On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:06:49 -0400, "David T. Ashley" <d... at (no spam) e3ft.com
wrote:





Well, with all the talk of accidents, I thought I'd throw my two cents in
...

Part of sensible motorcycling is recognizing the limitations of car drivers
and not forcing errors.

For example, a motorcycle is less visible than a car, and the speed is
harder to judge.  This automatically implies that a motorcyclist should
generally follow the speed limits.  Exceeding the speed limits gives drivers
of cars less opportunity to spot a motorcycle.

Similarly, some motorcycles can accelerate very quickly.  From a car
driver's perspective, the darned thing comes out of nowhere.  It seems
sensible that motorcyclists should avoid accelerating rapidly when mixing
with cars.

I was going about 60 mph on a 55-mph two-laner the other day and a sportbike
came whizzing around me going at least 80, but probably faster.  It was so
noisy it startled me through my earplugs.  If that guy had crashed, I'd say
he brought it on himself.

And then there is weaving in and out of traffic and riding aggressively.

Some of the motocrazies bring it on themselves ...

But most don't ...

I'd be surprised if there's an answer to this, but I wonder who is
really more at risk - some crackpot asshole on a sport bike who has
superior bike handling skills, or a mediocre rider on a mediocre bike.
The lunatic is going to get into jams more often, but he knows how to
get out of them. The mediocre rider will do everything to avoid
problems, but when one pops up, he might not have a clue how to save
himself. I doubt the fatality rate is much different for the two.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, with all the talk of accidents, I thought I'd throw my two cents in
...

Part of sensible motorcycling is recognizing the limitations of car drivers
and not forcing errors.

For example, a motorcycle is less visible than a car, and the speed is
harder to judge. This automatically implies that a motorcyclist should
generally follow the speed limits. Exceeding the speed limits gives drivers
of cars less opportunity to spot a motorcycle.

Similarly, some motorcycles can accelerate very quickly. From a car
driver's perspective, the darned thing comes out of nowhere. It seems
sensible that motorcyclists should avoid accelerating rapidly when mixing
with cars.

I was going about 60 mph on a 55-mph two-laner the other day and a sportbike
came whizzing around me going at least 80, but probably faster. It was so
noisy it startled me through my earplugs. If that guy had crashed, I'd say
he brought it on himself.

And then there is weaving in and out of traffic and riding aggressively.

Some of the motocrazies bring it on themselves ...

But most don't ...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:06:49 -0400, "David T. Ashley" <dta at (no spam) e3ft.com
wrote:

Well, with all the talk of accidents, I thought I'd throw my two cents in
...

Part of sensible motorcycling is recognizing the limitations of car drivers
and not forcing errors.

For example, a motorcycle is less visible than a car, and the speed is
harder to judge. This automatically implies that a motorcyclist should
generally follow the speed limits. Exceeding the speed limits gives drivers
of cars less opportunity to spot a motorcycle.

Similarly, some motorcycles can accelerate very quickly. From a car
driver's perspective, the darned thing comes out of nowhere. It seems
sensible that motorcyclists should avoid accelerating rapidly when mixing
with cars.

I was going about 60 mph on a 55-mph two-laner the other day and a sportbike
came whizzing around me going at least 80, but probably faster. It was so
noisy it startled me through my earplugs. If that guy had crashed, I'd say
he brought it on himself.

And then there is weaving in and out of traffic and riding aggressively.

Some of the motocrazies bring it on themselves ...

But most don't ...

I'd be surprised if there's an answer to this, but I wonder who is
really more at risk - some crackpot asshole on a sport bike who has
superior bike handling skills, or a mediocre rider on a mediocre bike.
The lunatic is going to get into jams more often, but he knows how to
get out of them. The mediocre rider will do everything to avoid
problems, but when one pops up, he might not have a clue how to save
himself. I doubt the fatality rate is much different for the two.

"David T. Ashley" <dta at (no spam) e3ft.com> wrote in message
news:l7ednSkz9NXKlhvVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
When I was a solo student I flew with a guy once who was having fun
trying to scare me. He went down the runway (in a C172) and held it on
the ground until we were (I swear) 6 inches from a snowbank at the end of
the runway and jerked it off the ground. I thought we were gonna die.

You're gonna hafta 'splain that one. How does "solo student"
relate to "I flew with a guy..." unless the "guy" in question is
your CFI?

I'll bet there are plenty of old pilots who were a little nuts at one
time. People learn.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:42:39 -0700, Bill Vanek <bilvanek at (no spam) invalid.com
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:06:49 -0400, "David T. Ashley" <dta at (no spam) e3ft.com
wrote:

Well, with all the talk of accidents, I thought I'd throw my two cents in
...

Part of sensible motorcycling is recognizing the limitations of car drivers
and not forcing errors.

For example, a motorcycle is less visible than a car, and the speed is
harder to judge. This automatically implies that a motorcyclist should
generally follow the speed limits. Exceeding the speed limits gives drivers
of cars less opportunity to spot a motorcycle.

Similarly, some motorcycles can accelerate very quickly. From a car
driver's perspective, the darned thing comes out of nowhere. It seems
sensible that motorcyclists should avoid accelerating rapidly when mixing
with cars.

I was going about 60 mph on a 55-mph two-laner the other day and a sportbike
came whizzing around me going at least 80, but probably faster. It was so
noisy it startled me through my earplugs. If that guy had crashed, I'd say
he brought it on himself.

And then there is weaving in and out of traffic and riding aggressively.

Some of the motocrazies bring it on themselves ...

But most don't ...

I'd be surprised if there's an answer to this, but I wonder who is
really more at risk - some crackpot asshole on a sport bike who has
superior bike handling skills, or a mediocre rider on a mediocre bike.
The lunatic is going to get into jams more often, but he knows how to
get out of them. The mediocre rider will do everything to avoid
problems, but when one pops up, he might not have a clue how to save
himself. I doubt the fatality rate is much different for the two.

Now why does your scenario assume the Sport bike rider has superior
skills?

Given similar riding skills, which are not the sole domain of sport
bike riders, the lunatic loses every time regardless of the bike he is
riding.

this urban myth sport bike riders somehow have better skills simply
because the bike they own is faster is bunk. Just as I have met
cruiser riders with skills much better than mine I have also met a
whole bunch of sport bike riders who cannot control their machine
anywhere near as well as I can control mine.

It's not the bike that makes you a better or worse rider, it's all up
to you.

As much as I don't like to hear it and would not want to post every
friggin news report of it, but rarely a week goes by without a report
of some sport bike rider who wadded his bike up on an off ramp in
town. Most die, a few just run up huge medical bills putting
themselves back together.

Such an amazing display of riding skills.

With their short wheelbase, I'd also doubt their superiority in
stopping distance, compared to a late model cruiser.

Erm, you're being a bit stupid here. Sorry an' all that, but you are.

So, with equipped with equally sticky tires,

a sportbike with
essentially just one, small patch of rubber wheel (the front)
contacting the ground, performing all the braking (while also trying
to avoid a stoppie), will stop quicker than a cruiser with multi
piston brakes front and back,

staying stable and having both tire
patches in contact with the pavement applying braking force?

Hey, I respect your intelligence, TOG, but there's only so much
stopping force a single tire patch can supply before it begins to
skid.

Having all the work done by one tire doesn't seem equal to
adding another, say, 30% more by use of the rear as well.

And that's
not even getting into the less stable, end-over-end characteristics of
a short wheelbase.

Don did not say that only people who "ride in a riskier
fashion" choose sportbikes. He said those who DO
ride in that manner TEND to choose sportbikes, and from
what I can see there's little evidence to suggest he is
wrong in that.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:46:24 -0600, "Bob Myers"
nospamplease at (no spam) address.invalid> wrote:

"Road Glidin' Don" <langkd_NO_SPAM at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4889ccc3.3404465 at (no spam) shawnews.ed.shawcable.net...
As I explained, you've misunderstood what I was saying there.


OK, could very well be - but then we're back to the
question of why you're assuming one contact patch
rather than two.

I'm not assuming, since I just finished explaining that point. My
only mistake in 'assuming' has been that you read it! <g

Lower, longer bike, no stoppie tendency to control, both wheels
contributing to braking (70/30%). Remember now?

On Jul 23, 2:17 pm, totallydeadmail... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:

How do you figure sportbikes have superior evasive
chracteristics ? Good brakes, yes. For superior
evasiveness, I think I'd personally go with more
of a motard layout.

At low-to-medium speeds, I might agree. At higher speeds, I might not.

My guess is that you most need evasiveness at medium
rather than high speeds. Most of the evasions I recall
getting away with were probably in the 30-60 mph range.

On Jul 24, 1:11 pm, Mark Olson <ols... at (no spam) tiny.invalid> wrote:

Sure, MCN does.  This is why I am laughing to myself when people try
to bend reality to fit their own [pre/mis]conceptions.  Actually RG Don is
not too far from the mark, a long cruiser style bike *can* brake very
well compared to a super short wheelbase sportbike because the sportbike
can't brake any harder than doing a stoppie... (snip)

Only problem is that that's bullshit from someone who's apparently
never ridden a sportbike hard, done a stoppie, or watched a GP
motorcycle race.

(A) Sportbikes don't have "super-short" wheelbases. (Are they shorter
than a cruiser's wheelbase? Yes. Are they "super-short"? No.)

(B) You do a stoppie on *purpose*, by hitting the brakes too hard and
slamming the bike's weight transfer forward all at once.

(C) If you apply the brakes at a reasonable rate, I.E. smoothly and
progressively (You know: the way you're supposed to?) a typical
sportbike will not stoppie at all; it will simply decelerate very
quickly with the tires just short of lockup.

Matter of fact it's quite easy to lock up one or *both* tires on a
sportbike without either tire ever losing contact with the ground. And
if you do lock them up, the tires will just skid, the same way they do
on every other bike.

Yes, I'm surprised that the cruisers you listed did so well. Really,
really, surprised, and it destroyed some preconceptions. But the fact
remains that, horse for course, sports bikes stop better.

Otherwise race bikes would use cruiser C of G and weight distribution.
And they don't.