|
Doctor Zero posted:I can understand putting it in neutral, hell I'll do it myself if there's a blocker behind or there's no traffic, but the kickstand down?? Is it really so hard to balance the bike? My DRZ has me on my tiptoes when stopped. Having to hold it up at a stoplight for 3 or 4 minutes is annoying as opposed to being able to just relax on the pegs. I don't understand why I wouldn't do that and be more comfortable. Any situation where I'd put it in neutral I'd be just as safe resting on the kickstand. Its not something I do every time I stop, just if I've got to sit for a long period and have sufficient protection behind me. pr0zac fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Apr 15, 2009 |
#
?
Apr 15, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
pr0zac posted:My DRZ has me on my tiptoes when stopped. Having to hold it up at a stoplight for 3 or 4 minutes is annoying as opposed to being able to just relax on the pegs. I don't understand why I wouldn't do that and be more comfortable. Any situation where I'd put it in neutral I'd be just as safe resting on the kickstand. Its not something I do every time I stop, just if I've got to sit for a long period and have sufficient protection behind me. Ah, yeah. That makes sense. I didn't even think about tall bikes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:Ah, yeah. That makes sense. I didn't even think about tall bikes. Also it makes it a lot easier to pull out my cell phone to send text messages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
Has there been any survey done of CA preferences? Just from my basic browsing, it seems like 80% or better of the forum is into Sport bikes, a small smattering into Standards, and practically nobody intro Cruisers. I'm not big into cruisers myself, partially due to comfort/manuverability and partially because the whole "ZOMG OC CHOPPERZ im gonna get a harley someday!!!" trendiness. Is it just that goons into cruisers don't post much, or is the forum just heavily sporter-oriented? Just wondering if it's kinda like Musicians' Lounge, where if you're not into Metal or Indie, or maybe electronica, you're pretty much in an ignored minority. I do acoustic folk/traditional, so I pretty much might as well post my musical threads in GBS since ML will get them about 20 views and no replies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 07:28
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
DJ megamix thread is the best thread.  Pretty sure there's a few Harley posters and certainly quite a few metric cruisers. Maybe they're not so visible among the posters cause they're out riding? Nah, it's all the chrome messing up the wireless signals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 08:02
|
|
|
I don't imagine that many people in here would devote themselves to one particular camp or another, especially when some (okay, quite a few) own multiple bikes that fill several roles. Me? I'm into air cooled standards, sport tourers, and naked bikes. Sure, I also have a sport bike, but it's a track tool, not something that I'd relish taking out for a nice cruise around the city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 09:20
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Has there been any survey done of CA preferences? Just from my basic browsing, it seems like 80% or better of the forum is into Sport bikes, a small smattering into Standards, and practically nobody intro Cruisers. I just got a HD this month after having sportbikes for the past 8 or 9 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 15:54
|
|
|
OrangeFurious posted:As I recall Wisconsin and Arizona are also sans chapeau. New Mexico doesn't require a helmet for people over 18.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Has there been any survey done of CA preferences? Just from my basic browsing, it seems like 80% or better of the forum is into Sport bikes, a small smattering into Standards, and practically nobody intro Cruisers. Its the demographics. CA is a younger group of people mostly in the range of 20's to early 30's I would imagine. Cruisers arent huge with that age group. CA also tends to be pretty concerned with functionality, versatility and usability, which cruisers arent really known for. They're good for cuising, and thats about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 16:20
|
|
|
Bike roles only go so deep in my opinion. You don't need a commuter bike to commute, your rear end will get to work just fine on a Goldwing or a raked out chopper (condition of rear end on arrival notwithstanding). You don't need a touring bike to tour, a Ninja 250 or GS500 will get you to Alaska if you're man enough. I like naked standards but there's nothing in particular I do that couldn't be done on just about any other bike. Buying and riding what you like is the most important bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 16:27
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Has there been any survey done of CA preferences? Just from my basic browsing, it seems like 80% or better of the forum is into Sport bikes, a small smattering into Standards, and practically nobody intro Cruisers. I've got a big-rear end heavy cruiser and I post a fair amount. It's just that every post isn't  MY CRUISER so you might not notice as much.But yeah, it seems sport bikers outnumber us cruiser owners. I think Phat_abert is right about the age groups though, I'm sure I'm considerably older than most here. This is what I don't get though: TapTheForwardAssist posted:I'm not big into cruisers myself, partially due to comfort/manuverability Phat_Albert posted:CA also tends to be pretty concerned with functionality, versatility and usability, which cruisers arent really known for. They're good for cuising, and thats about it. I don't think you guys understand what a cruiser is, or that you're assuming all cruisers are raked-out choppers and bobbers or something. I admit that a cruiser can't typically take turns like a sportbike, and that they might not be as versitile as a dual-sport, but comfort? Really? Usability? What the hell? Doctor Zero fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Apr 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
Usability? Cruisers tend to be bigger and heavier than an equivalent standard. Bigger and heavier means less fuel economy and a tougher time lane splitting/filtering, plus harder to cram into tiny parking spaces. I'd file that under the heading of less usable. I'm not saying they're useless for anything except a sunday ride in the sunshine, but partially because of the reasons above, and partially becuase of the clique that ride them, they're not known for anything except transporting douchebags or gleaming. Not particularly known for being able to fit the shopping for a family of 4 onboard. There is a bloke who uses his HD something regularly to get shopping. I've seen him at Tescos at least 3 times in the past couple of months. In other news, I've discovered I can fit four cans of Carling in the space under my seat. I didn't buy the Carling, it was given to me as a tip for the house-move today, I don't like the stuff. I did have to fit the last 2 cans in my thigh pockets, w00t for combat trousers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
Orange Someone posted:I'm not saying they're useless for anything except a sunday ride in the sunshine, but partially because of the reasons above, and partially becuase of the clique that ride them, they're not known for anything except transporting douchebags or gleaming. Not particularly known for being able to fit the shopping for a family of 4 onboard. Maybe things are different in the UK, but in the US most cruisers seem to have full hard bags and a top case. The only thing I see regularly with more storage space are goofy adventure touring bikes with 10 gallon fuel tanks and 200 gallons of storage. I have never ridden a cruiser, but it seems to me like lots of storage and really low seat heights make for very usable bikes, especially compared to all of the 35"+ seats on dual sports and adventure bikes. I've had plenty of short friends who can't even get one foot all the way down on a dual sport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:I don't think you guys understand what a cruiser is, or that you're assuming all cruisers are raked-out choppers and bobbers or something. I admit that a cruiser can't typically take turns like a sportbike, and that they might not be as versitile as a dual-sport, but comfort? Really? Usability? What the hell? Comfort's an intensely personal thing anyways, but I find that cruisers of the feet forward variety get very uncomfortable, very quickly. The wind protection is awesome, but the seating position is poor. In terms of usability, I think they're fine...most of them have more storage space than your typical bike due to being outfitted with saddlebags/top boxes. I just don't dig cruisers because they don't do anything for me. You won't see me turn down rides on cruisers just because they're cruisers, but they're not what I gravitate towards when I look at motorcycles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
I rode a cruiser (Suzuki Boulevard M50) for 3 years, and just recently got a sportbike. The cruiser was great for a lot of reasons: 1) My girlfriend would ride on the back. 2) It was an acceptable tourer. 3) 50 mpg, all the time. 4) I looked great on it, in a wifebeater with my longish hear blowing in the wind. I'm ATGATT now, especially after my last crash, where hard-knuckled gloves saved me from going on disability. edit: 5) The cruiser was really cheap to insure. edit 2: Z3n posted:Comfort's an intensely personal thing anyways, but I find that cruisers of the feet forward variety get very uncomfortable, very quickly. The wind protection is awesome, but the seating position is poor. My friend considers his ZX-10 to be very comfortable, and couldn't ride my cruiser for more than 10 minutes without cramping up. When I rode his bike for the first time, every joint in my body was screaming in pain. To each their own. MrKatharsis fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:38
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:1) My girlfriend would ride on the back. Forgot about that one. The g/f said the back of the Harley was very comfortable and stable feeling. quote:My friend considers his ZX-10 to be very comfortable, and couldn't ride my cruiser for more than 10 minutes without cramping up. When I rode his bike for the first time, every joint in my body was screaming in pain. To each their own. I cannot ride any ducati sportbike without instant, debilitating wrist pain. My friend's 848 was miserable on the straights of the track, let alone in real world riding situations. Same with the 749. When it's so bad that I'm suffering during the 15 seconds it takes to get from the start of the front straight to the finish, I know I can never own one as a streetbike. Yet my friend DDs his. I have a friend who fits RC51s perfectly...400 mile days, no problem, on a bike that's not considered comfortable in the slightest by the majority of people. Comfort is pretty much the most subjective thing you can get into on a motorcycle. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Forgot about that one. The g/f said the back of the Harley was very comfortable and stable feeling. I personally find leaning over the tanks of most sportbikes far more comfortable than sitting up semi straight on a cruiser. That being said I don't know any bike that I've ever gotten off of that I don't walk bow legged for 2-3 minutes at least afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
