Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2002, 08:03 AM   #91
Ken_Packard
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 86
Default I agree...Looks come second

While I'd never deny that some aspects of motorcycling are about image and there certainly are groups who are very image-conscious, ultimately for me it boils down to performance and functionality.



When I marched into my local dealership to buy my '99 SV 650 (after having only briefly read about it in Cycle World when they announced new models), it wasn't because I loved the looks of the bike. I knew that I wanted a light weight twin that handled well with "decent" power. In fact, to be honest, I wasn't that crazy about the looks of the bike, but it had everything else that I wanted, so I bought it. I did draw the line at that ghastly powder blue though...anyone remember that? I'll take mine in red, please.



Anyway, four years later, I'm much more happy with the appearance of my bike, having had the opportunity to make some of the changes that we all tend to make to put our individual "thumb prints" on our bikes.



Now I'm twisting my nuts off because I see the SV 1000 (faired version)and want it bad, but can't bring myself to bend over for the raping I'd take if I offed my orignal 650. I just can't sell that bike. I'm going to have slip the wife something and just show up with it.



But once again, I'm not head over heels with the styling. It looks OK, but it's not designed like a 916/996/998 or MV Agusts F4, which if put next a nekkid Carmen Electra, I'd have to consider which I wanted to ride first.



Some of the most experienced (and personally respected for me) riders I've met could give two shats about the looks/image of their bikes. But they always leave the most GQ of riders waddling in their wake.



While you obviously can't despise the looks of your bike, not every one is going to be a masterpiece. We all have our warts/beer guts. Besides, when was the last time you were able to watch yourself riding your own bike? Personally, I'd prefer for mine only to be seen heeled over on the edge of its tires, but that would make for awkward moments at the gas pump.
Ken_Packard is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 09-25-2002, 08:07 AM   #92
robb_millett
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 145
Default Re: 2003 Suzuki Reader Feedback

I think Kawi went a little overboard with the styling...I'll have to see it in person though to really figure out whether I like it's looks or not...
robb_millett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 08:11 AM   #93
robb_millett
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 145
Default Re: 2003 Suzuki Reader Feedback

doesn't your sig line answer your own question?
robb_millett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 08:12 AM   #94
robb_millett
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 145
Default Re: 2003 Suzuki Reader Feedback

I forgot to ask, are you happy with the switch from the VS1400 to the SV650?
robb_millett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 08:30 AM   #95
DJS
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 67
Default Re: Stiction is not in my dictionary

The rolling car was not the best example because the tires actually have no motion relative to the road at the contact patch. But you do have static friction of axles to bearings and such.



Inertia is not a quantity you have more or less of when you start moving. You have the same amount of intertia in a 5 pound rock on the table as a 5 pound shotput flying through the air. You don't gain inertia by starting something moving, you overcome inertia by starting something moving and you overcome intertia again by stopping a moving object.



Stiction has nothing to do with inertia. Inertia resists changes in velocity, either stopping a moving object or accelerating a stopped object. Stiction is the force between two surfaces in contact that resists the start of motion relative to each other. Stiction is highly dependent on the finishes of the surfaces in contact. Inertia is only dependent on how much mass an object posseses



That make sense?



http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm



Main Entry: stic·tion

Pronunciation: 'stik-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: static + friction

Date: 1946

: the force required to cause one body in contact with another to begin to move



Main Entry: fric·tion

Pronunciation: 'frik-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin friction-, frictio, from fricare to rub; akin to Latin friare to crumble, and perhaps to Sanskrit bhrInanti they injure

Date: 1704

1 a : the rubbing of one body against another b : the force that resists relative motion between two bodies in contact



You can split definition B into two categories. Stiction is one category (also called static friction) and Dynamic friction is the other.



DJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 09:03 AM   #96
Larrysupersport
Founding Member
 
Larrysupersport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 24
Default Re: 2003 Suzuki Reader Feedback

NOOOOO! Where is the new TLR. Well that will about do it for my hopes and dreams



Larrysupersport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 09:49 AM   #97
DJS
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 67
Default New? Rumor was it was dying in 2003

http://www.suzukicycles.com/sr_03/su...fs_tl1000r.htm



At least it is still around for another year.



David

DJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 10:30 AM   #98
crg
Founding Member
 
crg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 64
Default Form vs. Function

A lot of comments to this article debate the importance of good styling vs. performance. I would like to think that I am in the function half of the boat, but I know appearance has a big affect on me.



Since I travel extensively for work, the closest I get to my bike tends to be the pictures on my laptop. I have found that, for me, a bike's imagery needs to evoke the same sentiments a crisp morning ride on an empty stretch of twisties, with the sunlight coming through the trees just so.



It is a delicate balance, no doubt, and one that isn't often met. Of course, this is made more difficult by the subjective nature of beauty.
crg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 10:51 AM   #99
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Form vs. Function Given the choice .....Pretty wins

As an engineer I think I probably fall into the form function for most things except bikes. Bikes are my passion so I lean heavily toward the form side. Your absolutely right is rare when the right balance is found. A good case in point is the the new Ducati which probably offers more function i.e. utility to the average rider than its predecessor but it lacks the beautiful form of the original.
[*] Given two bikes that are close in performance: Even if the pretty bike is 20% down on performance compared to the "ugly bike the pretty bike will sell better.
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2002, 11:34 AM   #100
rsheidler
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: I agree...Looks come second

You make a very good point ....



To me, how someone reacts to a motorcycle is a lot like the way one reacts to another person -- particularly a prospective (at least theoretically) romantic partner. As a male heterosexual, I will use a woman as my example, but you, of course, can can substitute the gender/species or ?? that you are particularly attracted to



Face it, most of us guys are shallow enough that the first thing that attracts us to someone is physical appearance. If we are not at least somewhat attracted, we probably will never pay enough attention to even notice her other attractive attributes. I suspect that a good percentage of fashion model/movie star/ centerfold type women may not be worth a damn in the sack (at least I tell myself that so as not to feel to sorry for myself for not being able to attract them to me). Conversely, the plain or maybe even ugly woman that you didn't look twice at could be the best sex partner in modern history.



Then to carry the analagy further, there are women who would make great lovers, mistresses or whatever, but with whom you would not want to spend that much of your non-amorous time with.



Picking a bike simply because it is beautiful is like having a trophy wife/mistress -- if you can swing it more power to you. Similarly, picking a bike that performs great in only one environment (eg race track) is also fine, just like having a relationship with a great lover with whom you have nothing else in common. Some of us don't want/need a wide-spectrum bike, either because we don't care about certain uses or because we can afford a garage full of bikes -- kinda like having a good wife, a trophy wife to impress your friends, and a wild, passionate lover as well. And some few of us are lucky enough to find a bike/lover that is good, and possibly great, at all these areas -- then you have a real keeper!
rsheidler 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