New Bike In Da Hood.

[Count Steer]

It was in response to the 'lacking cubes' comment about the Vulcan. That motor - in ER6 form - is the basis of one of the mainstays of the lightweight racing class and they're only slow in comparison with the litre bikes! They aren't THAT much slower than the supersports. And the XV535 meets the 'lazy ride' criteria without needing a car engine.

I agree - bikes aren't sensible... and I'd never tell someone not to ride something they want to ride... my AR80 was a pure impulse purchase and still one of the more fun bikes I've owned. So was the Gixxer750 and though I'm glad I owned it, it was a bit of a chore to own.

But unfortunately, the industry has done a very good job on selling the idea that riders need huge engines under them. They've done it with sports bikes, they have done it with tourers, they've done it with cruisers and they've done it with adventure bikes. And most of the time the bike is either compromised by weight or performance you can't use (power limiters in the lower gears, for instance).

If I could ride anything I wanted, costs be damned, I'd likely go for a TZR250 because of the sheer blast of riding a lightweight two-stroke.

Unfortunately, they don't make 'em any more, there aren't any left at a sensible price and I couldn't afford the fuel anyway

So my two 600cc bikes are 'sensible' because they are work bikes (the classic CB250RS is a bit of an indulgence), they were inexpensive to buy and have cost very little to run... but I love both of them!

I don't actually disagree with you at all Spin. What I need (or needed) from a bike is something that covers distance, 2-up, with luggage, comfortable,commutes during the week, low maintenance, wide service intervals and good on rubbish roads etc. The 1150GS did all that*. I decided it was too big, heavy etc so got an F800GS...and hated it. Its not just engine size...I put 18k miles on a CX500 in a year.
But, if you're going to have a bike that you don't actually need, that isn't particularly practical why let sense rule? Pottys thread about his Rudge even got me pondering on getting something silly like a 50 year old Rocket 3/Trident. You know, don't go, don't stop, vibration white-finger and endless spannering. Madness...but probably fun.
So, if I'm to have a cruiser it might as well be a planet-eating heavyweight rather than a vaguely 'sensible' one.

* I miss that bike.

[The Spin Doctor]

I don't actually disagree with you at all Spin. What I need (or needed) from a bike is something that covers distance, 2-up, with luggage, comfortable,commutes during the week, low maintenance, wide service intervals and good on rubbish roads etc. The 1150GS did all that*. I decided it was too big, heavy etc so got an F800GS...and hated it. Its not just engine size...I put 18k miles on a CX500 in a year.
But, if you're going to have a bike that you don't actually need, that isn't particularly practical why let sense rule? Pottys thread about his Rudge even got me pondering on getting something silly like a 50 year old Rocket 3/Trident. You know, don't go, don't stop, vibration white-finger and endless spannering. Madness...but probably fun.
So, if I'm to have a cruiser it might as well be a planet-eating heavyweight rather than a vaguely 'sensible' one.

* I miss that bike.

The CX was a pretty good go anywhere, do anything bike... although I never took mine off-roading. I did do that with the FZ750 several times

I wonder what they could have done with that motor had they continued to develop it? The 650 bumped output up to 70-odd hp (supposedly) which is pretty much where the ER6, MT-07 and the SV all are forty years later!

[Count Steer]

I don't actually disagree with you at all Spin. What I need (or needed) from a bike is something that covers distance, 2-up, with luggage, comfortable,commutes during the week, low maintenance, wide service intervals and good on rubbish roads etc. The 1150GS did all that*. I decided it was too big, heavy etc so got an F800GS...and hated it. Its not just engine size...I put 18k miles on a CX500 in a year.
But, if you're going to have a bike that you don't actually need, that isn't particularly practical why let sense rule? Pottys thread about his Rudge even got me pondering on getting something silly like a 50 year old Rocket 3/Trident. You know, don't go, don't stop, vibration white-finger and endless spannering. Madness...but probably fun.
So, if I'm to have a cruiser it might as well be a planet-eating heavyweight rather than a vaguely 'sensible' one.

* I miss that bike.

The CX was a pretty good go anywhere, do anything bike... although I never took mine off-roading. I did do that with the FZ750 several times

I wonder what they could have done with that motor had they continued to develop it? The 650 bumped output up to 70-odd hp (supposedly) which is pretty much where the ER6, MT-07 and the SV all are forty years later!

Didn't they turbo one too?

I always thought it would make a decent boat engine or, with the right gearing, an aircraft engine.

[The Spin Doctor]

Didn't they turbo one too?

I always thought it would make a decent boat engine or, with the right gearing, an aircraft engine.

There was a turbo 500, then a 650 too, although it always seemed to me that by the time you'd added the weight and the fuel consumption to get the extra performance, you might just as well have built a bigger engine in the first place and saved all the complexity!

Suzuki were supposed to be working on a range of turbo'd mid-sized motors three or so years back... that project seems to have gone very quiet.

