|
 Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
My point is that bounce is bounce. I hadn't caught that bit about 1 single vehicle crash a year. If that's a factor, hardtail frames should be required rather than banned. There are usually more than that every 20 minutes in the area of the Rock Store with sport bikes. You get a lot more "seat of the pants" information about whether you are getting near your limits, and that's why there are so few single vehicle crashes with hardtails.
Nope, not true. Once again, the more unsprung weight being bounced, the longer duration the tire is off the pavement, and thus less control on the vehicle.
But it IS true that anyone riding a hardtail SHOULDN'T ride it as fast as they should a motorcycle equipped with a rear suspension. THAT is a no-brainer, as that "seat-of-the-pants feeling" you're talking about SHOULD tell the rider NOT to exceed the hardtail's more limited handling performance envelope. And so, considering that by MY estimation, half the riders riding motorcycles today really don't know HOW to ride a motorcycle very well, yeah, maybe we SHOULD put 'em on hardtails and slow 'em down even more out there!!!! But, ALSO knowing how hard-headed MOST Americans are today(once again by MY estimation), this probably wouldn't help slow down their sorry asses anyway!!! So, so much for THAT idea!!!!
And regarding why there are so many sportbike crashes near the Rock Store, the reason for THAT is there are too many riders riding sportbikes on Mulholland Hwy who mistakenly believe that they are Valentino Rossi riding their sportbike at Laguna Seca Raceway instead of where they're actually AT....on a public highway in the Santa Monica Mountains!!!!!!!!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
|
|
|