I'm with you there. Currently (casually) shopping for an E36 M3. Don't have a ton of money to blow but I want something fun, but not impossible to live with.I'll be ready to accept you into my cult when/if you come around, of those who acknowledge the reality of what we're doing and yet accept the futility of our actions.
Toshi's thread
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
E36 M3s, like '95-before Civic Sis/CRX Sis, Integra GS-Rs, and especially Type Rs are impossible to find in non-beat/-riced condition. Perhaps you'll fare better, but I sure wasn't seeing anything promising back last time when I was actually searching (when I bought the RX-8, and, before that, the WRX).
Yeah I know. That's sort of what I meant by casually. I'm in no real hurry so I want to find a good one. Which may take a while.
Friend of mine did just get a '96 M3 sedan in mostly good shape for about 5.5K recently, so it is possible. He did have to go to Missouri for it though.
Over 100k miles, I'm guessing? From this point forward in my life I'm going to try my damnedest to buy cars with under 50k. New is still a poor financial decision (that can be overridden by lust ) but I'm not going to buy a clapped out formerly-nice car unless it really does have a working Mr. Fusion in the back.
) but I'm not going to buy a clapped out formerly-nice car unless it really does have a working Mr. Fusion in the back.
The hassle of obtaining a zipcar isn't worth it, especially when my car sees a lot of use as a means to get large bikes to lift-served mountain bike parks on the weekends. It's bad enough facing the frowning of a lifetime from the missus when I'm stuck in traffic when I won't get home at the time I said I would. At least she won't penalize me monetarily.
And as far as what I drive, it's not so carbon guilt as much as it is parking space deprivation. I mean if space allowed, who knows ...
And as far as what I drive, it's not so carbon guilt as much as it is parking space deprivation. I mean if space allowed, who knows ...
I was going to save that pic for one of the ubiquitous huge-ass trucks-are-awesome threads in the lounge but thought it'd fit here to make a point.If not carbon guilt then why a diesel? And is that head thing attached to the monster truck? WTF?
Diesel, I don't know. Maybe it's just a hundred more bucks a month I could throw at a mortgage on a $700k+ micro-2-bedroom.
I'm in Denver, not visiting S.S. , and am thus driving a 2011 Chrysler Town and Country Touring rental. We didn't request a minivan, but did the $20/day "wildcar" at Dollar that guarantees us at least a midsize but doesn't specify what it might be other than that, and this is what came up.
I have to say that it's actually not bad at all. Visibility outward is fabulous: low beltline (none of this tank-car styling garbage), huge windshield and relatively low cowl height, and rectangular side and rear windows. Engine power isn't great and the vehicle feels heavy, but I don't think most people would be really pushing it anyway, and it has enough power to merge without drama. Ride and road noise are soft without being wallowy and nicely suppressed, respectively, and the front seats are a pleasant place to be for a domestic: aux in on a good stereo, backup camera with audio sensors, blind spot warning system (first car I've been in with such a system), and non-ghetto dashboard layout.
No leather and fake wood on our rental but otherwise looks like this:
Does it understeer at the limit? Will it beat a Sienna down the 1/4 mile? I have no idea, and frankly don't care in a vehicle like this.
My wife and I have decided, after this generally positive experience, that if we end up having 3 kids we'll get a minivan instead of a giant SUV, no questions asked. Will it be a domestic? Probably not, mainly for reliability reasons. The T&C is a decent mid-pack example of the breed from what I read, however, and being that in and of itself is not bad.
, and am thus driving a 2011 Chrysler Town and Country Touring rental. We didn't request a minivan, but did the $20/day "wildcar" at Dollar that guarantees us at least a midsize but doesn't specify what it might be other than that, and this is what came up.I have to say that it's actually not bad at all. Visibility outward is fabulous: low beltline (none of this tank-car styling garbage), huge windshield and relatively low cowl height, and rectangular side and rear windows. Engine power isn't great and the vehicle feels heavy, but I don't think most people would be really pushing it anyway, and it has enough power to merge without drama. Ride and road noise are soft without being wallowy and nicely suppressed, respectively, and the front seats are a pleasant place to be for a domestic: aux in on a good stereo, backup camera with audio sensors, blind spot warning system (first car I've been in with such a system), and non-ghetto dashboard layout.
No leather and fake wood on our rental but otherwise looks like this:
Does it understeer at the limit? Will it beat a Sienna down the 1/4 mile? I have no idea, and frankly don't care in a vehicle like this.
My wife and I have decided, after this generally positive experience, that if we end up having 3 kids we'll get a minivan instead of a giant SUV, no questions asked. Will it be a domestic? Probably not, mainly for reliability reasons. The T&C is a decent mid-pack example of the breed from what I read, however, and being that in and of itself is not bad.
After reflection and looking at a ton of dashboards, the current test-drive list.
I probably won't be able to test drive an S4, but an A4 will be definitely test driveable. Similarly, an M3 is out as far as test drives, but I can just Zipcar a 328is again for half a day to give it another shot. I've already driven the non-Sport Lexus, the G37 should be test driveable as I talked my way into an M37 without a problem, Volvo would love for me to test drive an S60, and the Evo will at the very least be test sittable.
(Besides, I'm most concerned with the driving position, interior feel, and outwards visibility since no sane person gets even close to a car's limits on a test drive.) So all of the above are possible. Impossible ones: the GT-R is in no way, shape, or form test driveable but one of my Microsoft buddies might hook me up for a few miles in May
, and Porsche probably wouldn't deign to hook me up for a drive, either. My upcoming half-day rental in a 2002 996 C2 Cabriolet should give a decent impression, however, and if I like the much-panned 996 then the 997 would be only better.
Automotive interior design has gone to hell. I want a tach, speedo, volume, temp and fan knob. Everything else is a pointless distraction.Why has Acura/Honda gone backwards in their interior design?
Cases in point:
2005 NSX:
2012 TL:
The purity of line has been lost completely. Gah.
I am proportioned very strangely, it turns out. Who knew?
http://toshiclark.xanga.com/743681885/body-proportions/ for all the text. Here's the relevant bit:
http://toshiclark.xanga.com/743681885/body-proportions/ for all the text. Here's the relevant bit:
I'm very much a fan of visibility. This goes both for being seen by others while on the motorcycle, with my clownsuit high-viz outfit as seen below, and in my ability to see as the driver while in an automobile.
