RatBob

Sounds like someone shagged the threads at some point and had it bored and re-tapped slightly wider. I had the same thing happen to me after I bought mine, the threads were knackered so I had it helicoiled. Try iridium tipped plugs by the way - I've got some in mine and they're awesome!

Just so you know Noise, the classic has a wider front rim than the custom - if I was you I'd be so tempted to get hold of one so I could run a fat front tyre. Well done on the re-lacing anyways. Plenty of how-to videos on youtube, although I'm guessing you know that already.

My inlet manifold has perished as well, and I found an OEM replacement, but it costs £92. So I'm just waiting until I have the money to buy it. Here it is, anyway: http://www.yamahascooterspares.co.uk/spares/partImage.asp?GPN=Z:O]68:=;5555&model=&Image=&uID=0

I went through several sets of handlebars on my bobber, frisco bars, drag bars, Z mini apes, before I came across this set of Royal Enfield handlebars, and I absolutely love them! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ROYAL-ENFIELD-BRAND-NEW-7-8-HANDLE-BAR-IN-BLACK-/271241647885?pt=UK_Motorcycle_Parts_13&hash=item3f2743170d Very similar funky old school shape as bars on the old 1940s Harley WLs. Only bars I've found that actually have that authentic shape that you only see on the vintage bikes. They also clear the tank which is awesome. They've got a really nice feel and give a great riding position. Plus they're so cheap!

I'll have another look then, maybe I'm remembering it wrong. If it's just a single line for the fuel and a vacuum line then it will be a simple matter of blanking off the vac line. Also I've noticed that wemoto and a few others sell a part listed as a "fuel pump" - not sure why the xvs would even need one since it's a gravity fed traditional single carb motor. I'm sure it will be a fairly simple swap anyways. As for flooding, far as I know the carb would only flood if the float stopped working, so no risk of that hopefully.

I'm replacing the tank on my baby drag with one from a 1950s triumph tiger cub. I know the stock tap on the draggie is vacuum operated, and has three hoses connected to it. One of them will obviously be the vacuum line, the other one must be fuel, but does anyone know what the third line is for? Is that the prime supply? I haven't really had a chance to have a good look at where all these lines connect to the carb. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any reason why running a standard free-flow tap would be an issue, so long as the float does it's job - I believe the tiger cub tank's tap has an "off" position anyway just in case I park on a hill or at some silly angle. So I guess I'd have to blank off the vacuum line. I'm wondering though which of the two fuel lines I'd connect to the single fuel line from the tiger cub tank's tap? Or if it even matters which one? I'm assuming that one or the other would need to be blanked off. Would very much appreciate any assistance.

Not a fan of the design personally but looks like the paint was nicely laid - looks similar to a traditional Yamaha scheme from the 70s though. What sanding process do you use between coats? Are you using acrylic blue fine line masking tape for your edges or just normal white paper based tape? Are you planning on decaling this? I found my paint jobs looked a million times better once I started doing three things: 1. warming rattle cans in boiling water. (no air brush for me unfortunately) 2. sanding between coats using fine wet sanding paper and buffing with polishing compound. 3. using high quality fine line masking tape. At first the idea of sanding clear coat seemed a bit counter-intuitive but the professional look you get when it's done is amazing.

Ah well fair play then mate, 800 is bloody good heat tolerance! Oh well, now you can paint your exhausts AND your nuclear reactor. Best of luck with the pipes though. Do you have an overall design in mind for your project? I know last time I looked in on it you were going for a more traditional, timeless look.

