[eternal05]

Oh god…prepare yourself. I’m not sure how I wrote this much.

FIRST AND FOREMOST: I agree with EVERYTHING you say with respect to having appreciation for the abilities of a particular machine, having self control, limiting one’s self to an appropriate machine for one’s skill, etc. I have NO argument against any of that, and I’ve been “preaching” the same since I started riding. In a phrase:

“Maybe self control is in buying a machine that matches the riding environment and the rider’s personal style [and ability] to begin with.”

YES!

My problem, again, comes down to your perception of supersports, which I think is unrepresentative and colored by stereotype and hearsay. Your perspective is by no means unique, and in fact, is probably the majority opinion, but if you’ll hear me out, I think I can convince you that it’s more complex than you make it out to be.

I’ve said this a million times on this forum, but just to be absolutely clear, I’ll say it again. I think supersports, and sportbikes in general, make terrible beginner bikes, and I have always done my best to steer people away from them until they are ready. For some people, that time never comes. They are obscenely powerful, and as you say, ultra responsive to all user input, the good and the bad. We’re not debating whether or not sportsbikes are appropriate for those without skill. I completely agree with you there.

First off, your perception that sportbikes are the most accident prone is, from every empirical study I’ve seen, incorrect. Sportbikers die in droves, don’t get me wrong, but so do middle-aged men on high-displacement cruisers.

The problem is that, whenever you look at statistics, you have to think about hidden correlation. Do lots of people die on supersports because supersports are that bad? Or is it that the image and performance of supersports, by nature, attract the sort of people that are most likely to be idiots, regardless of what bike they ride? The same holds true of cruisers. The bottom line is, if you have a tiny dick and care way too much about what other people think about you, you’re going to go for the biggest, baddest bike there is. What you end up on is just a matter of whether you’re into cruisers or into sportbikes. Statistics say that, if you’re a 24-year-old ex-military man, you’ll probably get a Kawi ZX-10R. If you’re 40 and rich, you’ll go buy the fattest $25,000 “lawyer Harley” you can find. Either way, you’re probably an idiot.

You keep coming back to this “world-class performance” and “race-tuned engines” etc. etc., but I think this impression has been hyped up waaaay too much. There are tons of bikes out there, from dual-sports to tourers to cruisers to standards, that go waaaaay faster than the 400hp supercars we all lust after. Don’t think it’s the same? Ok, I’ll make it more concrete for you. If I were to drag race Megaspaz, me on my GSX-R600 and Mega on his SV650SF, we’d still be neck-and-neck at 60mph. Yes folks, that’s right. The SV650, the bike that people here recommend to newbies all the time, has THE SAME 3.6 SECOND 0-60mph time as the “world-class” GSX-R600 (ok fine, the gixxer is really 3.5 seconds). From there I’d slowly start to inch away from him. It wouldn’t be until we got near 100mph that I’d really start to pull away. Most crashes happen well under 100mph, meaning that, from the point of view of acceleration, there are plenty of bikes that are just as hard to control in the common case.

The point is, most “normal” motorcycles out there are plenty fast enough that, if you’re the type of person that is going to pin the throttle, you will get yourself killed. These guys die not because the supersport makes them, or even because it’s possible to go fast. If there were no supersports, these same people would be killing themselves on other bikes instead. Again, remember that I’m not saying supersports are easy to ride. I’m simply saying that the higher skill level required to operate one is NOT the reason so many people die on them. This is fact, corroborated by every recorded traffic collision study ever performed.

You say that supersports have no place on the street, but again, this is to completely miss the purpose of these bikes, just as the squids that die on them at 160mph miss that purpose. My 200hp sedan can go 130+mph, but you never see me going above 80mph on the street. Does that mean that any car that can exceed the speed limit has no place on the street? I mean come on! Cars exceed the needs of the street dramatically so to avoid forcing the driver to operate the car at the limit of its ability. But that’s a tangent…back to the point.

The whole point of sportbikes is CORNERING! Let me say that again. The vast majority of technology that goes into a sportsbike — chassis, suspension, brakes, tires, steering geometry, high lean clearance, etc. — is to allow it to take corners at higher speeds and lean angles. Straight-line speed is what people with big egos like to achieve for thrills. It makes them feel badass, and boosts their rep with the occasional traffic ticket. Drag racing on the street or trying to hit your bike’s top speed on public roads is proof that you’re a poser looking to feel legit, with no regard for your safety, or the safety of others. Now take that 160mph sportsbike and ride it at 50mph through a nice windy 2-lane country highway and you have safe, responsible bliss. It’s what it was meant to do! Forget hitting top speed; I get plent of satisfaction from comfortably taking a corner at 50mph that everybody else struggles with at 30mph.

