1st bike?

Experienced riders tend to get knocked off my errant motorists.

Newbies ditto, but they also manage to crash unaided - much more
frequently.

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Jach said:

Your choice but I reckon the naked looks better. The screen on the S
will keep some of the wind off but makes the whole thing look ghastly
IMO.

Mostly due to motorists not looking but sometimes the odd patch of
diesel, gravel, poorly surfaced roads and two pedestrians.

BTW, if you do decide for a bandit and fit engine bars, don't lean so
far that they touch down. You can get away with it once or twice but
eventually you'll crash

 

It does look shite and makes the bike feel like a barge to ride[1] but
it's pretty effective. I had a new shape one as a courtesy bike when
the GSXR was in for a service and it was very comfortable on the
motorway.



[1] Feels like the front is miles away from you. Guess it's because
I'm used to sportsbikes and being right by the screen.

 

- often due to unscrubbed tyres.

 

quick enough to gain experience on for the first 12 months or so

 

I chose naked because I prefer the look but I also believe that a
faired model would cost more to insure due to the cost of fairing
damage in a spill - although SWK is welcome to jump in here.

I commute on the motorway all year and don't really have a problem with
a lack of fairing. Although I had a ZX9R for a couple of days recently
and while I rather liked being tucked down behind the screen on the
motorway I hated being in town traffic on it.

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Ben said:

I'd happily buy another Bandit if one came along for the right price.
Bloody good bikes IMO.

Maybe it's just the bike I'm riding but I find having a screen and
fairing makes going fast too easy

 

I felt it struggled a bit on the motorway but then it had two thirds
the power of my GSXR.

I find having a GSXR1000 makes going fast too easy.

 

message

Nice.

 

Can be straightened for about 80 quid. Trust me on this. Me and the
straightener are on first name terms.

 

Molly says...

Can also be straightened for the price of a bottle of butane gas for a
blowtorch.

 

My number-one reason for having an unfaired bike.

 

I've seen many people say things like this and have never understood
it. Surely the whole point of biking is to go fast? If you don't want
to do so, through age or infirmity, then get a car, FFS, or at least
learn that the throttle control works both ways.

 

I think I'm the kind of person who would ride any bike fast[1]. I
really should slow down a bit.



[1] 'For me' values of fast obviously.

 

Up to a point. There's a difference between 'fast' in miles an hour
and 'fast' in the sensations you get when riding. There's an argument
that if bike A makes 100 mph feel as fast as 130mph on bike B, then
you're better of on bike B. Not an argument to which I subscribe, of
course

 

Better off on bike A, surely?

 

Champ says...

70mph on my CB250RS down a twisty back road is often more fun than 130
mph on A roads when riding the Thunderace. I've had a belly full of
laughs riding 125s, and even mopeds in the right circumstances.

 

I tend to cruise around the ton on the bandit, with sprints up to
140 or so whenever necessary [1]. Quite enough for my licence,
thankyouverymuch - being nicked after a 130mph chase wasn't my
favourite experience of 2001 and nor is it one I'm in a hurry to
repeat.

That said, my next bike _will_ be faired. But all in good time.

[1] For some value of necessary.

 

Yes, of course. Stupid me.

 

Me neither, also of course. And yes, I understand the theory, and some
aspects of it make sense, like the fun I can still get out of riding
the 400/4 (although that's increasingly rare[1]). But to suggest that
proper bikes make going fast 'too easy' is garbage, IMO.

[1] Anyone fancy a nice 400/4, currently located chez moi in Alsace,
but still on UK Plates, make me an offer.