I road a Honda ACE for a few years and loved it. If it hadn't been for the horrific unreliability and absolute lack of power I'd proll'y still have it. Honda's shouldn't be in the shop seven months of the year, and 1100cc engines shouldn't start to poo poo out at 90mph. The ACE was comfortable, easily accommodated a passenger, could hold a ton of poo poo with no more than a bungie net, and didn't look completely retarded with custom paint.  Fake Edit: I don't know what it is about sport bikes, but most manufacturers (i.e., Japanese bikes) tend to put the most god-awful retard paint jobs on the things. I cringe every time I see a Hyabusa covered in kanji.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:52
|
|
|
Ponies ate my Bagel posted:I personally find leaning over the tanks of most sportbikes far more comfortable than sitting up semi straight on a cruiser. That being said I don't know any bike that I've ever gotten off of that I don't walk bow legged for 2-3 minutes at least afterwards. You should really try a true standard, something like a Versys, SV650N, most of the BMW line, etc. For me, the best ones have a slightly forward lean to reach the bars, with your pegs directly below you or slightly back. Get a corbin seat and have some decent wind protection, and I can go for days on one. Without the wind protection I try and keep it around 65 or lower and it's fine. Edit: Most supersports and standards do lack kickass paint jobs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
Triumph and ducati seem to have the best paint jobs. If you've got a good looking bike, crazy graphics just distract from the shape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Triumph and ducati seem to have the best paint jobs. If you've got a good looking bike, crazy graphics just distract from the shape.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:58
|
|
|
Z3n posted:You should really try a true standard, something like a Versys, SV650N, most of the BMW line, etc. For me, the best ones have a slightly forward lean to reach the bars, with your pegs directly below you or slightly back. Get a corbin seat and have some decent wind protection, and I can go for days on one. Without the wind protection I try and keep it around 65 or lower and it's fine. I think I'll see if I can find some to sit on. I have some back issues ith lower back bowing in pretty badly and so leaning forward helps me alot. I think it's sway back or something like it. PS: I love bimmers but they seem so damned expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 17:59
|
|
|
wzm posted:Maybe things are different in the UK, but in the US most cruisers seem to have full hard bags and a top case. The only thing I see regularly with more storage space are goofy adventure touring bikes with 10 gallon fuel tanks and 200 gallons of storage. I have never ridden a cruiser, but it seems to me like lots of storage and really low seat heights make for very usable bikes, especially compared to all of the 35"+ seats on dual sports and adventure bikes. I've had plenty of short friends who can't even get one foot all the way down on a dual sport. It is a different culture, and unfortunately the stereotype over here does actually exist, and a lot of riders do play into that stereotype. The majority of HD/cruiser riders seem to be 40-something people with midlife crisis. OK, that is the stereotype, and before I rode I was convinced that it was just a stereotype portrayed by tv and it didn't really exist. Then I started riding, and discovered that, to my horror, it does exist. Not every HD rider is having a midlife crisis, but they do seem to be older. Could just be that they used to ride other things, and then found that a HD/cruiser is more comfortable as they get older. Oh yeah, the other thing I was convinced was a stereotype was that HD riders are snobs who only recognise other HD riders exist. Sad that it is that way out in the world. Most cruisers I see over here don't have a top box, and the large majority don't have the full hard bags either. I've seen a fair few of the soft saddlebags, but I tend to see people without any sort of luggage capacity. It does depend on why you ride. If you want to carve twisties, a cruiser's not for you. If you want to tour and experience the countryside (and a cruiser doesn't kill your rear end, like z3n), then I expect a cruiser with lots of luggage would be brilliant. Personally, I use my bike as my primary means of transport, often through busy traffic and thus I wouldn't need/like/want the extra size and bulk of a cruiser. Part of that might be down to the fact that Britain tends to be a lot older than the US, and our roads are so so much narrower most of the time. I'd love to have a cruiser, or even a decent test ride of one. I've only ever sat on one when it was stopped, and it seemed OK, maybe better than OK because it was big, and I'm tall so it was more in proportion to me. Maybe I would want a cruiser, but there's always that lil' voice in the back of my mind yammering about HD/cruiser riders being dicks. It's the same thing as BMW riders, the stereotype is that they're really old, and I was looking at BMW bikes when I was getting my new bike, but that same voice was yammering about the stereotype again. I apologise for beating z3n in length, but I wanted to explain how I felt accurately. Maybe other UK riders could speak up from their point of view. People in the Midlands tend to be dicks anyway, so it may be distorting my data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 18:00