You think all the sportbike riders are the same, but they’re not. The ones you’re thinking of don’t last. They end their careers prematurely, but there’s always a fresh supply of new ones to take their place. But go to any track day or race weekend and you’ll find HORDES of sportbike riders of all ages, most of which are extremely competent. You won’t find these people zooming down the interstate at 120mph in a T-Shirt. You’ll find them casually riding through mountain or canyon roads, throwing down in the corners and taking it easy on the straights. One of the best (and most famous) written demonstrations of what I consider to be the “true” sport riding approach was written by Nick Ienatsch, a former successful racer and currently one of the most successful motorcycle journalists and performance instructors in the world. Here’s that article, entitled “The Pace”:

Ienatsch’s “The Pace” (From a ’91 issue of Motorcyclist Magazine)

Finally, you keep referring to taking full advantage of the bike, but I think you’re mixing meanings. When people say, for instance, that “only the top 1% of racers can ever master a MotoGP bike,” They don’t mean that lots and lots of people can’t go around a track very quickly on one. What they mean is that only 1% of riders are good enough that they get FASTER when they get on a MotoGP bike. In other words, I could ride a MotoGP bike perfectly well, but I wouldn’t be able to go faster around a track on such a bike than on my GSX-R600. Right now my speed limit is not the bike, but my own abilities. The thing is, these abilities are not street-level bike control. They are things like knowing how late and how hard I can brake into a corner, how far I can lean before lowsiding, how quickly I can get back on the gas after the apex, etc. These are not the issues that riders struggle with at first. It’s not these things that cause riders to crash.

The truth of the matter, the honest truth coming from a guy who tries to talk everybody into a Ninja 250, is that anybody who has gotten really comfortable (and I mean really comfortable) on A bike is ready to give a sportbike a shot. You, Elwood, could learn to ride a supersport quickly and without incident. You may not think so, but if you have the smooth riding skills I think you do and can really control a big cruiser, all you’d need is practice. Seriously. But you’re not interested in supersports, so you’re never going to try long enough to realize that it’s not so terrifying. Yes, certain things are going to be harder than on your Dyna Wide Glide, but things that took you ages to master on your Sporty (*cough* weight *cough*) will no longer be an issue. Whether or not you’d LIKE riding a sportbike is a different story (we all know the answer to that ), but you could certainly handle it if you wanted to.

To come full circle, the problem with sportbikes in general is, in my humble opinion, not that they exist, or that they’re on our streets, but rather that people can START their riding careers aboard one. THAT makes no sense. Once you’ve learned to be smooth on a 250’s throttle, you can be smoother on an I4’s (seriously). Once you’ve learned to lean into a corner hard on a Vulcan 500, you’ll be able to lean in harder and with more confidence on a sportbike. In fact, in almost every respect, you have MORE margin for error on a sportbike once you come to grips with its behavior. The problem is that people don’t start on the Ninja 250R, or the Vulcan, or the DR-Z. They never really learn how to ride, and never have a chance to make the beginner mistakes on a bike that won’t bite them in the ass. But once you’ve grown accustomed to the responsiveness and the dexterity of a sportbike, that ultra-sensitivity becomes a good thing, allowing you to ride with confidence and ease you’d never imagine.

[eternal05]

And like I said, I feel the same way. I mean, hell, I still make the totally irrational decision to double-clutch in my synchronized manual car just because I figure that I might, one day, get stuck on a desert island with nothing but a 1940s tractor to get around on. Now it’s second nature. It’s silly of me, but I just like having that much more to do. So believe me, I understand.

All I’m saying is, you might have more fun behind the wheel of these cars than you might think, even if you’re never getting past 50mph. Totally impractical? Yup. Unjustifiably expensive? For sure. Good value? No way. Would I jump on the chance to take something like that out for a spin again? Helllll yes.

[eternal05]

I almost agreed with you 100% until you said this:

“I no longer lust after high-end exotic cars like I used to…most of them now aren’t really fun in any real-world way. They’re mostly about theoretical numbers and bragging rights.”

