What's to Like about Motorcycles

Ninja?

 

You'll probably regret getting a 250, you'll likely grow out of it and be bored to death in short order. But if you're dead set on getting a moped... I mean a 250cc... DO NOT buy one brand new, especially if you intended to finance one. It's a huge waste of money. You can get far more bang for your buck by going for something used with larger displacement.

 

Well, it's going to be my first bike and yeah, I'm just gonna buy something off of craigslist. Nice and cheap. If I like it, I'm daydreaming of getting a BMW 1600 GTL

 

Good choice.

I just bought my first street bike close to two years ago, and I'm beyond glad that I didn't go with a 250 (like I'd planned to). I'd been told time and time again by different people that a 250 would be a waste of time, even as a first bike... I was skeptical at first but now totally agree.

 

Interesting that you mentioned the two motorcycles used in Easy Rider that reflected the iconic style of choppers and bobbers in 1969. Dennis Hopper's motorcycle is a custom bobber while the Captain America that Fonda rode is a chopper.



Both used rigid frames with frame mounted seats and those are "kidney" buster motorcycles. If you've noticed I'm using a spring mounted seat that provides the shock absorption for the rider and this was a classic design used for decades on production motorcycles. There is no discomfort to the rider with a spring mounted seat and a rigid rear frame.

Turning of a motorcycle is based upon the rake and trail of the front end and has little to do with the length of the forks as rake and trail can be adjusted based upon the angularity of the forks relative to the angularity of the fork tube rake. As noted I'm only extending the front forks by 12" which really isn't very much when compared to later choppers that often doubled that extension to 24" and sometimes more. Braking is not affected at all because I'll be using the stock braking system (i.e. front and rear discs) and might even use better performing after market pads that are already available to increase the braking.

If there is anything I don't like it's the very wide rear tires being used on many choppers today because that does adversely affect the turning capability of the motorcycle.

Finally motorcycles are not "all about performance" as that is a myopic view of riding motorcycles.

 

I think a 250cc is a great first motorcycle and purchasing a used one off of Craigslist, later mentioned, is a good idea. You don't want to be into a lot of bucks on your first motorcycle.

One thing about learning and becoming a competent rider on a smaller motorcycle offers is that smaller motorcycles are more like riding a bicycle where the weight shifting of the rider affects the handling of the motorcycle. Large displacement motorcycles rely on throttle control to replace the movement of the body on the motorcycles but that is a learned skill that is best left to when you have more experience.

Take it easy and get a lot of seat time as you progress up in motorcycle size is my recommendation. Learn to "see everything" while riding because your life literally depends upon seeing any possible danger in time to address it. It's the potential danger that you don't see in advance that will kill you. This is not meant to scare you but instead to simply state that a person on a motorcycle has to be far more aware of potential dangers than someone in a car. The added bonus is that you'll also become a better driver typically because you carry over the new awareness from riding a motorcycle into driving your car.

Good luck on finding a good motorcycle and keep both wheels firmly on the ground.

 

Sorry Charlie ... Won't help much.See with a rigid frame { No swingarm } the rear
wheel has nowhere to absorb the ground.No shocks.Having one of those
seat { old bicycle style } with the little springs ain't gonna cut it.The rear of the
bike is still Unsprung and absorbing all the ground pavement.
It may just cause those bicycle seats to bounce more.The whole objective of
a softtail frame is to reduce bounce or ground force.The Hard tail is a one piece
frame that attaches directly to the rear wheel.Or axle mounted directly to the
frame.Whe you hear frauds like Jessie James swear by the hard tail they are doing
so entirely because of the optics and impression a hard tail gives off.Like a tattoo.
A tattoo cannot and will not ever make a human a stronger person or a funnier
person or a smarter person or more entertaining.It is what it is.Just a moronic
badge a person with low self-esteem feels they need.
The only thing between you and the ground is the tire.It is the shock
absorber on a hard tail.So with a fat 240 or 260 series tire with fresh rubber {brand new}
you may be able to handle the road pavement better.
But Not with a Bias tire.Which is Old school.Most all flat track bikes or Bobbers
of old used Bias tires.You would need a radial tire.
Keep in mind that a sprung rear end or Softail with it's swingarm and
suspension helps keep the tire on the pavement.Whereas a hard tail
does the opposite.Without suspension the tire is probably gonna bounce
which reduces contact with the road and makes for poor handling.
The only upside I can see with a hard tail is it's lighter weight and
lower cost.I don't even think they look as Cool as a Jessie James
has convinced himself.
My Rune has a single-sided swing arm { totally hidden rear single shock }
and all steel wraparound bub rear fender.Now That my friend is a work of
art.Add in the nicely placed LED trick rear lights and one can see why
George Clooney bought up as many Rune as he could when they came
out { I think Clooney got 6 Runes right off the first run }.
.

