|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Standard versus Cruiser /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1284752175 Message started by gerald.hughes on 09/17/10 at 12:36:15 |
|
Title: Standard versus Cruiser Post by gerald.hughes on 09/17/10 at 12:36:15 I notice that there were quite a few posts on the topic that I started about Metzlers versus Dunlops, that had to do with avoiding the jars of bumps on the road. Rather than highjacking that topic, I decided to start a new one. I love my savage, but there isn't a day goes by, usually while I am riding, that I don't wish that is was a standard, rather than a cruiser. When it comes to bumps, I really miss the ability to simply post over bad patches of road. My thighs are much better at absorbing shock than any pair of Progressives, or even a sprung seat, and way better than my spine or neck. That is one reason that I am always looking for a way to install mid-controls on my bike. I have seen some pics, but they never show the gearshift side, or the mount points. I know that there are a lot of bobber fans on the site, but are there any other fans of the standard riding position? |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by mornhm - FSO on 09/17/10 at 12:58:17 I am (or maybe my back is) a fan of a riding position between a standard and a sport . My lower back might be OK with the sport, but for long rides, the rest of me ain't. (For the record, I don't consider my ST to have a sport position - I'm talking gixxer-like position when I say sport). None of me is a fan of the cruiser. My back hurts after short rides on a cruiser (anything more than an hour), and there are times (not just for rough roads) that I want to put more weight on the pegs without having to pull myself forward with the bars. When I get on a cruiser, it feels like I don't have near the control I have on a standard, sport, or touring bike. I guess there's probably a reason that there aren't people running against the sport bikes on cruisers in the road races. I just can't see them hanging off one side and then snapping to the other in the slaloms on cruisers - might be funny to watch though. Might have something to do with clearances also. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by verslagen1 on 09/17/10 at 13:14:52 here's a conversion for you... http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1273643883/41#41 |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/17/10 at 13:53:58 I can pullmyself up pretty easliy. Beats hekk outta takin the beating of a big bump while seated, but the standard position sure would be better. Ever think of what it must be like on a hard tail & a cruiser setup? Picture Orange Choppers, hands over feet, but "Waaaay back yonnder". |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by BuckHMCC on 09/17/10 at 17:36:46 Count me among those who can't take the cruiser riding position. There are only two option as I see it, if I want to keep riding a street-worthy big single cylinder motorcycle:
The first option will cost $3,000 and the second, assuming I can get $1,000 for a 1996 Savage with 16K miles, will cost $6,000. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Savage_Amusement on 09/17/10 at 18:17:10 I really like that kit, a slight few things I would change but it makes me want to get a 2nd S40(savage) so I can do it. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by gerald.hughes on 09/17/10 at 18:44:45 Verslagen, Thanks for the link. I had already read and saved that thread. In fact, I contacted the company and asked them if that bracket could be used for mid controls, but never heard back from them. The issue for me is that their bike is a cafe racer, and those are rearsets. That puts them four to five inches farther back than mid controls. They work great for racing, but they are a little too cramped for my 64 year old body, especially after the first half hour or so of riding. This is why even the 18 year old squids never seen to put very many miles on their hot bikes. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Paladin. on 09/17/10 at 19:25:34 202235262B23692F32202F2234470 wrote:
http://savage.andruschak.net/tempter/2000ST400.jpg http://savage.andruschak.net/tempter/ and more. As far as I know, the Suzuki 400 Tempter is only produced in Japan. It is found elsewhere in the grey market. The factory frame exists. The motor works, and as far as I know is a bolt swap between the 400 and the 650. Back in '04, when I was becoming a retread, I wanted a 400-500cc motorcycle. I did not want a FUgly tail sky high "sport". Didn't want a front drum, the Honda 250 Nighthawk. I need a ladder to mount a dual sport. Only available were cruisers. With a hundred pounds or two of excess iron. Was picking between the Yamaha V-twin and the Suzuki little single when I saw a Savage -- only 50 pounds over the 250s. But really, the motorcycle I would want is either a 400 Tempter or 650 Tempter. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Trippah on 09/17/10 at 20:49:37 Add my 64 yr olde body to the list of ones that would like a standard rather than cruiser position. :D |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by LostArtist on 09/17/10 at 21:30:19 thinking my next bike will be a ninja 250 or if I can find a good deal on a triumph bonneville nue skool that'd be cool too, I definitely want to explore the standard position more |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by verslagen1 on 09/17/10 at 21:56:22 well i vote for versy's even though it's a parallel twin. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Moofed on 09/17/10 at 22:54:02 I prefer standard position too. Suzuki's TU250 looks great except it needs at least 2x the displacement. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Serowbot on 09/17/10 at 23:18:31 455641405F5254565D02330 wrote:
... are you voting for yourself, again?... ;D... I'm seriously tempted by that Tempter's gas tank... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by PerrydaSavage on 09/18/10 at 01:33:59 When I first got into motorcycles back in '02, I thought that for someone in their early 40's, Cruisers were the only option ... I thought that that was the "look" of a motorcycle ... Sportbikes were for squids, UJM's were dusty derelects from a by-gone era and Dualies were for those who liked to play in the mud ... a Cruiser was a "proper" motortorcycle ... so, that's where I went ... 1st with an '85 Honda Rebel and then to an '03 Savage ... followed by an '06 S50 and then an '05 S40 ... in 2008, I became a Motorcycle Training Instructor and had the opportunity to Ride a wide variety of different types of smaller displacement motorcycles ... it was a Bike from our training fleet that opened my eyes; a Brazilian-spec Honda Titan CG150 ... a Standard. Man that thing was comfortable (esp. on my deteriorated lower back) and handled waaaaay better than any Cruiser I'd Ridden up to that point! Spending time on that Bike improved my Riding immeasurably! This past summer I spent a month Riding a Honda CBR125R ... a small Sportbike ... underpowered yes and somewhat uncomfortable (esp. on the wrists), but cornering ... unreal ... turns became telepathic! I loved Riding that thing in traffic around town! So, I've come to realize that while I still love the look of a Cruiser (and will always have a place in my heart for our beloved LS650), when it comes to Riding, they are not the be-all, end-all of motorcycles. Have had several good sits on the new-Gen Kawi Ninja 250R ... very Standard-like in it's ergonomics ... fits like a glove too! Very likely will be my next Bike! Honda CG150 Titan http://garagem83.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/honda-cg-titan-150-2009.jpg Kawasaki Ninja 250R http://indianautotalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/kawasaki_ninja250.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Demin on 09/18/10 at 05:47:42 Myself,I like the cruiser because it does put my legs farther out.With a 34-36" inseam it's hard for me to put my feet under me.Although I do agree with being able to stand up over bumps,control better.Clearance is a big issue on cornering with alot of cruisers.My Harley going through twisties in the mountains of Pa. the pipes and the primary cover are all ground down from dragging. It is fun to freak people out though when they hear me dragging. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Boofer on 09/18/10 at 18:54:14 I need help. What is the "standard position"? I have a photo here my daughter made while passing me at 50 mph. The palm of my hand directly over the top of my foot where it meets my ankle (Buckhorn Bars?) My foot is a little forward on the peg but not to the bootheel. My butt is barely touching the pillion seat. I thought I was slouching because of my bad back, but I am actually sitting nearly straight up. Feels OK. Is that standard? I haven't been on another bike in nearly thirty years, but the old Kawa H1 and H2s I ran seem to be about like this by my memory. Please explain with hand signals, smoke signals, and 8x10 glossys with circles and arrows explaining each. Thanks |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by bill67 on 09/18/10 at 19:04:19 On a standard your feet would be maybe a foot behind your hands. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Boofer on 09/18/10 at 19:10:01 Thanks, I actually understood that. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/19/10 at 00:41:17 Standard seating is a 60s Brit bike. Have a look at a Kawasaki W650. The old Honda 450 was a standard, as opposed to crotch rockets, got a fella leaned over, weight on the arms, or a cruiser , with the feet extended out front. Standard position makes standing on the pegs a simple matter. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by PerrydaSavage on 09/19/10 at 02:18:06 Standard - Triumph Bonneville (Kawasaki W650, Honda CB750, etc) http://image.motorcyclecruiser.com/f/16905452+w750+st0/0907_crup_09_z+2009_triumph_bonneville+t100.jpg Cruiser - Suzuki M109 (H.D. Softail, Honda Fury, etc., etc.) http://www.onewheeldrive.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/m109_img_8344.jpg Sport - Yamaha R6 (Suzuki GSXR750, Honda CBR600R, etc.) http://r6blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/536264077_72fc431c6c.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/19/10 at 04:38:20 We may now delete our posts explaining it. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by jef.savage on 09/19/10 at 17:11:44 How about a 654cc single standard that weighs about the same as an LS650 and makes twice the horsepower? I give you the KTM Duke. http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20B/KTM%20990%20Super%20Duke%20R%2007%20%201.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Paladin. on 09/19/10 at 18:54:05 Some may like the looks, for me it is FUgly with it's tail stuck up in the sky. As long as I can have a simple motorcycle I do not want fuel injection with the cost a high pressure fuel pump. Or the costs and problems of liquid, water pumps, leaks or corrosion. But main problem with me for the Duke would be getting a step ladder to get up onto the 34 inch high saddle. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by gerald.hughes on 09/19/10 at 19:38:30 I am just wondering on what planet the Duke would be considered a "Standard" bike. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by verslagen1 on 09/19/10 at 20:02:58 planet motard |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by VA27 on 09/19/10 at 20:24:32 Put me in the standard column. The last bike I had was a '78 Yamaha SR500...new. I sold it in '81 (got married in '78 and babies started happening and I figured I'd better get off the road until they were grown and gone) and have been kicking myself ever since. The wife and I did a 645 mile day on the SR once, but that was then. I don't think my 32-year-older back could even approach that on an S40! Well, what's old is new again. Maybe one day the standard riding position will make a comeback. (I've still got wide paisley ties hanging in my closet!) If the 650 Tempter showed up on the showroom floor tomorrow I'd be...Tempted. I saw one of the Royal Enfield bikes last year. I thought it was a restoration until I talked to the owner. Great looking bike. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by jef.savage on 09/19/10 at 22:46:21 474552414C440E485547484553200 wrote:
It's not a question of where it's a question of when. In the 21st century "standard" bikes don't all look like Bonnies. http://shop.pack-parts.net/images/Triumph%20Street%20Triple.jpg http://www.pricecomparrison.net/Images/Suzuki%20Gladius%20650.jpg http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/218172/images/Versys.jpg Obviously those who prefer mid-twentieth century bikes may find these unattractive but that doesn't change the upright riding position, mid-position controls, and relaxed handlebar height that makes them standards. And they're still a long way from being motards. http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery/Honda%20XR250%20Motard%2005.jpg And as far as liquid cooling goes I'll gladly take the extra hassle for more than twice the hp! I know these bikes won't turn heads the way my Savage does but if anyone out there has a Duke they want to trade for a Savage pm me. |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Serowbot on 09/19/10 at 23:55:30 677463627D7076747F20110 wrote:
;D ;D ;D.... ... although,... I'd love a motard without the McDorckus plastic... |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by PerrydaSavage on 09/20/10 at 00:52:40 Yup, no doubt about it, both the 'zuki Gladius and the Kawi Versys are "Standards" as far as Rider ergonomics go ... unfortunately though, the Versys has a stratospheric seat height for us inseam-challenged folk ... the Versys is a very popular mount up here on The Rock ... their owners are a loyal bunch who swear by the Bike's comfort and rideability; a good all-rounder. A girlfriend of a pal's co-worker has a Gladius that has been lowered by an inch-and-a-half, have not seen it m'self, but would love to check that Bike out! |
|
Title: Re: Standard versus Cruiser Post by Lupo on 09/20/10 at 01:03:40 Having ridden and owned standards, cruisers and sportbikes I feel I can honestly say to your question about which is best, YES. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |