Sport Bikes banner

new baby in family

1799 Views 18 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  rennsport


See less See more
1 - 6 of 19 Posts
:) I do find myself looking at Lincolns much more often than I used to.... there's something about the ride you get out of a long wide wheelbase, that is not going to happen with a 'euro tuned' suspension on a smaller chassis.
Well even a long wide wheelbase is not going to give a good ride, if it has those stiff euro springs and shocks/struts.

I feel every bump in my Miata, but, I would not trade it for barcalounger on wheels. Now a Cadillac CTS... :boink

Had a chance many years ago to drive a Mark IV.... that was more like flying a plane nap of the earth, than driving. You looked out the window at the scenery going by.....

The word for that is "boring"... :D
Being inside a box, travelling is never as much fun as being on a bike.... any bike, doing the same sort of thing.

Uh I would never choose a cruiser style bike over the like of a TR6, Spitfire, Miata or MR2.

Having been driving very small cars for many years, I can fondly remember the seats the size of a living room couch..
I will take bucket seats over any bench seat. I like my leather sofa in the den, but, its place in the den, not a car...
I must disagree
with what? :)
with you on the subject of big ole' American cars. Guy I know had a '73 Olds 98 w/ a huge 4xx big block in it\. God it was so comfy.
Yeah comfy as a living room sofa, but, also has a sloppy suspension and the engine displacement was over sized, for the amount of HP and torque it produced.
and there are times I want to be on a bike and be more relaxed than when I'm on the FZ6, which is about as extreme a seating position as I will ever be in on a bike. I'd love to have a liter SS bike but this body just won't take it.
Syop whining and man up. The smile will be on your face, long after the pain is gone... :D

I know some think cruisers are an abomination or something but they have their function as well.
And that function would be... to remind us of how bad motorcycles really were in 1930?
As bad as 1930? You're reaching there, sunshine. :neener

Solid state ignition, no oil leaks, bullet proof reliable, 0-60 in less time than almost all autos on the road today? Compare that to a production 1930's Indian, or HD.... or Triumph for that matter.

I was speaking to the overall frame design. That and the "sit up and beg" riding position.

When I got back into riding 12 years after my son was born, I decided to buy that Marauder..... specifically because it was low tech, low HP, and low to the ground. (I also thought the inverted fork would be better than it turned out to be... price point POS)

I bevelled the crap out of the pegs and my boot heels on that bike. Dragged stuff in many many turns. Yet, I was not at as much risk doing so, as on the FZ..... when you get 'too hot' on a cruiser, the penalties are a bit less than on something with more vigor. Braking distances are non linear.... starting the maximum effort stop from a lower initial speed is not a bad thing. That Marauder, tapped out in top gear wouldn't break 100 MPH with a windscreen on it. Granted, hitting higher speeds than that is fun on occasion; but my liscense really doesn't benefit from it. :lao
dragging parts and not being able to do the ton. That sounds like 1930 to me. :D

Long wheelbase bikes with a lower center of gravity are more stable in braking evolutions. Long wheelbase bikes with more rake and trail are also more stable at moderate speeds... with modern frame design, there is no flex, so the parts work as designed.
Well that is true of long wheelbase bikes, however, that does not mean that short wheelbase bikes are unstable at high speeds.
1 - 6 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.