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Triumph and ducati seem to have the best paint jobs. If you've got a good looking bike, crazy graphics just distract from the shape. Agreed. Note also that they're both European brands. I think the  paint is mostly a Japanese thing. Ponies ate my Bagel posted:PS: I love bimmers but they seem so damned expensive. I'm not sure where you are (etc etc etc), but in California the CHP uses BMWs (R1200 RTs, I think) and they're fairly easy to pick up at auction for $5-$6k. Obviously they'll have a ton of miles on 'em, but they've also been well maintained. Orange Someone posted:It does depend on why you ride. If you want to carve twisties, a cruiser's not for you. Please come out here and inform cruiser riders of this. I'm not particularly aggressive in the twisties, but I've been stuck behind packs of obnoxious cruiser riders going twenty miles an hour in a forty-five zone everyone else takes at 65. Nothing like a pack of Big Macho Guys (tm) terrified of a gentle curve. As far as the stereotypes go, it's worth mentioning that sportbike riders (including the guys who think anything with a fairing is a sportbike) are known to be equally, albeit differently, obnoxious. OrangeFurious fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Apr 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 18:03
|
|
|
Z3n posted:You should really try a true standard, something like a Versys, SV650N, most of the BMW line, etc. For me, the best ones have a slightly forward lean to reach the bars, with your pegs directly below you or slightly back. Yes. If the seat is right you really can't beat a standard for all day riding. Also you can pretend to be a sport bike rider by putting your feet on the passenger pegs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
8ender posted:Yes. If the seat is right you really can't beat a standard for all day riding. Also you can pretend to be a sport bike rider by putting your feet on the passenger pegs. Or a cruiser rider by putting your feet on the radiator/frame sliders/top triple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Comfort's an intensely personal thing anyways, but I find that cruisers of the feet forward variety get very uncomfortable, very quickly. The wind protection is awesome, but the seating position is poor. Granted. Also keep in mind that not all cruisers have extreme feet forward riding position just like not all sportbikes make you sit like you're hugging a barrel. I do agree that each bike and rider is unique though, which is why I was trying not to point out specifics. For example, I find the Boulevard to be uncomfortable after about 3 seconds sitting on it. However, Cruisers, as nearly part of the definition, have a more relaxed riding style which is why I was surprised to see them labeled as stereotypically uncomfortable. Same goes with utility - I mean that's practically what cruisers are built for. They can easily take bags & trunks (again, in general). I grant that they tend to be heavy, but lane splitting is illegal in 48 of the 50 states so most riders won't care that you can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:Granted. Also keep in mind that not all cruisers have extreme feet forward riding position just like not all sportbikes make you sit like you're hugging a barrel. I do agree that each bike and rider is unique though, which is why I was trying not to point out specifics. For example, I find the Boulevard to be uncomfortable after about 3 seconds sitting on it. However, Cruisers, as nearly part of the definition, have a more relaxed riding style which is why I was surprised to see them labeled as stereotypically uncomfortable. This is also where you get into the gray area of things. How do you define a bike that's got an upright seating position but your feet go down rather than forward? The traditional sportbike is bars low, rear end up, feet back. Standard is upright or slightly forward upper body, feet down, and cruiser is upright upper body and forward feet. At what point does it go from cruiser to standard and vice versa? In the end, though, none of it really matters. What fits you, is comfortable, etc. is good, and what doesn't fit you isn't. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that. And it's not really the feet forward riding position that makes cruisers uncomfortable, it's that the rear suspension is typically short travel or non-existant and the sitting bolt upright means that your spine takes any hits hard. edit: VVVV was wondering the same. VVVV Z3n fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Apr 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:I grant that they tend to be heavy, but lane splitting is illegal in 48 of the 50 states so most riders won't care that you can't do that. Typo or did I miss the news? I thought only california was down?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Typo or did I miss the news? I thought only california was down? You know, I thought it was legal in something like Texas or something "out west", but after research it seems it's only legal in CA. Maybe I heard there was a state that was thinking about making it legal, I dunno. v  v
