|
My dad used to have one. Nice bike. Heavy but bulletproof. Trick 2-range transmission. That one looks to be about the cleanest and unmolested I've seen in years. If you're out of the country, Canadians seem to use Kijiji more than craigslist or autotrader.
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
I'm looking to buy a new bike this year, upgrading from a 1990 EX500 that I learned on and have ridden for a few years. Its been fun but I would like a faster, more modern sportbike. I live in Northern New Jersey, and would store the bike in a shed during the offseason months. I like to work on bikes and am mechanically inclined, though I'd like something that runs right away rather than a fixer-upper. I've been looking at SV650s specifically, but am open to all makes and models. What is a good motorcycle to jump to from this one? Price range is about $3000-$5000 for a used bike without a lot of miles.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
If you wanna go with high-revving I-4's and clip-ons (and the ability to go over 100+ with absurd ease), stay with Kawasaki and go for a Ninja ZX-6R. If you wanna go with torquey V-twins and the choice of clip-ons or handlebars (and more streetability), of course, stick with hunting for a SV650 N or S. I upgraded from my '98 EX500 to a K3 SV650N and it was a supremely awesome upgrade to me.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
I'm brand new to this, and I'm pretty much looking for a good starting bike. I live right by the highway, so highway speed is a must, even if its just 65-75 mph territory. I've been looking through craigslist and local sellers, and I'm in love with the 70's suzukis, honda cb's, etc. I found these http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/mcy/3010425703.html and http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/mcy/2995727244.html and finally http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/mcy/3005375718.html and they seem to be listed at a decent price, but I figured I should probably ask the council if it's actually a decent buy or not, assuming it's in decent shape. -- Please don't make my buy the orange 1973 suzuki gt185 the dealer down the street is listing for 2,500 (But I was able to talk him down to a cool low 2,100, that he'd only go down to for a "New rider's first bike"). BR0ME0 fucked around with this message at 02:00 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
BR0ME0 posted:I'm brand new to this, and I'm pretty much looking for a good starting bike. I live right by the highway, so highway speed is a must, even if its just 65-75 mph territory. well are you looking for a project or are you looking for a commuter? If you need primary transportation, a 40 year old bike probably isn't your best bet. 70's Hondas (and probably suzukis) are great bikes especially if you've realized that you can't have much fun with superbikes on the street. However they generally require a lot of catch-up maintenance as they're 40ish years old. They're perfect bikes if you're looking to learn maintenance, and supurbly reliable once they're up to snuff. However all of your time and money will get sunk into making sure they're up to the task.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
I'm looking to get my second bike, and am looking at the triumph street triple. Anybody have any experience with that bike?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Covert Ops Wizard posted:I'm looking to get my second bike, and am looking at the triumph street triple. Anybody have any experience with that bike? Well, I've ridden a few. Great engine, good chassis, just check there's actually oil in it before every ride. Two British bike magazines lost early-production 675s to engine failure, at least in one case due to the mysterious disappearance of most of the black stuff from a nearly-new machine. To my knowledge, Triumph never found an explanation, at least not one that was published. The "R" suits trackday and sunny day only riders - it's 90% of the way to a Daytona 675. The regular Street is better if you actually ride (shock, horror) when it's wet and/or cold. Lacks the savage initial bite from the R's daytona style brakes and has a more road-biased suspension setup. Compared to most nakeds, even "performance" ones, the R is quite rear end-up, head-down. When they were new and the regular Street was tough to get hold of I ended up picking a Hornet over the R, which gave the distinct impression it would be a real handful on a poorly surfaced, icy British b-road in February. I'm actually going for a demo ride on a Street today - just for the hell of it really. I may well get a regular Street in a year or so if it's as good as I recall. It has much better fuel economy than my Tuono (and is probably better on rear tyres...) but I need to check that the power-wheelie capacity is adequate. When the weather's lovely or the roads are covered in gravel and cow poo poo, you have to have something to keep you entertained. If you're on the shorter side, a Monster 1100 might be worth trying. I had a go on a 696 recently and it was very nice, just so cramped that it was hard to get my body off it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
The ST3 is a swell machine, keep in mind it's very much a supersport with no plastic and handlebars, so it's going to be a lot more machine than milder 600cc-range bikes like an SV or Ninja 650. Also try to get a round headlight one, these new pentagon lights look goofy and crack lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
BR0ME0 posted:
I would only consider this one, but only if it runs/rides well. Part of the issue w/ old bikes is lots of people sell them when they really haven't been riding them. When someone isn't riding one, they tend to have lots of problems. Find a bike that someone is riding regularly.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
