|
Post by will on Apr 12, 2010 18:47:17 GMT -5
I restarted as a motorcycle rider on a 1979 CB650. It was a standard. But, it was a heavy pig with lousy brakes, minimal ground clearance, and adequate but not spectacular power. It was softly sprung and wallowed badly, partly because it was old and partly because wallowing was 1970s standard practice. It was a standard, but I'm not convinced it was the ideal starter or reentry bike.
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Apr 14, 2010 18:30:46 GMT -5
I am a get training and start small guy. Jim, I think and I should let him answer, is not a "must start on a small bike" guy and obviously is heavily into training. More precisely, John's an opinion guy, I'm a data guy. Most people start on 600s or bigger. It's just a fact. So the dire predictions small-bikers make simply aren't supported by data. Crashes happen while decelerating and usually at fairly low speeds. Acceleration simply isn't a factor, for the most part. Literbikes don't crash more than bikes above 1000ccs -- think cruisers. I believe weight is a much bigger factor than power, but I can't prove it except by statistical inference. Beyond that, small bikes have suffered from crappy brakes, tires and suspensions, making them a somewhat less safe pricepoint. That's less true today, however. I recommend small to midsize, standard first-bikes. But I know factually that choosing another bike simply isn't the death sentence some would opine.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 14, 2010 21:04:57 GMT -5
More precisely, John's an opinion guy, I'm a data guy. Most people start on 600s or bigger. It's just a fact. So the dire predictions small-bikers make simply aren't supported by data. Crashes happen while decelerating and usually at fairly low speeds. Acceleration simply isn't a factor, for the most part. Literbikes don't crash more than bikes above 1000ccs -- think cruisers. I believe weight is a much bigger factor than power, but I can't prove it except by statistical inference. Beyond that, small bikes have suffered from crappy brakes, tires and suspensions, making them a somewhat less safe pricepoint. That's less true today, however. I recommend small to midsize, standard first-bikes. But I know factually that choosing another bike simply isn't the death sentence some would opine. Au contrarie, mon frere! I have read quite a bit of data and the trend towards larger machines HAS also lead to a rising death toll over the past few years. If you look at NHTSA numbers, the largest crashing group is them 501- 1000cc and over group, currently. Also, bikes that attract newer and younger riders do figure heavily in that number, not to mention the crash happy born agains. Now, I don't think SPEEDING is what causes the issues (although we speed more than cars in fatal accidents), it's control. Simply put, a smaller bike is easier to control for the vast majority of folks. The old adage of more people being quicker on a 600 around a track vs. a literbike is true. Also, never said it was a death sentence. Just think it's hedging your bets.
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Apr 17, 2010 20:29:43 GMT -5
That's fatality data, my friend, not crash data. It's not corrected for experience and it only looks the way it looks because NHTSA decided to collapse about seven size classes into three. It doesn't say what you think it says, an effect that I believe is deliberate. These things are designed to social-engineer, not present facts. They're actually called "behavioral safety reports."
Anyway, you did arrive at an important point, that heavier bikes are harder to control. I've preached that notion for years. I'm glad you agree.
But (There's always a but isn't there?) it's always a mistake to believe that much of anything transfers from the street environment to the track environment. Just like the relationship of fatal crashes to most crashes, it's mostly apples and oranges. <i>Eg. Most two vehicle motorcycle crashes happen at intersections. Nuff said.</i>
Most people start on a 600 or bigger bike. It is simply a fact.
|
|