The aforementioned high-viz yellow clownsuit, with this a framegrab from a Youtube video of me riding around in circles in a parking lot until I fall down at the end:
In any case, visibility is important: in this issue I totally agree with Consumer Reports and the AARP (of all groups), both of which hammer on tank-like cars and trucks that one can't really see out of. (Can't picture such a tank-like vehicle? Think of a Toyota FJ Cruiser or new-gen Chevy Camaro with a high beltline and tiny, gun-slit windows.) Put this desire for visibility together with weird body proportions and it's probably a safe bet that all future vehicles that we own should have telescoping steering wheel columns
Two vehicles that could work with the above constraints are a minivan or a traditional family sedan. The latter doesn't have a high beltline because the designers' desire for "coolness" is trumped by focus-group drivers' demand for good visibility, and the nearly neglected genre of the traditional big family sedan has never been cool or subject to the whims of fashion trends. Many SUVs, on the other hand, are often among the worst: not only is the FJ Cruiser horrible but the new-gen 4Runner and all iterations of the Infiniti FX series are rolling pillboxes. With this in mind, on to the vehicles that I've driven recently:
2011 Chrysler Town and Country Touring
Through no fault of our own we came to have a minivan as a rental vehicle while visiting my sister and her family in Denver this past week. It turns out that our "wild card" minivan assignment was not a bad thing at all. The just-redone 2011 Town and County turned out to be a great vehicle: we logged 27 mpg in mixed driving; outward visibility was phenomenal thanks to a high seating position, an unfashionable low beltline, and huge front and side glass; and the thing actually was bordering on fun to drive! Body roll was quite well controlled when hustling through the turns up in the Denver foothills, it had more than enough power to merge without drama, and the interior was quiet, roomy, and versatile. We were especially impressed with the second and third row seats that fold into the floor without tools: many minivans do this party trick with the third row but I'd never seen the second stow away in such a manner. (Does this mean that I'm getting old, agreeing with the AARP and marveling about seat stowage on a minivan? I think so.)
All this said, it's still big and if we don't need something this big there's no reason for it. If the day comes, on the other hand, when a normal car or crossover can't cart around all our junk then we'll jump straight over into the minivan world, with no stop in the ridiculous "giant SUV-with-a-tiny-3rd-row-seat" aisle.
2011 Toyota Avalon
The Avalon is a car for old people, and for my old undergrad roommate. (Is he a closet old person?! Perhaps.) It probably carries an AARP seal of endorsement, and I probably am amongst the youngest people ever to have test driven one. It also carries with it absolutely no pretension to be a "driver's car". It's kind of the minivan of cars, now that I think of it: All it claims to do is to be reliable like a Toyota, drive like a Camry on benzodiazepenes, and have a ginormous rear seat. From my test drive of it I think it succeeds on all counts: its drivetrain is imperceptible, its steering effort single-finger light in the old Buick style, and its rear legroom bordering on the ridiculous. Even with the reclining rear seats (!) I wouldn't want to spend more than a few minutes in the back, though, as my odd body proportions/long torso had my head brushing against the rearmost headliner when sitting up straight. The front seat accommodations were fine, and I would enjoy those heated/cooled seats
In any case, it could work for my wife: she's used to the similarly super-soft springing and steering calibration of our Prius, its interior and familiar Toyota layout wouldn't offend, and the rear seat, headroom aside, is probably as big as anything else out there and certainly big enough for a pair of rear-facing car seats. So on paper it succeeded... but I didn't love it. The only one that's caught my fancy truly has been the Lexus LS. Once things actually settle down and I have a fellowship (and even a real attending job!) in line then we'll know whether we can indulge my fantasy or not, I suppose.
2010 Nissan XTerra Pro-4X
My parents live in Rock Springs, Wyoming, and in the context of Wyoming driving an XTerra makes perfect sense. Hell, it even seems like the reasonable choice. Wyoming is truly truck country, and I'm not just talking about urban cowboy pickups: half the vehicles seem to be in commercial livery, with crazy mining-industry-related machinery, a toolbox, and a thick coat of mud the favored style. In a place where one is dwarfed by nature itself, not to mention the myriad 18-wheelers, and where coal veins literally course underfoot (albeit perhaps several hundred feet below one's actual footprint), choosing a 17 mpg vehicle seems a fine example of restraint.
Even with my newly-declared dissolution of environmental guilt I still think that its thirst would give me pause. It's not a bad vehicle at all for an SUV, mileage aside: one can actually see out of it, at least to the front and sides; the interior is suitably easy to clean and non-fussy without looking like a Tonka truck a la the 4Runner; and it has some degree of trail cred with decent sized tires, a two-speed transfer case, and a factory locking rear differential. In other words, it's an unapologetic truck-based SUV that does what it does well.
The flip side of its off-road edge is that wind and road noise are pronounced at highway speeds; the aggressive wheel cutouts in the rear doors lead to passengers scraping their (formerly clean) clothes along the (inevitably muddy) sills when exiting; it sucks down gas at a prodigious rate; rear visibility is very poor and it doesn't have a backup camera; and it gives me the unnerving feeling while cruising down the freeway that it'd flip if I had to swerve aggressively. Unless we end up in a place truly as rough and tumble as Wyoming--and I don't think that even Denver of Salt Lake City qualifies! let alone a Seattle or Portland--then we probably should stay away from such beasts. I'll just have to come back and visit my parents periodically to play around in theirs and explore the uncharted, unpaved paths crossing this desolate land.