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:My friend considers his ZX-10 to be very comfortable, and couldn't ride my cruiser for more than 10 minutes without cramping up. When I rode his bike for the first time, every joint in my body was screaming in pain. To each their own. I think those people are just much more tolerant to riding a bike like that than others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:You know, I thought it was legal in something like Texas or something "out west", but after research it seems it's only legal in CA. Maybe I heard there was a state that was thinking about making it legal, I dunno. v
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 20:46
|
|
|
so as I merged onto the freeway (I-8 in El Cajon) a couple hours ago, I looked across about 6 lanes of traffic and saw a guy doing the huge "HI GRANDMA!" wave at me from the opposing lanes. I wondered if he was a poster from here, what with all the goofy discussions about waving we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 21:28
|
|
|
Maybe it was ... your grandma? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
Speaking of cruisers and foot forward: I saw a parked bike recently, some sort of cruiser, that had the big pipe "engine guard" or whatever, huge loop of pipe that stuck out a foot on either side of the frame just behind the front wheel. There were pegs on said loop, a good foot ahead of even the forward driver pegs. What in the hell are those pegs for? Do people actually prop their feet up like they're resting them on their office desk? I'd think you'd be almost Barca-lounger kicked back if you used those pegs. Or do they have some other use I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
Didn't somebody post a video recently where some squid in NJ was discussing (and performing) lane splitting there? Edit: ^^^^ I've seen people lounging their feet on those while riding on the highway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Speaking of cruisers and foot forward: I saw a parked bike recently, some sort of cruiser, that had the big pipe "engine guard" or whatever, huge loop of pipe that stuck out a foot on either side of the frame just behind the front wheel. The huge loop of pipe is indeed an engine guard, used to protect the vital parts in case of a tip over. The pegs are indeed "highway pegs" used to rest your feet when cruising on the highway. A lot of people install engine guards specifically to mount highway pegs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
Highways pegs are also pretty comfy, if you've got the seat and handlebars to go with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 22:47
|
|
|
OrangeFurious posted:Highways pegs are also pretty comfy, if you've got the seat and handlebars to go with it. I know the vast majority of braking power is in the hand-brake, but still I'd be uncomfortable having my foot that far from the brake. Not to mention being nowhere near the clutch on the left. Whilst on the subject of weird cruisers, and stereotypes vs. reality and all that: what do actual no-poo poo criminal biker gangs ride? Do they actually ride Harleys and view anyone riding non-US bikes with contempt? I'm kinda curious about the whole thing, but not sure if my wider interest is more an A/T issue. I'm just confused on what's Hollywood and what's actual reality. Kinda along those lines, and about the practicality of the bike aspect vice the bikes just being an identifiying feature of an otherwise pretty standard criminal organization: I found it most amusing when I read that when the various Quebecois gangs affiliated with motorcycle gangs to shore up their strength, the gangs actually required them to start riding bikes. So you get a bunch of middleaged Quebecois liquor smugglers and heroin dealers out tooling around in a parking lot trying not to drop their bike for a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I know the vast majority of braking power is in the hand-brake, but still I'd be uncomfortable having my foot that far from the brake. Not to mention being nowhere near the clutch on the left. Highways pegs are meant to be used on long, empty roads. A lot of cruiser styling and comfort is based around the idea of nigh-endless stretches of smooth pavement with miles of visibility. On that note, I heard a story about the development of cruisers vs. sporter/standards. The gist was that American geography lends itself to wide open spaces and long, straight roads. Cruisers were built to accommodate this and be comfortable for those lengthy trips. Standards and sports came from Japanese and European geographic concerns, which typically had less flat, open space and more need to navigate dense areas like thousand year old cities. I've also heard the styling grew out of the equestrian traditions in those areas - cowboys vs. jockeys. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2009 23:24
|
|