| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:10:25 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,309 |
A bit out of left
field, I had a seat on a Tiger 900 GT Pro, which had been lowered, and it fitted me perfectly while seemingly carrying the weight better than the
BMW. That would still leave the distance option open but probably nowhere near the same fun.
Re: previous announcements, it???s looking very, very likely that radiotherapy and hormone therapy is on the cards for later this year.
Readers might wonder why this might drive the need for a new bike and the answer is that hormone therapy in particular can lead to reduction in bone and muscle density, which is unlikely to return at my age, and my bike is already becoming uncomfortably heavy (S1000XR) so something a bit easier to deal with is going to be necessary.
The burning question is what. I think the question I???m asking myself is what???s the likelihood of doing anything that requires luggage and the answer is probably low given that the French Run seems to be fizzling out
and there seems to be even less interest in Chimie and Gedinne. But I still hang on to the idea that I could if I wanted to.
Or, do I look at something that???s much more fun for riding locally and accept that it???ll be a pain in the arse if I want to do any distance ? So
Re: previous announcements, itrCOs looking very, very likely that radiotherapy and hormone therapy is on the cards for later this year.
Readers might wonder why this might drive the need for a new bike and
the answer is that hormone therapy in particular can lead to reduction
in bone and muscle density, which is unlikely to return at my age, and
my bike is already becoming uncomfortably heavy (S1000XR) so something
a bit easier to deal with is going to be necessary.
Anyway, I donrCOt think IrCOm looking for an answer to this but itrCOs helpful to write it down and thererCOs nothing wrong with a bit of
attention seeking.
I went from the BMW 1200RS to the 900GT. Never regretted it. The weight difference is a revelation, it's so much lighter to push around. Thats
why I chose it. It isnt perfect, the ones where the cranks had been
changed to a different firing order (2020?) vibrate a bit, nothing desperate, but nowhere near as smooth as an inline 4.
Thankfully, I'm not facing the same health challenges, but as I've
aged, I've lost muscle and my reflexes have gotten slower, so I'm
also thinking of downsizing from my FJR.
SWMBO has ridden with me on many long road trips across the USA and
Canada on her EX250 (a '99 and an '09) and a '09 EX500, and she took
it all in stride. I once rode her EX250 700 miles in one day and I
was surprised how well that went. A dry bag slung across the pillion
perch works well enough for her, in place of hard bags.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is, don't overlook light- and
middle-weight bikes. Plenty of distance touring was done for decades
on mid-displacement bikes that were nowhere near the weight and bulk
of today's bikes.
Re: previous announcements, itrCOs looking very, very likely that radiotherapy and hormone therapy is on the cards for later this year.
The burning question is what. I think the question IrCOm asking myself is whatrCOs the likelihood of doing anything that requires luggageSNIP
But I still
hang on to the idea that I could if I wanted to.
One machine I've always wanted (and once almost bought) is an '88-'90
Honda VTR250. Very refined, light, fast enough for practical use.
In the end I bought an SV650S, not a bad machine but much heavier.
If I ever find a 1990 VTR250 in good shape I'll likely re-home the VFR.
The burning question is what. I think the question IrCOm asking myself is whatrCOs the likelihood of doing anything that requires luggage and the answer is probably low given that the French Run seems to be fizzling out
and there seems to be even less interest in Chimie and Gedinne. But I still hang on to the idea that I could if I wanted to.
Anyway, I donrCOt think IrCOm looking for an answer to this but itrCOs helpful to
write it down and thererCOs nothing wrong with a bit of attention seeking.
The Tracer has moved up to a premium bike but one of the 700cc variants might suit.
The Yamaha 900cc triple is a peach. XSR900 in Speedblocks looks nice. https://www.motorcyclenews.com/bike-reviews/yamaha/xsr900/2016/
Recently I rode a Z650Rs loan bike when the V85 had the first service.
Not a bad bike and so light.
The Aprilia 660cc engine is also a peach. I rode the Tuareg, nice bike
but too tall. The RS is not for my hips but YMMV. Very light.
What about a Royal Enfield? Pretty things if you like the retro vibe.
In no way addressing your own 'what to buy' quandary, but it made me
wonder.
As most will remember, I'v been off bikes for nearly 20 years,
following my big smash on the gixxer thou. I would always be open
about my reasoning and most of it was the call that my wife got from
the hospital "we have your husband, he's going to live". She always
swore that she wouldn't, but in her position I certainly would, have
been expecting that call or worse every time I was out on the bike.
