verslagen1 wrote on 01/11/18 at 09:17:18:piedmontbuckeye wrote on 01/11/18 at 08:54:48:I didn't imply it, I SAID it!! At 65 mph, this bike is not as stable as it should be. And at 70 or 80??? I wouldn't want to be on it! It's not about comfort but about stability!
Can you identify the measures or tests of stability?
At times (going 70/80) I have felt like the bike was on rails thru a power sweeper. Yet jumping over a several times painted over line induced a head shake.
I admit, that there is no "objective" standard or test available here, but for me, I have hundreds of thousands of miles of experience. On the S40, even little aberrations in the road surface cause some problems, things also like dips in the pavement, resurfacing lines that run parallel to the direction of travel, rain grooves, etc. The three primary causes of its instability are 1) short wheelbase, 2) fork rake, and 3) terrible shocks, both front and rear. These can all be fixed with about another $1,000 to $2,000 changes. But after all that expense, one would still have a mediocre bike.
The instability isn't necessarily due to lightness of weight as someone has suggested above. I admit, that weight can help, but I remember my first "real" bike, a 1965 Honda 305cc SuperHawk. Ironically, it was more stable than my current S40.
Having said all that, I think the S40 is a very good bike for the cash and can be a great deal of fun (and safe too) if one keeps these limitations in mind, and learns to handle the bike to compensate for its limitations as we all do with anything that we own, cars included.
It is not my "cup of tea," but a lot of you get enjoyment out of modifying the original into cafe style bikes or other styles and you guys do a great job and your work looks fantastic. The S40 is a GREAT base for that kind of modifications! You fellas can be very proud of your abilities in that area!
Pages: 
