|
Yeah, that article is basically poo poo. I don't think theres a person out there who agrees with half those decisions. Very arbitrary.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
They had this awesome thing at #1: Honda Pacific Coast It's like the old fashioned big-ruckus. At least they managed the Victory Vision to number 3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
Jabs posted:Hell, if he didn't do anything to finalize the sale (i.e. get it titled and registered and insured and all that) to make it his, DZ is right, and it's still your bike (and, like DZ pointed out, your responsibility) - which means that you can reclaim it *today* for $120, file for a lost title, and throw that sumbitch back up on Craigslist and sell it again. Hard to see a downside to getting (possibly up to) double your money out of that. Yeah the problem is that I'm too much of a nice guy and I wouldn't ever try to gip someone out like that. I'm going to give him plenty of time to contact me before I try to sell it again. If it's in good enough condition I'll actually probably just keep it and sell my KLR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
He's got the shittiest taste I can possibly imagine. These kinds of lists only exist to piss people off and get links. Edit: Hah! I hadn't even got to the part where he poo poo on my bike. gently caress him. TheCosmicMuffet fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:He's got the shittiest taste I can possibly imagine. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:Your bike is ugly, my bike is ugly, so what. Those are pretty terrible lists. Dude seems to just hate bikes in general
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
I agree with the Bimota Tesi 2D and 3D in the bizzarobikes category. They just scream "design school jerk-off project". I also agree with the speed triple, if only for the rear end-ugly rear wheel and the "oops we forgot headlights, oh well, just use these extras we had laying around" headlight look. I agree with everything in the cruiser category, because, well, cruisers lol. Although, I pretty much disagree with the Naked Bikes category. Everything there is gorgeous with the exception of the triumph Rocket (another leftover headlight special), the Qlink, and the Aprilia 6.5 The older cruisers category is spot on, mainly because it contains a bunch of 80's Japanese cruisers, which are the worst of the worst. The supermoto list is retarded, some of them arent even supermotos, and none of them are horrible looking Basically a big link grabbing article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
It amuses me that he loves the ST1300, but hates the FRJ, the Concours 14, and the Vision Tour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:I agree with everything in the cruiser category, because, well, cruisers lol. look, whatever, but if you can keep your bullshit to the thread where, say, it's all ninja all the time, so people expect to read something like that, or the supermotard thread, then we can continue to have peace and harmony in the neutral areas. I can't fathom why anyone would give a poo poo about a genre of bike one way or the other. There's enough designs out there to appeal to literally anything--whether they'd ride it or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
Out of coincidence I clicked "The Top 100 Ugliest Motorcycles In History - Top 10 Hypermotards" and number 1 was the ducati Hypermotard. Welp, that's just incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:
I love the looks of the 6.5, just goes to show you that tastes are different. I know my tastes are suspect, as I willingly and willfully bought an Aztek. I do find Japanese cruisers to be uniformly hideous.Motor Trend once referred to the "insideous gee-gaw" school of design in reference to Japanese designs, and the Japanese kind of miss the point. The chrome whores aren't going to go Tojo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
I don't think he quite grasped the idea of what a supermoto is supposed to look like if he put the DRZ on that list. But yeah, link grabbing, blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
wow i didn't realize my KLR was a supermoto
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 07:24
|
|
|
I'm really impressed with yamaha. I put lots and lots of hours on my WR last year, and my cylinder looks brand new, and my valves are 100% in spec. Still replacing the timing chain and putting in a high compression piston though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
SUZUKI--GS500 posted:why i think the SV is not a good starter bike...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
So I spent the last week riding my first 600cc sportbike, a 1994 CBR 600 F2. I really don't get the massive criticism they get here as streetbikes. Would I recommend them as a first bike? Hell no. Would I recommend them as a streetbike for an intermediate rider? Hell yes. First off, the power delivery. Yeah, it definitely has more kick in the upper rev range, but it certainly is no slouch under 6k. I still have more use-able power off this thing than I did from my Yamaha Maxim 750. I was expecting this death machine that would turn demonic after 8k, but really, even with a pinned throttle in 2nd gear working through the powerband, I didn't encounter anything too harsh. It was fast, but predictable. I did notice that it tends to bog down below 20mph, but anything over that I can ride around just fine. Hell, I was cruising in SIXTH GEAR at 45mph without a problem. Secondly, the ergonomics. This is a more comfortable bike for me (5'9", 145 pounds) than my previous standard UJM's. I've already ridden it for hours at a time and was infinitely more comfortable on it, especially my back, than the standards. It feels like I can support myself much more with my legs now, and I'm pretty good shape so my core muscles help to not load up my wrists on the bars. Lastly, the handling. Oh god, the handling. It's so stable and planted. On my UJM's, which were admittedly old and probably had bad bearings, anything other than straight up produced some headshake and general instability. This bike feels exactly the same no matter where I'm leaned at. I don't know if it's older CBR's in general (I do know the clipons are higher than many modern sportbikes and the seat is quite nice as well), or the fact that I happen to have the correct proportions for the bike, but I find it a joy to ride on the street. I don't see the tendencies some people list against 600cc sportbikes like them only being happy going over 60mph, or having un-useable power under 6k. That said, I can see why this isn't a beginner bike. It's touchy, and it expects good inputs from the rider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
I suspect a modern 600CC SS might tear your brain in half.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
FuzzyWuzzyBear posted:So I spent the last week riding my first 600cc sportbike, a 1994 CBR 600 F2. I really don't get the massive criticism they get here as streetbikes. Would I recommend them as a first bike? Hell no. Would I recommend them as a streetbike for an intermediate rider? Hell yes. I'm loving mine so far, a 93, I don't think it would be a horrible starter bike, I find the power pretty easy to modulate and it's got plenty of power below 6k but above that it becomes quite a screamer. it's seating position is comfortable for me, i'm about 5'11'' and 190 lbs and the bike fits me well. That said it is a little more sensitive in the steering inputs and the engine likes to rev, but I never had a problem getting it to move slowly. I can't help but get a grin on my face accelerating in 1st or 2nd gear to the redline only to realize i've just about hit 70 in 2nd. :O I love my GS and I should be getting it back this week and I intent on keeping it, it's got a sort of different character to it that is entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
An old F2 is basically nothing like a modern 600. You've got a relatively upright seating position, an engine that hasn't had all the power shoved to the top end of the rev range, relaxed non-aggressive setup, good brakes but not one finger stoppie ones, and a low seat. I doubt you could powerwheelie an F2 with regearing or pretty serious finangling. It's not a bad bike and someone with their head on straight could probably start on one without too serious of an issue. They made 85 HP out of the factory, but I'd bet that age has robbed a couple of those ponies out of most of the bikes around. Basically the only thing that's bad about it in terms of a newb rider is that HP, and that's mitigated by the fact that most of that HP is at the very top end. If you chop off the last 4000RPM, it'd be a great starter bike, and considering it's hard to "accidentally" get up there, as it just doesn't accelerate like a modern bike, it's not much of a concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
FuzzyWuzzyBear posted:So I spent the last week riding my first 600cc sportbike, a 1994 CBR 600 F2. I really don't get the massive criticism they get here as streetbikes. Would I recommend them as a first bike? Hell no. Would I recommend them as a streetbike for an intermediate rider? Hell yes. Modern 600s make about 45% more horsepower than your bike, and has been said, place the rider much more aggressively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
Whats considered a modern sportbike these days? anything made after 2000, or since they started using fuel injection, etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Hell the ZZR600 is literally just an '00-'02 model ZX6R, which was considered a supersport at the time. Nowadays they call the ZZR a sport-tourer, and it's only been 8 years since that bike was considered to be on the same tier that modern CBRs/GSXRs/etc are on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Whats considered a modern sportbike these days? anything made after 2000, or since they started using fuel injection, etc? I would imagine any model that makes power numbers relatively similar to the current generation brand new models
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Whats considered a modern sportbike these days? anything made after 2000, or since they started using fuel injection, etc? Maybe 2002+? I'd say anything that makes over 100hp. I'd also say that once they moved to the more aggressive track focus, which was around 02. The CBR600RR, the 03+ ZX6R, 02+ R6. The GSX-Rs got more aggressive a little earlier, but the power didn't really kick in until the early 2ks. Before that the racebikes weren't quite as top end biased, weren't quite as race focused, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:There's enough designs out there to appeal to literally anything--whether they'd ride it or not. Yep. You can say that again! Kenny Rogers fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Feb 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