The aforementioned high-viz yellow clownsuit, with this a framegrab from a Youtube video of me riding around in circles in a parking lot until I fall down at the end:
In any case, visibility is important: in this issue I totally agree with Consumer Reports and the AARP (of all groups), both of which hammer on tank-like cars and trucks that one can't really see out of. (Can't picture such a tank-like vehicle? Think of a Toyota FJ Cruiser or new-gen Chevy Camaro with a high beltline and tiny, gun-slit windows.) Put this desire for visibility together with weird body proportions and it's probably a safe bet that all future vehicles that we own should have telescoping steering wheel columns
Two vehicles that could work with the above constraints are a minivan or a traditional family sedan. The latter doesn't have a high beltline because the designers' desire for "coolness" is trumped by focus-group drivers' demand for good visibility, and the nearly neglected genre of the traditional big family sedan has never been cool or subject to the whims of fashion trends. Many SUVs, on the other hand, are often among the worst: not only is the FJ Cruiser horrible but the new-gen 4Runner and all iterations of the Infiniti FX series are rolling pillboxes. With this in mind, on to the vehicles that I've driven recently:
2011 Chrysler Town and Country Touring
Through no fault of our own we came to have a minivan as a rental vehicle while visiting my sister and her family in Denver this past week. It turns out that our "wild card" minivan assignment was not a bad thing at all. The just-redone 2011 Town and County turned out to be a great vehicle: we logged 27 mpg in mixed driving; outward visibility was phenomenal thanks to a high seating position, an unfashionable low beltline, and huge front and side glass; and the thing actually was bordering on fun to drive! Body roll was quite well controlled when hustling through the turns up in the Denver foothills, it had more than enough power to merge without drama, and the interior was quiet, roomy, and versatile. We were especially impressed with the second and third row seats that fold into the floor without tools: many minivans do this party trick with the third row but I'd never seen the second stow away in such a manner. (Does this mean that I'm getting old, agreeing with the AARP and marveling about seat stowage on a minivan? I think so.)
All this said, it's still big and if we don't need something this big there's no reason for it. If the day comes, on the other hand, when a normal car or crossover can't cart around all our junk then we'll jump straight over into the minivan world, with no stop in the ridiculous "giant SUV-with-a-tiny-3rd-row-seat" aisle.
2011 Toyota Avalon
The Avalon is a car for old people, and for my old undergrad roommate. (Is he a closet old person?! Perhaps.) It probably carries an AARP seal of endorsement, and I probably am amongst the youngest people ever to have test driven one. It also carries with it absolutely no pretension to be a "driver's car". It's kind of the minivan of cars, now that I think of it: All it claims to do is to be reliable like a Toyota, drive like a Camry on benzodiazepenes, and have a ginormous rear seat. From my test drive of it I think it succeeds on all counts: its drivetrain is imperceptible, its steering effort single-finger light in the old Buick style, and its rear legroom bordering on the ridiculous. Even with the reclining rear seats (!) I wouldn't want to spend more than a few minutes in the back, though, as my odd body proportions/long torso had my head brushing against the rearmost headliner when sitting up straight. The front seat accommodations were fine, and I would enjoy those heated/cooled seats
In any case, it could work for my wife: she's used to the similarly super-soft springing and steering calibration of our Prius, its interior and familiar Toyota layout wouldn't offend, and the rear seat, headroom aside, is probably as big as anything else out there and certainly big enough for a pair of rear-facing car seats. So on paper it succeeded... but I didn't love it. The only one that's caught my fancy truly has been the Lexus LS. Once things actually settle down and I have a fellowship (and even a real attending job!) in line then we'll know whether we can indulge my fantasy or not, I suppose.
2010 Nissan XTerra Pro-4X
My parents live in Rock Springs, Wyoming, and in the context of Wyoming driving an XTerra makes perfect sense. Hell, it even seems like the reasonable choice. Wyoming is truly truck country, and I'm not just talking about urban cowboy pickups: half the vehicles seem to be in commercial livery, with crazy mining-industry-related machinery, a toolbox, and a thick coat of mud the favored style. In a place where one is dwarfed by nature itself, not to mention the myriad 18-wheelers, and where coal veins literally course underfoot (albeit perhaps several hundred feet below one's actual footprint), choosing a 17 mpg vehicle seems a fine example of restraint.
Even with my newly-declared dissolution of environmental guilt I still think that its thirst would give me pause. It's not a bad vehicle at all for an SUV, mileage aside: one can actually see out of it, at least to the front and sides; the interior is suitably easy to clean and non-fussy without looking like a Tonka truck a la the 4Runner; and it has some degree of trail cred with decent sized tires, a two-speed transfer case, and a factory locking rear differential. In other words, it's an unapologetic truck-based SUV that does what it does well.
The flip side of its off-road edge is that wind and road noise are pronounced at highway speeds; the aggressive wheel cutouts in the rear doors lead to passengers scraping their (formerly clean) clothes along the (inevitably muddy) sills when exiting; it sucks down gas at a prodigious rate; rear visibility is very poor and it doesn't have a backup camera; and it gives me the unnerving feeling while cruising down the freeway that it'd flip if I had to swerve aggressively. Unless we end up in a place truly as rough and tumble as Wyoming--and I don't think that even Denver of Salt Lake City qualifies! let alone a Seattle or Portland--then we probably should stay away from such beasts. I'll just have to come back and visit my parents periodically to play around in theirs and explore the uncharted, unpaved paths crossing this desolate land.
I quite enjoy planning for this or that: see my most recent life timeline post, for instance. It's not as if I don't like doing things spontaneously, either, as I'll often go on a ride without a specific destination or route in mind. Planning, in and of itself, is kind of fun to do for a personality type like mine: Put me, a mild degree of perpetual boredom, and the Internet in the same room and you get all sorts of daydreams-laid-to-electronic-paper.
Where am I going with this? Well, my wife and I have been visiting family this week. (Expect lots of photos and a video or two next week once I have a chance to process them.) First we hit up Denver to see my sister, her husband, and their 18 month-old son, and then we traveled to Rock Springs, Wyoming to visit my parents. In reflecting over the course of my own life and their individual lives, and in conversation with my father about the harsh reality of the job market around popular cities such as Seattle and Portland, it struck me that our plans rarely come to fruition as originally envisioned.
One of the things we did in Denver was to check out several neighborhoods convenient to the University hospital. Although driving through neighborhoods--sort of a house equivalent of a test-drive, I guess--is fun in a similar way in that one can try out an image and a lifestyle and then motor away from it, pocketbook intact, it also is kind of silly. Why should I spend so much time thinking about Denver's traffic patterns and house valuations or the vagaries of Seattle's public transit system and how they'd play into a commute into downtown when it's so far from assured that I could land a stable, rewarding position in that area in the first place? Similarly, our, or rather my, second-level planning involving doing this and that with our cars seems far too flighty. Over dinner tonight, instead, my wife and I agreed on a new, less manic/more practical plan that's equally applicable basically anywhere.
The new plan: keep our current cars, warts and all (no cruise control on the Fit!), until they die or experience an unnatural death, whichever may come first by the fates. Then, after we save enough for a down payment on a house, go nuts within reason. Well, that wasn't the exact wording but that's how I'm going to take it
In any case, I still have a half-day rental for a Porsche 911 lined up for two weeks from today. (Thanks, Groupon half-off deal! I'll be sure to report back on the experience after the fact, too, of course.) Even if my plans are tempered and ultimately unrealized there'll still come a day eventually when I'll be able to choose what I want, and when that day comes I'll be more than mentally prepared for it thanks to all this (over-)thinking.
Where am I going with this? Well, my wife and I have been visiting family this week. (Expect lots of photos and a video or two next week once I have a chance to process them.) First we hit up Denver to see my sister, her husband, and their 18 month-old son, and then we traveled to Rock Springs, Wyoming to visit my parents. In reflecting over the course of my own life and their individual lives, and in conversation with my father about the harsh reality of the job market around popular cities such as Seattle and Portland, it struck me that our plans rarely come to fruition as originally envisioned.
One of the things we did in Denver was to check out several neighborhoods convenient to the University hospital. Although driving through neighborhoods--sort of a house equivalent of a test-drive, I guess--is fun in a similar way in that one can try out an image and a lifestyle and then motor away from it, pocketbook intact, it also is kind of silly. Why should I spend so much time thinking about Denver's traffic patterns and house valuations or the vagaries of Seattle's public transit system and how they'd play into a commute into downtown when it's so far from assured that I could land a stable, rewarding position in that area in the first place? Similarly, our, or rather my, second-level planning involving doing this and that with our cars seems far too flighty. Over dinner tonight, instead, my wife and I agreed on a new, less manic/more practical plan that's equally applicable basically anywhere.
The new plan: keep our current cars, warts and all (no cruise control on the Fit!), until they die or experience an unnatural death, whichever may come first by the fates. Then, after we save enough for a down payment on a house, go nuts within reason. Well, that wasn't the exact wording but that's how I'm going to take it
In any case, I still have a half-day rental for a Porsche 911 lined up for two weeks from today. (Thanks, Groupon half-off deal! I'll be sure to report back on the experience after the fact, too, of course.) Even if my plans are tempered and ultimately unrealized there'll still come a day eventually when I'll be able to choose what I want, and when that day comes I'll be more than mentally prepared for it thanks to all this (over-)thinking.
As alluded to in my last post, my wife and I spent this past week on vacation in Colorado and Wyoming. Denver is the home of my sister, her husband, and their son, Chris. I shot a ton photos of Chris because babies are cute in general and because the grandparents are fond of such things:
http://toshiclark.com/images/trips/colorado and wyoming - people - march 2011/
http://toshiclark.com/images/trips/colorado and wyoming - scenery and things - march 2011/
I got to see my sister and her family in their home element, including how they deal with the new challenge of having a child. I imagine I'll be going through something similar myself in a few years, and to see how my sister manages was actually very helpful. We even gave Denver itself a "trial run", running mentally through where we might live, where I might work, and how this all might work out should our favored Pacific Northwest plans not materialize. Visiting my parents out in Wyoming was also good, not so much to see how they live (as they stay constant even as their location changes over the years) but because Wyoming provides a backdrop that shows that Denver is really pretty civilized in comparison?
In any case, I shot photos, and a video. The video first:
http://toshiclark.com/images/trips/colorado and wyoming - people - march 2011/
http://toshiclark.com/images/trips/colorado and wyoming - scenery and things - march 2011/
I got to see my sister and her family in their home element, including how they deal with the new challenge of having a child. I imagine I'll be going through something similar myself in a few years, and to see how my sister manages was actually very helpful. We even gave Denver itself a "trial run", running mentally through where we might live, where I might work, and how this all might work out should our favored Pacific Northwest plans not materialize. Visiting my parents out in Wyoming was also good, not so much to see how they live (as they stay constant even as their location changes over the years) but because Wyoming provides a backdrop that shows that Denver is really pretty civilized in comparison?
In any case, I shot photos, and a video. The video first:
I is famous* and stuff
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1t23242n2v3m67v/
* Actually, having this paper published with my work email listed as the primary contact actually has paid off already: a legit publisher sent me an unsolicited table of contents for an upcoming case review book. The idea is that I, as a now-established authority :lol: , review and comment upon the layout and contents myself. Supposedly I'll get $150 in credit towards their textbook offerings for doing so!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1t23242n2v3m67v/
* Actually, having this paper published with my work email listed as the primary contact actually has paid off already: a legit publisher sent me an unsolicited table of contents for an upcoming case review book. The idea is that I, as a now-established authority :lol: , review and comment upon the layout and contents myself. Supposedly I'll get $150 in credit towards their textbook offerings for doing so!
I rode to Bear Mountain and back today. 195 miles. Bitterly cold--thank the FSM for heated gear! My riding buddy didn't have any heat and his hands were frozen. Serves him right for showing up to the meet point 30 minutes late.
Between this weekend's rides and the drive to the city last night for dinner I saw a Dodge Viper ACR, a Porsche Carrera GT (! first one I've ever seen), and more "garden variety" Mercedes S Classes and BMW 7 series than one could shake a fist at. Rich people in Long Island are rich, at least try to portray that image. True story.
A little background on the $450,000 Carrera GT for the uninitiated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Carrera_GT
Between this weekend's rides and the drive to the city last night for dinner I saw a Dodge Viper ACR, a Porsche Carrera GT (! first one I've ever seen), and more "garden variety" Mercedes S Classes and BMW 7 series than one could shake a fist at. Rich people in Long Island are rich, at least try to portray that image. True story.
A little background on the $450,000 Carrera GT for the uninitiated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Carrera_GT
That's the first movement of the Ravel String Quartet in F major as played by the quartet of one of my undergrad buddies back in our undergrad years.
Unrelated: I forgot one of the interesting vehicles I spied on this weekend's rides: a BMW X6M. Weird looking beast, that.
Unrelated: I forgot one of the interesting vehicles I spied on this weekend's rides: a BMW X6M. Weird looking beast, that.
Current fantasy 2015-car list, for a time after we save up for a down payment on a house in the now-fuzzier future:
Audi S4 of the current-gen and under-warranty variety
BMW 1 series M, horrible name, eh?
Lotus Evora S
Mitsubishi Evo X
Nissan GT-R
Porsche Cayman R
Audi S4 of the current-gen and under-warranty variety
BMW 1 series M, horrible name, eh?