So this post made me go and look at the Triumph Tiger 900 mentioned,
and my first thought was 108PSp? From a 900? That's a bit weedy,
innit? The 996cc Sprint ST I had 25 years ago was significantly more
than that, haven't they developed any further? So that probably says something about what I might or might not be up for.
Then I looked at the Tiger 800 Sport range. 115PS, smaller engine,
lighter bike, similar sort of use case, and cheaper. What am I
missing?
Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
So this post made me go and look at the Triumph Tiger 900 mentioned,
and my first thought was 108PSp? From a 900? That's a bit weedy,
innit? The 996cc Sprint ST I had 25 years ago was significantly more
than that, haven't they developed any further? So that probably says
something about what I might or might not be up for.
Then I looked at the Tiger 800 Sport range. 115PS, smaller engine,
lighter bike, similar sort of use case, and cheaper. What am I
missing?
The fact that the 'gestalt' of a bike cannot be captured or compared
to another by putting its specifications into a list of pros/cons.
Maybe it would be helpful in prioritizing which ones to test ride,
I suppose.
There's really no substitute for riding some bikes to see how they
strike you. And it shouldn't need saying, but different people are
going to pick different bikes, because everyone's preferences are
different.
Since you compared power ratings, I find it much more enjoyable to
ride a bike with a nice fat torque delivery over a wider RPM range
with a lower peak HP, vs. one with a higher HP rating that only
happens at high RPM. Others might have the opposite view.
On 30/07/2025 18:34, Higgins wrote:
A bit out of left
field, I had a seat on a Tiger 900 GT Pro, which had been lowered, and it
fitted me perfectly while seemingly carrying the weight better than the
BMW. That would still leave the distance option open but probably nowhere
near the same fun.
.
I do like the Honda Cb1000, as you say, the best value large bike. Seat height may be an issue, I struggled to get both feet flat.
Higgins <the.best.names.are.gone@gmail.com> wrote in news:106dl2g$3b55m$1@dont-email.me:
Re: previous announcements, itrCOs looking very, very likely that
radiotherapy and hormone therapy is on the cards for later this year.
Readers might wonder why this might drive the need for a new bike and
the answer is that hormone therapy in particular can lead to reduction
in bone and muscle density, which is unlikely to return at my age, and
my bike is already becoming uncomfortably heavy (S1000XR) so something
a bit easier to deal with is going to be necessary.
fingers crossed
[snip]
Anyway, I donrCOt think IrCOm looking for an answer to this but itrCOs
helpful to write it down and thererCOs nothing wrong with a bit of
attention seeking.
[a former S1000XR rider writes]
I had the factory lowered XR
What about a Royal Enfield? Pretty things if you like the retro vibe.
On 31/07/2025 16:12, Mark Olson wrote:
Since you compared power ratings, I find it much more enjoyable toI agree with you, saves a lot of that gear change nonsense!
ride a bike with a nice fat torque delivery over a wider RPM range
with a lower peak HP, vs. one with a higher HP rating that only
happens at high RPM. Others might have the opposite view.
so something a bit easier to
deal with is going to be necessary.
Since you compared power ratings, I find it much more enjoyable to
ride a bike with a nice fat torque delivery over a wider RPM range
with a lower peak HP, vs. one with a higher HP rating that only
happens at high RPM.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 15:12:47 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
Since you compared power ratings, I find it much more enjoyable to
ride a bike with a nice fat torque delivery over a wider RPM range
with a lower peak HP, vs. one with a higher HP rating that only
happens at high RPM.
I never understood this. A more powerful engine makes more torque. A
200bhp litre sportsbike will make more torque throughout its rev range
than a detuned lump like the Tiger.
Going back 20 years I recall that the gsxr1000 I had would accelerate
cleanly and smoothly from about 40kph in top gear. The idea of peaky
engines with narrow power bands such that you needed to change gear
all the time belongs back in the depths of ancient history. Yes, I
remember them, I even rode a few bikes like that back in the day, but
they're long gone.
What you're talking about isn't so much a fat torque delivery as a
'flat' torque curve, such that you get pretty much the same response
to throttle input regardless of the engine revs. The same thing can
easily be achieved on a proper sports bike by simply opening the
throttle a bit less at higher revs.
So this post made me go and look at the Triumph Tiger 900 mentioned,
and my first thought was 108PSp? From a 900? That's a bit weedy,
innit? The 996cc Sprint ST I had 25 years ago was significantly more
than that, haven't they developed any further?
Then I looked at the Tiger 800 Sport range. 115PS, smaller engine,
lighter bike, similar sort of use case, and cheaper. What am I
missing?
