From: egreen@east.sun.com (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: ok, who's pretending to be STUPID... (
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:02:24 GMT
Reply-To: egreen@east.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 718397875@convex.convex.com, daved@convex.com (David Dorfman) writes:
>In <2580@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> joe@woody.mpd.tandem.com (Joe Senner) writes:
>
>What we have here is a failure to communicate. 

No, what we have here is you babbling about something you obviously and
admittedly know little about.  Not that that stops anybody else here...

>I am interested in the 
>intersection between fashion and motorcycles. 

Then why did you bring up performance and relative skills?

>I also
>know they have nothing to do with the original subject of my post, which was
>about the impact of fashion on the number of large HD's sold to people
>with no rider training.

Anybody with no rider training can be in danger on any motorcycle.  It
does not follow that engine size increases that danger.  A 1200 cc
Harley can indeed be "safer" for Joe Cool Wannabe than any number of
sportsbikes of half or even a quarter that displacement.  From a
previous article:

]Yeah right, You can say what you want, but there is no way in the world
]that you can put that much engine on a bike and not have a fairley high
]level of performance. I am not familier with HD's but I can't believe 
]that a 1200+ cc engine on a 600+ pound bike is a good choice for a first
]bike. 

Which, (a) is not a discussion of the intersection of fashion and
motorcycles but rather a statement about performance and relative
safety, and (b) is wrong.

>If you had some ability to read and understand things other
>then literal facts you may have understood that this subject is about
>people taking on tasks they are not prepared for and suffering the
>consequences.

You mean tasks like making wild, admittedly unfounded assertions about
motorcycle performance in a forum consisting exclusively of motorcycle
enthusiasts, most of which are, to some degree or other, much more
familiar with the bike in question than you are?  :^)

>>5) is it difficult to function with your head so far up your ass?
>
>Ohh, I see, your whole post was a joke, no body could be so gratuitous
>with insults for so little reason and actually be serious. 

Actually, not only is Joe capable of it, he's rather good at it.  :^)

>The true subject at hand was completly missed by you.

I think your *original* subject got lost in the discussion of
performance.  If you're still interested in your original topic...

Yes, people (posers) buying Harleys because they happen to be the "in"
bike do not, in general, do a service to the motorcycling population.
To the extent that they eschew rider training (and safety equipment),
they pose a risk to themselves, which is fine, but the consequences of
said risk do reflect poorly on the motorcycling community at large, as
is manafested in increasingly restrictive legislation and increasingly
expensive insurance.  However, it is not axiomatically true that the
larger the engine, the greater the risk.  Also, Jay Leno wannabes
buying Harleys are not the only problem, there are plenty of wannabes
around, and a huge number of them wannabe Eddie Lawson.

These two factors taken together indicate to me (who *is* familiar with
both breeds) that it is in fact the racer wannabe who is in graver
danger, even on a 250cc motorcycle.  The Kawasaki 250 Ninja, for
example, is a sleek bike.  It has no trouble at all attaining deadly
speeds, it requires greater skill and training to handle at speed (I'll
explain, don't go non-linear here), it is much more affordable, and its
styling and the aura it creates appeal more to the type of individual
that likes high speeds.  This combination of characteristics is the
kiss of death to an untrained novice.  The Harley Davidson 1200cc
sportster, OTOH, while carrying an engine four times as large, is a
different bike that attracts a different rider.  It certainly has no
trouble attaining deadly speeds as well, but it is smoother, has a
lower RPM range, and is more stable (ie, forgiving) in its handling
characteristics.  Its cruiser style attracts a less danger-prone rider,
and its relatively high price tag effectively filters a large number of
potential wannabes, both by age (loosely correlated to wealth) and
desire (impulsive buyers will find an alternative, those who are
willing to sacrifice for the bike tend to appreciate it more).  This
combination of characteristics makes the Sportster a much "safer" bike
for many people, even safer than one with a fourth its engine
displacement.

Re: handling.  In most things that move and are controlled, there is a
fundamental design trade-off between stability and manuverability.  An
obvious analogy is aircraft.  A C-5 (a very large transport plane) is
very stable in the air.  It takes a lot of turbulance to blow it
around, small steering and control inputs will not send it into a
nosedive.  It was designed for stability.  Compare that to an F-15.
The F-15 is *much* more manuverable, but it must be flown with constant
attention and care, it lacks stability.  At the extreme end of the
manuverability spectrum is the X-29, an experimental aircraft with
forward-swept wings that is *aerodynamically* *unstable* and cannot be
flown by a human being (triple redundant on-board computers
compensate)!

The C-5 certainly has more raw power, measured by cc's (or whatever
they measure jet engines with), but I would hardly put the more novice
pilot in one!  The Ninja will "respond" and initiate a greater lean for
a light input on the handlebars that will the Sportster.  This is
refered to the magazines as "flickability."  Excessive flickability can
quickly kill somebody who is not prepared for it, such as our untrained
poser/rider.  The Sportster is also not as likely to do wheelies or
stoppies or engage in other quirks that can be dangerous to the novice
rider.  It is a safer motorcycle for the beginner.

On the positive side, getting more people involved in motorcycling is
good, so long as it is done responsibly.  Maybe some of these yuppies
will start riding to look cool, and then catch on that it is a great
feeling, even next year when it's not so cool anymore.  The popularity
of their bikes certainly hasn't hurt HD, which has a postitive
influence on motorcycling.  Yamaha tried a scheme to make insurance
affordable (at least available), and Honda offers free MSF courses to
its customers.  While each program may be problematic, they are both
moves in the right direction.  We need to encourage motorcycling, and
promote responsible and safe riding.  The more people there are who
have a friend of a friend who RIDES, as opposed to the current
situation where everybody seems to have a FOAF that DIED on a bike, the
more cages will be sensitive to motorcycle safety.

The main drawback of the increased popularity of motorcycling is that
rec.motorcycles SNR is increasing  :^) at an exponential rate.
Splitting it into 32 subgroups won't help, our only alternative is to
mount a massive invasion into the rest of USENET.

---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
  Ed.Green@East.Sun.COM   |and I showed him a picture of you.  I said,
DoD #0111  (919)460-8302  |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
 (The Grateful Dead) -->  |It seemed like the least I could do...