Use the 300 tire Paul Sr.-NOOOOOOOOOO http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2010/02/american-chopper-cancelled.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:Use the 300 tire Paul Sr.-NOOOOOOOOOO You know, God has a hosed up sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Know what's awesome? Having a bike all set up for touring and being laid off with a fair amount of money set aside. Know what's less awesome? Bein' laid off in the dead of winter. e: No I am not studding my tires you lunatics
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Well duh... ... Sell your house, THEN stud your tires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
Phy posted:Know what's awesome? Having a bike all set up for touring and being laid off with a fair amount of money set aside. uhaul it south
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
Ninja 650 update: The bike hasn't been released by the police yet - I don't know what that means, but it's racking up $20 a day in fees until they let it out. It was trashed, painted black, and the ignition was destroyed with a screw driver, but it's at least in rideable condition since it was found on the side of the road. Got my information second hand. Any idea what the police hold is? edit: supposedly total cost to pick it up will be $500, which sucks, but I imagine it's still worth that much in parts hayden. fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Feb 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Phy posted:Know what's awesome? Having a bike all set up for touring and being laid off with a fair amount of money set aside. Stud yourself until the weather gets warmer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
Also I went to register the KLR I bought a few months ago and I'm absolutely baffled by all these fees: Title application fee - $13 Texas Mobility Fund fee - $15 Terp Fee - $5 Sales Tax - $50 Transfer - $30 Plate Sticker - $1 Reg Fee - DPS - $0.30 Reflectorization Fee - $10 County Road Bridge Add-On Fee - $10 Automation Fee - $1 I mean seriously, I went there expecting to pay $50, and I wound up paying $127. What the gently caress is a reflectorization fee?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Also I went to register the KLR I bought a few months ago and I'm absolutely baffled by all these fees: They're just breaking out the poo poo that gets tacked on to registration fees to pay for special programs. For example, in TN something like $3 of your registration goes to the MSF. They just don't break it out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
It's also frustrating from the standpoint that they should do this crap out of regular sales tax - but instead of looking bad for increasing the tax rate, they just sneak that poo poo in everywhere they can. It's pretty bad when the government operates like a slimy used car salesman. I honestly don't give a poo poo over the $70 extra, it's just the principle of the thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
hayden. posted:It's also frustrating from the standpoint that they should do this crap out of regular sales tax - but instead of looking bad for increasing the tax rate, they just sneak that poo poo in everywhere they can. It's pretty bad when the government operates like a slimy used car salesman. I honestly don't give a poo poo over the $70 extra, it's just the principle of the thing. It's not sneaky, it actually makes sense. The idea is that the general populace doesn't want to pay for motorcycle programs (or whatever) and that the special programs don't want their funds raided when the budget shortfalls hit (because the money doesn't come out of the general funds). It makes it far harder to kill a program if it is specially funded, and is supposed to ensure funding for a small segment of the population. You want to ride bikes? You pay for the MSF. Of course, in reality they end up raiding the special funds for cash when they get in trouble anyway, even though they aren't supposed to. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
I've been sitting here figuring out how to phrase my argument against that, but I'm tired and words fail me. I think you're wrong, but it's obviously a matter of opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
I think the thing that's most annoying is sales tax on used vehicles. Tax has already been paid on them once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
hayden. posted:I've been sitting here figuring out how to phrase my argument against that, but I'm tired and words fail me. I think you're wrong, but it's obviously a matter of opinion. Huh? It's not opinion. In TN at least that's the idea behind those special fees. I wasn't attempting to say if it's right or wrong, just that there's nothing "sneaky" behind it (unless you find the special programs themselves sneaky). TX might do it differently, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Z3n posted:I think the thing that's most annoying is sales tax on used vehicles. Tax has already been paid on them once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 19:58
|
|