Lotus Evora S
Mitsubishi Evo X
Nissan GT-R
Porsche Cayman R
Hair Club (formerly Hair Club for Men) targets motorcyclists in new push:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=766888&f=62
After culling out the ones that make me go "meh":
BMW 1 Series M Coupé
Nissan GT-R
Even though I love the technical whiz-bangery of the GT-R I still can't quite picture how I'd use it day to day without losing my license or doing something really stupid. Something closer to 10 lbs/hp like that BMW, not coincidentally about what my motorcycle + me runs at, would probably be more sane not to mention half the price.
The GT-R sure seems like it would be a riot when uncorked, though, such as on the autocross course below. The straights seem awfully short when accelerating that quickly?
In any case, cars will have to wait until after a house, so that's 2015-2016 at least. Meh. Before then, however, the spousal unit gave me the go-ahead to sell my Versys before we move (so I'd be selling it around April-June 2013) and then buy something new/new to me post-move.
I think that a BMW R 1200 RT would be a good ride for me:
- I'm prematurely old so fit the BMW rider stereotype, plus wearing hi-viz and full gear would be totally par for the course
- it has ABS and good wind protection, both things I want
- it's under 600 lbs
- it's not insanely fast, which is fine by me: I don't need 150+ hp
- it has all sorts of gizmos that I think would be fun to play with if they didn't break: electronic cruise control, heated seat (!) and grips, electrically adjustable suspension and windscreen
1) Briermere Farm pies via motorcycle have teh tasty
2) Interesting reading on roll center (with regard to suspension design, of course):
http://www.neohio-scca.org/comp_clinic/hand_out_reprints/Vehicle Dynamics2007.pdf
Key quote, which sounds amusing when taken out of context:
That's a segue into this: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/06/2009-nissan-gt-r-suspension-walkaround.html which I was inspired to look up after reading that Porsche, of vaunted handling fame, uses McStruts up front. Bleh. My old RX-8 had double wishbones up front, and indeed that was one of my selection criteria back in the day. Yes, at least I'm a consistent nerd when viewed over time…
2) Interesting reading on roll center (with regard to suspension design, of course):
http://www.neohio-scca.org/comp_clinic/hand_out_reprints/Vehicle Dynamics2007.pdf
Key quote, which sounds amusing when taken out of context:
(FAP is Force Application Point)
That's a segue into this: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/06/2009-nissan-gt-r-suspension-walkaround.html which I was inspired to look up after reading that Porsche, of vaunted handling fame, uses McStruts up front. Bleh. My old RX-8 had double wishbones up front, and indeed that was one of my selection criteria back in the day.
Yes, at least I'm a consistent nerd when viewed over time…
Last edited:
I took the Lee Parks Total Control Advanced Rider Course Level I this past Sunday.
The short version is that I didn't drag a knee, but it was still well worth it. Read on for a longer version of my tale:
Course specifics:
$340 + NY state sales tax at my chosen site at a community college in Poughkeepsie, NY, with the course run by Christine Firehock. 8 AM-6 PM nominally, although we ran closer to 8:50 AM-5:50 PM (which was plenty) due to some late-arriving stragglers. Neither Christine herself nor Lee himself were instructing today, but the 3 guys teaching us 15 students were a match for the job. The course runs rain or shine, and we lucked out after horrible storms the prior day and night, with a dry track surface and only the scantest few raindrops throughout the day. This course is not for new riders: 3,000 minimum miles of street riding experience is a prerequisite.
For those curious about the physical layout of the class, see the map below. We parked in lot A, walked up the hill to Bowne several times for the classroom portions, and did the range exercises in lot E. Basically it was the equivalent amount of 3 days of MSF BRC material (albeit at a higher level--I'm not saying the material is equivalent overall) packed into one single day, with each transition between the class and the range corresponding to another "day."
My riding background:
I'm a 29 year old man, ride a Kawasaki Versys, and have been on powered two-wheelers for 2 years and 10,000 miles. I raced bicycles for many years before that, everything from cyclocross through downhill, but was always a mid-pack Sport class rider. I was more competitive in cars, on the other hand, near the top of the leader board locally in B Stock autocross. More importantly, I'm a good study: the MSF instructors had loved me back in the day because I'd actually snap my head 90 degrees when they'd instruct me to do so. On the other hand, coming into the class I just didn't trust the bike completely and would occasionally catch myself out of sorts and flustered.
Other class participants:
Surprisingly, my Versys was not out of place, at all. No one at the class was on a sportbike. Although one of the assistant instructors came in on his Yamaha R1, the closest thing actually on the range was one of the instructor's bikes used in the demos, a Honda VFR800. Memorable bikes that the students brought and rode: a full-dress Harley tourer; 3 Kawasaki ZRX1200s; a new Ducati Multistrada 1200; a BMW R65 set up with hard bags, begging to be ridden down to South America; several 250cc supermotos; several Ducati Monsters; a Yamaha T-Max (scooter); and a BMW G 650 X-Moto. Oh, and of the 15 of us, there were 3 members of the fairer persuasion. Riding experience amongst the others ranged from 2 to 36 years, with everyone from low-mileage Sunday riders to track junkies in the mix. Most people trailered their bikes in, although at least 3 of us rode in the day before or the morning of the class from Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Long Island, respectively.
Fun with PowerPoint:
The classroom portion was actually useful, although this varied by section. Having read through Lee Parks' book, Total Control: High Performance Street Riding Techniques (see cover above), beforehand I had already seen the material. I highly recommend that anyone who takes the class read the book beforehand: although the repetition in class is a tiny bit tedious, it's helpful, and having the chance to let one's brain digest the techniques and concepts improves one's chances of executing them properly on the range. All of the classroom sections were relevant to riding in general (hell, life in general), but they weren't all necessarily directly relevant to the range exercises. Those that were included Traction, Throttle Control, Vision, Line Selection, and, of course, the 10 Steps to Proper Cornering.
Trusting the lean:
One of the drills done multiple times--off the bike (on one's two feet), on the bike while not moving, and then on the bike while actually riding--was to practice trusting the lean. This link is to a video demonstration of Lee Parks doing the on bike/not moving drill with a participant at a motorcycle show. Note how the guy on the bike fights the lean, trying to stay upright as the bike leans over. This is not how you want to do it even though it's a natural reaction: who wants to "fall over," after all? Instead the goal is to stay relaxed and in the "V position," hung off the inside of the bike with a relaxed, tension-free outer arm, throughout the whole turn, from before its initiation to after the bike has straightened up.
