|
I bought a used pickup truck thinking it had ABS. This was in 2000 or so when ABS on trucks was kind of new, I'd never driven a car with ABS, and the dealer was such a buffoon he possibly didn't know either. This particular truck didn't have an ABS light, it had a brake light that went solid if you had the parking brake on and blinked for an ABS issue (according to the manual, mine obviously never blinked.) I just assumed the system sucked until I looked at a similar model with ABS and noted I was missing parts. I was an idiot for thinking this, but still managed to drive responsibly enough not to leave anyone dead or permanently mangled as a result of my misunderstanding.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:There is no ambiguity. It's a shared gauge cluster and the text "ABS" is on there in black on black, only visible in direct sunlight or if you're specifically looking for it with a flashlight. Starkly unlike the actual available features on that particular bike, identified by actually lighting up and being visible in normal conditions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Olde Weird Tip posted:You can look at it from the flip side as well. If you think your bike has ABS, and the light doesn't come on when it does it's quick diagnostics and gauge sweep when you turn it on, you should take it to the dealer to find out what's wrong with your ABS. I still think my point stands, and also addresses what you're talking about. I know that my car has ABS. I also know that if I dont see the light come on for a second when I initially turn the car on, that there is something up. If the guy honestly thought he had ABS to the point that he was seeking out blanks in his speedo face, then he should have been worried that it never turned on, like it undoubtedly does in his car. Then he should have taken it to the dealer, and they could have told him that his ABS doesnt work because it doesnt exist. At that point its up to him to either accept that, or buy a different bike with the safety features he wants. There is a certain amount of responsibility that comes with driving any vehicle, and its on you to know what your vehicle can or cannot do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
Olde Weird Tip posted:There is a certain amount of responsibility that comes with driving any vehicle, and its on you to know what your vehicle can or cannot do. Agreed. If this were a rental, or something not his (like that airplane argument), then it may stand. 15 months and 12k miles? No. I just looked at "2008 Road Glide Gauges" in google for about 20 minutes, and couldn't even find a blank where an ABS light might be, so the fact that he knew there was one, and it wasn't working, means he's an idiot that wants to blame someone else for how stupid he was at nearly killing his wife.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:If it really is that hard to see then I withdraw my complaint. I only care about what's obvious to the owner. I've never seen a Harley's dashboard that's offered with ABS up close so I wouldn't know. I'm envisioning a dashboard plate with the letters ABS in high contrast lettering and an LED next to it that just happens to never light up if it doesn't have ABS. That's the kind of thing I'd have a problem with. From looking at pictures, it looks like the idiot lights are in the shiny plastic between the gauges and the handlebars and possible in the gauges themselves, with white icons on a semi-transparent background.  Either way, it looks like you'd really have to look for them to see any unlit idiot lights. It it were oldschool lights next to high-contrast letting, I'd agree completely with your original point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Holy gently caress. That's a bunch of instruments for a slow V-twin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Holy gently caress. That's a bunch of instruments for a slow V-twin. haha what
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Holy gently caress. That's a bunch of instruments for a slow V-twin. It's designed to travel hundreds of miles in a straight line for long hours of the day through various terrain, temperatures, elevations and environments. It's a different sort of performance requirement that nonetheless benefits from that insane instrument cluster
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Olde Weird Tip posted:You can look at it from the flip side as well. If you think your bike has ABS, and the light doesn't come on when it does it's quick diagnostics and gauge sweep when you turn it on, you should take it to the dealer to find out what's wrong with your ABS. Huh, I wonder if this means my lovely ol' Ranger has ABS. The light comes on when I start it and then turns itself off immediately. Am I an idiot for assuming my truck DOESN'T have ABS when it may possibly actually come equipped?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
clutchpuck posted:Huh, I wonder if this means my lovely ol' Ranger has ABS. The light comes on when I start it and then turns itself off immediately. Am I an idiot for assuming my truck DOESN'T have ABS when it may possibly actually come equipped? I would think if your truck has both a cutout for ABS and a light that does actually turn on, then I would think it does have it. Before you go barreling through uncontrolled intersections in the rain or snow with your wife who's not wearing a seatbelt, maybe take it to the dealer to make sure first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
I've never seen a car that was set up this way, but on my bike (with ABS) the ABS light comes on when you crank it and then clears once you pull away and it gets signal from the sensors. Not sure if that's what you're talking about. 30 seconds of googling also indicates that Rangers can have ABS on all 4 wheels or just on the back, adding to any confusion. 4 wheel ABS will have a big hydraulic unit connected to the MC, rear wheel only seems a little more hidden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
Edit: What he said above...not sure how I glossed over that.clutchpuck posted:Huh, I wonder if this means my lovely ol' Ranger has ABS. The light comes on when I start it and then turns itself off immediately. Am I an idiot for assuming my truck DOESN'T have ABS when it may possibly actually come equipped? If it's an older Ranger, it may have rear wheel only ABS. So, my suggestion is to run through a schoolyard of children, hit a school and bump your head and then sue Ford for not having a light stating "Rear Wheel ABS Only"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
Scrapez posted:Edit: What he said above...not sure how I glossed over that. If it's a 2.3/2.5L it's probably only got RABS. the 4x4's and bigger motors got 4WABS
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Americans need to be told not to eat dessicant, OK? Who was the first genius who thought there was a complimentary snack at the bottom of a shipping box? It doesn't help that we're now bombarded 24/7 with trial lawyer spots suggesting that you sue Weyerhaeuser when you get a paper cut. I'll keep the plaintiff's logic in mind the next time I'm pulled over on a bike with a speedo capped at 85 and I'm told I was doing 93...
