|
Never mind
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Anyone have any recommendations as to my first NEW bike? I'm pretty sure I want to go dual sport, so I'm considering bikes like the Suzuki V-Strom 650, or the 650CC BMWs, etc. It will be mostly on-road riding, but I'd like the flexibility, plus I just love how dual sports handle and look. I'd also like to keep MSRP under $8k or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 06:31
|
|
|
The G650GS base msrp is 7900. Thats the older F650GS(tumper), but made in china. The new(twin) F650GS starts at 9200, and they(bmw) only go up from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 06:40
|
|
|
So would you say I should skip on the G650GS? Is the F650GS really worth the cash over its competitors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 06:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So would you say I should skip on the G650GS? Is the F650GS really worth the cash over its competitors? Well when you can get the Vstrom 650 with abs for 8000, I'm not sure I'd buy the bmw. Really I'd just throw a leg over each and buy what you like. edit: oh ya, KLR 650s start at 6. Also remember to add in the cost of any add-ons(farkles) you want to do. blugu64 fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Nov 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 07:07
|
|
|
Interesting, that's kinda what I'd been hearing. How would you stack up the Vstrom 650 with the KLR?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 07:38
|
|
|
talking_head posted:Thanks for the advice. Couple of things. Those bikes use gear oil in the shaft drive. It's probably never been changed. Just because the bike is shaft driven doesn't mean the clutch can't slip. If a bike is shaft driven or chain driven has no bearing on the clutch. From your questions, I would NOT recommend this bike at all. There are plenty of decent other bikes out there that don't have the potential issues here. Sitting is not good for motorcycles, and it doesn't seem like you have the experience to look at the bike and know if it's worth buying or not, regardless of the discount. Move on to another bike, one that's running. Radbot posted:Interesting, that's kinda what I'd been hearing. How would you stack up the Vstrom 650 with the KLR? 2 very different bikes. The KLR is a 650 single, the vstrom is a dressed up SV650/v twin 650. If you're primarily going to be doing street riding, it's no contest in favor of the additional HP and grunt of the twin (almost 2x the HP). If you're going to be doing crazy adventure offroad stuff, the KLR would maybe be a better choice, but I'd still take the Vstrom. For me, there is no way I would ever cross shop a Vstrom ABS and a KLR, the Vstrom has every advantage. The only disadvantage is the weight of the vstrom, but that wouldn't be enough of a concern for me to buy a KLR instead, regardless of the riding that I was doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 07:49
|
|
|
talking_head posted:I'm thinking about buying this 1979 Honda CX500 Deluxe. What do you guys think about this bike? Pre-1981 CXs tend to burn out stators and you have to pull the engine to change it. Also it's been sitting for 15 years. Pass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 09:25
|
|
|
I've looked through a chunk of pages but can't find an answer to this so here it goes. I'm a new rider, I'm 6'1, and weight about 275 (I'm not a ball, but have a little gut on me) I'm looking at cruisers and really like the Honda Rebels and Shadows. I was leaning towards the Shadow just because I'm a bigger guy, I'm not really intimidated by the larger engine and I have self control, I just don't want to get out there on a Rebel and not be able to flow with traffic well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
windex and beer posted:I've looked through a chunk of pages but can't find an answer to this so here it goes. Look at horsepower, not displacement. You can get a huge displacements on cruisers without eclipsing a dangerous amount of horsepower. The only thing to know is that torque on large engines can be pretty mean. The standard new harley rider crash involves stalling and having the bike shoot out from under you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 15:55
|
|
|
windex and beer posted:I've looked through a chunk of pages but can't find an answer to this so here it goes. As a 6'2 guy who took the MSF on a Rebel, I guarantee that it'll be too small for you. You'll have to sit on the passenger seat to turn. Go Shadow, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 19:10
|
|
|
windex and beer posted:I've looked through a chunk of pages but can't find an answer to this so here it goes. You should go and sit on both bikes, because I'm pretty sure you wouldn't actually fit on a Rebel. I'm 6'0 and my knees literally hit the handlebars on a Rebel, the bike is a lot smaller then it looks. The Shadow would be a good choice. Are you going new or used? There are a ton of late-nineties and early-oughts Japanese cruisers that would do you well, literally too many to list. Check Craigslist or your local used bike dealers, go and sit on things, see what feels comfortable for your size. Also, I second what VTNewb said. Don't worry about displacement, pay attention to horsepower. There's a world of difference between a KLR 650 (~40hp) and a Honda CBR 600RR (125hp). Also, while less important but something to think about, pay attention to the weight. I don't know if I'd recommend much over 500lbs for a first bike, but others will chime in on that. The generally accepted wisdom here is that 50-60hp is a reasonable limit for your first bike. Most any of the 500-750cc air-cooled Japanese cruisers of the 90s or 00s will do you pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 19:41
|
|
|
