Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Best post!

I think the point made about most any average Joe being able to go out and buy a motorcycle that will kick any car's ass, hard, is a good one. Motorcycles are an equalizer on the streets, and I like that. Why, just the other day, I embarrassed the **** out of some hoser in a Corvette Z06 with my liitle old VStrom. He probably could have gotten me at top end, but light to light he lost. On the other hand, with great power comes great responsibility. And thus, I felt bad about racing that guy for at least, um, ok, I didn't feel bad about it at all. But I would have if I'd been caught, so that's a good thing.

Is it just me, or is sport bike styling a lot like women's clothes? Seems like all the designers have the same new outfits every season. This is the year of the < shape along the front of the bike, a swoop to the back from top to middle and then a swoop to the front from middle to the bottom. VStroms are not fashion slots.
Excellent use of facts/data.

I've always chuckled about that. I thought that these things were bought because of their technical prowess. The slipperiest fairings at subsonic speeds are teardrop shaped. I don't understand how pointy fairings square with the "best technology" idea. Shouldn't track weapons be designed with the most aerodymanic shape? Wouldn't this by necessity make all race replicas virtually identical in shape?

Since cars have become more concerned with aerodynamics it's becoming impossible to tell them apart. Shouldn't the same hold true for race replicas? Is function giving way to styling? Horrors!
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Ha!

I am with Sachi 100% on this one, and you folks that pay attention know THAT doesn't happen every day. The 'First' thing is really f&cking annoying me. This isn't 'First' grade. If you don't have anything to say but 'First' you can stick the words of B-Rad where the sun don't shine, and that is exactly where your 'First' post is going to go too. I'm really not into moderating anyone, but this 'First' crap is going to be the 'First' thing I moderate here, and that will be the 'First' thing the next clown that does it can count on, so just cut it before I do.
Too easy. Chuckle. Sn1gger.

(Oh cripes you can't use the word 's******' either.)
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Firstly, thanks for the very complete response -- really rounds out the discussion for me. Secondly, this is the same conclusion I came to after realizing just how quickly I was putting miles on the Aprilia. If my inference is correct then, like you when you reached this decision point, wrenching is a new frontier for me. I have both tools and skills to acquire before I can dive into the meatier stuff but I'm committed to learning to do the majority of maintenance myself.
Maintenance, eh? First get a good metric socket set with 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 inch drives. Six point sockets. Six point sockets are your friends. Then you can buy tools as you go. I made a point of buying a tool every payday years ago. Now I have a pretty good selection. Some of them I actually use. Never ever ever buy cheap tools. May as well throw your $ away. Craftsman is okay. Not as good as they used to be but you can replace any broken one at Sears for free.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Snap-On = Wasting your money. Same with the Craftsman. Unless you just "want" a set of either of those. You can get the same (or better) results with an inexpensive set of Stanley tools from Mal-Wart, or the Kobalt brand from Lowe's.

I've been using hand tools for about 30 years now (literally): Snap-On, Craftsman, Stanley, Challenger, Klein, Popular-Mechanics - all these are in my toolbox(es). I abuse tools almost daily; I've broken more hand-tools than most people have ever owned.

The expensive Snap-on are really no-better than the "cheap" Stanley - one of the best, most-outstanding socket-kits I've ever used was a Stanley kit my Father gave me for Christmas when I was 19 - I've broken two Craftsman and one Snap-on ratchet since then. Other than tarnish and a bit of the chrome is wearing-thin (though not peeling), that set is still going-strong.

Craftsman "first line" are junk - plastic guts in the ratchets, the raised-panel wrenches cut-into your hands when your really have to wail on something (though I've only broken one of the wrenches in all these years). If you HAVE to own Craftsman - go for their "Pro" line of tools.

Snap-on are excellent quality, but stupid-expensive and hard to come-by unless you've got your local Snap-on-dealer stopping at your workplace every two weeks. If so, once you've broken three or four tools and he replaces them, if you're "paid up" - you'll stop seeing him.

Challenger sockets are junk - too damn brittle. I've split nearly a dozen of them up the side - generally in the bottom of the "v" where it's broached. The bigger the socket, the more-fragile it is.

Klein are good-quality (and should be - made by Stanley), but almost impossible to get except through your workplace (Grainger is a big Klein dealer).

The old "Popular Mechanics" brand (formerly "Pro-Mark") that Wal-Mart used to have are made by the same people that mfgr. Craftsman - Danaher Tool Group - I've got a LOT of these in my toolbox, good quality sockets, the ratchets - eh, not so great. Strip teeth now and again, break pawls, I've twisted the drives off two 1/2" breaker-bars. Excellent for home-use, Fair for Industrial.

Those ratcheting "Gear Wrench" tools are just tears waiting to fall - I don't even have to TRY and I can break 'em. If you're given a set, keep them well-lubed and clean. NEVER use them to "break loose" tight bolts, or it's a broken wrench. Period.

What I'm tryin' to say is: you can spend a LOT of money on tools, but still not have anything that's any better than the stuff some guy bought at the local discount-store, or picked-up at a yard sale (you should REALLY check out some of these - some awesome deals to be had at yard sales and estate auctions!).

Unless you can't help it otherwise, stay-away from those traveling tool sales (I'm guilty of buyin' things from 'em!) and Harbor Freight - that chinese made crap is just that - crap. I really only buy oscure items from there, and buy it knowing full-well that it's disposable.

OK, this got long - sorry 'bout dat. Wasn't my intention. S-word happens.
I basically agree but the one advantage to Craftsman (not Companion) is that you can replace a broken one with ease. Not so easy at Lowes or Home Depot. Especially after they sell out their stock.

