Re: Harley Davidson Dyna ride height

Really? Where did I say that?

I could see where it would be terrifying for you to take up a challange
on equal machinery, though, so I'll withdraw the EX500 offer. I really
am more comfy on the Harley, anyway.

Too bad you can't afford the trip.

 

Amazing. An admission of less than omniscience about a motorcycle
related subject from a ukrmer.

No, I didn't say I could ride fast, and I don't need to provide you any
evidence. I was merely demonstrating that the idiots who claim that
anyone who owns or rides a Harley knows nothing about how to ride are,
quite simply, the idiots that they appear to be.

But don't let the facts get in the way of the lovely little discussion
going on in your own mind. None of your compatriots are, why should
you?

 

Yup agree the 944 Turbo was a waste of space, I think Loz had one round
a track on occasion?
The S2 is where it was at. My 944 2.5 is only 165bhp and lotsa fun on a
short track without being dangerous. Perfect 1st track day car in fact.

In other news I should have a working sig sep now so you can heave me
outa the killfile.

 

Perhaps Suzuki know how to design a bike? The GSXR750 was always
designed as a race bike. To put anything on the bike that's going to
ground when leant over would be extremely bad design.

And FWIW, I've ridden several 750's from the first to the latest, and
mine was a 99. None of them would have touched the exhaust before
other parts.

 

Mein Got
It's madness I tell you. What is it then, tell all. HOT or Aero I trust.
The Aero estate is a scream.

D'ya like my sig sep then ) only took a year to put it back in.
Still, it's a better level of service than I would give to some of our
customers.

 

Gary R. ... or is it? said...

You did, but I cba to google, you aren't worth the time or effort.

I quite often take people on, on equal machinery, sometimes I come out
on top, sometimes I don't. Racers don't scare me, there are good ones
and bad ones, ones that will be up front, others who will always be at
the back or in the gravel. You may think that being a club racer is
something special, but over here they are, as Simon said, ten a penny.

After what I've been through in my short life, there's really very
little that frightens me now, racers included. I know I'm going to die
young, I'm just planning on doing it with a smile on my face.

Proof positive that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct and that the
final stages have passed you by.

I can easily afford the trip, but after spending two years on and off
working over in the US, I've had my fill of the hole and its people for
one lifetime TYVM, unless someone else is paying.

 

Steady on, not many make 500! Carrera S is 350 and it feels at the
limit for a 2 wheel drive road car without relying on lots of gadgetry
to save your life.

Sure the M5 and McLaren Merc are up there but they have huge computers
and don't make any better road progress anyway. On a track, different I
expect.

 

Having seen the leading edge of a Piper Apache dented right back to
the main spar -- after the plane was back on the ground, of course.
I've concluded that seagulls are heavier than they look.

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

I might be along to give you a roasting in a while if I've got time.
Although my 944 Turbo was the limited edition SE with Koni adjustable
shocks, 928 brakes, LSD etc, so was a totally different beast to the
standard turbo (which I haven't driven).

It could undoubtably be 'interesting' in the wet, but that goes for any
300bhp 2wd car. You just had to know what to do with your right foot.
It was faster around Kemble than anything I raced against though,
including a Ferrari 328, several WRXs & an Elise, so I think it's safe
to say the handling was rather good!


--
Krusty.

http://www.muddystuff.co.uk
http://www.muddystuff.us
Off-road classifieds

'02 MV Senna '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250

 

Really? Well, that's one way to lose weight, I suppose. Did you find
it again afterwards?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

No, only that we both speak from our different experiences. I saw the crash
several times later on video. The bike was heeled over and an exhaust bracket
obviously touched - one could see sparks. This unloaded the tyre which began to
slide a little.

Ben says he has never grounded his exhaust, and I have no reason to doubt him.
Perhaps he's a better rider than the crashee or maybe the latter had an exhaust
bracket installed improperly.

None of this changes what happened once the tyre began to slip out a little -
and that is the point.

 

Dude. You're funny!

So I take it 250cc MotoGP types aren't hanging off then?

The friction in a drive chain is far more significant than a puny pad
scuffing on pavement.

So since you've obviously perfected a form of riding none of us are
familiar with, how many championships have you won using this method?

 

Tell you what. Swing a heavy hammer first with your hand near the head then at
the end of the handle. Notice the difference. Now imagine a hammer with a
light aluminum head and very short handle vs one with a heavy lead head and a
long handle. There'd be quite a difference in the forces needed to swing one and
forth vs the other. Now apply that to a bike. A 2-stroke of a given power is
half the size of a 4-stroke. More important the head is a simple cover and water
jacket that weighs little. Conversily, a 4-stroke head is as tall a its
cylinders and with multiple valves, cams, lifters and springs is many times
heavier. The result is that the lighter weight of the 2-stroke is below axel
height whilst the CG of the 4 is much higher with the heavy head(s) as high or
higher than the top of the wheels. This means the 4-stroke, like the long
handled heavy hammer, has a lot more inertia fighting you when you try to flick
it from side to side. That inertia fights you whenever you start the bike
leaning and again when you stop it at a given lean angle. Again, this isn't
opinion it is simple physics.