VTNewb posted:Look at horsepower, not displacement. You can get a huge displacements on cruisers without eclipsing a dangerous amount of horsepower. The only thing to know is that torque on large engines can be pretty mean. The standard new harley rider crash involves stalling and having the bike shoot out from under you. lawl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtqDYQGCIc
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:As a 6'2 guy who took the MSF on a Rebel, I guarantee that it'll be too small for you. You'll have to sit on the passenger seat to turn. Go Shadow, definitely. I'm 6'2 and my friend's Shadow almost feels too small, so definitely go sit on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
talking_head posted:Is there anything to watch out for? I called, and the seller told me that the carbs needed to be cleaned. Is that code for I'm about to get ripped off? Why, out of all the possibilities, a CX500? Why not just buy a GPz305 and have done with it? But putting that aside, carbs need cleaning is code for it's sat in my shed for 15 years and I didn't drain the carbs. You don't even want to know what's happened to the high-mile oil that he left in the sump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2009 08:10
|
|
|
Saga posted:Why, out of all the possibilities, a CX500? Why not just buy a GPz305 and have done with it? Yeah the guy just emailed me saying that  OTHER SIMILAR BIKES ARE SELLING FOR $1300-$1800 and another guy wants to buy it this Tuesday.I'm gonna pass on this one. Thanks for the advice, my friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2009 22:17
|
|
|
So if I wanted to get into a 600CC sport bike in say a year or so, what would be most suitable for mostly street riding? I'd be looking at something 2006+ probably a used model, currently i'm leaning towards the GSX-R600 or the CBR600. Keep in mind I don't really plan on doing this after i've ridding about a year or more at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
infraboy posted:So if I wanted to get into a 600CC sport bike in say a year or so, what would be most suitable for mostly street riding? I'd be looking at something 2006+ probably a used model, currently i'm leaning towards the GSX-R600 or the CBR600. Not a 600cc supersport. Either the Kawasaki ZX636R, or a GSX-R750. All of the supersports are pretty much poo poo for street use as all of the power is at the top. The 636 is the only 600 I'd consider for street use, I've been very impressed with mine despite only taking it around the block. If you had to get a 6, I'd say teh CBR has the best marks for streetability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:edit: oh ya, KLR 650s start at 6. Also remember to add in the cost of any add-ons(farkles) you want to do. You'd have to be thick to buy a KLR new, things depreciate like Cavaliers. You can get a 2-3 year old one with a bunch of farkles for 2.5-3k. the 08+ redesign ain't great either. Heavier than the old one and with some fresh issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 06:27
|
|
|
infraboy posted:So if I wanted to get into a 600CC sport bike in say a year or so, what would be most suitable for mostly street riding? I'd be looking at something 2006+ probably a used model, currently i'm leaning towards the GSX-R600 or the CBR600. Gixxer has a much better seating position for street riding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 12:04
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Not a 600cc supersport. Either the Kawasaki ZX636R, or a GSX-R750. All of the supersports are pretty much poo poo for street use as all of the power is at the top. The 636 is the only 600 I'd consider for street use, I've been very impressed with mine despite only taking it around the block. If you had to get a 6, I'd say teh CBR has the best marks for streetability. I was under the impression that: a) 600s don't get their power until high in the rev range and that power comes very abruptly so they're not great for the streets b) 750s have a more consistent powerband so they have a smoother ride and handle similarly to 600s in the twisties; basically a 600 with more midrange. c) literbikes are slower in corners than 600s but they're good street bikes aside from the daily temptation to do things that would get you sent to jail or at least thrown into bankruptcy Confirm/Deny my assumptions? fake edit: ^^^^ i found the cbr to be more comfortable than the gixxer when i was doing test rides a while back. In terms of comfort for me personally it went ZX6R>CBR600RR>GXR600>R6, but it depends on build and personal preference I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 02:30
|
|
|
-Inu- posted:c) literbikes are slower in corners than 600s but they're good street bikes aside from the daily temptation to do things that would get you sent to jail or at least thrown into bankruptcy If you're a semi-professional racer, a literbike is slower through the corners. To the rest of us mere mortals, there is barely a difference. Having owned a 600 supersport, I can strongly encourage anyone to NOT get one for the street. 2nd gear redlines around 90mph, and 3rd gear redlines at 120 mph. For a bike with power only in the top end, that creates a lot of felonious temptation for street riders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
