Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   MO Reader Feedback (
-   -   Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback (

opie 08-29-2002 11:32 AM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
Careful, Rags,

Repeat after me: after, not aftet.

When skewering somebody about their spelling, it is best to watch the keys very

carefully while typing.

kwayne_406 08-29-2002 03:50 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
i think i read that you can get v-rods for less than list in one of the mags...makes yall feel stupid for payin 24 grand now doesnt it. looks like its gonna end up like Willie G's cafe racer

itchface 08-29-2002 04:14 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
>Also, you still haven't defined how >generalized "cruisers" (YOUR generalization, >remember) are poorly engineered, OR >designed.

OK, I'll list out a few of the intrinsic design flaws endemic of most cruisers. They include:

1. Lousy wind management. The seating positions are usually only comfortable until you've reached maybe 30 to 50 mph. Beyond that, you're holding on for dear life as you use your own body as a battering ram against the very reluctantly yeilding atmosphere you're attempting to travel through (heaven forbid you should be riding against a headwind!). A windscreen helps ameliorate this malady, but in so doing creates new problems, such as helmet buffetting, reduced visibility during inclement weather, front-end instability due to wind-pressure forces acting on the front forks, and having to withstand hearing your friends tell you that it makes you look like a dork (though I think you may have become desensitized to this due to frequent exposure.)

2. Having your feet out ahead of you means they can't help support your body weight. This task is then delegated to your butt, which is ill qualified for the job (you've experienced the resultant 'butt-burn' syndrome, have you not?). Additionally, the net center of gravity rises when you can't support any of your own weight on the footpegs, dulling steering response (both a performance and safety issue). As the MSF teaches (and as any dirtbike rider will attest to), when you're crossing over an obstacle such as a railway line or a 2x4, it is best if you "weight the pegs." This allows your legs to act as organic shock absorbers, stabilizing your upper body so it does not feed the chassis any unwanted energy, and dramatically lowers the CofG at a critical time. Have you ever tried "weighting the pegs" on a feet-forward cruiser? A bit tough to do, no? Once again, this idiosyncracy affects both performance and safety.

3. The combination of high bars and forward pegs also dramatically dulls any front-end distress signals due to your remoteness from that critical contact patch. Even cruiser folks are known to ride through twisty roads on occassion, are they not? Little front-end traction signals = little confidence in bike, and little margin of error. More elaboration may be provided upon request (plus a quarter, which you can mail to me).

4. Low seat heights are generally accompanied by short-travel shocks. Since a cruiser typically places the rider's weight furthur back on the bike, and the shock doesn't move a whole bunch (not to mention that they're ususally really crappy quality), a rider's back is subjected to far too much bump-induced trauma. Let us not forget the lower back pains associated with cruiser-posture (aka 'slouching') as well.

5. A passenger is tortured so severely on the majority of cruisers, the manufacturers may soon have to stand trail at the insistance of the fledgling War Crimes Tribunal. Remember the crappy, short-travel shocks that can't even adequately support the rider's weight? The additional mass of an adult passenger collapses the shocks so much I've observed where in some cases they're coil-bound even on glass-smooth roads. Most neophytes think their shocks are set up too stiff when they're actually bottoming them out at the hint of ripple. A passenger gets the living snot pummelled out of them due to the operator's ill-advised motorcycle buying decision. Is this fair? I think not!

>to illustrate my point, and edify somewhat, I >pose a few questions:


>at a standstill, at a stoplight, cruiser and >sportbike side by side...which one is >exhibiting superior function?

Neither. A car with its AC blasting and its radio crooning beats 'em both hands down. Should I abandon motorcycles in favor of a car under the circumstances? Yours is a silly, irrelevent question.

>same two bikes: begiining rider on the >sportbike, experienced rider on the cruiser.


>the begining rider decks the footpeg, scares >him (or her)self, panics, stands the bike up >on the brakes, and countersteers off the >road.


>cruiser rider decks the footpeg/footboard, >which sets up a weave, but the rider keeps >pressure on the inside handle bar and >applies throttle knowing shaft effect will get >the ground clearance up and leans it around >the turn a bit more...

>which bike has exhibited superior function?

Perhaps a more appropriate question would be, "which RIDER exhibited superior function?" If you're making the argument that a bike which reaches its limits sooner is somehow inherently safer, then I chuckle in your face.

BTW, shaft drives create far more handling problems than they do benefits. Besides, they're not endemic to cruisers or to any other kind of bike, so your point about them was irrelevent as well as a tad, well, 'misinformed.'

>same two bikes: equivalent a >track day...two laps in, the cruisers brakes >are overheated, and the rider has to slow >significantly to let them cool off. sport bike >maintains speed, and it's brakes stay solid >throughout the lapping session.


>which bike has exhibited superior function?

Pardon me while I yawn.

>same two bikes, equivalent riders, >comfortable evening ride for fun. traffic is >light, and a few clear areas occur, and both >bikes are able to maintain generally >equivalent pace due to road and traffic >conditions, sometimes the sportbike is >ahead, sometimes the cruiser...


>which bike is exhibiting superior function?

Could you do me a favor, Mr. Millett? Would you mind asking me questions like the last two sometime around midnioght tonight? I've been having a hell of a time getting to sleep...

itchface 08-29-2002 04:29 PM

Re: Uh-Oh!.....
I don't know, longride. I think you may have to sign up for "Goading 1-A' or something. That was such a pathetic attempt at drawing me into your gutter-level, banal little world that I'm just not motivated to respond with my usual wit and acridity.

Can't you try a little harder? I know you can do it you put your 2 brain cells together. Please? For old time's sake?

seruzawa 08-29-2002 04:43 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
There's with a road test on benelli's new cool scorcher.

robb_millett 08-29-2002 04:47 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
oops! how did I miss that one on my bookmark list?

robb_millett 08-29-2002 04:51 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
right now, dude, the article I read about them was two years ago ;-)

seruzawa 08-29-2002 04:59 PM

Re: apples and oranges
With the abysmal reliability record of the TL1000 the Suzuki is one of the few bikes that make Sportsters seem super reliable. My old '85 XLX-61 ran 24K miles without a single problem. TL1000s could never say that.

itchface 08-29-2002 05:02 PM

Re: Uh-Oh!.....
It's OK Charlie. Sometimes issues just aren't incendiary enough to warrant personal attacks.

Oh well, perhaps on another controversy...

seruzawa 08-29-2002 05:08 PM

Re: Shadow 750 vs 883R Reader Feedback
Yeah, that was me on the Norton alright. Worthless POS...........

Now the SuperHawk, that was a jewel of a bike. Why Honda dropped it for that hunk-a-junk CB350 motor is a mystery. Probably a lot cheaper to build.

But a 305 with a roller cam and 350 big bore kit..... kick @$$ bike fer sure.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM.