I figure there are some motorcycle guys/gals on CP, so I thought we could have a place to talk all things Motorcycles.
Tire Mount and Balance Prices (as of 10/29/16)
Prices based on if you remove the wheels yourself and bring the wheels and new tires with you:
Cycle Gear - $35 per wheel if you buy tires from them. $58 per wheel if you buy tires elsewhere
Rawhide - $65 per wheel (assuming it would be the same at other HD dealers. they book it at 1/2 hr per wheel)
C R Cycle Tires (DeSoto) - $30 per wheel
Cheapest I've found my Michelin Commander II's. Seem like they have good prices on other brands too. http://www.jakewilson.com - Free 3 day shipping on orders over $75 [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
Me either. I've owned one etc, and it was fun and all. But I like a little bit of a 'cool' factor to my bikes.
I want something similar to these.
those really ARE cool! no doubt. I like some choppers too.....but.....
I need comfort.
I don't see much comfort in those pics. I ride to work 45 minutes one way, 1.5 hours a day. I need a cruiser! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
Me either. I've owned one etc, and it was fun and all. But I like a little bit of a 'cool' factor to my bikes.
I want something similar to these.
See, I would consider those all to be cruisers.
Of them I like this one the best. I like the blacked out look with bits of chrome here and there, like the pushrod tubes, that really pop against the black. I also like the “look” of the springer front and rigid rear but lets be honest, living with that bike would be a serious PITA. And that’s why I generally don’t care for cruisers, they’re more about a look than function. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Radar Chief:
See, I would consider those all to be cruisers.
Of them I like this one the best. I like the blacked out look with bits of chrome here and there, like the pushrod tubes, that really pop against the black. I also like the “look” of the springer front and rigid rear but lets be honest, living with that bike would be a serious PITA. And that’s why I generally don’t care for cruisers, they’re more about a look than function.
so....hmm....
maybe the correct terminology for ME would be a bagger? I have a 1100 Sabre and have always thought of it as a cruiser. but I guess that's not necessarily correct..... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Radar Chief:
See, I would consider those all to be cruisers.
Of them I like this one the best. I like the blacked out look with bits of chrome here and there, like the pushrod tubes, that really pop against the black. I also like the “look” of the springer front and rigid rear but lets be honest, living with that bike would be a serious PITA. And that’s why I generally don’t care for cruisers, they’re more about a look than function.
Me too. I also like the blacked out.
If I got one it would definitely be a hop around town kind of bike. I'd also probably avoid the ridged rear.
Would probably go a Sportster 1200 route; raise the tank a bit. Put a skinny 21" front on (I 'think' it's a 21) with some white wall. Lower the rear a tad. Put on some mini-apes. And pretty much leave the rest alone. I don't think I'd enjoy a full-on true bobber (ridged frame etc). [Reply]
so....hmm....
maybe the correct terminology for ME would be a bagger? I have a 1100 Sabre and have always thought of it as a cruiser. but I guess that's not necessarily correct.....
I always categorized a bike as a 'bagger' as one with hard cases and no passenger support/trunk.
Like the HD street-glide - I call that a bagger.
But, I suppose 'bagger' is subjective etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
Me too. I also like the blacked out.
If I got one it would definitely be a hop around town kind of bike. I'd also probably avoid the ridged rear.
Would probably go a Sportster 1200 route; raise the tank a bit. Put a skinny 21" front on (I 'think' it's a 21) with some white wall. Lower the rear a tad. Put on some mini-apes. And pretty much leave the rest alone. I don't think I'd enjoy a full-on true bobber (ridged frame etc).
dude! have you ever rode a 1200 Sportster? they are dogs. at least the one I rode was. at the time I was shopping I had a 700 magna.....and it would eat that 1200 alive!!! the 1100 Sabre I have no will also eat a sportser alive. I'm no mechanic...not by a long shot....so I thought 1200 > 700 therefore the sportser should have more get up n go than my magna. no. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
dude! have you ever rode a 1200 Sportster? they are dogs. at least the one I rode was. at the time I was shopping I had a 700 magna.....and it would eat that 1200 alive!!! the 1100 Sabre I have no will also eat a sportser alive. I'm no mechanic...not by a long shot....so I thought 1200 > 700 therefore the sportser should have more get up n go than my magna. no.
I've heard that as well. Luckily this time around, I'm not all that concerned, and don't plan on any 2-up riding.
Nothing will compare to the past 2 sport bikes I've had lol. Those things make crazy power.