It turns out that falling, in a sense, is kind of the point of riding: just as walking is a repeating process of falling over forward and catching oneself with the next step, turning is falling to the inside and trusting that the arc traced out by one's two contact patches will bring the bike towards the center of the turn sufficiently that one won't actually hit the ground.
That trust in the bike is what I had problems with before: I'd feel the weight of me and the bike fall to the inside as I'd initiate a turn and then I'd freak out a little bit. This was causing me to be tentative at the start of the turn, and would also cloud my thoughts with doubt. (As Lee or any other musical performer would tell you, clouded thoughts are not conducive to a good performance. Yes, "other": Lee is not only a motorcycle racer but a singer, too!)
This class taught me to have faith in the bike, and that faith let me do the flop.
The Flop:
The Flop is how one gets from upright to leaned over. Lee advocates doing this both quickly and fully: to transition from fully upright to the maximum lean angle (for the turn, not as in scraping one's knee necessarily) in one quick, smooth motion. This is kind of scary for those who haven't done it before, and I'd wager that the majority of riders on the road today don't do this. It's a shame, however, as it is beneficial in many ways: It improves line choice by allowing one to late apex; it improves safety by allowing one to pick a later turn initiation point/stay upright and scanning the road for longer before the actual turn; and it improves chassis stability by allowing one to get the bulk of the turn out of the way quickly, which in turn lets one roll on the gas much earlier.
The Flop requires faith in one's tires, the road surface, and one's own abilities. It feels weird at first, but once it clicks, the resulting turn feels great: stable, smooth, and requiring little energy input from the rider. Unfortunately, it requires getting everything else right in the first place, so I can't just describe it in text: read the book, or better yet, read the book then take the class and then maybe you'll experience it, too.
The bad:
There were a few bad things about the class, some not necessarily the fault of the instructors or class design, per se. The first one, and a big one, that I'll mention: not everyone got it. Even with good, constructive, pointed instruction after each run--and there were many runs over the course of the day--there were people who were still going really slowly, not looking through the turn, not leaning over, not trusting the bike, not doing the flop.
The next criticism, a petty, vain one, is that I didn't end up dragging my knee or even completely scrubbing off my "chicken strips." On the other hand, the instructors did say that I was near my footpeg feelers in the corners even with proper (or at least better, near the end of the day) body positioning so my lack of knee draggage may be an artifact of my tippy-toe-tall bike and my own physique.
Finally, through no fault of Lee Parks or anyone else, the weather turned horrible again on my fatigued return ride home after the course was over, as the wind and driving rain tried time and time again to blow me out of my lane, off bridges, etc.
The verdict:
It was a long, tiring day. If I hadn't pre-digested the book before having taken the course I'm not sure if I could have absorbed everything and executed it in one sitting. Even with this, I didn't always execute, especially when tired on my last few runs of the day. I did make significant changes to my riding technique thanks to seeing each component done incorrectly then correctly in the demos, trying each part out for myself in the drills, and then responding to the feedback of the instructors by doing it better the next time around. I got my outer arm more relaxed, my upper body lower and more inward, and, most importantly, I felt The Flop and it was good.
Will I go on from here to become a track-whore? Probably not, but only for a lack of time: just like autocross and HPDE days have proven to be, I imagine a motorcycle track day to be a huge time sink. I probably won't go on to teach, either, even though it was a very nice ego-booster to have it suggested that I should put my name down for an instructor class. I will instead use my new-found confidence and skills on the street to be more decisive, perhaps a bit faster, but definitely more safe.
I think Lee Parks would be proud.
The short version is that I didn't drag a knee, but it was still well worth it. Read on for a longer version of my tale:
Course specifics:
$340 + NY state sales tax at my chosen site at a community college in Poughkeepsie, NY, with the course run by Christine Firehock. 8 AM-6 PM nominally, although we ran closer to 8:50 AM-5:50 PM (which was plenty) due to some late-arriving stragglers. Neither Christine herself nor Lee himself were instructing today, but the 3 guys teaching us 15 students were a match for the job. The course runs rain or shine, and we lucked out after horrible storms the prior day and night, with a dry track surface and only the scantest few raindrops throughout the day. This course is not for new riders: 3,000 minimum miles of street riding experience is a prerequisite.
For those curious about the physical layout of the class, see the map below. We parked in lot A, walked up the hill to Bowne several times for the classroom portions, and did the range exercises in lot E. Basically it was the equivalent amount of 3 days of MSF BRC material (albeit at a higher level--I'm not saying the material is equivalent overall) packed into one single day, with each transition between the class and the range corresponding to another "day."
My riding background:
I'm a 29 year old man, ride a Kawasaki Versys, and have been on powered two-wheelers for 2 years and 10,000 miles. I raced bicycles for many years before that, everything from cyclocross through downhill, but was always a mid-pack Sport class rider. I was more competitive in cars, on the other hand, near the top of the leader board locally in B Stock autocross. More importantly, I'm a good study: the MSF instructors had loved me back in the day because I'd actually snap my head 90 degrees when they'd instruct me to do so. On the other hand, coming into the class I just didn't trust the bike completely and would occasionally catch myself out of sorts and flustered.
Other class participants:
Surprisingly, my Versys was not out of place, at all. No one at the class was on a sportbike. Although one of the assistant instructors came in on his Yamaha R1, the closest thing actually on the range was one of the instructor's bikes used in the demos, a Honda VFR800. Memorable bikes that the students brought and rode: a full-dress Harley tourer; 3 Kawasaki ZRX1200s; a new Ducati Multistrada 1200; a BMW R65 set up with hard bags, begging to be ridden down to South America; several 250cc supermotos; several Ducati Monsters; a Yamaha T-Max (scooter); and a BMW G 650 X-Moto. Oh, and of the 15 of us, there were 3 members of the fairer persuasion. Riding experience amongst the others ranged from 2 to 36 years, with everyone from low-mileage Sunday riders to track junkies in the mix. Most people trailered their bikes in, although at least 3 of us rode in the day before or the morning of the class from Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Long Island, respectively.
Fun with PowerPoint:
The classroom portion was actually useful, although this varied by section. Having read through Lee Parks' book, Total Control: High Performance Street Riding Techniques (see cover above), beforehand I had already seen the material. I highly recommend that anyone who takes the class read the book beforehand: although the repetition in class is a tiny bit tedious, it's helpful, and having the chance to let one's brain digest the techniques and concepts improves one's chances of executing them properly on the range. All of the classroom sections were relevant to riding in general (hell, life in general), but they weren't all necessarily directly relevant to the range exercises. Those that were included Traction, Throttle Control, Vision, Line Selection, and, of course, the 10 Steps to Proper Cornering.