I even still have most of a set of K-mart lifetime guaranteed tools that I bought about 25 years ago when I was broke after someone had stolen my toll set. Good luck trying to replace them. I lost the receipt a long time ago.....
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Good advice. I've never wanted to spend $$ on hand tools (power tools are a different matter) so I typically have a collection of pretty cheap but decent enough tools. It may be because I'm a wimp or because I don't do that much work of my own, but I haven't broken any tools, other than perhaps to mangle the tips on screwdrivers.
My comments about craftsman tools do not apply to their power tools. They look like Black & Deckers now.

I've got my Dad's craftsman tablesaw that he bought in 1950. And his craftsman drill press. The quality difference is unbelievable. The drill press weighs more than a new full size tablesaw. LOL!
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Well well well. At last, somebody else joins the discussion who thinks that maybe scientists who've spent their lifetime studying climatology might know something more about it than Rush Limburger. It's a pleasure to have you here, Mr. Somnus. Please feel free to counter the many "it's all just an ego trip for Al Gore" and "it's all just a pinko Liberal plot to take gun-totin' SUV's away from good 'ol boys" posts you'll find here. I hope your typing skills are up to the task; you'll stay busy if you do.
Yeah well you can pretend that the science is 'settled' but there are plenty of climatologists with PhD's who disagree. Especially the ones who spend less time in labs and more in the real world. Like seeing snowfall in Bagdad for the first time in history.

Real scientists still can't decide what makes airplanes fly. Or what causes lightning. I'll treat the claims of fuzzy scientists like climatologists with a grain of salt, thank you.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Wow seruzawa, your comment has so many flaws I hardly know where to begin.

* How many peer-reviewed scientists dispute the anthropogenic global warming consensus? A handful, pushing tendentious theories like cosmic ray cloud formation, with many others debunked.

If you had a criticism that held water, that would be a different story.

* Anecdotes != data. Data is calibrated, validated and replete. So what if it snowed in Baghdad this year? It's the entire data set that counts.

* So because we don't understand lift and lightning we should abandon science altogether? This is the same non-argument used by creationists to discredit Darwinian evolution, i.e. the "God of the gaps." Do you also think God designed the computer you're using, instead of human being who understand solid state physics and semiconductors?

***

Kenneth,

Thanks for the kind comment, and I take your point about power -- improved technology can make power more usable. However, I still think it has some downsides: uses more gas, chews up more tire, increases cost/sophistication, and pushes up insurance rates. And, can't any idiot go fast in a straight line?

I guess my view is: give me reliability and just enough power and features to do what I need to do (e.g., touring two-up), then cut weight and sharpen the handling. If tech can give more easy-to-use power without adding weight or hurting reliability, great.
Ha! Who said to abandon science? Just come back when climate pseudo-scientists have more than conjecture based on wildly inadequate data.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
You're probably right - we should just start preparing to move to Mars after we've rendered this world too-hot to live on.

Oh wait - it's "warming up" on Mars as well! Scum-bum-an-inch! We should never have sent those Vikings and SUV's up there - we've ruined two whole Planets already!
Hold it now.... whooooaa! You don't have a PhD so you'd better just shut up and believe what you're told!
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
OK, now you've completely LOST me - are you still talking about climate data here? If so, "several hundred years" is more than a tiny bit of exaggeration - depending on which lia... I mean: well-educated Climate Scientist you listen-to, we've got between 90 and 120 years of "reliable climate data" at the most - EVERYTHING ELSE is "anecdotal data", as you say.

Of course, the best and most-accurate of these computer-models are all based on this anecdotal-data, so they're as infallible as your Logic.

I also note you conveniently left-out any mention of the Solar Flux Dissipation and the theory that this has far-more effect on "Global Warming" (or Cooling - as we appear to have suddenly entered in the last 3-years) than anything Man has ever done to the Planet.
You just don't get it. Yes, Mars and Jupiter are warming too but when it comes to earth's warming that doesn't matter. You just haven't learned how to cherry pick your data so you can shake society down for more money and power.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
I linked ice cores because it explains how one can extract temperature and CO2 data.

AFAIK, solar variability was ruled out two years ago -- do you have a more recent citation? (Don't see anything here for example.)

Do you have anything to add other than indignation?
Wikipedia. LOL!

So long troll.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
You are wrong because the very people you cite can't agree on a correct climate model. It is not an exact science, so please quit professing such. If it was then there would be then everyone would come to the EXACT same conclusion, just as everyone knows 2 + 2 = 4. There is no argument with that simple math, yet you seem to act as if there is no argument in climate modeling. Even the most knowledgeable climate scientists would admit there are many different possiblities, variables, and analysis. All have come up with different predictions for the future. How is that possible with an exact science? It isn't possible. There is argument. There are competing theories.
Oh man, longride, when did you become the voice of reason? Are you trying to ruin our fun? We've been reeling in a big one here.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
For what it's worth:

I get behind the parts of the "solution" that seem to make sense to me when removed from the propaganda that initially surrounds them. Cleaner air is a great idea, better fuel economy is a wonderful notion, a renewable energy source is the cat's meow. If all parties can agree on the end goal the vitriolic huffing and puffing seems senseless.

And in so far as the various podium thumping climate pundits are concerned... I have a universal prejudice towards anyone with a singular message. It often feels to me like anything that could be construed as clear and identifiable fact is buried beneath hyperbole, exaggeration and subjective interpretation. Even assuming there aren't any ulterior motives on the part of the person(s) presenting the "facts" the schism between opposing points of view only grows wider, more extreme, and (subsequently) less rooted in reality.

Just my two cents.
When some of the spokespersons for the GW gang start saying that people who disagree with GW should be arrested and treated as terrorists... well, that's called a clue.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top