What you're talking about isn't so much a fat torque delivery as a
'flat' torque curve, such that you get pretty much the same response
to throttle input regardless of the engine revs. The same thing can
easily be achieved on a proper sports bike by simply opening the
throttle a bit less at higher revs.
On 01/08/2025 02:00, Ace wrote:
What you're talking about isn't so much a fat torque delivery as a
'flat' torque curve, such that you get pretty much the same response
to throttle input regardless of the engine revs. The same thing can
easily be achieved on a proper sports bike by simply opening the
throttle a bit less at higher revs.
I had a mint condition ZXR750H(1) for a while, it was a fantastic bike
and exciting to ride.
Then I was offered an early VFR750 (double swinging arm, can't remember
the exact model).
and yes, I got bored with the VFR and went back to a more upright riding >position with a TDM850, the version with the TRX motor. Now that was a fun >bike to ride.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:17:15 -0000 (UTC), wessie
<willnotwork@tesco.net> wrote:
and yes, I got bored with the VFR and went back to a more upright
riding position with a TDM850, the version with the TRX motor. Now
that was a fun bike to ride.
I had one of the first gen TDMs, before they messed about with the
crank to make it, allegedly, sound and feel more like a V twin. For
whatever reason[1]. Was a great bike. In many ways the precursor to
the whole advanture-bike genre.
[1] Which, like the whole 'fat torque' idea, completely passes me by.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives
a rationalisation for the configuration
On 02/08/2025 08:30, wessie wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives >> a rationalisation for the configuration
Pretty much what I thought. But a proper 90deg V-twin has inherent
excellent primary balance too. Harder to fit into a frame, I suppose.
PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 08:30, wessie wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives >>> a rationalisation for the configuration
Pretty much what I thought. But a proper 90deg V-twin has inherent
excellent primary balance too. Harder to fit into a frame, I suppose.
And it's more expensive, because there's twice the number of cylinder
heads, cams, camchains & tensioners, etc.
PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 08:30, wessie wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives >>> a rationalisation for the configuration
Pretty much what I thought. But a proper 90deg V-twin has inherent
excellent primary balance too. Harder to fit into a frame, I suppose.
And it's more expensive, because there's twice the number of cylinder
heads, cams, camchains & tensioners, etc.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 14:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 08:30, wessie wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives >>>> a rationalisation for the configuration
Pretty much what I thought. But a proper 90deg V-twin has inherent
excellent primary balance too. Harder to fit into a frame, I suppose.
And it's more expensive, because there's twice the number of cylinder >>heads, cams, camchains & tensioners, etc.
I'm not sure, in production engineering, that is necessarily true.
There's 2 simpler heads, compared to one more complex one. If the 2
heads are interchangeable, then I don't think it would be more
expensive to make twice as many single cylinder heads than
two-cylinder heads. Sure, there's more material used, but I doubt the material cost is significant, overall.
Of course, it all depends how sophisticated the automation is. If the production machinery is set up to bore the inlet and exhausts ports,
valves, etc, for a 2-cylinder head all in one step (or, at least, the
same number of steps as for a single head), then you are correct.
Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 14:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
It's an interesting question for sure, it would be great to have
someone more knowledgeable about the costs involved chime in. There's
no doubt a number of other considerations I haven't thought of as well.
Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 14:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
PipL <pip@nowhere.nul> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 08:30, wessie wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850#The_270%C2%B0_crankshaft gives
a rationalisation for the configuration
Pretty much what I thought. But a proper 90deg V-twin has inherent
excellent primary balance too. Harder to fit into a frame, I suppose.
And it's more expensive, because there's twice the number of cylinder
heads, cams, camchains & tensioners, etc.
I'm not sure, in production engineering, that is necessarily true.
There's 2 simpler heads, compared to one more complex one. If the 2
heads are interchangeable, then I don't think it would be more
expensive to make twice as many single cylinder heads than
two-cylinder heads. Sure, there's more material used, but I doubt the
material cost is significant, overall.
Of course, it all depends how sophisticated the automation is. If the
production machinery is set up to bore the inlet and exhausts ports,
valves, etc, for a 2-cylinder head all in one step (or, at least, the
same number of steps as for a single head), then you are correct.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that twice the number of cam
sprockets costs more, and two cam chains and tensioners vs one.
Line> boring for twice the cams
I suppose there are some designs for v-twins where both heads are
the same, but my guess is that most will not be interchangeable
or a variety of reasons.