Lets weed out the facts from the BS shall we? 1. You shouldn't be doing endos on the road anyway. A stunt bike setup should be left in the hands of professional/serious stunters, not some have-a-go-henry. The reason it's illegal is because you lemmings would be all out doing it otherwise. 2. So what if the ABS goes off? Why are you braking so hard anyway? All you're doing is gouging your discs and riding like a twat. The ABS is there to save your stupid ass when you think you're such an expert rider that you can push past your limits on a public road. 3. ABS bikes do not have a linked system, the front and rear are still separate - CBS and LBS bikes do. You don't "preload" the suspension by using brakes, that's utter bollocks. The preload is a fixed setting based on the rider's weight, not some kind of action you perform. If you're on the brakes when you enter a corner you're a complete noob. Brake THEN corner. 4. So no riding like a twat? What a shame. You want to do stunts, do it on a stunt bike in a stunt ring and save the rest of us our insurance premium. 5. You don't feel in control? So your definition of "control" is a bike that will allow you to more easily put it in a situation where you can lose control? No, sorry but that is the biggest pile of utter bollocks I've ever read. You control a bike by countersteering, body shifting, throttle and clutch, not by braking like a lunatic so that you can pull off immature stunts on public roads that give bikers a bad reputation. ABS doesn't affect your ability to wheelie, either. If your bike isn't powerful enough to wheelie on the throttle then you shouldn't even be attempting it as a stunt in a controlled area, let alone on the bloody road. ABS is there to save you on slippery roads and emergency situations. The research has been done and the technology works - just because some lawbreaking irresponsible berk thinks he knows best and he's the next Rossi doesn't change a thing.

Might be a weak/failing oil pump. When oil is cold it is thinner, when it warms up it becomes thick so that it will stick to the moving parts to lubricate them properly. If the oil pump is weak then it will not be pumping correctly and it might be that due to a lack of oil the engine is losing compression, therefore loses power and stalls. Do not run the bike in this condition, absolutely take it to a mechanic and have the oil pump checked and have a compression test done.

I dunno man, I know a guy who used to ride a Victory and he could throw that thing around! Mind you he did have an MT-01 prior to that, so that probably says something. It's not that you can't have fun on it, it's just not my type of bacon anymore. I went the other way around you see... started off loving cruisers and bobbers and realised that actually I enjoy sportier riding position and performance. I'm a bit biased because I absolutely loathe the OCC style, raked chops and fat rear tyres. To me if a bike is not really practical then it's not really rideable, but each to their own. Not everyone is as madly absorbed with purebred biking as I am. I have no beef with people who choose to ride on a fat tyre, they beat a car driver any day of the week.

Doesn't really matter how far it sits above the axle, because they have different wheel rim diameters. What matters is how far the crank is from ground, and they look about the same to me. A lower bike requires less movement to get the same angle as a tall bike, because it has a wider arc of movement. So you're a lot more likely to accidentally get the cruiser to an angle that you can't save than you are with a taller bike. I could show you the calculations for how much further in inches the FJ would have to lean to get to the same angle as the shadow, but I'm beginning to think that might be a touch pointless at this stage. This discussion has been distracted from the point and been drawn to revolve entirely around your FJ and how much of a lump it is. The general principal applies, not because I want it to, but because that's just science fact. Maybe some bikes are an exception, but mostly it's true. And no I'm not going to be giving any location information on the internet, not even to within 100 miles.

These things have a negligible effect when the majority of the weight is carried at the crankcase level. The additional weight of the heads makes little difference, because the more pistons you add, the more crank you need. If anything, a V-twin with it's shared crankpin arrangement will actually have a lighter crankcase than an inline four, where each rod has it's own crankpin. The effect of the weight higher up will move the centre of mass slightly higher, but not significantly. The weight of the engine is so massive that we're talking about perhaps an inch or two, no more. If they are both the same weight, that won't be true. The centre of gravity will be roughly the same, but the height of the FJ will give me a leverage advantage over the shorter cruiser. It will of course always be easier to lift a lighter bike regardless of how tall it is when you compare it to a heavy bike. The point is here that the only thing that is taller on a sports bike is usually the frame, seat, neck, and sometimes the tank is a fraction higher up than it will be on a cruiser. The ground clearance and engine mounting points are often roughly the same. Now compare that to a 600cc + supermoto, then we really are talking about high centre of gravity on a tall bike with a heavy engine, believe me you do not want to drop one of those. As for the video, I might actually cover it in a vlog at some point. I'm currently waiting on funds for a gopro.