 

A First bike or starter bike should be the easiest and most comfortable
bike I person can learn on without seeming juvenile.If a person weights
200 lbs. and is 6 foot tall and 34 yr. old then the bike shouldn't be TOO
small.In fact a 250 for that type person is WAY Too small.
Even a 500 cc bike is TOO small.
One has to use common sense and also gauge the coordination of the
person who buys their first motorcycle.Basically most chicks should not
purchase big baggers.Because those are the biggest and heaviest of all motorcycles.
But then I also thought most chicks should definitely steer clear of bikes
like the Suzuki Hyabusa.Until a once hooked up next to a group of Chicks
{ around 8 or 9 } who were in some Hyabusa club and all were riding their
Busa's.They all rode fearlessly and seemed at ease.Go Figger.
BTW ... just to be a Fuddyduddy,Roy Rogers loved his Motorcycle
and insisted on not wearing a helmut.Of course he also Loved trigger,his
prize horse.However Dale Rogers also loved her horses but I doubt would
ever dream of being a motorcycle owner/rider.
That was then ... This is Now.

 

Speaking of engine displacement....

Why is it that there isn't much variation in displacement nowadays? It seems like bikes made between the 60's and early 90's had much more variety of engine sizes... especially the Japanese bikes. When I'm checking out used bikes on craigslist, I see a menagerie of older Jap bikes with a multitude of engine sizes below 600cc. Today, it's like you either go with a 250, or something above 600cc.

 

Good point.There used to be many 350 cc { The Kawasaki 350 triple was legendary }
and the 450 cc { popular Honda model } and also a 550 cc.
There may have even been some 400 cc bikes.

 

More legendary than the 350 kwak was the 350LC Yam, a 350 that in its day gave just about all of the bigger bikes a run for their money, after many happy LCs thrashed to within an inch of their life, a Honda NSR 400 one of the best handling bikes I ever rode. The RG500 was quicker and the YAM 500 was prettier but if you wanted to go fast around corners the NSR 400 took some beating. I do not know how many 2strokes like the above made it to the American market.
4stroke wise the Morini 350 and 500 handled well and a ex girlfriend of mine on a V50 Monza took some catching, whereas a Honda 400/4 was a great entry level bike. To my mind on English roads the Pantah 500 was king of the middleweight 4strokes. I must admit though that in the late 70's and early 80s I was very biased towards Italian bikes. Jap bikes had the power but you could not use it.

 

I've personally never seen Jesse James use anything but frame mounted seats on hardtails so I wouldn't consider him to be a good example.

Yes, I know that a hardtail has no rear wheel suspension but the belief that a sprung seat is inadequite is really quite naive. Hardtails were the common motorcycle in the early days when we didn't have many paved roads and the ride on a dirt road is much rougher than on the paved roads and highways we have today. The WLA Harley of WW II, that was the foundation for the iconic bobbers of the late 1940's, 1950, and into the 1960's, were hardtails designed for very rough off road riding. The later hardtail bobbers based upon the WLA style and design were being used on relatively smooth paved roadways.

If our roads were perfectly smooth it wouldn't even be logical to have a swingarm design but they're not. We do have some "washboard" roads along with the minor bumps on virtually all highways so some shock absorption for the rider, not necessarily the motorcycle, is required. Think of it this way, a bicycle doesn't have any shock absorption at all and people use BMX bicycles over far worse terrain than any hardtail bobber or chopper would ever be subjected to. If a bicycle can handling it just fine, and they do, then why would a much stronger built motorcycle have a problem cruising down relatively smooth paved roads?

Your argument that the proven design of a hardtail with a sprung seat isn't a functionally good design is rather absurd because motorcycle history contradicts your claims. These are not racing machines where the rear swingarm is preferred for performance reasons. They're "take it easy and enjoy the ride on smooth roads" motorcycles where performance is not the real goal but instead riding in relative comfort and style is the ultimate goal of the rigid w/sprung seat design.

 

While I admit to not being up to date on current smaller displacement motorcycles historically small displacement did not imply small motorcycle. My 1976 Harley-Davidson SS-250 is not a small motorcycle even though it only has a 250cc engine. I've enjoyed riding it all over the place including on the freeway at up to 70 mph and I would not call it either under-powered or under-size by any definition of the word. I am only average height, 5'9", but I do weigh 200 lbs and it's not too small for me.

BTW Some of my "Harley" buddies have tried out my new 2015 Street 750 and so far their comments are very positive about it in all regards from ride to performance (it possibly out-performs my 1200cc Sportster). It is really a great mid-size (by today's engine displacement standards) motorcycle. I'm finding this interesting because many of the older Harley riders generally rejected the V-Rod with the Revolution water-cooled engine when it was introduced but now seem to really like the Street 750 with the water-cooled Revolution-X engine. Times and old attitudes have certainly changed among the Harley owners IMHO.

 

I'm sorry...do you have anything to say that ANYONE cares about, boy?

 

Dude...are you literate? Did you even READ the post you quoted?!

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the bike & the rider. I know two people who love their 250's...guy I work with has a Vstar, my wife has a Hyosung Comet. Both love them...the dude with the Vstar actually sold his 900 Vulcan after getting it.

 

Dude I work with is 6'2" and ~240lbs. He loves his 250 Vstar. Yes, he looks like a bear on a tricycle on it (especially in his cold-weather gear), but it actually fits him well. Don't just look at engine size, look at the whole bike! There are 250's and 450's that are too high for me (5'10", 240lbs) to ride comfortable, there is at least one 650 that is too SMALL for me to ride comfortably.

 

Not to say a 250 is completely without merit, but it's definitely a niche bike, desirable and useful only to a small portion of riders.

 

The 454 Kawi too, I've seen a few of them running around town.

 

A close friend of mine has been riding for at least 30 years and I've never known him to own anything larger than about 350cc. He likes the smaller and lighter motorcycles, usually the dual sport models, and so that's what he rides. Of course his riding and mine are different so we don't go riding together but there's absolutely nothing wrong with his personal tastes in motorcycles.

 

Don't forget the awesome Honda CB350-4 introduced in 1972. It only lasted a couple of years but it was an outstanding motorcycle.



Honda produced excellent small twins and four-cylinder motorcycles in the late 1960's and early 1970's that were later dropped mostly because the production costs were just too high for the market and people opted for larger motorcycles that didn't really cost that much more. There wasn't really much of a cost difference for the 350 four cylinder and the 750 four cylinder at the time because both had the same basic number of parts and the same assembly times.

 

" What we have here is a Failure ta Communicate " - Cool Hand Luke.
How refreashing to hear all these firsthand comments.
Like ... NOT.It's like going into some Roadhouse bar on a sticky Saturday night
and expecting thoughts about Walt Whitman or Eugene O'Neil { Iceman Cometh }
Like ... NOT.
Or going into a Greasy spoon for a cup of Joe and ther're all out of java.
But Man,should you try their Baked Alaska.
Not that I've heard it all.But I gotta tell ya,this pop stand does not
inspire confidence to the contrary.
I'm seriously questioning why I ever took up motorcycling,starting in the
mid-70s.
I should have just sought me a nice used Pink Vespa and
said ... Fug It !

 

And there are those who won't touch meat and would never dream of
consuming a nice juicy cheeseburger.And then those eat nothing but meat,
like in the animal kingdom { Lions and Tigers }.
There are those who drink like fish { Beer drunks } and become huge
with extended beer guts.Then the huge Gorilla who does don't drink anything.
Whatever floats yer boat.
Which again is one of the points I am trying to impress herein.
With Harley types there is ONLY one Bike { Any Harley } model.
However those same Harley bigots did not cotton when the V-rod
was introduced.Basically because of it being Liquid-cooled a mortal sin
among Hog lovers.
It is called Pigeonholing.
I would not belong to any club that would have someone like me as a member.
Which is a far better way of Motorcycling.
Free as a bird as in Free Bird by Aerosmith { Biker band }.
And this Bird you cannot change.
So don't even try.

 

Free bird is not an aerosmith song. Everyone knows who sings it, you must be high or mentally defunct.

 

Please stop with the bigoted false stereotyping of Harley owners. Virtually every Harley owner I'm aware of has owned motorcycles other than Harley's at some point and has expressed love for those motorcycles. Many own other brands today along with their Harley's and love them. Virtually none of us disparage other brands of motorcycles (although I've often heard condemnation of stupid and dangerous riding practices by those that own metric crotch-rockets but that's about the riders and not the motorcycles).

Yes, the V-Rod was reluctantly accepted by many of the old push-rod Harley owners when it was introduced but now it's accepted as being just another Harley. The new Street 500 and 750, using the new water-cooled Revolution-X engine, have been fully embraced by the Harley community as a wonderful new Harley introduction. Virtually every Harley owner I've discussed the Street 500/750 with believes that it was something that Harley should have introduced years ago as opposed to carrying the Buell brand for so many years.

 

You are correct,I keep getting those Biker bands nixed up.
I grew tired of Lynyrd Skynyrd { notice the " ynyr " spelling }.
It's kinda like being a Slubberdegullion
Which is an apt description of a Hog type motorcyclist.Who aren't motorcyclist
but just Hogs.Aptly applied.