Trusting the lean:
One of the drills done multiple times--off the bike (on one's two feet), on the bike while not moving, and then on the bike while actually riding--was to practice trusting the lean. This link is to a video demonstration of Lee Parks doing the on bike/not moving drill with a participant at a motorcycle show. Note how the guy on the bike fights the lean, trying to stay upright as the bike leans over. This is not how you want to do it even though it's a natural reaction: who wants to "fall over," after all? Instead the goal is to stay relaxed and in the "V position," hung off the inside of the bike with a relaxed, tension-free outer arm, throughout the whole turn, from before its initiation to after the bike has straightened up.
It turns out that falling, in a sense, is kind of the point of riding: just as walking is a repeating process of falling over forward and catching oneself with the next step, turning is falling to the inside and trusting that the arc traced out by one's two contact patches will bring the bike towards the center of the turn sufficiently that one won't actually hit the ground.
That trust in the bike is what I had problems with before: I'd feel the weight of me and the bike fall to the inside as I'd initiate a turn and then I'd freak out a little bit. This was causing me to be tentative at the start of the turn, and would also cloud my thoughts with doubt. (As Lee or any other musical performer would tell you, clouded thoughts are not conducive to a good performance. Yes, "other": Lee is not only a motorcycle racer but a singer, too!)
This class taught me to have faith in the bike, and that faith let me do the flop.
The Flop:
The Flop is how one gets from upright to leaned over. Lee advocates doing this both quickly and fully: to transition from fully upright to the maximum lean angle (for the turn, not as in scraping one's knee necessarily) in one quick, smooth motion. This is kind of scary for those who haven't done it before, and I'd wager that the majority of riders on the road today don't do this. It's a shame, however, as it is beneficial in many ways: It improves line choice by allowing one to late apex; it improves safety by allowing one to pick a later turn initiation point/stay upright and scanning the road for longer before the actual turn; and it improves chassis stability by allowing one to get the bulk of the turn out of the way quickly, which in turn lets one roll on the gas much earlier.
The Flop requires faith in one's tires, the road surface, and one's own abilities. It feels weird at first, but once it clicks, the resulting turn feels great: stable, smooth, and requiring little energy input from the rider. Unfortunately, it requires getting everything else right in the first place, so I can't just describe it in text: read the book, or better yet, read the book then take the class and then maybe you'll experience it, too.
The bad:
There were a few bad things about the class, some not necessarily the fault of the instructors or class design, per se. The first one, and a big one, that I'll mention: not everyone got it. Even with good, constructive, pointed instruction after each run--and there were many runs over the course of the day--there were people who were still going really slowly, not looking through the turn, not leaning over, not trusting the bike, not doing the flop.
The next criticism, a petty, vain one, is that I didn't end up dragging my knee or even completely scrubbing off my "chicken strips." On the other hand, the instructors did say that I was near my footpeg feelers in the corners even with proper (or at least better, near the end of the day) body positioning so my lack of knee draggage may be an artifact of my tippy-toe-tall bike and my own physique.
Finally, through no fault of Lee Parks or anyone else, the weather turned horrible again on my fatigued return ride home after the course was over, as the wind and driving rain tried time and time again to blow me out of my lane, off bridges, etc.
The verdict:
It was a long, tiring day. If I hadn't pre-digested the book before having taken the course I'm not sure if I could have absorbed everything and executed it in one sitting. Even with this, I didn't always execute, especially when tired on my last few runs of the day. I did make significant changes to my riding technique thanks to seeing each component done incorrectly then correctly in the demos, trying each part out for myself in the drills, and then responding to the feedback of the instructors by doing it better the next time around. I got my outer arm more relaxed, my upper body lower and more inward, and, most importantly, I felt The Flop and it was good.
Will I go on from here to become a track-whore? Probably not, but only for a lack of time: just like autocross and HPDE days have proven to be, I imagine a motorcycle track day to be a huge time sink. I probably won't go on to teach, either, even though it was a very nice ego-booster to have it suggested that I should put my name down for an instructor class. I will instead use my new-found confidence and skills on the street to be more decisive, perhaps a bit faster, but definitely more safe.
I think Lee Parks would be proud.
Last edited:
Re: the wind,
relax the upper body, hands only lightly on the bars, it's very very easy to slowly start tensing up the arms and shoulders and when you do this all the pressure from the wind on your head and torso ends up getting translated into pressure on the bars making you swerve.
With an upright riding position like the Versys gives you taking your weight off the bars shouldn't be a problem.
relax the upper body, hands only lightly on the bars, it's very very easy to slowly start tensing up the arms and shoulders and when you do this all the pressure from the wind on your head and torso ends up getting translated into pressure on the bars making you swerve.
With an upright riding position like the Versys gives you taking your weight off the bars shouldn't be a problem.
I'll try that. This was quite exceptional weather, though, probably the worst I've been in, wind-wise: gusts to 50 mph.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/16/low-pressure-system-moving-in-will-bring-1-5-inches-of-rain/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/16/low-pressure-system-moving-in-will-bring-1-5-inches-of-rain/
50mph is not so bad, Yesterdays ride to work and back was gusting a bit over 60mph (100kmph) at times.
But then Wellington is legendary for it's wind.
But then Wellington is legendary for it's wind.
I'm reading a book on the Nissan GT-R over the years ($17 shipped on amazon, so cheaper than little model cars or whatever ) and came across a few interesting things about its AWD system:
Which leads to this observed performance:
1) First figure is wavy since I took a photo of a book with my phone's camera.
2) The R32, the one described in the figures, is the version that came out in 1989 (!).
3) The Nissan RWD car test driver apparently has no ability to modulate throttle inputs.
4) "Ferguson" AWD is a mechanical, viscous coupling/limited slip system.
) and came across a few interesting things about its AWD system:
Which leads to this observed performance:
1) First figure is wavy since I took a photo of a book with my phone's camera.
2) The R32, the one described in the figures, is the version that came out in 1989 (!).
3) The Nissan RWD car test driver apparently has no ability to modulate throttle inputs.
4) "Ferguson" AWD is a mechanical, viscous coupling/limited slip system.