Centre of gravity, or more accurately centre of mass, is calculated by using a datum point and using measurements of various weights on that object and their respective distances from that datum point. It is the unique point where the weighted relative position of the distributed mass sums to zero. It is effectively a useless calculation on a vertical mass, so it will only apply to a motorcycle within it's arc of movement. While the bike is upright on the Y axis, the centre of gravity is zero, and the number increases the closer the bike gets to the X axis, and further it gets from the Y axis. The higher the centre of mass, the more quickly that number will climb as it approaches the X axis, and the higher it's number will be when it is on the X axis. In order to measure the centre of gravity on a motorcycle, you must take the highest point of leverage, which are the handlebars, and the neck. A line can then be drawn between this point on the Y axis, and it's corresponding point on the X axis, to form the hypotenuse. This is expressed as a measurement. So if cathetus X is 44 inches and Y is 44 inches, the hypotenuse is the square root of the equation X squared + y squared, which gives us 62.2 inches. Now, let us take the FJ1200, which gives us another set of equal X and Y catheti, this time of 49 inches. This gives a hypotenuse of 69.3 inches. Since we know that the crankcase is the heaviest component of the bike, we can fairly safely assume that the height of the crankcase will dictate the centre of mass. The ground clearance of the FJ1200 is is 5.5 inches, and the ground clearance of the Honda Shadow is 5.7 inches. Since both motorcycles carry their engine on the frame, this means that the majority of the weight on both motorcycles is carried at roughly 12 inches above ground level. If we remove 12 inches from both X catheti, on the FJ and the Shadow, this gives us 37 and 32 inches respectively. This means that the hypotenuse of the FJ becomes 61.4 inches, and the Shadow 58.5 inches. As we can see, even though the FJ is a taller bike, it has roughly the same centre of mass, yet the hypotenuse is greater than that of the Shadow. This means that the Shadow has a higher relative centre than the FJ. The relative centre is actually a more important factor, because it dictates how much effort is required to keep it upright. It works in exactly the same way as a spanner, where a longer spanner requires less force than a shorter one, because center of gravity is a force that you are acting against. The pivot is your nut, and the bike is your spanner, and it moves through an arc of motion on the pivot. This is why it takes more physical effort to keep an XVS 650 upright than the equivalent weight FJ1200. The only difference is that having both feet flat on the ground allows you to distribute your weight more effectively and gives you a little more purchase on the ground surface.

I have only one thing to say to you, and that is FUCK SONNY BARGER AND FUCK HIS OPINION. He's a criminal scumbag partly responsible for founding one of the largest criminal organisations in the world. His organisation has killed, maimed and exploited tens of thousands of people since it's inception, and indirectly or directly negatively affected millions worldwide. This is an organisation that has systematically and almost single-handedly destroyed the reputation of the biker for over half a century. They have helped found a culture of refusing to wear decent safety gear that has arguably killed and maimed a vast number of people over the decades in the name of the "biker lifestyle" and aesthetics. He has absolutely zero credibility and is a blight on society, who deserves to be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. So if you want to take advice from this Hitler-grade piece of shit, then you're more of a complete and utter bottom grade moron than I gave you credit for, Ttask.