n8r posted:I would only consider this one, but only if it runs/rides well. That one is definitely my favorite of the bunch, and I'm going to check it out tomorrow with my friend, who knows a hell of a lot more about motorcycles than myself. Thanks for the input, out of curiosity, why would you pass on the '79? I'm pretty sure I can talk him down 100-150 off, since he let it slip that he hasn't had much interest in the past month and a half.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
The guy said the '79 needs a "tune on the carbs" which could mean anything really. I guess if you test rode it and it rode fine I'd consider it. I'd wager that it runs like crap and an old bike like that it could be anything from carbs / ignition / valves (or all of the above) that need attention.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Covert Ops Wizard posted:I'm looking to get my second bike, and am looking at the triumph street triple. Anybody have any experience with that bike? Got back from messing around on a 2011 Street (non-R) and a 2012 demo Tiger 800 with a buddy. Coming off the bigger, meatier Tuono I really noticed the relative lack of torque from the Street, but also the lack of mass. The triple basically seems to start at about 8,000 rpm, and the one I was on had fairly terrible on-off fuelling in 1st to 3rd with lots of revs - very jerky. Despite the lack of torque, it wheelies wonderfully and unlike the Tuono is very easy - pick it up off the throttle in 1st and it just holds the front up for ages as it revs out, making it easy to hook second. I haven't ridden one at all for two years, and it only took me about 20 minutes to get comfortable with, which tells you how well set up it is. I've not ridden a non-R "in anger" before, and the mostly non-adjustable suspension setup is really perfect for fast road use. We did some circuits of the roundabouts and intervening straights near my work, and spring rates and damping seem perfectly judged for control into and out of corners at a brisk road pace. It might be a bit on the soft side for trackday rubber and a fast-group pace, but on the road (BT016 non-pros) will go straight from full throttle, into braking, trail up to the apex and then back on the gas with no weaving or wallowing at any point. I think all it needs to be perfect is a much lower gearing. I'd definitely have the non-R over the R. Bonus is you save a grand or whatever to spend on nice big renthal sprockets and a 'zorst. The Tiger was surprisingly good. I really hate loving adventure bikes, the crossover soft-roaders of the bike world, but the Tiger actually has a front end that works on the road. We took it back to the dealership via the shittiest roads on my commute - 30-70 mph b-roads with broken patchy surfaces, crowning, gravel patches, etc. It could be pushed quite hard into the few well-surfaced corners on the way there with a hugely positive feel from the front end and good damping from the shock finding grip on the way out (soft springs though, so the pegs will touch down). So nothing like the old gen 1 and gen 2 Tigers. Yet when we got to the twisty, lovely bits of tarmac it soaked up the road surface without any negative feedback from the front end, loss of grip or general bad manners. Braking and turning in over the eroded tarmac on the Tuono has the front end floating and weaving and hitting gravel will send the whole bike sideways, but the Tiger just turns, grips and goes. Impressive, although the standard Scorpion Trails on it were always going to be better than the pure road tyres on my Tuono. For slow corners or junctions, you can stamp on the brake to skid it into turns and it plays along just like a big trailie. Only problem with the thing is that it could use another 20hp. I ended up perpetually riding at 8-9,000 rpm and accelerating into the redline, and it needs a crest or some clutch to pick the front up even in first. Whenever I ride a GS, I want to find a rifle and shoot it through the ECU afterwards, whereas riding the Tiger was actually quite enjoyable. e: one thing Triumph can't seem to manage is making a decent foot control. The pegs on the Tiger are tiny, even in regular road boots, so when you stand up on the bike half of your foot is off the end of the peg. Oh, and it requires you to straighten your leg to stand because the tank gets in the way, which is pretty dumb since that's a great way to fall off if you hit something unexpected on your highly technical well-graded unsurfaced road. The pegs on the street are fine but the brake lever is impossibly close to the cases, so you have to turn your foot in about a mile to find it. Very easy to miss completely in an emergency stop or if you need to stop it going unexpectedly past the balance point and landing on you. Saga fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
I did it. I met the guy today, and went home with this lil beauty for 825 http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/mcy/2995727244.html Only problem is, I didn't make it past the waiting list for the class coming up... Now I have to see it parked there for a few weeks before I can really play with it. Lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Thanks saga and snowden. Can't wait to give it a ride, just gotta get to the dealership when it's actually open, unlike friday when I left a little late, got bogged down in Philadelphia traffic and managed to make it just as they were closing 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Taking a look at this tomorrow: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/mcy/2985461407.html 2007 Buell Blast, 861 miles (so it's done a lot of sitting) and a busted turn signal. Harley's still holding the title since the loan's not paid off yet (please tell me we can deal with this by going to a Harley dealer with the seller and doing paperwork, as opposed to handing the seller money, him paying the loan off with it, then sending me the title). From one of the emails: "I am having trouble with the battery and it not turning over. This is just a recent development and all parts on the bike are in good condition it just now all of a sudden won't turn over even though it sounds like it wants to. If you still want to take a look at it I should be home tomorrow after 5pm. The last time I started it was about 2-3 weeks ago and it started right up then." What can I bring with me to deal with that? How standard are bike batteries, I'm new to this. Can I handle this with jumper cables or a jump box? Any opinions?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Instead of buying a Buell Blast, buy literally anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Spiffness posted:Instead of buying a Buell Blast, buy literally anything else. This should be the new subtitle for the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Why? It gets a lot of good press from MSF.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
