Motorcycle Forums banner
41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Would love to see some actual performance data; dyno results, 1/4 mile, 0-60, track speeds. I know it's not performance that will be the primary sales driver, I'm just curious.
Your curiousity is bringing out my guesstimosity:

Rear-wheel horsepower in the low 90s.
Quarter-mile in the low 13s (maybe high 12s with enough traction).
0-60 in about 4.0 secs.

That's the best my butt dyno can offer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Not poking fun at all. I wanted to see some large, hi-res pics. Obviously all I managed to do though is prove I'm a tard for not finding them at the bottom of the article...(or proven they could be more conspicuous, as in the days of yore)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Bi- isn't just for cycles and co-eds. Things evolve. Just 'cause the thing has three wheels dosn't mean crap in todays market. Why do I say this? You "geeks" out there go to the US patent website and type in Harley three wheel patent application. YEP!, you will see a patent for HD that is a cross between the MP3 and the Spyder. SO- when HD starts rolling Full Dressers out the door with three wheels in 2-4 yrs are you "purist" going to start ragging on and stop buying HD products? Didn't think soooooo......... Remember, you "purist" whined when water-cooled bikes came around and look at the scene today. Even HD followed. Evolution is not a bad thing. Some of you neanderthals (sp?) need to step into the 21st century- think innovation. Can-Am did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
Evolution is not a bad thing. Some of you neanderthals need to step into the 21st century- think innovation. Can-Am did.
Even accepting your basic argument, a three wheeler is not an evolution of a two-wheeled vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Agreed. However

Even accepting your basic argument, a three wheeler is not an evolution of a two-wheeled vehicle.
I never said it was an evolution of a two-wheeled vehicle. I was referring to the evolution of the Motorcycle industry. No one ever said that motorcycles were limited to two wheels. The term motorcycle should not be limited to "motored-bicycle". Just becasue you can trike a "Wing" or a FLH doesn't make it less of a "cycle". When the DOT accepts quads as street legal (it will happen) don't you think that they will be considered "cycles" by DOT rules? I do. Now imagine the new Yamaha Raptor 700 with dot lights and street tires. It may be wide, but supermoto junkies everywhere would love thins idea. Current "sport atv" models in the 500-700cc range can easily hold 60-75mph speeds. All of this but yeat- it's still a cycle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
A friend and I rode up to a Harley/Buell/Can-Am dealer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, nearly two weeks ago to take demo rides on the Can-Am Spyder. The event was well organized, with computerized sign-in procedures and a short parking lot familiarization ride before a Can-Am rider led us out onto a series of country roads for about a 15-minute ride. I was impressed with the design of the vehicle, and it had lots of power. But with its wide track, the Spyder tended to hunt a bit on the irregular back road, unlike the smooth flow of a motorcycle.

I REALLY missed not having a front brake lever, especially since we were riding very unfamiliar machines and our tour leader was setting a pretty quick pace and urging us to keep together. As we slowed for corners or stop signs, I always had to hunt for the brake lever, and that made me nervous (the brakes worked very well once I managed to apply them).

I'm guessing that Can-Am is hoping to attract a fair share of motorcycle riders to the Spyder, and if that's true, I can't imagine why they wouldn't include a handbrake lever in the design. Without it, I would never consider buying one of these things.

Jim Quinn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Looks interesting to an old geezer

I recently turned 63, and the slight equilibrium problem that I thought would keep me out of the Army in 1962 (it didn't) has been getting progressively worse for the last couple of years. I'm a sport-touring type, riding a 2000 BMW R1100RT - although not nearly as much as I would like because of the problem mentioned above. I think the conventional trikes are ridiculous, and a sidecar outfit is overkill. Something like this Can-Am Spyder could be just the ticket, and 15 grand is less than I paid for my R1100RT seven years ago. I've got to find a dealer to give one a test ride/drive.

Does anyone know what sort of mileage this thing gets? As a touring vehicle, the large capacity tank is great, but not if it only gets 20mpg...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,875 Posts
According to the people at the test ride, mileage is about 40+ MPG with a light throttle hand (cruising), and dips into the 20s if you pin it all the time. Very similar to most of the big bikes I've owned. (GS1000, FJ1200, YZF1000, GTR1000, CB1000F, XLH1200)

Test ride one. It may be just what the doctor ordered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
>No one ever said that motorcycles were limited to two wheels.

Lots of people have said this. Me included. Sure you can build a six wheeled dualie based on a Honda Rebel but it would not be commonly considered a motorcycle. If you pointed to a sport ATV and said “look, a motorcycle” even a bunch of 6 year olds would realize your brains have turned to mayonnaise.

- cruiz-euro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
People only associate motorcycles to two wheel because it's what they've been taught. As far as I'm conserned, if it's "open-aired", handle-bar ridden and doesn't come with door frames then it could qualify. The MP3 isn't less of a scooter, Boss Hoss trikes are no less of motorcycle, the T-Rex (unless in the insurance world) is considered a motorcycle by most DMV (and it has a steering wheel). So, why limit it to such a narrow scope. Jeep made the first SUV, effectively. For 40 yrs people called anything that looked like a Jeep a Jeep not SUV. Then it all changed around 1985 and the SUV was it's own class. Before that they were just trucks. Why not broaden the meaning? Couldn't hurt the riding base any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Luckily for the English language the definitions of the words are not changed whenever some great idea pops into somebody's head. Wikipedia says "A motorcycle or motorbike is a single-track, two-wheeled motor vehicle powered by an engine." Well put. By adding handlebars you'd turn riding elephants and river barges to motorcycles, according to your definition.

- cruiz-euro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,491 Posts
By adding handlebars you'd turn riding elephants and river barges to motorcycles, according to your definition.
"Hey! I see you gotcherself a new Moto! How do you like it?"

"Oh, it rides OK, but cornering is somewhat sub-par.........."

(sound of trumpeting elephant in the background)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Luckily for the English language the definitions of the words are not changed whenever some great idea pops into somebody's head. Wikipedia says "A motorcycle or motorbike is a single-track, two-wheeled motor vehicle powered by an engine." Well put. By adding handlebars you'd turn riding elephants and river barges to motorcycles, according to your definition.

- cruiz-euro
You're quoting a source that can be edited by anyone to reflect anything they want. Also, I said motorized- didn't I? If not it was intended. So, if a bike is a single-track, two-wheeled vehicle you have just eliminated the ENTIRE trike riding class by your narrow definition. Don't you think these "motorcyclist" would have a issue with that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Luckily for the English language the definitions of the words are not changed whenever some great idea pops into somebody's head. Wikipedia says "A motorcycle or motorbike is a single-track, two-wheeled motor vehicle powered by an engine." Well put. By adding handlebars you'd turn riding elephants and river barges to motorcycles, according to your definition.

- cruiz-euro
BTW- your English Language "words are not changed" referrence: Ask someone the definition of racist (as used in today's context). Bet it is NOT what Websters printed decades ago. There are many words that are used in today's society that only vaguely resemble their original meanings. Not to mention the fact that there are words added to dictionaries every year that previous generations of educated people would have scoffed at if ask if they should be included into such dictionaries.
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top