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 09:33
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:I'll keep the plaintiff's logic in mind the next time I'm pulled over on a bike with a speedo capped at 85 and I'm told I was doing 93... What if you were going downhill?? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
epswing posted:What if you were going downhill?? On that bike, I would need to be going downhill to hit 93 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Is it worth it to pick up a sportster for a first bike? Or should I look into something more manly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd say no. You might be able to ride it after the MSF but I promise it'll get you into trouble(not the good kind.) The bigger the bike the more serious it's going to be in a crash or dump scenario. Sportsters may not have as much power as other Harleys but they are definitely full on motorcycles than can full on gently caress you up if you make a mistake. Just start on a 250.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Oh for fucks sake. A Sportster 883 is perfectly suitable for a first bike. XL1200s might be a bit much (and certainly don't start on an XR), but an 883 is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
Eventually I'm going to get a Sportster and put some off road/dual sport tires on it and take it on the dirt roads.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Probably Hates You posted:Honestly, I'd say no. You might be able to ride it after the MSF but I promise it'll get you into trouble(not the good kind.) The bigger the bike the more serious it's going to be in a crash or dump scenario. Sportsters may not have as much power as other Harleys but they are definitely full on motorcycles than can full on gently caress you up if you make a mistake. Because a 250 is only a half-on motorcycle and, thus, cannot full on gently caress you up! An 883 is fine for a first bike, the power comes on predictably and there really isn't that much of it. A stock 883 puts what, 35hp down at the rear wheel? The bigger issue I'd have suggesting a Sportster for a first bike is the weight. My dad's '03 883R weighs 531 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Also if you must get a Sportster, don't get a brand new one. Your first motorcycle will get dropped, dented, scratched and banged; if you own a new one you'll be motivated to keep it looking new despite the new rider abuse, and Harley parts (and/or service) get real expensive real fast. A somewhat depreciated older model that you can feel more comfortable 'personalizing' is a better move but don't go older than the '05 models unless you're really gung-ho Harley. (Personally if I was getting a cruiser first bike I'd be looking at Honda Shadow 600s, but I'm not a Harley man at heart.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
I started on a 1987 883 and it was a good first bike. It's a bit heavy but the power is not something to be worried about at all. The nice thing is that if you drop it and break something you can get a cheap replacement on Ebay. There are tons and tons of OEM and aftermarket parts for these bikes. If you go with an 883, I'd definitely recommend getting a '91-'03 because it will have a 5 speed as opposed to a 4 speed transmission. That extra gear makes a big difference on the highway. The other thing that would really help a new rider is putting lowered suspension on the bike to get the ride height down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Thanks, Im trying to narrow my selection down between the sportster, Vstar and shadow spirit as a first bike. Didnt mean to cause too much of a ruckus just looking for opinion/thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Drumstick posted:Thanks, Im trying to narrow my selection down between the sportster, Vstar and shadow spirit as a first bike. Didnt mean to cause too much of a ruckus just looking for opinion/thoughts. Son, you haven't been on the internet long enough if you think that was a ruckus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
KARMA! posted:Son, you haven't been on the internet long enough if you think that was a ruckus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Drumstick posted:Thanks, Im trying to narrow my selection down between the sportster, Vstar and shadow spirit as a first bike. Didnt mean to cause too much of a ruckus just looking for opinion/thoughts. Those are all very heavy bikes. The 883 is probably a great starter engine, but the bike itself wont be great for a learner, as it will be tougher to maneuver at low speeds and harder to pick up if (when) you drop it. I'm not saying you have to get the CA hivemind masterpiece that is the ninja 250, but be aware that the 883 is a pretty substantial piece of metal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Drumstick posted:Thanks, Im trying to narrow my selection down between the sportster, Vstar and shadow spirit as a first bike. Didnt mean to cause too much of a ruckus just looking for opinion/thoughts. Buy the Shadow VLX 600, it costs about 2-3 grand for an 03-07 and when you sell it in 2 years it will be worth 2-3 grand. Also its a cruiser so feel free to chop away at it and do silly poo poo like I did to mine.  edit: Also if you chop a shadow people will continually ask you what kind of Harley it is even when it says HONDA SHADOW in big rear end letters on the tank and then they will proceed to get very confused when you explain to them its Japanese, they can be chopped, too. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
I've ridden for years and I found the 883 to be a rather terrible bike to ride at lower speeds. It's very top heavy and hard to handle. After riding it I frankly was shocked that people say it's a girl's bike. Yes it's slow, but it's heavy and ungainly at slower speeds. I don't think it's a bike that will build a beginning rider's confidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. Ill look more into the other bikes then until im more comfortable and pass on the 883.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