BR0ME0 posted:I did it. That's beautiful! Make sure to ditch that grotesque fairing ASAP, though. My first bike was a 1982 GS650GL, the slightly more cruiser-ish version of that bike (I think the biggest difference was a slightly "rounder" gas tank). Yours is in way better shape and actually runs at the time of purchase, though 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Why? It gets a lot of good press from MSF. The only people that use it are the ones under Harley, and the only reasons they use the awful things are due to them being worthless and them having no other choice. I took the MSF because my old man forced me, which while a great decision, would have turned me off of street bikes if I hadn't already gotten my current bike because Blasts suck twenty dicks on 19 guys. They're not irredeemable, but at that price reconsider. That price with those problems...hit them with a tire iron.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Covert Ops Wizard posted:Thanks saga and snowden. Can't wait to give it a ride, just gotta get to the dealership when it's actually open, unlike friday when I left a little late, got bogged down in Philadelphia traffic and managed to make it just as they were closing Manayunk Triumph?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Bixington posted:The only people that use it are the ones under Harley, and the only reasons they use the awful things are due to them being worthless and them having no other choice. I didn't even look at the ad. $2500 will get so so many nice motorcycles, please don't buy a Blast. The guys ad says he's selling because he lost interest in riding motorcycles. This is what will happen to you if you buy a Blast.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
Might be going to look at this later today: http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/mcy/3008411861.html No pics, no real info except AIS and Flapper is done and it has 14/47 sprockets for some reason (stock is 13/42) I'm not really expecting a callback since half the time these people bail anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
Can you guys go into detail at all about why you don't like them? And suggest something else that's not a cruiser for a 4'11" woman with a 26" inseam? The MSF class we went to was Apex, privately owned and without a Harley in sight. All the reviews, including the rider-poll-style rankings, have a lot of praise for it. The only big complaints I can find are 'no tach' (like all the bikes at MSF) and 'bumpy' (a general Thumper problem). They're praised for taking newbie drops very well, being light, being low enough, and not being a cruiser, all of which she's looking for. Pretty much you're making me feel like a goon in a well but without any solid reasons. v  v
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Can you guys go into detail at all about why you don't like them? And suggest something else that's not a cruiser for a 4'11" woman with a 26" inseam?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Can you guys go into detail at all about why you don't like them? And suggest something else that's not a cruiser for a 4'11" woman with a 26" inseam? I rode my mom's blast once and it was a horrid bike, really uncomfortable, slow and handled like poo poo. Apparently reliability is hit-or-miss as well, leaving the bike with literally no positives. At the time I had no other motorcycle and I just didn't ride at all, rather then ride that bike. However she (short and small) liked it and rode it all over and did a trackday on it. Even still, the thing is for the money you could get a Ninja 250, EX500 or some cheap standard like those and have a vastly superior ride in terms of everything.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Large capacity trials bike with very tall gearing...still better than a blast.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
She can't get on a Ninja, too short.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Spiffness posted:Instead of buying a Buell Blast, buy literally anything else. you say what? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:They vibrate like crazy - more than a typical single since they're literally half a Harley engine with no dampening. They're not particularly well built. Literally everything they do, a Ninja 250 does better, and for less than what that guy's asking. Oh, and since Buell doesn't exist, parts will quickly become harder to find (unless Harley went through with their plan to manufacture them solely for Rider's Edge classes, but I'm not sure that's the case.). The engine is isolated from the frame with the isoplanar system. It thumps the whole bike at idle, but above ~1800 rpm or so, it becomes isolated from the frame and the whole bike becomes very smooth. If the bike you rode did not work as I described, the front isolator may have been broken. Parts are easy to find and inexpensive through several websites and ebay. I can use my ebay stem mirrors at freeway speeds. The blast has better brakes and is smoother than the ninja 250 at road speed. Build quality is iffy on the body panels and seat fit, but those things don't really affect me. I get 60 mpg if I keep it at 70 or less on my drive to work through city and freeway traffic. The bike is slow compared to other bikes and has limited passing power above 80 mph. Top speed is 95 mph. Giblet Plus! fucked around with this message at 16:01 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Gnaghi posted:I