|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1355762086 Message started by adj_jaker on 12/17/12 at 08:34:46 |
|
Title: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by adj_jaker on 12/17/12 at 08:34:46 Don't get me wrong I love my S40, but this last summer I moved up to NY and sometimes travel back to PA on the weekends. I would love to leave my bike up here, ride to work, but also ride it back home (2 hours) if i want, or even just go on longer trips in general. It doesn't help that I broke my tail bone and can't sit still for a longer time, but i was wondering if any of you have or have ridden a standard motorcycle compared to the S40 in the long run? Would it be more comfortable or about the same? It's about time to upgrade soon and just looking at my options. If I was looking for a standard, I would probably be looking at the Versys, NX700, or Gladius. Any input is appreciated. Thanks! :) |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by lacon on 12/17/12 at 08:42:11 I've always found the standard the most comfortable. If I could only have one bike, it would have to be a standard. Ever seen a dirt bike with forward foot pegs? There's a reason. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Gyrobob on 12/17/12 at 08:53:35 322730303C3B3D355E0 wrote:
Ditto. The sit-up-and-beg postion common to many cruisers may make the rider think others think he looks cool, but for grinding out the miles, a standard position (hands at moderate height and feet underneath or slightly forward of the body) is the most comfortable. That position must be adjusted based on whether or not there is a fairing or windshield, but, in any event, ape hangars and extended legs get pretty fatiguing pretty quickly. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by oldNslow on 12/17/12 at 09:00:33 Probably you should figure out a way to take an extended ride on a so called "standard" and decide for yourself. To answer your question though - a bike with fairly wide flar bars and the pegs and foot controls located under my butt rather than pushed out forward like on the S40, is more comfortable for me on long rides. I think that the crusier riding position also detracts from the ability to control the bike somewhat - makes it harder to shift ones weight around. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by oldNslow on 12/17/12 at 09:07:47 Quote:
I meant "flat" bars. Sorry. By the way, I vote for the Honda. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Gyrobob on 12/17/12 at 09:51:18 66585955475B5A340 wrote:
why is a standard "so called" ?? |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by verslagen1 on 12/17/12 at 09:55:10 The footpeg position of the savage certainly limits your ability to get some weight off your posterior other than for a second or two. If there was a standard with belt drive, I'd might consider it. Otherwise I'd need a chain brush wash oiler system as I'd be cleaning that thing far too often. the RYCA rearsets maybe a option for you and I've thought of adding a set of mini floorboards at that same location. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by jvdb on 12/17/12 at 10:21:01 5C62636F7D61600E0 wrote:
I ride a Honda 599 (standard), and I would say the opposite is true for me. I have limited seat time in the S40, other than a 3 hour ride home the day I bought it. I think the forward controls are better for long rides, in fact extending them forward a bit and a better seat would make it great. Quote:
Nail on the head here, but their is a tradeoff. Taller seat height and higher center of gravity make them more difficult to learn on. Especially in low-speed maneuvers or for people with short legs. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Gyrobob on 12/17/12 at 10:49:10 677463627D7076747F20110 wrote:
How about this? http://www.rycamotors.com/bikes/CS2/about/index.html |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by oldNslow on 12/17/12 at 10:57:31 Gyrobob asked Quote:
To me if it's got two wheels and a motor it's just a motorcycle. Standard,Cruiser,Sportbike etc. describe certain chractreristics that make one bike different from another. That's all. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by jcstokes on 12/17/12 at 12:10:10 Google AIRHAWK Seat and see if one of those might help |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Greg on 12/17/12 at 12:35:10 The others may be correct about the foot peg position and lifting yourself up every now and then, but I can't ride a 'standard' any more. The feet directly under to slightly rearward coupled with the angle of my body above the waist and the kinda sorta leaning on my hands really hurts my back. I will always ride a cruiser style. You need to rent one and see what you think. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by engineer on 12/17/12 at 18:11:27 I like a standard position better and can ride longer with reasonable comfort. Some of the new standards seem to have the foot pegs a little high, or maybe it is just my age and inflexible knees and hips. I know a guy who took in a sport bike to help a friend. He had problems with his tail bone and really liked the sport bike because as he leaned forward on it to grasp the low bars he said it took all the pressure off his tail bone. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by arteacher on 12/17/12 at 18:28:53 My arthritis gave me trouble with the standard S40 foot position. I installed Routy's forward controls and now I am very comfortable, at least until I go over a big bump and can't get my bum off the seat. ;) How many of you ride horses? A similar debate occurs with riding English or western saddles. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Cavie on 12/17/12 at 18:38:14 They don't call 'em cruiser for nothin'. Here's the 03 Suzuki Valusia 800. VERY comfortable. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by houstonbofh on 12/17/12 at 19:12:07 I have ridden a LOT of different bikes over the years... First, the OP posted as standard some things I consider mild sport bikes. The riding position is leaned forward. To me, a standard is a 1984 Nighthawk 700SC or a 70's era CB 750K. It is a vertical seating position, foot pegs under or a little forward of the seat, and handlebars at about nipple height. This is good for long trips. But... I need to give ranges. I have ridden 100 miles + in a setting on, an R1, a Super Hawk, the Hondas mentioned above, a few Marauders, a Boulevard M50, and a few Harleys. Nothing eats the miles more comfortably than a Road King. It is like driving a couch! But my Marauder is still very nice. As for the pegs, occasionally, I place my feet on the passenger pegs. Highway bars also help. Essentially just moving your feet make a difference. I can not ride Aida's Savage for more than about 45 minutes without feeling uncomfortable. (She, on the other hand, can ride it about an hour and a half.) But forward position is hard. Road an R1 in a group ride at Lone Star Rally this year (With Jax) and it almost killed me! My back and knees can't take that anymore! :o |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Paladin. on 12/17/12 at 19:30:47 Everyone's butt is different. Back in '05 or so I wanted to see if I could do a fairly long ride. Took a 350 mile ride from 9pm to 6am to putt under the full moon thru the Joshua Tree Nat.Park. Surprise! Was not tired, not sore, but the wind back on I-10 was brutal with a 30-40 mph headwind. A yearish later the same, with a Street Shield, much better. Knowing I can do longer trips I went from L.A. to OKC, 540 miles the first day, 510 miles the second. That told me that I needed something better than the stock seat and pegs -- my feet hurt more than my butt. 350 miles a day back home on US60 was comfortable. But that is me, not you. You have to find a bike that fits you. I like the position of the Savage, the feet not under you, but not the far forward position of many cruisers. Close to a standard. Most bikes now called "standard" are leaning forward like a full sport bike. I was checking for a newer bike and was looking hard at the Moto Guzzi C7 -- a real old-school standard. Check out one. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by v-pilot on 12/17/12 at 20:51:27 You asked about a bike with a more universal riding position for your tail bone. I've ridden the Versys...nice but a bit on the buzzy side at high r's(paralell twin) I've also riden the SV1000 which is the big brother to the Gladius...much more sport oriented(I loved that bike, V-twin) The pegs are a bit higher than I like. I don't know about the Honda. I broke 3 vertebrae in my back and sport touring is the only position I can comfortably ride...spine orientation to road/suspension for road bumps. All of my bikes have Corbin seats which helps. Universal and ST positions allow for a bit of movement in the saddle to relieve pressure points. It's also a more active riding position. I can ride my Guzzi Le Mans out of gas without pain...6.5 gal at 50mpg. You can do the math. I'd say, take them for a test ride...you din't want anything you can't ride. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Dj12midnit on 12/17/12 at 21:03:41 A two hour ride would be nothing on the savage. There are lots of things you can do to the seat. Also if it is two hours of super slab. you can change your seating position. You can hook your heals on the rear pegs or if your legs are long enough you can even slide back on the seat. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by PerrydaSavage on 12/18/12 at 00:21:54 I too have Ridden a lot of different Bikes ... Cruiser, Sport and Standard ... a Standard (i.e. TU250X, Bonneville, CB500F, etc.) has relatively neutral ergonomics compared to Cruisers & Sports and is what I personally find the most comfortable. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Cavi Mike on 12/18/12 at 02:53:00 584D5A5A5651575F340 wrote:
Yeah, the reason is control - not comfort. Not exactly sure what you though it was for. A standard riding position will get very uncomfortable if you try to ride it like a cruiser. Trying to cruise without moving your body will start to hurt your wrists and your back. Ever notice if you stand in one position your ankles start to hurt? Well the weight of your upper body leaning on your handle bars is going to do the same thing. At least with a full-on sport bike you can lean your torso on the tank but you can't really do that on a standard. Buy a standard if you like to ride really hard - butt off the seat hard. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by mpescatori on 12/20/12 at 01:03:00 When I look up "cruiser" I find a number of definitions, all which apply (including old ironside battleships! :D) and none of which apply. To you folks, "cruiser" means a motorcycle meant for long distance riding... right? Wrong? "Cruising" apparently meaning "wafting up and down the main town boulevard" as one would do on Saturday nights in a hot muscle car... While it is true that a Harley Road King appears to be made for long distance cruising, it is just as true nobody in his right mind would ever consider riding any cruiser off a hard-surfaced road, and possibly a wide mountain road or a 4 / 6 laner at that. On the other hand, which are the real world-class cruisers? Look at the old school: BMW R75/7 http://image.motorcyclistonline.com/f/features/me_and_my_bike/122_1002_1975_bmw_r75/26641640+w620/122_1002_06_o+1975_bmw_r75_5+left_side_view.jpg Moto Guzzi V7 and 750T http://img.poliziadistato.it/guzzi_v7_2_big.jpg (incidentally, this bike was sold to the CHiP with a guaranteed cruising speed of 140Km/h = 88mph, which in those days only BMW could match) Triumph Tiger http://www.transport-museum.com/_userfiles/pages/images/Triumph-Tiger-100-1974-Ted-.gif I am purposefully leaving out the Japanese bikes here, and to a good reason: I am only looking at bikes manufactured in the 1960s, when long range cruising meant riding 8-12 hours on a European 2-laner... That was serious business, no time for sissy stuff like a radio or a can/cup holder or heated grips... You will notice the handlebars are