Yes you can make a light 2-stroke handle like a heavy 4-stroke .... for example
by carrying your cars battery in a tank bag. One can also make a 4-stroke
handle more like a 2-stroke by careful design. For example the Aeromacci
singles of the '60s had horizontal cylinders, keeping the weight low and Honda's
V-4s were better than their previous UJMs. But Newton still has the last word.

Agreed. The 500 2-strokes were capable of making so much power that came and
went so quickly that they were very difficult to ride.

The change was long overdue because the 500s had reached the point where farther
development was near impossible and, given environmental laws and their effect
on production bike, was fruitless as well. Why race if not to improve the breed.
Perhaps Honda or someone can/will develop an engine configuration that mitigates
or even eliminates the problem - air/hydraulic operated valves like on GP cars
could eliminate the weight of overhead cams, lifters, et al. Lets hope so. But
until then UJMs started off as ill-handling pigs and $millions spent trying to
mask their inherent flaw has merely made them treacherous.

But NOT whilst using a OHC inline 4.

A 500 doesn't have bigger cylinders, just more of them. Yes the *step* in power
is pretty steep, making the bike hard to ride unless you *keep* it "on the
pipe". That's why 4-strokes were more popular even back when one could buy a
comparable 2-stroke. A 4-stroke requires alot less skill. The typical mid-pack
racer on a production superbike couldn't get a TZ-250 around one lap without
stalling or wrecking.

Maintenance? Hard to compare. Lower ends on the wife's Honda and Yammy racers
never needed replacing once I learned to fill them with oil whenever they sat
for a few months (mid-season). Otherwise the seals tended to harden and leak air
which could cause siezure. I replaced rings every other race weekend and pistons
every 3rd rering but remember these are pure racebikes with rings thin a razor
blades. Also that changing rings and pistons was easier than a valve adjustment
on an OHC 4-stroke. OTOH Suzi's 750 Water Buffalos never needed teardown AFAIK.
With oil injected directly into the lower end bearings they used less of it than
a BSA.

The average rider? Like here on reeky? He'd be safer at home in an armchair
given cold wet roads. On warm dry roads he'd be OK on something like my Suzuki
cruiser - it practically rides itself which is its charm. Trouble comes when
this average rider buys a sportbike. Then he is going to crash, its just a
matter of when and how. If he's lucky he'll be able to pick himself up and
realize he has a lot to learn.

If he buys a 2-stroke like a 350 YPVS Yammy, it'll wheelie the first time he
brings in up on the pipe in low gear, scare the crap out of him if not dump him,
but he'll survive and figure out where that 'step' in power happens. If he buys
a 4-stroke, say a 600, he'll have much better luck - at first. The designers
have so carefully masked its inherent problems that he'll never notice them
until he's gotten better and approaches the limit. Were he been on Eddie
Lawson's Kawasaki it would have been screaming "watch out" long ago but not
these new bikes that handle "so much better". So he thinks everything is still
fine - until the laws of physics rear their head and he gets high sided into the
pavement - maybe on a wet cold road, maybe in front of a cage. That's what I
call treacherous! If he chooses a big bike, like the 1200 Kawasaki I recently
sold, he's in bigger trouble. At full throttle it'd light the back tire in
second crossing a dry paint strip. In the wet ......Oy!

 

Because it IS more complicated. Where the major weight items are placed is
almost as important as how heavy they are. Riding around a fixed circle a heavy
bike can go just as fast as a light bike assuming adequate tyres. The extra
centrifical force is exactly balanced by the extra weight pushing the tyres down
harder. But the real world is more like a long series of Ss where the bike must
be flicked back and forth. The higher the weight the more its inertia resists
doing that.

My bike handles better on a near empty tank than a full tank. How much
different would it handle without the weight of that massive head full of cams,
valves, springs, chains and all? Stick a car battery in your tank bag and
tackle some twisties ... that'll give you an idea.

 

Sure, Lozzo. <snicker>

A sufficiently banked track becomes a continuous straight and requires no
cornering ability from the bike nor skill from the rider, thus allowing poor
riders to go as fast as a good ones. Similarly, bikes that limit everyone allow
even crappy riders to keep up with the best. So if you are a sorry rider with
half a bain you had best race a 4-stroke because its limitations will keep the
better riders from lapping you so often. That's why Superbike (and NASCAR) are
so popular.

 

No just that all UJM heads are on top and that most Stuperbikes are UJMs.

 

You don't like BJs?

 

Vito said...

I gained my reputation for being a bit quick on a succession of 2-stroke
RDs, LCs and YPVSs. I know what riding a stroker is all about, which is
why I'd want to race 4-strokes given the chance.

 

TBH I'm surprise you're bothering with this particular numpty. It's
clear that he has no real understanding of the physics involved, is
deeply committed to a particular viewpoint, and is not prepared to
listen to any argument against it. It's also clear to 99% of readers
that this is the case, given that his arguments have already been
comprehensively trashed by several peeps, including Simian and
yourself.

Time to cut the line and throw him back, perhaps?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

I reckon they'll be septic twats then ....