Believe me, mate…those cars are PLENTY of real-world fun. While driving that S4 I was having way too much fun with the handling, the engine, and shifting around through the gearbox to miss the clutch pedal. Would I rather have had a clutch pedal? Yes. Was I a sad panda without it? Noooooo!

In the SPIRIT of what you were saying, of course I agree. Consumers shouldn’t care whether the car is 2% faster on a closed circuit. They should care about the visceral aspect, the feeling of connection with the car, the experience, etc. The auto manufacturers should therefore focus on giving their customers exactly that…a visceral experience. And you’re right, that focus is waning in high-end car development.

[eternal05]

You’re right, that for a given amount of skill, it is easier to do X with a bike that is easier to ride. It’s a no brainer, really. The thing is, almost every bike — other than the ones we all recommend to beginners like the broken records that we are — is not the easiest bike to ride. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Goldwing or an R1; it’s not going to be easy to get it to balance at 2mph if you’ve never tried. You have to practice. But once you do, it’s second nature, just as it would be with said beginner bike.

I probably sound dismissive when I say this stuff, but you’ve missed about 60% of my posts on this forum (at least based on when you became really active). You’ve missed my talking about how many hours and hours of failure it took before I could keep my GSX-R inside the box on the MSF figure-8 drill. This stuff is not easy, especially on a sportsbike, and I don’t mean to make it sound like it is. I still feel uneasy if I haven’t done it in a while. I just don’t think that sportsbikes are really any harder to ride than big Harleys, powerful tourers, etc. Sure, it’s a different set of skills and challenges in play, and some riders have a harder time dealing with sportsbike-specific issues than others, but the other bike types have their challenges as well.

[eternal05]

I’m not really sure why you (Gary) suggest that sportsbikes aren’t ideal in heavy traffic. While it’s definitely easier to do the crawl on a light standard, slow-speed control is a fundamental motorcycle skill on any bike. Am I misunderstanding you?

[eternal05]

1) Quit with the all-caps. It reads like you’re very angry.

2) Move this into it’s own thread in the “General” section.

[eternal05]

Dude, you keep saying “GSX 600” but were originally talking about getting a GSX-R600. If it’s a Katana that you’re referring to, that’s an entirely different story (though not altogether better). It’ll be heavier, but less absurd in the power and track-specialization department. Which is it?

[eternal05]

You’d be totally fine on a DR-Z400sm. You’d probably be fine on the 200SE as well, but I heartily recommend the 400. It’s a blast! Your weight is not an issue.

[eternal05]

It’s not a criticism or an insult; it’s a friendly word of caution. Anthony, I hate to be the broken record here, but a 600cc supersport just isn’t a beginner bike. It doesn’t matter if you’ve ridden on dirt; the low power of the bikes (was that 125cc 2-stroke or 4-stroke?) and the loose terrain will mask a lot of the learning issues you run into on pavement. You’ll probably learn faster than somebody with no experience at all, but you still shouldn’t take unnecessary risks.

I’ve said it 1000 times on this forum, but it’s the same question again and again each of our new members, so here’s my response…AGAIN (sorry to all the people who have to read this every time):

I own a GSX-R600. I wanted it from day one. I’d dream about it. I had friends that had them. But somehow I got talked into a different direction, and my first bike was a Ninja 250R. It’s a damn good thing that it was. I learned to ride faster, better, and safer than I ever could have on a gixxer. I still have that bike, and ride it fairly often, despite the fact that it’s one of three that I now own.

If we’re honest, you and I, we’ll have to admit that a large factor in the decision making process to get a sportbike revolves around either the LOOK of a sportsbike, or the desire to own an authentic race machine. It’s no surprise. If Ferraris cost $11-13K a piece, a lot of dumb teenagers (not to say you are one, but I sure was back in the day…hopefully have learned a bit since then) would buy them too. But just as a Ferrari is a terrible first car, and totally impractical to drive around the city, a sportbike is a terrible first bike, and just as impractical anywhere but on a track or a spirited ride through some twisty backroads. If you really want to get to the point where you can really ride a sportbike the way it was meant to be ridden, get good at just riding a normal bike first. Just trust me. You don’t have to get a 250, but there are a ton of decidedly beginner-friendly bikes of all styles out there, all the way up to 650cc. Walk before you run, look before you leap, blah blah blah you know the drill.