rode my mom's blast once and it was a horrid bike, really uncomfortable, slow and handled like poo poo. Apparently reliability is hit-or-miss as well, leaving the bike with literally no positives. At the time I had no other motorcycle and I just didn't ride at all, rather then ride that bike. The blast is slow especially stock but if it handled like poo poo it may have had other problems. Mine has been very reliable, but I did have to replace the rear wheel bearings when I bought it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Shave the seat on a ninja 250. Look, ok: blasts aren't terrible motorcycles for your first bike if you lack any other frame of reference. However, this one definitely doesn't seem like a good buy, due to the problems and the cost. I nearly bought one as a project about a year ago, but it was $250 with similar issues and the guy had title in hand. The other problem with Buells are that in the long run, parts are going to become steadily less available. Low mileage is also not really am advantage on motorcycles as they don't do well when they sit because seals dry out, oil degenerates, batteries die, and people have a tendency to just keep riding them and ignore the maintenance. My mom is 4'11 and she can ride a ninja 250 with a shaved seat, although she needs some more practice. My vote would be to buy her a 1500$ 250 and a TTR 125 or something for 700-800 bucks, find a big lot, and let her ride the TTR around until she's comfortable, and then sell the TTR for what you bought it for after she drops it a dozen times or so. Shave the seat on the 250 and she should be able to reach the ground with a solid foot, which is just going to be the reality for her if she's riding, so she may as well get used to it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Would something like a Triumph Bonneville be too cruiser-y? Also you can generally do tricks to a bike like a Ninja 250 like a lower seat, lowering links, drop the forks etc. Or just hang off one side at stops, I guess. And probably get thick-soled boots. (Or she could have you ride pillion, that'd drop the bike a few inches.) Dani Pedrosa's only 5'2" and he's one of the top racers of full-sized prototype racebikes in the world. It's doable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:(Or she could have you ride pillion, that'd drop the bike a few inches.) Haha, the tail would eat the back tire, and I'd be the one steering if I rode pillion; I could probably out-lean the handlebars at my size.  The Bonneville has a seat height of 30.5 inches. The Blast with the factory low-profile seat is 25.5 inches. Her inseam is 26 inches. What other non-cruisers can we get used for $2500 and under that can be lowered enough for her comfort? I personally would like to see her on something with ABS if at all possible for the extra peace of mind. Snowdens Secret posted:Or just hang off one side at stops, I guess. And probably get thick-soled boots. Neither of these is on the table with her. She wore thick-soled riding boots to MSF and got a very negative impression (  : "finding the pegs and levers is like knitting with boxing gloves on!"). Something 25/26 inches tall at the seat will allow me to side-step that issue until she's comfortable enough to consider changing things; I'll be damned if I'm going to try to fight her on any part of this. She's not interested anything she can't get feet on the ground on both sides of, that comfort zone is only going to come with time and experience.We're fine with trying to lower something, but it's a lot harder to research something like that compared to Googling stock seat heights. Recommend us bikes that will take that kind of modification well without screwing up the suspension behavior, turning ability, and so forth. Actually, gently caress it, recommend cruisers too, but I think she's going to be happier with a standard if we can find one. She likes the Rebel but the fascia corners that poke out from under the front of the seat are just... who thought that was a good shape for under your thighs? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
If she doesn't like the cruiser style, the Nighthawk 250 may be another option. I have a buddy with one of those and while it's not the most, eh, dramatic motorcycle, the seat is low and it's plenty reliable and efficient.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Actually, gently caress it, recommend cruisers too The Suzuki Boulevard S40 has a 27" seat height.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
If you can find one, have her sit on a Bandit 400. They're really small though I see it's listed at around 30" seat height. A GS500 might be worth a try too. *edit* Got me thinking, "did they ever build a Bandit 400 with fairings?" No, but someone did put RGV fairings on one: 
Gweenz fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
The Buell Blast has a stock seat height of 30.4" by cycle-ergo.com. Most 'low' seats take off about an inch. I know The Internet puts the low seat height at 25.5" but that doesn't sound right at all, and GIS'ing "buell blast low seat" sure makes it look more like a 1-2" drop than 5-6". Keep in mind that seat heights are measured without a rider weighing down the bike (except maybe that 25.5 number), and if you use cycle-ergo.com it obviously can't figure in suspension sag either. Also the the width of the bike on/under the seat can matter a lot more as far as getting secure footing than the seat height by itself. This may be more of a concern on an I4 like a Nighthawk than on a twin or a thumper, but beginner bikes tend to be pretty narrow. E: just as an indication of how nonsense the listed seat heights are, the Harley Sportster Superlow (which is retardedly low, even for short people) has a listed seat height of 25.5" with a 180 lb rider, 26.8" unloaded Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 17:53 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
low seat is 27.5" with no rider
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
CB175 with a flat pan seat.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 17:59
|
|
