Random thoughts on bikes and riding

[N4teTheGreat]

Does anyone ride with elbows up on pavement out of habit from dirt riding? Obviously, you wouldn't do that with low clip-ons (so don't bother with the sport bike answer), but I could see this with ADV riders with higher bars.

I have a Hypermotard which enforces that position to some extent but I usually keep my elbows relatively relaxed and have set the angle for the clutch and brake levers to allow my to have my shoulders relaxed. I still look like a poser because I'm not pulling dank nooners or backing it in to corners though.

 

[Rob]

Shaft drives... why can't more bikes have shaft drives?

 

[ST Guy]

Shaft drives... why can't more bikes have shaft drives?

Well, they could. But several factors lean towards chain drive. One is chains are more efficient and cost the manufacturer less. Then there's the fact that in most shaft drives, it adversely affects suspension performance. And then there's also the added weight of a shaft drive.

 

[davidji]

Shaft drives... why can't more bikes have shaft drives?

Yeah it's an underserved market segment. if you want a not too wide, light-ish, agile shaftie for commuting, you're pretty much limited to the BMW R1250R/RS, R9T family, and one or two Moto Guzzis.

Belt Drive is even worse: In ICE bikes I think you're limited to cruisers now. Used to be one or two BMW parallel twins.

Belt drive seems pretty compelling for a light-ish commuter, but I guess BMW changed direction with the F900 series.

 

[Gary856]

The R1200GS is many things, among which I think of it as a great wet weather bike, with the water-proof (so to speak) shaft drive being one of the reasons.

Now that I have the Ulysses, I love that its belt drive is essentially maintenance free, wet or dry. Why isn't belt drive used more besides cruisers?

It's freeing to not deal with chain maintenance once you've experienced it.

Well, they could. But several factors lean towards chain drive. One is chains are more efficient and cost the manufacturer less. Then there's the fact that in most shaft drives, it adversely affects suspension performance. And then there's also the added weight of a shaft drive.

This is where you could give the correct reasons but miss the point of the question entirely, i.e., the convenience factor of shaft drive.

 

[ST Guy]

The R1200GS is many things, among which I think of it as a great wet weather bike, with the water-proof (so to speak) shaft drive being one of the reasons.

Now that I have the Ulysses, I love that its belt drive is essentially maintenance free, wet or dry. Why isn't belt drive used more besides cruisers?

It's freeing to not deal with chain maintenance once you've experienced it.




This is where you could give the correct reasons but miss the point of the question entirely, i.e., the convenience factor of shaft drive.

Yes, I could have mentioned convenience. But that's on the plus side for shafts and the question was why aren't shafts more common so I stated the main reasons why they are not more common.

But in my book, convenience is king.

 

[Gary856]

Built for the “normal” rider

If you can’t find a bike exactly the way you want, your needs are not “normal”.

I’ve been wanting to get a sport-touring American cruiser-ish bike, but which one? What I’m after is something with a relaxed riding position, a throbbing, torquey but relaxed V-twin power delivery, with good suspension/handling; I’m willing to give up some ground clearance. These bikes force you to slow down and enjoy the ride.

The mid-size Indian Scout is almost perfect – right size, not too heavy, looks great, great engine, but it only has a 3.2 gallon tank. Even the full-size Chief models only have a 4 gallon tank. Why do they make the tanks so small?

When I looked into Scout forums about larger tank size options, I saw 3 types of responses:

1. Why do you need a larger tank? This is a cruiser, not a tourer, and I need a break by the time I need gas, so 3.2 gallon is just fine.

2. Yes, I wish it had a bigger tank. What were they thinking? Does anyone make one? (I saw no aftermarket option for the Scout.)

3. I made a larger tank myself, and this is how I did it. (in the case of the Scout, a guy offered to sell painted, enlarged tanks with 4.1 gallon fuel capacity for $1.1k each, in exchange for the stock tank.)

By extension, the above pretty much sums up the response you'd get on any question, about any feature, on any bike. Type 1 is the “norm”, the majority, what manufacturers target, and they’re happy with what the factories offer. Type 2 is the aftermarket customer. Type 3 is the 0.01 percenter, the DIY master we wish we could be.

 

[davidji]

...I need a break by the time I need gas, so 3.2 gallon is just fine.

Pretty common on motorcycle forums. Seems to be a product of a motorcycles as toys perspective. Or people who don't imagine traveling where fuel is sparse & uncertain. For example along the backroads of the western US.

The part I omitted about it not being a tourer is another common one: If it's not a enormous heavy bike, why should it be practical? Fair enough I guess if there's a big market for tiny tank toys. But it's too bad.

 

[bikewanker]

A simple conspiracy to ease us into EVs with similar range. 7 or 8 years ago I noticed 3.7 gallons was becoming popular, I wondered if 14 liters was a world number.
I will resist.

 

[davidji]

A simple conspiracy to ease us into EVs with similar range. 7 or 8 years ago I noticed 3.7 gallons was becoming popular, I wondered if 14 liters was a world number.
I will resist.

You may have it there.

I thought Yamaha lost the advanced technology of providing fuel capacity in a middleweight as they moved past the 1st gen FZ1 (5.5 US gallons) & the FZ6.

BMW as well, as they left the air-oil cooled R1200R behind (5.8 US gallons for mine, whatever spec sheets may say).

Only Moto Guzzi still seems to be able to build practical middleweights.

I thought Honda was there with the NC750X, through high fuel economy to offset the meager fuel capacity, but MCN was barely getting 160 miles/tank (25 of those with the fuel light on), and that's pretty shitty.

On my FZ1 I couldn't open the throttle wide enough for long enough to do that badly. Unless I took my trips 1/4 mile at a time.

 

[ScottRNelson]

Only Moto Guzzi still seems to be able to build practical middleweights.

Are you referring to the V7, or is there some other Moto Guzzi model that qualifies as a middleweight?

I finally got a test ride on a V7 after looking at the bike for a couple of years. One of the most boring motors on any bike I've ever ridden. Plus I didn't fit on it right. The frame and fuel tank stick out right where my knee wants to be. I loved the look of the V7 Racer, but couldn't see actually riding the thing regularly.

 

[davidji]

Are you referring to the V7, or is there some other Moto Guzzi model that qualifies as a middleweight?

Mostly that, though I think it's getting a bigger engine, not sure if this year or next. People say the V7 III engine was nicer than those before, but you still might not like the fit.

I've never owned one. My 1st bike had the A2 power levels of the older V7s, and it was plenty when you weren't trying to go fast. When you were, there wasn't anything left. Probably would be OK in a practical bike.

 

[Rob]

If you can’t find a bike exactly the way you want, your needs are not “normal”.
...
1. Why do you need a larger tank? This is a cruiser, not a tourer, and I need a break by the time I need gas, so 3.2 gallon is just fine.
....

Cruising bikes, mean you gotta slow down because basically you'll be trading some lean angle for comfort. I think those big engines get better mpg (at cruising speeds) so 3.2 might infact be enough before needing to get off the bike and stretch your legs... I think.

I'm been contemplating this for years and frankly, this has kept me from puling the same trigger on a cruiser for commuting... among other reasons.

 

[davidji]

I think those big engines get better mpg (at cruising speeds) so 3.2 might infact be enough before needing to get off the bike and stretch your legs... I think.

I'm been contemplating this for years and frankly, this has kept me from puling the same trigger on a cruiser for commuting... among other reasons.

If you're commuting, it's not usually how long you sit in the saddle before you need to stretch & refuel, it's how many times a week do you have to refuel in your commute. If you have to do it twice as often on one bike than another, does that matter to you?

And when going places, the how often you need to stop and stretch thing only makes sense if fuel is available. At least along the backroads of the western US, it often isn't.

 

[ScottRNelson]

And when going places, the how often you need to stop and stretch thing only makes sense if fuel is available. At least along the backroads of the western US, it often isn't.

Some have implied that you can only stop to stretch when you need fuel. Is that what you're saying too?

I can stop and stretch anytime I want and do it regularly off road even though most trips that I do in the dirt do not require refilling my tank at any point on the trip.

 

[davidji]

Some have implied that you can only stop to stretch when you need fuel. Is that what you're saying too?

Not at all. I'm saying the common justification for a small tank because you have to stop & stretch anyway when the bike needs fuel only makes sense if said fuel is available.

 

[Maddevill]

If you're idea of fun is roads that have mainly sweepers and you want to cover long distances, the Guzzi is a wonderful motor for that. It's just so relaxed at higher speeds. Yes it's wide. Yes it doesn't produce tons of horsepower, but there's something about them.

Mad

 

[ScottRNelson]

If you're idea of fun is roads that have mainly sweepers and you want to cover long distances, the Guzzi is a wonderful motor for that. It's just so relaxed at higher speeds. Yes it's wide. Yes it doesn't produce tons of horsepower, but there's something about them.

And that's what the Guzzi faithful always say. I rode a few bikes when there was a demo truck out at California Speed Sports in Livermore. The V9 was okay. The big cruisers, like the California and MGX-21 had engines that I liked, but they're so heavy, plus they're cruisers. If they could stick that powerband in a V7 Racer I would have seriously considered buying one.

 

[bikewanker]

When when we were in our Italian phase I enjoyed a 76 Moto Guzzi 850 T3 but I was young and didn’t notice weight. The boys were on a Le Mans and 860 and 750 Ducati’s so the Guzzi’s never needed the fuel lights. The track and age seem to lead to lightweight rides. I try not to complain about safety weight.
BMW XR900 483 pounds and 3.8 gallons of gas. :wtf
Yamaha Tracer 900 GT 474 pounds (no luggage ) and 4.8 gallons of gas.
Modern “ lightweight sport tourers”?
Are wee stroms any good?

 

[Doc_V]

If you know what you're doing, "cruisers" can be an absolute blast to carve up the twisty bits, and the twistier the better. It's when you hit the high speed sweepers that they start to fall short; but you just gun it on the straits and catch up before the next corner. I've done a lot of group rides with sport bikes on my Yamaha Roadstar 1700 and I usually end up near the front of the pack with the fast riders. I can't tell you how many times I've had someone come up to me at a rest stop to say, "I've never seen a Harley ridden like that before!" That's when I tell them it's a Yamaha. I'd never win any races, but it sure is a lot more satisfying than pushing my sport bikes on the streets. As for dragging bits, at least on my bike, they're designed for it. My floorboards are hinged and have a replaceable sacrificial feeler. You'll know long before you ever touch down on any hard parts. I've also got an upgraded rear shock with a RAP. When I hit the twisties, I usually dial up the preload anyway, and it gives me an extra inch or so of clearance. Roadstars are affordable as hell and make *excellent* bobbers too if you want something a little more "sporty". And their stock tanks are 5.3 gallons. During hard charging rides, i usually average about 32-35 mpg.