I had a V-Star 650 Custom about 8 years ago-ish, and liked it from a power perspective (sufficient). though, was a bit of a chore with 2-up in stop and go traffic, slipping the clutch etc. It also desperately needed either a taller 5th, or a 6th gear. That thing was hummin' on the highway at 70-75 etc. Great bike otherwise. Dirt cheap. I bought it from a husband of a chick my wife worked with at the time. He was constantly getting deployed and joked that every time he rode it, he got deployed etc. He sold if to me for $3500. and I sold it for $3300 about 3 years later. It only had 700 miles when I bought it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
dude! have you ever rode a 1200 Sportster? they are dogs. at least the one I rode was. at the time I was shopping I had a 700 magna.....and it would eat that 1200 alive!!! the 1100 Sabre I have no will also eat a sportser alive. I'm no mechanic...not by a long shot....so I thought 1200 > 700 therefore the sportser should have more get up n go than my magna. no.
You’re also talking a 4 cylinder vs. a v-twin, 2 cylinder. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze: :-)
I had a CBR 600RR; only had 600ccs
...I did forget about the Sabre and 4 cylinders.
Probably one of the craziest motorcycles I’ve ever ridden was back in the early ‘80’s when a friend had a Kawasaki H2, it was a 750 cc two stroke triple. He had bored and ported the cylinder and was running a high compression piston, IOW way too much motor for the chassis and brakes, and that thing was nuts. Acceleration was limited by how close you could keep the front wheel to the ground. Sounded like a chain saw on meth and would rather throw you off than let you ride a straight line on it.
IIRC it spit him off just before wrapping around a tree. Good thing too, if he’d ridden it much longer it would have eventually killed him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Radar Chief:
Probably one of the craziest motorcycles I’ve ever ridden was back in the early ‘80’s when a friend had a Kawasaki H2, it was a 750 cc two stroke triple. He had bored and ported the cylinder and was running a high compression piston, IOW way too much motor for the chassis and brakes, and that thing was nuts. Acceleration was limited by how close you could keep the front wheel to the ground. Sounded like a chain saw on meth and would rather throw you off than let you ride a straight line on it.
IIRC it spit him off just before wrapping around a tree. Good thing too, if he’d ridden it much longer it would have eventually killed him.
wow...a 750 two stroke !:-) holy shit lol. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
wow...a 750 two stroke !:-) holy shit lol.
Oh yea, the two stroke 3 cylinders were Kawasaki’s intro to the muscle bike market, back before the EPA started killing off street legal two strokes. They were the Saturday Night Special of motorcycling, cheap and deadly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Radar Chief:
Oh yea, the two stroke 3 cylinders were Kawasaki’s intro to the muscle bike market, back before the EPA started killing off street legal two strokes. They were the Saturday Night Special of motorcycling, cheap and deadly.
From the Kawasaki Triple Wiki page:
Originally Posted by :
The Kawasaki triples were a range of 250 cc to 750 cc motorcycles Kawasaki exported from 1969 to 1980. The engines were air-cooled, three-cylinder, two-stroke with two exhaust pipes exiting on the right side of the bike, and one on the left. Right from the first triple model, the 1969 Mach III H1 500cc, the motorcycle gained the record for being the quickest for its engine size. Despite having severe handling problems, the machines became extremely popular and fine examples command high prices by collectors today.
Model history
The first Kawasaki triple was the 500 cc H1 Mach III, introduced in late 1968.[1] The original H1 was unique for using a CDI ignition which operated through an automotive style distributor. The H1 offered a high power-to-weight ratio for the time, but had generally poor handling and weak drum brakes front and rear. It was the quickest production motorcycle at the time. When motorcycle journalists[which?] expressed disbelief, Kawasaki suggested they take a new H1 to a dragstrip. Using a regular production model with only 7 miles (11 kilometres) on it, Tony Nicosia, a Kawasaki test rider, ran the quarter mile (402 m) in 12.96 seconds at 100.7 miles per hour (162.1 kilometres per hour) for the press to witness. The official figure was 12.4 seconds by Mike Wenzel—quite believable on a well run in machine.[citation needed] Tony Nicosia set many world records with Kawasaki triples over the following years, including some[which?] land speed records at Bonneville Salt Flats.[citation needed]
In 1972, the 750 cc Kawasaki H2 Mach IV was introduced and was essentially a scaled-up version of the H1 500.[2] A stock H2 was rated at 12.0 seconds for the quarter mile (402 m). Updated with more power and better front disc brakes, the H2 became the undisputed king of the streets,[clarification needed] even beating legendary muscle cars of the era such as the Plymouth Hemi Cuda. It was notoriously dangerous, being prone to up-and-over wheelies and speed wobbles. The dangerous handling characteristics arising from its mediocre frame design caused it to be nicknamed the "Widowmaker" by motorcycle enthusiasts of the 1970s.
Those Kaw Mach III's were incredible.
Saw one on Craigslist here in Iowa the other day. Said it was mint and wanted $6500. By the time I called it was sold. I thought that price was way high.
