Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Kawasaki News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-12-2004, 08:59 AM   #111
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Vulcan 2000 Teaser

The truth uncovered
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-12-2004, 09:15 AM   #112
ikonoklass
Founding Member
 
ikonoklass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 240
Default Re: Vulcan 2000 Teaser

Funny you should say that. Many a bagger has left me with the same impression I get after using a vintage Kirby.
__________________
Go Hinckley or go Home!
ikonoklass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 10:32 AM   #113
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default This gets funnier and funnier

ZRX keeps repeating the same complaint about others' lack of originality. If the shoe fits.



His bunkmate keeps posting the same wacko conspiracy drivel over and over.



When is it my turn to be self-appointed pst-nazi?
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 10:49 AM   #114
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Is Motorcycle Online going to change its name to Cruiser Online?

Well there is another one totally missing the point.



The point is, if sportbikes (fanstastic thingies, if you like that sort of thing) improve from 144hp to 155hp, its like yeah big difference.



Its like if you get a 155$ babe or 144$ babe in Tijuana. You look for some other differentiating factors if you know what I mean.



Meanwhile what is happening in the cruiser front is that things go from 74 lb-ft to 147 lb-ft. So if you are in Tijuana (ok so I have a creeping feeling this analogy sucks).



- cruiz-euro







anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 11:10 AM   #115
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Vulcan 2000 Teaser

Agree. I guess my contrarian's opinion has gotten the best of him
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 11:14 AM   #116
runner00
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 144
Default Re: Vulcan 2000 Teaser

Concerning the new tendency for the existence of high displacement cruisers. I for one applaud those manufacturers participating in this latest trend. In the past cruiser have been somewhat boring offerings.

Now the consumer has more choices which is always a good thing. On todayÂ’s roads the ability to maintain a comfortable speed of 70 mph is an essential element of motorcycling safety. Also the ability to accelerate from 70 to 90 at a pace far superior to the average car could also be considered an element of safety. These new offering will address those concerns. These new offerings have the ability to perform those functions two up. If I had quite a lot of two up riding in my future I would certainly consider these new engine configurations. Some other interesting facts is that the manufactures will make a higher profit per unit with these bikes than smaller displacement units. That being said. I still think the manufactures could produce a smaller displacement machine say around 800cc also cable of a consistent 70 mph speed as well as good 70 to 90 mph roll ons.

runner00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 12:17 PM   #117
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Is Motorcycle Online going to change its name to Cruiser Online?

Well, keep in mind that the top level of racing, MotoGP, went from actual 2-stroke bikes to 4-stroke, for reasons of improved power tractability and (arguably) applicability of the engineering to production bikes.



The revolution in choices is evident in the naked bikes, yes, though they are the direct trickle-down beneficiary of pure sportbike engineering. Perhaps it's time for racetrack comparisons of the naked bikes? There's always a couple floating around the track when I'm there anyway. Might as well find out which upright goes the best.



Anyway, I understand what you're saying about the streetability of sportbikes, and I sure wouldn't want to ride my R1 cross-country. But then again----I wouldn't want to take ANY bike cross country. Rolling along on the center of the tire for miles on end (at less than 50% over the speed limit) simply has no appeal for me. When I think of riding a motorcycle, all I really want to do is go all-out all the time. In fact most of my street riding these days is limited to a half-dozen or so favorite roads within a 20-mile radius of my house. If I'm not going to be scraping the pegs I'd rather leave the bike in the garage and find something else to do. Ahh the recklessness of the young single male.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 12:44 PM   #118
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Cruisers aren't used that way.

Well, I would guess that most Cessna owners would like to have a supersonic plane but economics dictate that they buy what they can afford.



To play the devil's advocate for a moment----airplanes are designed mainly with two main considerations----function and cost. I would guess that they are purchased primarily with those considerations in mind, not simply the way they look, or their "personality", or the way they strike the eye of the buyer. Also---all other things being equal, the heavier, slower, less powerful, less agile plane will generally not be the one that costs more yet is in higher demand.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 12:45 PM   #119
jamesohoh7
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 211
Default Re: Vulcan 2000 Teaser

I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I read your post Michael, and I tend to think that there's a flaw in your logic.



You're assuming, or more correctly let me say that I -think- you're assuming, that a given bike will be able to spin the gear reduction necessary to equalize your RPM comparison.



I don't think it is very easy to spin that type of gear reduction... you eat up a lot of energy, right?



I could be way off (I suppose I should go do some research now ), but somehow, someway, I think that the companies building these bikes have already figured out the most advantageous gear ratios, and use them.



I realize the point of your comparison is to 'equalize' the two for purposes of illustration, but relate that to 'as implemented on the bike' for me?



Am I just horribly wrong?... I'm willing to be wrong (and probably am wrong), but at this point, this thing doesn't add up for me. I just want to further this discussion is all, and I'm not picking nits... I really want to know what's up.. tell me what I'm not understanding.



Would it further the cause to just measure the bike's engine output at 1:1? (whatever gear that happens to be??) .. and put big + little sprockets that are as close as possible, and/or account for tire-size diffs by staggering same?



-James
jamesohoh7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2004, 12:48 PM   #120
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Cruisers aren't used that way.

Though you're correct, the argument isn't neccessarily circular. One can choose not to carve canyons based on a reason other than the limitations of their motorcycle. Like, for instance, because one is an old fuddy-duddy. LOL j/k
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off