Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
You''re (Mostly) Idiots!!

Yes, it's me, the commie-loving, tree-hugging, Gore-votin' possible homosexual who wants to tell all of you how to run your lives.

Today's topic is how amazed I am with the bad advice you are giving this poor guy, but also how interesting all of this is from a sociological perspective.

First, let's examine what this (I presume) guy is asking. He is a NOVICE "sportrider". He wants to know what the best post-'97 600 is.

What does that mean? He knows enough about "sportbiking" to know he wants a 600 built after 1997, but not enough to know which is best. Huh?

Obviously, this guy, (and I assume it's a guy- a woman would be prudent enough to not get a 600 superbike as her first ride) has been told by enough of his "friends" (who probably want him dead, for some reason- maybe they owe him money?)told him he needs a 600 for a first sportbike. Why does he need a 600? "You'll grow out of it." "You'll get bored." Whatever.

ANY bike properly ridden at it's limits will be enough to excite the average human being. EX250, EX500, KLR650, Savage, whatever. Who on this board thinks racing a 70 HP flattracker would be boring? That's 25 less HP than any post-'97 600 makes.

But if a novice tries to ride a 600 at it's limits, he will, sooner or (not much) later, be in a horrible accident. I've seen a lot of them in my 7 years of sportriding and racing. I've actually had 5 of them this year myself. On nothing bigger than an SV650.

"Ho, ho!" You say. "You stupid liberal fruitcake! You just proved my point! It's just as easy to get in a crash on a small bike as a big one!"

Well, true. And my crashing and hurting myself has reminded me what a serious, and I mean heart-attack serious a sport this is. It's not something to be taken lightly, because it can kill you in a blink of an eye. You hear me? Kill you.

So when you answer a question like this, the best reponse is not which kind of bike to buy. That's just like telling a suicidal person which kinds of sleeping pills mix best with bourbon. What you should say is that one does not become a sportbiker with the simple purchase of a motorcycle. First you have to learn how to ride- the basics. That's the MSF. Then you have to ride, ride, ride in everyday situations so the control, balance and feeling of riding becomes second nature. That's thousands of miles of commuting, touring, and going on long rides with your girlfriend. Then, you can think about taking a track day to learn about sportbiking.

Until that day, don't worry about "sportbikes." You don't need one. Get the bike that will fit the purposes of learning how to ride. Any bike will do here- Seca II, KLR, EX500, old BMW, whatever. It should be cheap, light, reliable, comfortable and fun. Big sportbikes don't usually fit those categories. There is no "best" bike in any category. It's all up to your preferences, but you won't know what those preferences are until you learn to ride. Get it?

In our culture, we are taught that you can "become" anything you want if you spend enough money on the right accoutrements. That's fine for stuff that isn't life threatening. Pretend to be a French Chef, physicist, Wizard or Beekeeper. But don't pretend to be a jet pilot, scuba diver, helicopter pilot or sportbiker. 'Cause your vanity will kill you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Re: You ARE an idiot!

Wow! You sure don't read very carefully, do you? That's OK, there's a lot to read here, but you should at least read the posts you respond to!

"Maybe if you considered riding something a little more modern and technologically sophisticated than a vintage bike, you would realize that the better brakes, handling, and yes

even power can be an asset rather than a liability."

Well, that's true enough, but I don't know why you pointed that at me! Where do I say to either get a vintage bike or that I have a vintage bike? Is it the "old BMW" comment? Any BMW built after 1982 or so has perfectly adequate power, braking and handling, and can hardly be called "vintage". My bikes are a'87 EX250 and an SV650, neither of which I would consider a vintage bike, although I used to own a '77 R100. But that was a long time ago. Of my 5 crashes this year, two were due to bad tires, two were on the track, and one was because of a driver turning left right in front of me. I was riding an MZ Skorpion at the time, and that bike's light weight and great brakes let me scrub off almost all of my speed so I was unhurt. A heavier, faster bike would have put me into much, much worse shape.

There is nothing wrong with the brakes, handling or performance of any of the bikes I listed, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

"When I consider your view as a motorcycle enthusiast, it makes it easier to understand why

liberal non-enthusiasts would prefer to save us from any possibility of motorcycling at all. Or

anything possibly remotely dangerous."

Huh? Who are you talking about? Certainly not me! I love motorcycling so much that nothing will make me quit. I just think that ill-informed newbies, armed with poor advice like that given on this board, are destroying my sport and hobby. Everytime a squid kills or injures him or herself on my local Sunday ride, the CHP cracks down, ruining my Sunday. Manufacturers build and market bikes to rich pinheads with no taste or skill, instead of building the light, cheap and fun bikes they used to make. An R6 as a first bike? Great idea.

Please name a "liberal non-enthusiast" who has taken political action to eliminate motorcycling. I can name one guy,- Republican senator Danforth, who wanted to eliminate sportbikes.

Unfortunately, your post is not sociologically interesting, since I already know how conservatives use lies, misinformation and hyperbole to "prove" their points.

And one last thing- "Gaybe" Very clever! You're just as clever with that one as a sixth-grader! But then again, if you run Dubya's responses in the debates through MS Word, he gets a Fleisch-Kinkaid score at a 5th or 6th grade level, so that's just what I expect from you guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
You and your specters!

"Horrible" specter? What's horrible is an innocent person entering a hobby with a belief that it's some kind of fun, wacky, harmless way to show off his purchasing power and winding up strapped to a backboard in an ambulance, permanantly maimed, or killed.

What's so horrible about mandatory training? And something much more rigorous than the current MSF course, which doesn't, admittedly, prepare you for much more than basic riding. So it costs $300- so what? Half the cost of the "mandatory" exhaust system so many squids buy before they even leave the dealer.

Who decides if you're qualified to ride your GSXR? Yourself, ultimately. But what's wrong with waiting a while? Why is starting at the top so great?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Thanks, pal

One post like this outweighs 20 childish flames.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Re: Thanks, pal

I agree with you almost completely. And I don't know if REQUIRED training would be the ticket, although I think CAR drivers should have much, much tougher driving tests. Why shouldn't car drivers be required that they can swerve, brake hard in an emergency and control a skid? Think how many lives that would save every year.

Here in California they made the drivng test easier because, (are you ready for this one?) too many people were failing. That's bad, and costs lives. The motorcycle test is a pathetic joke as well.

I am reluctant to advocate over regulation and feel people should make their own choices. But if you can save lives without sacrificing any tangible or signifigant right, what's wrong with that?
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top