Although sitting in a car at the NYAuto show is akin to the ol' downhill bike parking lot test, I have to say I've changed my tune about the new Outback. I was pleasantly suprised by its much improved interior and fit and finish. Didn't seem quite as monstrous as I expected either.
Also, this year's show was laid out weird. What was with the GM wing 5 miles away from the rest of the show, and the segregation of the 'luxury' brands from the rest of the riff raff?
Also, this year's show was laid out weird. What was with the GM wing 5 miles away from the rest of the show, and the segregation of the 'luxury' brands from the rest of the riff raff?
I agree: the new Outback's interior actually was pretty nice, and a definite step in the right direction. Driving it, as I did a few weeks back, wasn't bad, either: even though it's big it feels smaller than a true SUV, and has good glass area. Wasn't intimidating even in the slightest.
I didn't even go to the GM wing way off in the middle of nowhere, and we just breezed through the downstairs truck section. (I wanted to sit in a Sprinter for kicks, heh.)
I didn't even go to the GM wing way off in the middle of nowhere, and we just breezed through the downstairs truck section. (I wanted to sit in a Sprinter for kicks, heh.)
My dad just emailed me out of the blue. I guess he's gone and bought a 2002 C5 Corvette. I didn't expect that, heh. Yellow, targa roof, 6 speed, black leather inside, and hopefully not a complete lemon like the last car he bought without my supervision...
I didn't expect that, heh. Yellow, targa roof, 6 speed, black leather inside, and hopefully not a complete lemon like the last car he bought without my supervision...
From my observations around here, it seems sportbike riders are split into two groups: racerbois in full leathers on the street, and jeans and tennis shoe wearing sea-going creatures. Is there any middle ground for "normal people" in between?
Example of the first who are clearly hanging loose out in California
:
Example of the first who are clearly hanging loose out in California
:
The latest bike of the week I want (in place of that R 1200 RT, to replace my Versys once we presumably move westwards in summer 2013) is a 600 supersport? yes, I may become a squid yet.
Things inspiring me to look this way:
1) This awe-inspiring video, which I've posted before:
2) Honda offers their 600cc sportbike in ABS flavor.
3) If I'm going to be leaned forward "kissing the mirror" and hanging off in corners in proper Lee Parks style, why not maintain closer to that position instead of sitting upright on my tippy toes on my pseudo dual sport? Having ridden a road bike for many a year, the positioning can't be that bad, can it?
4) When looking at power output at 1.5x the equivalent revs of my Versys it looks like the 600 is never down on power yet tops out with a nice 40 hp advantage. Simultaneously, it also doesn't put down 125, 150, or even 170 hp at the wheel like some of the literbikes. I really don't need a literbike that will do 90 mph in 1st gear since I'll probably never be a track whore.
Versys dyno chart:
600cc and literbike dyno chart, with the red being the Honda 600:
5) I'd definitely like to have something with less suspension dive and general motion than my 6" travel, softly sprung and damped Versys. Having something with cartridge forks out of the box would be nice and would offer many cheap upgrade paths.
Thoughts from the peanut gallery?
I realize that going this way will not make for a very comfortable pillion perch for Jessica, but she's already uncomfortable as it is on the Versys. I also realize that there are a million and one jugheads on the internet saying that "600s are wimpy, go for the torque monster literbike if not a Hayabusa" but I truly like cornering more than straightline speed, not to mention that a 600 would still be way faster in the top end than my Versys. That said, I have no desire to drop down to, say, a CBR250R despite its lightness and flickability due to its scooter-class speed, lack of ABS, and crude suspension. Finally, I realize that wind noise and weather protection won't be great, and luggage options are much fewer and farther between.
Everything's a compromise, and this would lean much more towards ripping around twisties for a few hours instead of grand touring. Chances are that that's the type of riding I'll have time for, though, and Jessica has little desire of riding with me for more than 3-4 hours tops.
Things inspiring me to look this way:
1) This awe-inspiring video, which I've posted before:
2) Honda offers their 600cc sportbike in ABS flavor.
3) If I'm going to be leaned forward "kissing the mirror" and hanging off in corners in proper Lee Parks style, why not maintain closer to that position instead of sitting upright on my tippy toes on my pseudo dual sport? Having ridden a road bike for many a year, the positioning can't be that bad, can it?
4) When looking at power output at 1.5x the equivalent revs of my Versys it looks like the 600 is never down on power yet tops out with a nice 40 hp advantage. Simultaneously, it also doesn't put down 125, 150, or even 170 hp at the wheel like some of the literbikes. I really don't need a literbike that will do 90 mph in 1st gear since I'll probably never be a track whore.
Versys dyno chart:
600cc and literbike dyno chart, with the red being the Honda 600:
5) I'd definitely like to have something with less suspension dive and general motion than my 6" travel, softly sprung and damped Versys. Having something with cartridge forks out of the box would be nice and would offer many cheap upgrade paths.
Thoughts from the peanut gallery?
I realize that going this way will not make for a very comfortable pillion perch for Jessica, but she's already uncomfortable as it is on the Versys. I also realize that there are a million and one jugheads on the internet saying that "600s are wimpy, go for the torque monster literbike if not a Hayabusa" but I truly like cornering more than straightline speed, not to mention that a 600 would still be way faster in the top end than my Versys. That said, I have no desire to drop down to, say, a CBR250R despite its lightness and flickability due to its scooter-class speed, lack of ABS, and crude suspension. Finally, I realize that wind noise and weather protection won't be great, and luggage options are much fewer and farther between.
Everything's a compromise, and this would lean much more towards ripping around twisties for a few hours instead of grand touring. Chances are that that's the type of riding I'll have time for, though, and Jessica has little desire of riding with me for more than 3-4 hours tops.
A few people over on NASIOC recommended the Triumph Speed Triple, which does come in ABS flavor as of this year. It looks like it's about halfway between the riding position of my Versys and a supersport.
In photos:
Alternately, in numbers via cycle-ergo.com, plugging in my own weird body geometry into their calculator:
Versys: knees at 90 degrees, 16 degrees of forward lean.
Speed Triple '11: knees at 84 degrees, 31 degrees of forward lean.
CBR600RR '10: knees at 83 degrees, 47 degrees of forward lean.
Have you looked at the R6 or my fave a Suzuki GSX650F?
The ER6F or ER6N is also quite a nice ride.
The ER6F or ER6N is also quite a nice ride.