-Inu- posted:Came here to ask about this actually. I was talking to a coworker today about sportbikes (I work at Cycle Gear) because I've been planning on buying a GIXXAH 750, but he was saying that 750s are pointless nowadays because it's basically a half-assed literbike? I generally trust him, he's got way more experience than me but what he said was completely opposite of everything I've read in CA, which I trust more. Your assumptions are essentially true. People who claim that 750s are pointless either have never ridden one fast or only give a poo poo about raw acceleration. If you look at them as tools to go fast, they are pretty much the best available on the market. Enough power to be forgiving of running a gear high, not so much power as to be absurd like a modern liter, but more than enough to not really lose out on the bigger bikes, and a huge midrange advantage over a 600. If you look at raw numbers, the 750 doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you've ridden a literbike, a 750, and a 600, especially up a twisty road or better yet, on a track, you will absolutely understand why the 750 is an excellent choice for normal people who need a bike that can do it all. If I had to have one bike in my garage you had better believe I'd be riding a 750. I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would go fastest on a 750, as do 90% of riders with a reasonable amount of experience. Enough power to really get you moving but not so much to be overwhelming, combined with the easy cornering and controllable nature of the 600. A good balance of power and cornering ease. MrKatharsis, in my experience, normal riders go much faster through the corners on a 600 than they do on a 1000, and more importantly, they are far more comfortable. A SS literbike is a lot of waiting until it's upright so you don't highside yourself to the moon, a short, fast blast through the gear(s), then hard on the brakes to scrub off all that speed. It's a lot easier and a lot more fun to get a nice flow going on a 600 or a 750, and it will teach you a lot more about being a comfortable, confident rider. My 929 was closer to a modern 750 than a modern literbike, and it was fantastic. Any more power and things get intimidating and very fast in a straight line and very slow through the corners as you overbrake excessively all the time. There's also a lot of truth in it being more difficult to turn the bigger bikes, due to the gyro force of the much engine. The flickability and ease of use with the 600/750 is really quite amazing. And for many years the 750 has only been a few pounds heavier than the 600. Some years it was even lighter. Z3n fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Dec 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
Per Z3n...riding my buddy's CBR929 on a tight track after doing a few sessions on my CBR400 a few months ago was a scary experience (even as a former '954 owner). Liter bikes are a poo poo load of work, as he says, trying to deal with not highsiding (not too hard - just don't whack the throttle open) and then frantically trying to scrub off the speed (a bit harder). My recent 929 experience was mostly tail-in-the-air and a lot of "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck" trying to get down to a realistic turn-in speed after being used to a lightweight 60hp four that could carry more corner speed. It didn't seem like great value for money even on the track, and I don't think I'd want to ride one on the road on a regular basis. More to the point, I don't get how a modern 600 can be "too slow" or difficult to ride on the street. How can a 160mph bike with an 11 second standing quarter time be "slow"? And unless your name is Mick Doohan (or Reuben Xaus), how are people being held back by that missing 400cc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 16:40
|
|
|
Saga posted:More to the point, I don't get how a modern 600 can be "too slow" or difficult to ride on the street. How can a 160mph bike with an 11 second standing quarter time be "slow"? And unless your name is Mick Doohan (or Reuben Xaus), how are people being held back by that missing 400cc? People aren't held back by the missing 400ccs...it's that a 160mph top speed and a 11 second quarter doesn't tell the whole story. Look at this dyno graph:  Click here for the full 640x480 image. Specifically, look below 9k. Anywhere below 9k, you are making roughly 25 foot pounds of torque and below 50hp. An R6 is good for roughly 75mph in first gear with stock gearing. At 9k you are at roughly 60% of redline, so you're doing around 45mph before you start making more HP than a ninja 500, plus the throttle response is all mushy and poo poo and the engine just isn't responsive. That's why they suck for street riding. The quarter mile time doesn't talk about street manners or how much you have to slip the clutch if you want to get off the line reasonably quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
Z3n posted:An R6 is good for roughly 75mph in first gear with stock gearing. At 9k you are at roughly 60% of redline, so you're doing around 45mph before you start making more HP than a ninja 500, plus the throttle response is all mushy and poo poo and the engine just isn't responsive. For comparison's sake, at 45mph my Ninja 250 is in 3rd gear and pulling about 9k RPM on a 13k RPM redline. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
I've say on the Shadow before, not the Rebel though. I did like the way the Shadow felt, but I didn't really have anything to compare it to. I'm really liking this bike. I haven't contacted the guy so I don't know the mileage, but what do you all think about this one? http://norfolk.craigslist.org/mcy/1479535153.html This one's on the list too. http://norfolk.craigslist.org/mcy/1479294275.html Maybe? http://norfolk.craigslist.org/mcy/1478294201.html Or http://norfolk.craigslist.org/mcy/1487574608.html There's just so much to take in :*( windex and beer fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Dec 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
windex and beer posted:I've say on the Shadow before, not the Rebel though. I did like the way the Shadow felt, but I didn't really have anything to compare it to. I always liked the way the ACE looks, especially the ACE Tourer. If you can find one of those, they're pretty sweet. I almost bought one of those instead of my Valkyrie. The Stars are very nice bikes too. My dad has the 650 (or whatever) and it's a great bike. The 1100 might be a little heavy for you if you're new, but you sound like a big guy, so you might be able to handle it. Don't be afraid to be really picky. Fall/winter is the buyer's market so you'll be spoiled for choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 23:28
|
|
|
Z3n posted:People aren't held back by the missing 400ccs...it's that a 160mph top speed and a 11 second quarter doesn't tell the whole story. Would it be more of a reasonable upgrade to get a nice middleweight twin IE the Kawasaki ninja 650r or an SV650? I know they have better midrange and are better all rounders and i've had a thing for the 650r before I started riding, especially the 09's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 07:09
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Would it be more of a reasonable upgrade to get a nice middleweight twin IE the Kawasaki ninja 650r or an SV650? I know they have better midrange and are better all rounders and i've had a thing for the 650r before I started riding, especially the 09's. You can sort of figure as a general rule of thumb that the fewer the cylinders, the lower the overall HP and the wider the powerband. So singles don't make a lot of HP per displacement, but have a lot of pull off of idle, twins have more HP but less bottom end, and 4s tend to be a lot of top end, a lot of HP, and not much low end. The more displacement you have, the more power you will have across the range. The biggest exception that I'd mention is that tuning can turn this formula on it's ear. Notible exceptions are large displacement engines not designed for racing (over 1000ccs), which tend towards a lot of midrange and pull from lower RPM in exchange for that top end rush. 2 strokes are also sort of a catagory of their own as well, as they are very, very dependent on tuning. If you're not the speed demon sort, you could ride a 650R or a SV650 until pretty much the end of days. I've had 3 SV650s and always felt that had excellent kick up until around 100mph, which is pretty much the perfect range for streeting a motorcycle. Awesome all arounders, good second bikes, and just fun in general with a huge aftermarket. The Ninja650 doesn't have quite the aftermarket and hop up availability, but if the looks are good enough to sell you on them, go for it, the aftermarket is only worthwhile if you actually use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 19:24
|
|
|
Echoing above, I love my '06 SV650. It really is great for street riding. Plenty of low end grunt, reliable, comfortable... I have no interest in buying another bike for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 21:57
|
|
|
Z3n posted:I've had 3 SV650s Has the seating position/peg position changed on them any over the years? I was considering one for my next bike, but sat on a new one ('09) at a dealer and found it way, way too uncomfortable in the legs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 21:59
|
|
|
Tsaven Nava posted:Has the seating position/peg position changed on them any over the years? I was considering one for my next bike, but sat on a new one ('09) at a dealer and found it way, way too uncomfortable in the legs. The S and the N models have significantly different seating positions. I've owned 2 S models and one N model, and the N model is the only one I'd street. Handlebars over clipons any day of the week for a streetbike. The S model's footpegs are, I believe, an inch up and back from the N model's. Plus the bars are about 4 inches higher and a couple inches closer to the rider than the clipons. I'd imagine the gladius seating position is almost identical to the SV650N seating position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 23:01
|
|
|
From my couple times sitting on a Gladius at the shop, it seems to have a little lower seat than the Naked SV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 23:05
|
|
|
Yes, I still haven't bought a bike. Just can't afford it until January. My dilemma is thus: I really want a DRZ400SM, but the cheapest I've seen are high 3k's. I could afford it, but it would pretty much kill my budget for anything else. (repairs, pretty much anything but food) I feel like I should just buy an ok condition ex250 and commute with it/wrench on it for a while until a DRZ isn't as much of a burden to buy. If only I could get rid of my stupid rear end 03' accord without taking a loss against what I owe. (long story)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
soy posted:Yes, I still haven't bought a bike. Just can't afford it until January. Seriously, save and get what you want instead of settling. If you have to wait longer it'll be so much better. Settling for a toy you don't want is never a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
VTNewb posted:Seriously, save and get what you want instead of settling. If you have to wait longer it'll be so much better. Settling for a toy you don't want is never a good idea. I dunno man, I think riding almost ANYTHING is better then not riding at all. Especially when thinking about getting a bike as criminal as a DRZ400SM, it might be better to start with something less . . . well, something that doesn't make you realize that 30 foot jumps off loading dock ramps are good ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 01:15
|
|
|
Yeah I get the feeling that if I rode an ex250 for a while I would really appreciate a drz400 a lot more when I eventually got one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
I'd rather ride a 250 for a year and then buy a DRZ after that then I would not ride for 6 months and buy a DRZ. They're different sorts of fun, and more experience on different bikes is basically never a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Plus it's not like a used EX250 is going to depreciate at all (especially buying in January), so you can get some experience on it while saving the extra money for the DRZ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 02:32
|
|