From: ericm@microunity.com (Eric Murray)
Subject: Re: beginner's luck
Organization: MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:14:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.211927.391@halfdome.sf.ca.us> laurie@halfdome.sf.ca.us (Laurie Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.191536.3869@microunity.com>, ericm@microunity.com (Eric Murray) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.232226.385@halfdome.sf.ca.us> laurie@halfdome.sf.ca.us (Laurie Abbott) writes:
>
>>>even if you're tiny, 125cc won't be doing you any favors.  the frame
>>>will be just as large as if you had more power
>> Really?  Which bike(s) are you talking about?  All the streetable
>> 125s I can think of are significantly smaller and lighter than
>> the streetable 250s I know of.  Did you have a specific make and
>> model in mind?
>
>go ahead.  name a bike that has a measurably shorter frame hgt (say at
>least an inch shorter) in the 125cc version than in the 250cc version.
>4-stroke. 

Oh, so I take it that you can't?  Ok, a Suzuki DR250S is definately
taller than any street or "dual-sport" 125.  I don't know what you mean
by '125cc version' and '250cc version', there are no bikes currently
sold in this country that use the same frame etc. and either 125cc or
250cc motors.  In fact, I can't think of any that have ever been sold
in the US like that.  Even MX bikes use ligher frames on 125s.

The 250cc Rebel that a lot of people start out on these days has a low seat
height but IS heavier than ALL 125s.


>> I've ridden 125s (gutless cb125s at that) and
>> found the power to be ok, up to 35-40 mph.  Certainly enough to
>> keep up with city traffic.   
>
>well, this is where our opinions differ. i don't think "keeping up"
>is the issue.  for me it's having enough power to get out of the
>way, as well as having a large enough engine to where it doesn't
>rattle you to death every time you break 30mph.

Wow.  What a change of the normal roles:  me, a hard-core moto dude
arguing with a short woman rider that small bikes are ok.  Shouldn't
we switch our positions before the universe implodes? :-)


>> The original poster lives in the SF bay area, if I'm not mistaken....
>
>so do i.  even MORE reason to get something bigger than 125cc.  the
>hills here are not a joke.  i ride an r100gs, and i do not wish for
>something smaller. 

Somehow, I think that an r100gs would be the WORST possible
beginner's bike.

>> I'd recommend that a newbie rider refrain from carrying
>> passengers until he/she has accumulated some experience.
>
>i disagree that riding with a passenger ought to be put off.  what?
>you're not competent to ride?  then you ought not to be riding. if
>you're competent to operate a motorcycle, and you're willing to assume
>the added responsibility for someone else's safety, then you're
>competent to ride with a passenger.  yes, it's different with a
>passenger; it's something you have to adjust to, and carefully.  but
>you can't do that until you actually RIDE with a passenger, and it's
>just as different whether you wait 2 weeks or 2 years.

Wrong.   It's much easier to deal with the difference of having
a passenger when you've already got the basics of how to operate
a motorcycle down cold, so they're second nature to you, and you can
concentrate on the differences that having a passenger on the back
creates.

It's not a matter of competence, it's a matter of taking things
a step at a time, so that you don't get in over your head.


Obviously you're of the "here's the clutch, there's the brake"
school of thought on how to get newbies involved in motorcycling.
I'd rather that the people I teach or advise start a little
easier but stay with the sport forever because they didn't get in over
their heads and scare themselves.