positioned low, more or less at navel height, not nipple as one suggested (which would be much too high for extended riding) You will also notice how the footpegs are positioned more or less in a vertical line under the hipbone, or slightly forward to it, so that one may rise on his feet and "surf" over potholes and similar obstacles. http://bikernet.com/news/images/PhotoID15524.jpg Regardless of his claims, this guy will ride only a few hours a day... This guy, on the other hand, will go a long way. http://www.bikernet.com/news/images/PhotoID10441.jpg Quite frankly, highway bars are not considered at all by European riders, they lace much too much weight on one's tailbone and even the slightest ripples will impact on it and hurt. The same for high handlebars, they should allow the elbow to be at the same height, or possibly a little higher than the wrist. We walk with our hand down, not up in the air... ;) |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Cavi Mike on 12/20/12 at 02:51:31 Try to stand up on your bike in riding position. Do you fall backward and pull on your bars to brace yourself? Cruiser. Pretty much stand straight up just using your bars to keep your balance? Standard. Fall forward leaning heavily on your bars? Sport. A standard is definitely my favorite position because it's so easy to get your weight off the bars or the saddle and move it around if you need to dodge something or go over a rough patch. Sportbike you're on the bars all the time, cruiser you're stuck on the saddle. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by PerrydaSavage on 12/20/12 at 08:30:40 that pretty much sums it up IMHO Cavi ... well said! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Dave on 12/20/12 at 09:23:40 6C4E59466246444A2F0 wrote:
You left one out.......have to ride the whole darn time standing up....Trials! http://i49.tinypic.com/15heduf.jpg |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by houstonbofh on 12/20/12 at 11:21:58 594451475755405B465D340 wrote:
I would say the Honda CB models would fit this requirement. The CB450 started in 65. Eventually it's engine ended up in the Honda N360/N600 which became the Civic. The CB750 also started in 69, so still fits, and those are still running. 594451475755405B465D340 wrote:
I said Nipple... And Actually, you are correct, somewhat. Somewhere between navel and nipple, with a neutral arm position. As to the highway bars, they are not for full time riding, but to adjust position. The key is moving around. Floorboards are also good for that, and I notice the example cruiser had forward floorboards... |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by HoustonBussa on 01/11/13 at 05:01:32 Wow.. Ready for the group upset. I grew up on cruisers and standards. I've done a 14 hour on a very old standard, so maybe not the best example, but so far the bike I've enjoyed the most on any long ride is my Hayabusa. My feet directly under me did kill me, but I modded my foot pegs to took the pressure off my knees. That added with the proper seating position, a short 8 hour ride was nothing. All that to say, like it's been said, one, a lot will be personal preference, but a couple of things DO make a difference. Just like cars.. A larger, smoother motor help with road fatigue as well as a heavier bike will absorb the bums better. Also make sure your forks and struts are set up for you as a rider (most shops will do this for you, with you sitting on the bike. Some even for free).. Also a wider seat. All of which why I can ride on the Hayabusa much further than I could on any other sports bike. just my two bits.. hope it helps. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by Cavi Mike on 01/11/13 at 12:32:38 57706A6C6B70715D6A6C6C7E1F0 wrote:
I already know why this was "nothing" to you - it's because you were resting your torso on the tank the entire time. If you were actually holding your body up with your arms like you're supposed to on a sportbike, the pain in your legs wouldn't touch the pain in your wrists, back and shoulders. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/11/13 at 13:49:57 I had a Guzzi 750, Basically "Standard" position, but the pegs were high up the side of the bike, legs were way too cramped up & there was tons of room to have done it better. LIke was said earlier. If you cant stand up w/o doing a pullup on the bars, thats a cruiser position. If the seat is such that you can sit straight up & lay hands on the bars & be ready to ride, thats a standard position, BUT, thats just 1/2 of it. Yea, all fine & dandy the pegs are Under your butt & you can stand up & get your butt off the seat for a speed bump, but thats no guarantee of comfort. The Guzzi Nevada was a miserable thing to ride, at least as far as my legs were concerned,I rode it, but Ive got a Kawasaki W-650 thats WAY better.. If someone told me theyd buy me any bike I wanted, thats what Id get. Newer, prettier, but a W-650, fer sure,, Unless someone can show me a bike in that size/weight/power range that has a belt drive, sits like that thing does, has a center stand that I can get down, has no cam chain & delivers 60 MPG or better...then Id hafta look at that.,. |
|
Title: Re: A quick question for all: Standard VS Cruiser Post by HoustonBussa on 01/14/13 at 19:41:05 6547504F6B4F4D43260 wrote:
I already know why this was "nothing" to you - it's because you were resting your torso on the tank the entire time. If you were actually holding your body up with your arms like you're supposed to on a sportbike, the pain in your legs wouldn't touch the pain in your wrists, back and shoulders. [/quote] Well why my knees bothered me was because I have a blown knee.. BUT if you ride with your back erect, knees hugging the tank, there should be no weight on your wrist. If you have pain in your back, shoulders and wrist while on a sports bike, more especially the Hayabusa, you're not riding correctly. And why less on the Hayabusa, it has a much less aggressive seating position than most other sports bikes. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |