 image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
 Z3n posted:The complaints that I read about revolved around fueling...you'd get inconsistant fueling at small throttle openings, making the bike inconsistant when you're rolling on the gas in some situations. Yeah but, to be honest, how many supersports bikes are any good at the very bottom of the rev range? BiKE magazine had a lovely set of dyno graphs a few months back showing how much the bottom end has been slaughtered to meet emissions regulations while dumping all the performance at the top end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
ranathari posted:
Not the bottom of the rev range, small throttle openings. So when you're trying to roll on a little bit out of a corner at any RPM, you're not always going to get clean, consistant response out of the throttle. I don't know how much of that is journo nitpicking and how much of it is a real issue though. Usually that's a symptom of being leaned out like hell to pass emissions, or just a really poor stock map/jetting. And apparently it's fixed in the R model as well.  First generation bikes can often have teething issues like that...the FZ1 is a good example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Not the bottom of the rev range, small throttle openings. So when you're trying to roll on a little bit out of a corner at any RPM, you're not always going to get clean, consistant response out of the throttle. I don't know how much of that is journo nitpicking and how much of it is a real issue though. Usually that's a symptom of being leaned out like hell to pass emissions, or just a really poor stock map/jetting. And apparently it's fixed in the R model as well. Yeah, I seem to recall the early TL1000S bikes had some severe problems with that. Yamaha FJRs too, I think. It's pretty common. I read an interview in recent months (in BIKE mag I think) with a Japanese engineer, and he was quoted as saying that some of that is down to what Japan thinks we want. He said they could have easily tuned it out (in whatever sportbike it was they were talking about at the time), but that it was their feeling that westerners wanted it that way so that it felt more powerful. I think it was a Suzuki engineer, but my memory's fuzzy. Ridiculous if true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 21:58
|
|
|
Gentlemen, don't hover your foot over the shift lever when casually sitting at a light in neutral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQQM0-Xumvs
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 22:23
|
|
|
Spiffness posted:Gentlemen, don't hover your foot over the shift lever when casually sitting at a light in neutral. Looks like maybe he just planted his left foot in a greasy spot and slipped?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
MiamiKid posted:Looks like maybe he just planted his left foot in a greasy spot and slipped? Yeah, dude looks big enough to flat foot it though, wonder why he only uses one foot... Edit: Shift lever would have been if his right foot was on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 23:55
|
|
|
The discussion where I found the video said he hit the shift lever. Unless someone was just talking nonsense. Your right though, I guess he couldnt have hit it with his foot, but maybe chocked it in with his leg? In any case, don't be that guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
I've had my bike snap into 1st for no reason a few times. After concentrating on setting it in what feels like the middle of the neutral groove, it hasn't happened again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 09:08
|
|
|
Ola posted:I've had my bike snap into 1st for no reason a few times. After concentrating on setting it in what feels like the middle of the neutral groove, it hasn't happened again. people go into neutral at lights? Why not just hold the clutch in for 15 seconds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
Watommi posted:people go into neutral at lights? Why not just hold the clutch in for 15 seconds? I wish I lived in make-believe land where lights lasted 15 seconds. However around here with road construction and poor design, I can wait as long as 3 minutes before a light turns. Not exactly comfortable when I do it a times inside of 10 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
Watommi posted:people go into neutral at lights? Why not just hold the clutch in for 15 seconds? Because they need to adjust their gloves/gps/ipod/mirrors/whateverthefuckelse? Sure, you should "always be ready to get out of the way" but sometimes you have to, you know, do poo poo, and some folks do it at a traffic light instead of pulling over. edit: also what Taisa said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah 15 seconds isn't accurate, the light closest to my place can take 1:20 to change. I just think it's easier to hold the clutch. vvI'm sorry I mortally offended you by making a comment, rear end in a top hat.vv Watommi fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
Watommi posted:Yeah 15 seconds isn't accurate, the light closest to my place can take 1:20 to change. I just think it's easier to hold the clutch. Cool story, Hansel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
Heh I put it into neutral at most lights as soon as there is a car stopped behind me. I also put my right foot on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Watommi posted:people go into neutral at lights? Why not just hold the clutch in for 15 seconds? I'm always in 1st at lights, not because I think I'll be able to spring forth like some cuckoo clock from the Matrix when a threat appears, just because I'm ready to go and the wait is usually short. The gear popping stuff happened other places. Not very fun when it happens on a pier with your front wheel two feet from the edge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2009 00:04
|
|