Oh dear, it looks like the invincible infallible Yamaha Star product line might not be worthy of the hype as predicted! Quick, bring out Ttask to disagree with everyone in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary! Oh look! Here's another example: And another example: Wow, it almost makes you think that maybe, just maybe, these bikes from this period might actually have a build quality issue because they are *shock* budget cruisers! The 125, 250 and 650 are all appearing to be in the same boat. Amazing, considering that they were all aimed at the same market. I like proof, because it's incontrovertible. There's no arguing or skewing it without appearing completely insane or thoroughly ignorant. These bikes are what they are, they aren't beautifully hand crafted engineering masterpieces. They aren't the bargain of the century either if you buy them new. What you're paying for is a reputation of Japanese bikes that belies the reality: any bike, well cared for, so long as it wasn't overly compromised at the design or manufacturing stage, will serve it's owner well. A budget cruiser is just that; budget. It's made with shitty parts, old technology, yesterday's electrics and chrome that is lucky to survive a couple of rain showers let alone the life of the bike. This is why people still buy Harleys, because for all their faults, they are built to last. Doesn't matter if you put 100,000 miles on them or 10. They only cost a bit more brand new compared to a Jap bike, but don't depreciate anywhere near as much. Why? Because the people who buy them look after them and they're not compromised on design and build quality just to lower the price point. There is a good chance that the Harley Davidsons of 2012 will still be around in 2052 - I strongly doubt however, that the 2004 dragstar 650s will be around in 2044. It's pretty much like how the rarest "bog standard" classic bikes now are the super-budget ones that had serious design flaws and build quality issues back in the day. We can argue back and forth on my thread or on this one until the cows come home, the point stands, irrefutably: If you want this bike or any other Yamaha because you think the quality is going to be any better than anything else, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. Never trust a bike just on a brand, because I guarantee that they will quite happily let you down, ESPECIALLY if they have a legendary reputation. You'd actually be better off with a Sinnis Apache, at £1500 brand new, than a 10 year old XVS 125 at the same £1500 after it's been dropped and lowsided a bagillion times and everything is rusted, scraped, the chrome is pitted, the piston rings which are like unicorn shit are beyond use and Yamaha want £480 just for a CDI box so you have to wait for someone elses bike to break just to get one as a scrap part. Think about that for a minute; a Chinese bike built in a Suzuki factory, a bike that went across the Mongolian desert without breaking down, a bike that impressed KTM so much that they're considering getting Sinnis to manufacture their plastics, is the same price as a decade old Yamaha that is knocking on death's door and just can't wait to spring the next mechanical failure on you. Surprise! The intake boot rubber is cracked and leaking. Surprise! The header bolts have corroded through and your exhaust is dangling off. Surprise! The electrics have blown. Surprise! There's actually a nice big crack in the frame. Surprise! The exhaust silencer has rusted from the inside out and now it has a big hole in it. Sinnis don't have the reputation of Yamaha, but they do have a very, very good manufacturing and design standard. Yet is a more extraordinary claim to put Sinnis above Yamaha, precisely because of reputation - and that is why Yamaha don't mind giving you a shitty product yet charge a premium for it, because they know you'll lap it up, and anyone who calls their quality into question will be branded a raving lunatic. Fact is, I've seen more design compromises on the xvs 125 than I have on equivalent price Chinese bikes that often get branded as being awful quality. This despite the fact that a good amount of "Japanese" bikes are essentially just Chinese bikes with a Japanese badge on them. Make your own call, spend your money however you see fit. Just remember this next time someone is foaming at the mouth about how amazing a bike is and how it cannot possibly have flaws because zomg it's a Yamaha! Rolex could put their name on a Timex and charge £50,000 and still sell them, we all know that it's still just a Timex. I personally own a Timex and I adore it, but a Rolex owner would consider me a philistine. Food for thought.

Yep, more bullshit as predicted from Ttask. If you can keep a long, heavy, unwieldy, ungainly cruiser upright and handle it, then weight or ergonomics is clearly not the issue. Since we've also established that height is not an issue either, what the fuck is exactly the issue? Oh wait, I know what the issue is, Ttask just wants to be a contrarian so that he can continue to argue with everything I say! Since my 5'0 girlfriend had trouble keeping my 125 drag upright or reaching the pegs (back when it was still a bobber and using the stock pegs), there's some evidence against you. Funnily enough, after trying it, she actually would rather have a tall but lightweight bike where she can reach the pegs and handlebars safely than have a long reach to the pegs and bars on a cruiser. And yes, I am aware you can fit swept back bars, that opens a whole can of worms about people's different opinion on whether or not doing that is safe. Sat on my bob, if I rested my legs out over the pegs highway style, my heel would be only just past the peg, and I'm 5'11. The 650 drag is even longer, and my legs were basically straight out on the pegs, and I've ridden both a bobbed and stock version, so I'm quite happy to declare that one myth busted and bullshit called. The reality is, a lower bike is actually HARDER to keep upright because there is less leverage, and the greater fork rake creates something called "flop" at low speeds and a standstill, where it has a tendency to want to, sometimes rather violently, flop over onto the steering lock one way or another. A taller bike has much greater leverage, so think like a socket wrench, you use a longer handle to create more torque at the socket, in other words, greater length requires less force, therefore it takes less force/effort to keep a tall heavy bike upright than it does to keep a short heavy bike upright. Of course, that's physics, which is a hard science and has been proven fact for several hundred years now. But I suppose that will be the next thing that you'll chose to disagree with, because you're Ttask and that's what you do. Flat earth theories anyone?