[eternal05]

But to discount the throttle/brake/clutch sensitivity is to have forgotten what it was like the very first time you got on a motorcycle. The first time I got a bike into 1st gear on the MSF parking lot, I couldn’t move the throttle subtly enough to not jerk the bike on every acceleration and deceleration. With almost 10 times the horsepower, each one of those jerks could have been a crash. Now that you have good throttle control you don’t judge a bike’s easiness to ride the same way you would have when you were just starting.

That’s why the longer someone has ridden, the worse that person’s advice becomes with respect to a beginner. They forget how hard it was and begin to think they could’ve done it just as well with something bigger. I think it’s important to remember how you felt and what was hard when you first started, and then stick to your guns later, regardless of your changing perspective.

Finally, as silly as it sounds, I know what you mean about the whole literbike thing. In the racing world, the 1000 is the defacto standard. The people on 600s are just on their way to 1000s and haven’t earned it yet. Every once in a while I’ll feel like I should get a literbike at some point, but it’s a stupid feeling. Until you get down within a small margin of the club-level course record at your local track, there’s no point. A 600 is more maneuverable and has the same traction and stability that a 1000 has. Unless you’re not losing any time in the corners (which is unlikely), the tiny fractions of a second you’d gain on straights won’t help you at all. I think you’re right that you shouldn’t get a particular bike until you’re ready for it, but I think that most people who own or want literbikes aren’t, and will never be.

[eternal05]

Everybody thinks their favorite type of bike is better than the rest. Truth is that where SM bikes “corner better” is really low-speed, tight turns, where the steering geometry and handling characteristics of sportbikes are the limiting factor to quick turning. Due to their light weight, among other things, you get astounding confidence just throwing the bike around at low speed. Also, it is very typical in SM riding to slide the rear, allowing further tightening of a turn. Put an SM bike on a go-kart track and it’ll murder a supersport. Put it on a large track, with long straights and sweeping turns, and it’ll get left in the dust.

As for the things I mentioned, they were not meant to be seen as dealbreakers (obviously, I love my DR-Z), but rather just as minor points that a new buyer might overlook. And let’s be honest, wouldn’t most people take some kind of fuel indicator over nothing? The difference in trip mileage between hard riding and mild riding can be 2x, and especially with the DR-Z’s tiny tank, a hard ride can empty your tank surprisingly quickly. I may or may not have learned the hard way (heh, nobody expects their bike to run out of fuel after only 60 miles).

[eternal05]

Sorry to have misinterpreted you

[eternal05]

First off, any dealer trying to charge a premium on a motorcycle in this economy is idiotic. My dealer sold me a brand new DR-Z at cost (they made money on the accessories I bought for it). This is because Suzuki is financially hosed at the moment. They didn’t even introduce 2010 models to the US because not nearly enough 2009 models sold. They’d be out of their minds to charge a premium (they might try, but they’ll probably still say yes to a low offer). Second, there were a surplus of used, low-mileage DR-Zs in my area starting around $4K, most with heavy modification (in a good way).

More expensive than a 250? Yes. Substantially so? Nope.

[eternal05]

…sounds like both sides handled themselves rather poorly.

[eternal05]

Taken from the handy-dandy BBM bike info spreadsheet: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rU4QBnyJGHjHiCQAtii4KeQ&single=true&gid=0&output=html

Ducati Monster 696, 696cc, 2 cyl, L-twin, 78.8 hp, 50.6 lb-ft, 355 lbs
Triumph Thruxton, 865cc, 2 cyl, parallel, 69 hp, 52 lb-ft, 451 lbs

Monster power/weight: 0.222 hp/lb, Monster torque/weight: 0.143 lb-ft/lbs
Thruxton power/weight: 0.152 hp/lb, Thruxton torque/weight: 0.115 lb-ft/lbs

As you can see, the Monster has substantially more raw HP and a much higher power/weight ratio thanks to its 100lbs-lighter weight. It is also relatively “torquey-er,” again thanks to having the same torque figures but less weight. The main issue for a beginner with the Triumphs will probably be that extra 100 lbs. I haven’t ridden either the Monster or the Triumphs, so I can’t comment on their handling character, nor do I know where in the rev range each bike makes most of its power/torque. I have heard that the Monster line tends to have pretty grabby throttle response, however, though the same could be true of the Thruxton for all I know.

[Author]

Posts