The first bike I rode substantially after getting my license was a Sportster 1200. I really enjoyed it, and it wasn't one bit scary or unpredictable. It is really, really heavy though (but stopping was alright enough on the dual disc one I rode), and the gearing is such that you have to ride around slipping the (extremely heavy) clutch at low speeds, which is surprising given how torquey the engine is. I really hate the Harley indicator system too, both the hard to reach buttons and the auto-canceling. Quite comfortable to actually just ride though, nice seat and arm position. I'm sounding negative here but I'd love to actually own one. If you do get one, I'd get one of the rubber mount ones (05+?), and I'd advise against lowering it. The ground clearance already is pretty slim, and I keep reading that the newer models are so low you keep dragging exhaust in roundabouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Olde Weird Tip posted:Those are all very heavy bikes. I think the Japanese bikes are lighter, not by a whole lot but easily 80+ pounds. And likely not as tall. High Protein posted:The first bike I rode substantially after getting my license was a Sportster 1200. I really enjoyed it, and it wasn't one bit scary or unpredictable. It is really, really heavy though (but stopping was alright enough on the dual disc one I rode), and the gearing is such that you have to ride around slipping the (extremely heavy) clutch at low speeds, which is surprising given how torquey the engine is. I really hate the Harley indicator system too, both the hard to reach buttons and the auto-canceling. Quite comfortable to actually just ride though, nice seat and arm position. I'm sounding negative here but I'd love to actually own one. I think 2004 was the first year of the rubber mount. As for lowering it that depends a lot on the model of Sportster. There are so many varieties with different suspension setups, control mounts, and exhausts (and brakes, and seats, and...) that it's hard to make overarching statements about them. I agree with most of your assessment of the Sporty. I don't recall slipping the clutch so much, but I'm pretty sure the 883s and 1200s come with different gearing (shorter on the 883), and I was on an 883. The 2003 883R I've spent time on had a nice upright riding position with mid controls and a pretty neutral bar reach. Dual front disks worked pretty nicely. The vibration from the rigid engine mount can be rough at certain RPMs - I actually found myself shifting just so I could use my mirrors. The R is a drat good looking bike. I'm constantly tempted to buy it from my dad and put 1250 cylinders on. 
Gay Nudist Dad fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
I picked up a 'used' 883L that had 21 miles on it for pretty cheap, completely agree about the ground clearance. I've actually scraped my boots and stock exhaust a bit as well. Wasn't terribly hard to get used to as a starter bike except the limitations on leaning. Definitely like it more with the 1200 cylinders, new cams intake/exaust upgrade and retune.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Gay Nudist Dad posted:As for lowering it that depends a lot on the model of Sportster. There are so many varieties with different suspension setups, control mounts, and exhausts (and brakes, and seats, and...) that it's hard to make overarching statements about them. True, the one I rode was a 'sportier' one, with mid controls as well, aforementioned dual discs, and a relatively large tank, though I believe the Custom ones of the time had an even larger one. Doesn't look nearly as cool as a 48, but at least it's actually ridable. It had aftermarket shocks as well, the standard ones tended to bottom out riding two-up, don't know if they still have that issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
High Protein posted:True, the one I rode was a 'sportier' one, with mid controls as well, aforementioned dual discs, and a relatively large tank, though I believe the Custom ones of the time had an even larger one. Doesn't look nearly as cool as a 48, but at least it's actually ridable. It had aftermarket shocks as well, the standard ones tended to bottom out riding two-up, don't know if they still have that issue. You probably rode an XL1200 Sport, since most XL1200s only have single discs. Mid/Front controls, at least on the new ones, are easy to convert back and forth by design, so I don't think that's particular to any model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
My first motorcycle is my current motorcycle which is a 2004 fuel-injected Softail Deuce and I haven't had any problems gaining confidence in riding it and don't particularly feel like it's "too much bike" or whatever, and honestly never really did. I had avoided motorcycles forever because they scared me since being a kid, but barring days when it rains in Seattle (which seem too unsafe for riding; coming from Southern California, PNW drivers really scare me) it's my daily commuter on a 20-minute freeway ride, whether it's 75 or 30 degrees outside. Maybe my initial fear gave me a healthy respect for it though, who knows? Also, I guess compared to flying single-engine planes, a motorcycle feels less hazardous (even if it's statistically less-safe). So there's that too. I've scraped the exhaust on one side and the kickstand on the other, so like everybody here, eventually you might find the limits of any cruiser and vaguely wish for something sportier. But I suppose even guys on really fast bikes might get that way eventually about what they're riding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
I've found the non sportster Harleys to be better weighted and less top heavy. I've never actually ridden one. I could see how you would feel more confident on one than the sportster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
I found some fun stuff when I was cleaning out my attic the other day. Everything seems to be from the mid 90s. The coloring book wasn't all that exciting, but they did give us a space to design our own Harley of the Future:  As you can see, I wasn't much of an artist at age 7.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Traded my GSXR for a Harley. http://i.imgur.com/uItmb.jpg Linked for big.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
second best sponge posted:Traded my GSXR for a Harley. That's a big loving front tire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 20:10
|
|