[Yorick]

Sold it this morning for a decent price

Over here buying and selling involves loads of paperwork and taxes.
So you let them drop the price and then agree on condition that they do the paperwork.
For this we all use what could be called a facilitator.
It turned out that the one he uses is one of my bike pals,so I let them chat away on the phone in Spanish and they involved me as necessary.

They arranged to meet in town an hour later to do the bike transfer and pay the tax.

That was much easier than it could have been

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

It was in response to the 'lacking cubes' comment about the Vulcan. That motor - in ER6 form - is the basis of one of the mainstays of the lightweight racing class and they're only slow in comparison with the litre bikes! They aren't THAT much slower than the supersports. And the XV535 meets the 'lazy ride' criteria without needing a car engine.

I agree - bikes aren't sensible... and I'd never tell someone not to ride something they want to ride... my AR80 was a pure impulse purchase and still one of the more fun bikes I've owned. So was the Gixxer750 and though I'm glad I owned it, it was a bit of a chore to own.

But unfortunately, the industry has done a very good job on selling the idea that riders need huge engines under them. They've done it with sports bikes, they have done it with tourers, they've done it with cruisers and they've done it with adventure bikes. And most of the time the bike is either compromised by weight or performance you can't use (power limiters in the lower gears, for instance).

If I could ride anything I wanted, costs be damned, I'd likely go for a TZR250 because of the sheer blast of riding a lightweight two-stroke.

Unfortunately, they don't make 'em any more, there aren't any left at a sensible price and I couldn't afford the fuel anyway

So my two 600cc bikes are 'sensible' because they are work bikes (the classic CB250RS is a bit of an indulgence), they were inexpensive to buy and have cost very little to run... but I love both of them!

I don't actually disagree with you at all Spin. What I need (or needed) from a bike is something that covers distance, 2-up, with luggage, comfortable,commutes during the week, low maintenance, wide service intervals and good on rubbish roads etc. The 1150GS did all that*. I decided it was too big, heavy etc so got an F800GS...and hated it. Its not just engine size...I put 18k miles on a CX500 in a year.
But, if you're going to have a bike that you don't actually need, that isn't particularly practical why let sense rule? Pottys thread about his Rudge even got me pondering on getting something silly like a 50 year old Rocket 3/Trident. You know, don't go, don't stop, vibration white-finger and endless spannering. Madness...but probably fun.
So, if I'm to have a cruiser it might as well be a planet-eating heavyweight rather than a vaguely 'sensible' one.

* I miss that bike.

There's only one cruiser to buy, Fantic Chopper 125, though I suspect it wouldn't cruise.

[Yorick]

It was in response to the 'lacking cubes' comment about the Vulcan. That motor - in ER6 form - is the basis of one of the mainstays of the lightweight racing class and they're only slow in comparison with the litre bikes! They aren't THAT much slower than the supersports. And the XV535 meets the 'lazy ride' criteria without needing a car engine.

I agree - bikes aren't sensible... and I'd never tell someone not to ride something they want to ride... my AR80 was a pure impulse purchase and still one of the more fun bikes I've owned. So was the Gixxer750 and though I'm glad I owned it, it was a bit of a chore to own.

But unfortunately, the industry has done a very good job on selling the idea that riders need huge engines under them. They've done it with sports bikes, they have done it with tourers, they've done it with cruisers and they've done it with adventure bikes. And most of the time the bike is either compromised by weight or performance you can't use (power limiters in the lower gears, for instance).

If I could ride anything I wanted, costs be damned, I'd likely go for a TZR250 because of the sheer blast of riding a lightweight two-stroke.

Unfortunately, they don't make 'em any more, there aren't any left at a sensible price and I couldn't afford the fuel anyway

So my two 600cc bikes are 'sensible' because they are work bikes (the classic CB250RS is a bit of an indulgence), they were inexpensive to buy and have cost very little to run... but I love both of them!

I don't actually disagree with you at all Spin. What I need (or needed) from a bike is something that covers distance, 2-up, with luggage, comfortable,commutes during the week, low maintenance, wide service intervals and good on rubbish roads etc. The 1150GS did all that*. I decided it was too big, heavy etc so got an F800GS...and hated it. Its not just engine size...I put 18k miles on a CX500 in a year.
But, if you're going to have a bike that you don't actually need, that isn't particularly practical why let sense rule? Pottys thread about his Rudge even got me pondering on getting something silly like a 50 year old Rocket 3/Trident. You know, don't go, don't stop, vibration white-finger and endless spannering. Madness...but probably fun.
So, if I'm to have a cruiser it might as well be a planet-eating heavyweight rather than a vaguely 'sensible' one.

* I miss that bike.

There's only one cruiser to buy, Fantic Chopper 125, though I suspect it wouldn't cruise.

Started drinking early today ?

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Started drinking early today ?

No just bored

[Yorick]

Started drinking early today ?

No just bored

I have

IMG_20210825_170722.jpg (385.82 KiB) Viewed 210 times