I suppose next we'll be told that a 522lbs dragstar 650 with it's stupidly far forward controls is best for a short rider because you can flat foot it. Somehow I don't think I'd get any volunteers to try that one out, people tend to like having their legs in one piece.

Doesn't look lowered to me, and the pegs appear to be in the usual position. Also, facts aren't a democracy, you can't vote on possibility by counting the number of anecdotes. Anecdotes =/= fact. The core of the point, which we're progressively straying from, is that tall bikes are not specifically for tall people. They're not designed to make life easier for short riders either. They just are what they are, and anyone who cares to learn it will learn it. If you truly want to achieve something, listening to a bunch of turkeys gobble on about how flying is impossible isn't the way to go.

Mainly because I know that lowering the bike would not be advantageous to the performance. The centre of gravity and handling really depends on the ride height for it to work effectively. Incidentally, the reason why pit crew come and catch the bike is because motoGP bikes don't have a side or centre stand, and need to be kept on a paddock stand as a result. The pit crew allow him to quickly hop off one bike and onto another because obviously without him propping the bike, there is nothing to keep it upright. Here he is propping it: http://www.mundomoto.esp.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dani-Pedrosa1.jpg I have to point out that it's not actually a CBR, that was my mistake. It's fairly similar but Honda have a different name for it, Honda RC213V. The weight of this bike is "over 160kg" so it's probably about 380lbs.

Well, fair enough, that's your opinion and you know your mother better than I do. However I've seen first hand short girls, and short guys for that matter, ride bikes that were technically "too tall" for them, and I've changed a few opinions in the past along the lines of "I can't ride that because I'm not three miles tall". Just remember little 5'2" Dani Pedrosa sat up on the 439lbs, 32.3 inches (taller than an FJ1200) cbr1000rr next time you see the motoGP on tv, and maybe give it a watch to see how he handles it. Watch him stop and start without issues in the pits, at the starting grid, and at the end of the race. There's an extra 140lbs in the FJ, which apart from making the FJ an absolute lump of a bike, isn't going to make a great deal of difference while it's upright, and actually you're going to have to fuck up pretty hard to get it to an angle where the bastard is going over no matter what you do about it. Here's a link that explains the basics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_aqa/using_physics_make_things_work/moments/revision/4/ I know you're unlikely to experience what Pedrosa experiences, but at least be willing to accept that it's not some insurmountable obstacle or that "tall bikes are for tall people", because that idea is complete bollocks.

I know what you're getting at, but the serious answer is yes and no. Yes, theoretically, no not straight away, obviously. It's definitely not as easy for short people to get into these kinds of bikes and there are some unique problems that require unique solutions, but as extraordinary as it seems it is possible with practice and confidence. I'd have to disagree with you there. Cast iron headers are really the exception rather than the rule. There's no real reason to use them, they're just slightly cheaper to make than doing the one extra mandrel bend. The final cost to the consumer is probably around £200-300 per unit, but the overall setting up cost and production to the manufacturer is going to be into the millions. Each mandrel bend costs money, especially when you're using double skin exhaust, where you need to do some very clever manufacturing trickery to get the one pipe inside the other, which usually involves one pipe being welded within another pipe that has been cut open and then welded back together and all the welds being smoothed out. Long process! Cut one bend out of that and you're making a saving, but you're also screwing your customer in the ass with nice rusty headers somewhere down the line, and all their studs are fucked as a result. Lovely! Mechanical history, okay. Basically my background through college was in metalwork, so really everything to do with fabrication, welding, milling, cad design, engineering, vehicle maintenance, that sort of thing. I started off biking by getting into dirt bikes, my dad being a former AA motorcycle instructor kind of encouraged me to get a road bike too. Soon as I got my first bike I had a project on my hands, so I started to take it to bits, rebuild it, and eventually got it through it's MOT and back on the road. Since then I've owned various bikes, a Ducati 600SS, CBR600RR, NSR125R (which was the bike that convinced me to do my test), and briefly owned an XS650 flat tracker which was so uncomfortable that I didn't keep it long even though it was bad ass. List of mods I've done to the little draggie, it's got a K&N filter mounted directly to the carb neck via a short length of rubber hose, 100 main jet, 18 tooth front sprocket, 56 tooth rear sprocket, Suzuki Intruder 125 front rim running with custom spacers with a 110/80-18 tyre, steel braided brake hose, rearsets, clipons, custom springer seat, dropped the yokes down the fork tubes by an inch or so, auto chain oiler, iridium plugs, new coils (multimeter suggested it might be time and I'm glad I did), longer rear shocks, swingarm mounted custom fabbed steel mudguard (which I want to replace with fibreglass), sidemount plate and tail light. That's about it so far. I want to do a monoshock conversion and remove the rear 1/3rd of the frame section, as there's a hell of a lot of steel frame there just to accomodate the twin shocks, and any weight loss is a bonus. Would also allow me to build a new tail for it so I can mount the plate and rear lights in one unit, and possibly also have the battery and electrics back there too. Would be nice to put a smaller tank on it and move the speedo up to the yoke. We'll see - I've got a spare exhaust sat around so I'm toying with the idea of butchering the two systems together to make a 2-into-1, perhaps with a megaphone silencer just for shits and giggles. Would be a significant weight saving to hack that second silencer off, and would probably run a little better with a more free flowing system. Dropping the yokes down the fork tubes was one of the best things I did for the handling of this bike, as it brought the rake in just enough to improve the handling without really sacrificing ride height. The power mods have been great, although I had to dick around with way too many rusted-stuck bolts on the carb for my liking. She'll go all the way to 80 now without complaint and holds 70 up hills which is more than enough. Fuel economy has bizarrely improved, I think possibly because I'm not needing to have the throttle wide open everywhere, but also probably because I took a lot of weight off. It's the twisty roads where it really shines, and is great fun to chuck around, which is really one of the only reasons why I've kept it. That and it's been pretty easy to customise. Having the wider front tyre has made a huge difference to it's stability, it's nowhere near as twitchy or floppy at low speed and cornering is much more confidence inspiring, it literally tracks round corners like it's on rails, it feels fantastic. Most of the chrome has ended up painted now so it's nowhere near as impractical as it was. So yeah, that's pretty much my background. All my bikes are kept under cover or garaged, serviced regularly, upgraded in whatever way I can. Anywhere I can simplify the maintenance or beef up the durability I've done so.

This is true, and for those things I wasn't really singling out this bike in particular. I think I was a little irritated at how this bike gets hyped so much when really it's nothing special. I disagree, I think everyone has a right to an opinion about a specific motorcycle they've owned, and there's no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. I respect what you're trying to say, and yeah every bike has it's faults. The comstar wheels are really an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here. I've never been a fan of cast iron headers, they're a cheap alternative to save some money on extra mandrel bends at the cost of something that is heavier and will cause an issue in the future. Heat + cast iron = rapid rust. There are a bunch of other little things on this bike that I think could've been designed a lot better, but ultimately that is just my opinion. I agree. Once you've built that confidence and those skills however, there really is no such thing as a bike that is "too big". I'm 5'11 and I've ridden a couple of bikes that were difficult for me to mount, and there was no way I could get both feet on the ground, even on my toes. That doesn't mean the bike is too big for me, it means that I'm not going to be able to ride it like a cruiser. Motorcycle manufacturers don't make bikes for tall people or short people in particular, they make bikes that will appeal to the largest cross section of whatever market they're aiming at, be it dual sport or cruiser or whatever. They know that dual sports need to be tall to get the kind of stability and suspension travel they need, not because "hey we better make bikes for the 6'8" tall guys out there"! Could you imagine how badly a bike would sell if they only people who could ride it were above 6'? I agree, and this is exactly what I'm saying. It rarely comes naturally, most people want to be able to put both feet firmly on the ground to start off with. It takes a bit of practice to get used to taller and heavier bikes. If you're tall enough that it's not a problem, then that's great - but it doesn't mean the bike was made specifically for you or that those skills don't exist. That's some dark ages thinking right there. And this isn't aimed at you, I know that's not what you're saying. Again I agree. There is an angle on every bike where you won't have the physical strength to stop it falling, and you're actually more likely to just injure yourself attempting. That's not really what I'm saying though. When your physical effort is divided between one leg propping up, one leg counterbalancing, and your upper body and arms holding the bars, that's a lot of physical effort nicely evenly distributed and it won't "feel" like you're using a lot of effort to keep it upright. Get it in a sweet spot of balance and you don't even need to use your arms, you can balance it nicely from just the seat and your legs, because it's teetering at that middle pivot point where it takes very little energy to move it either way. Not so. Many shorter riders can handle quite large, tall, heavy bikes without issue because it's become second nature to them. You probably wouldn't even notice them stopped at the lights because they make it look so natural. I have respect for these people because what they're doing is not easy! It's only unsafe if you're not able to do it safely, in which case I agree. A lot of riders do opt for the lowering kits and that's fine, but you still have to admit that it's impressive to see a tiny girl on a bigger bike like that, even if it has been lowered. It's still a lot for someone her size to deal with. The idea that the rake angle of a sports bike is impractical is a complete myth and totally exaggerated. The rake of a cruiser is not somehow more ideal than that of a sports or a standard. Cruisers are raked beyond any other class of bike except choppers, yet they make up only a small segment of motorcycles in general - if everyone was wobbling around on these death traps, then nobody would use them. Speed wobble and tank slappers can happen on bikes with small rake, but that is what the steering damper is there for, and you tend to find this sort of speed wobble and twitch happening on bikes owned my amateur mechanics who think they're clever removing the steering damper. My NSR125R did not have a steering damper and I never had any of the issues you speak of, even though it technically has a "sports" rake. I agree that once you get used to it you can really chuck a cruiser around, but with nowhere near the same confident feel that I've gotten out of bikes with better geometry. The fact that your buddy is able to out-ride young riders in the twisties simply means he's a better rider and more familiar with his bike. It doesn't mean that cruisers are more capable than sports bikes, that's absurd. Not sure what you're implying regarding fork diameter. All unbraced forks experience natural torsional flex, and even braced ones to an extent, and I'll accept that a heavier rider might have a mild impact on the handling response time, but we're probably talking milliseconds. Most of the forces on the fork depend on your speed, not on the rider's weight. A 125's forks would require a weight substantially heavier than a human to cause any kind of adverse effect, so I'm not really sure what your point is. This is just an assumption about my level of ability to apply mechanical knowledge. Suffice to say that most the dragstars I looked at within my budget were the same price and all of them had the same issues. Pitting chrome on the rims, rusted headers, and dodgy electrics - nothing to do with the previous owners, even bikes that had only a few thousand miles on the clock and just a couple of previous owners had the same issues. For your information, I didn't overpay or get a bargain either, it was pretty spot on at £1200 for having reasonable chrome and paint and being in working, MOT'd and taxed condition. I didn't really have any issues with it until the beginning of this year. The choice of cast iron headers, low quality chrome, the bizarre exhaust system, the ridiculously narrow front wheel, and the piss poor electrics is all down to design. They could quite easily have chosen different options but I suspect that 2001-2004 was a difficult period for Yamaha where a lot of compromises had to be made to increase profits. The 2013 WR125X by contrast is far superior in every aspect of it's design. But then the last couple years have been good to Yamaha, so maybe that's why. So, some of the problems maybe, but definitely not all of the problems. "Every line of bike will have a lemon in the mix,1 bike my go 100k and never give problems the next one in the serial sequence may be in the shop every month. The way i look at at a track day for a nebie is ....here now you have a safe place to explore your boundries without the distractions of all the things on the road..and lets look at how your doing things... then solve the wrong things" Agreed on both counts.

You seem to know fuck all about what I think except what you've convinced yourself. No. I live in a part of the world where we actually pay attention to the road and rarely have to emergency brake as a result. See? Clearly you have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old. One foot on the peg, one foot on the floor. One plus one is two, retard. I never said "take my word for it" either, I said LOOK IT UP or PROVE ME WRONG. Congrats on so far achieving neither while spouting a whole load of useless diatribe. You can't attend a track day without first attending track training. You become a better, safer motorcyclist as a result. You learn things like chasing the limit point. You know what the limit point is? Perhaps you can tell us since you know everything. The skills you learn on the track will help you in the real world, and you're kidding yourself if you think they won't. The track isn't all about pushing yourself, it's also about holding a line. I can guarantee you that if you think the local roads where you live have you hard done by, you ain't seen nothing like my area. I dodge potholes, mud, narrow lanes and morons like you wish you could. Again you prove how little you know and how many assumptions you make. I'm not a member of a 125 club, whatever the fuck that is, nor do I ride on-road like I do on the track, hence the track. Don't think I don't know what you're up to. What you're doing is you're trying to assassinate my character to bolster your shitty argument because you think that my point will cease to carry any weight if you bring my integrity into question. What you're actually doing is trying to dodge having to actually engage me intellectually because you obviously know you're not up to the task. So it's down to an ad hominem attack to do the work for you. What's safe about riding a motorcycle designed for experienced riders with only a beginner's understanding? Lets see you hop on an XR650L and see what happens when you get to the traffic lights. http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7158775 You wish. You haven't even touched my argument with a barge pole because you know you don't stand a chance. Bring it on. I've given you links, videos, proof of my argument. You've slandered and bitched and moaned because you're a raging, foaming fanboy who can't take a difference of opinion gracefully. Use the forum search function. Forum: Yamaha Workshop. Search: XVS 125. Oh look! They're not invincible! They fuck up on other people too! Colour me absolutely not shocked.

I said Dragstars. Not specifically the 125, just the whole product line in general. This includes the whole star range. So yes, really, nice try at a straw man argument, shows how desperate you've become. I knew personally 2 people who were killed locally on a 650 and an 1100, a friend of a friend who died on his 250 (which is geometrically the same as the 125) and a former club member who came off his 1100 recently and made a lucky escape. http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1253337077/Middleburg-man-34-dies-in-Snyder-County-motorcycle-crash So you think it never happens? You're the one talking bollocks. Accidents happen on any bike. The XVS range is not magically immune to it, in fact, it's lack of handling makes it more likely if you get overconfident with it. Also, if you can't counterbalance with one foot while propping with the other, and think you need to put both feet down, then you are definitely not a skilled rider! It doesn't take 153lbs of downward force or whatever crazy amount of force you think it takes to keep a bike upright! For your own sake go do some track days, some advanced training, learn how to countersteer, body shift, and emergency stop. Sounds like you need it. You don't "analyse a camber" during an emergency stop, you do it BEFORE, you should ALWAYS be aware of the camber because you should ALWAYS be checking the road condition!! God DAMN you're unsafe! Can't believe they let lunatics like you out on the road to be honest! This is what happens when bikers who passed their test donkeys ago aren't required to retake every few years! Says the one who seems pathologically desperate to prove someone wrong when they have a dissenting opinion? Yeah. I don't mind being proven wrong, except that none of you have proven anything at all. You won't be told, even when it's staring you in the face. It's called cognitive bias, go look it up. If you can't take a different opinion on board without throwing insults at that person, you should maybe take a good hard look at yourself and ask what you're so afraid of. Neither am I, they just seem extraordinary to you because you're extraordinarily ignorant. Electricity would've been an extraordinary claim in the middle ages too. Perhaps I should've thought twice before overloading your little minds which such advanced concepts as steering geometry.