motociclista

I wish you weren't right, but of course you are right. I wrote the satire to point out the fundamental ridiculousness of improving the "show," however, and I do that by taking it to an absurd extreme. But I think it does reveal a basic problem. There are people who love racing. They want the integrity of the sport to remain. Then there are casual fans who may be drawn in by the "show." But if you amp up the show to the point where it detracts from the integrity of the sport, then you could lose the serious fans. And eventually, I believe, the casual fans drift away when the newness wears off. I think that is part of the reason why NASCAR is on a downward trend. For some non-serious fans attracted in recent years, the novelty is wearing off and they're migrating to the next thing.

Glad you enjoyed it... Given the state of AMA Superbike racing, it's better to laugh than cry.

It's based on who your cable or satellite TV provider is. I can't get it.

I will be surprised if they can find enough support from the OEMs to get this on CBS Sports. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised.

In the long and dismal downtrend of motorcycle roadracing television coverage in the United States, one thing has been constant. Every time we bitched and moaned about how bad the coverage was, it got worse the next year. And now, welcome to 2013, otherwise known as dead rock bottom. Read the rest here, but warning: If you're not in the mood for a rant, don't click.

Is there even going to BE any TV coverage of the Daytona 200 this year? Or any other AMA Superbike races? Situation looks grim at the moment, unless I've missed some recent news. Good move, if your main interest is racing. It's as easy to get to the Speedway from Orlando as it is from Main Street in Daytona. And you don't have to go all the way to Orlando. Plenty of hotels at all price points north of Orlando along I-4, like Altamonte Springs if you want to be close to attractions in Orlando or even further north if you want to split the difference between Orlando and Daytona.

Always appreciated.

This brings back the 1970s styling trend that mystifies me more than any other: chrome fenders. I'm not into chrome myself, but I can sorta understand chrome wheels, maybe some chrome trim to highlight a bike's lines. But who was the styling genius who decided that the thing you should look at most on a bike was the fenders, and therefore decided to chrome them?

I wrote this article about a guy who did a track day for the first time when he was in his late 50s. Now he's 74 and doing about 10 track days a year. So be forewarned: It can be addictive.

I have no disagreement with the advice to try making ergonomic adjustments first, to see if that solves it for you. As stated, if that doesn't work you can always put the bike back to stock and sell it and sell the aftermarket parts. But, having said that, I love my Daytona 675 but I probably wouldn't own it if I didn't do track days now and then. There are many good bikes that will give you 90% of the performance of a supersport and several times as much comfort and traveling capability.

Sweet! You will love it, and I speak from experience.

Damn, some of you guys have been out in some serious conditions. All three times I got caught out by snow I was close to home, not above the treeline or three states away.

How many times have you been caught out on the streets on the motorcycle by an unexpected snowfall? For me, the answer is three.

In this case, I think "it doesn't do anything good" and "it doesn't do anything well" are both correct and true statements. What happens when those tires try to handle that bike's power on pavement is not going to be something good.

Wow, can't believe it's been ten years since I wrote this. As mentioned in that story, Acadia is beautiful but crowded. Further north than that, the crowds thin out. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would offer better riding. I go up to the Portland area every summer, to see family, but haven't been north of there in years. The Adirondacks, New Hampshire and Vermont offer better riding, in my opinion.

Thanks for the positive comments. I'm always a little hesitant about linking to these articles so I'm glad to know people don't mind and some even enjoy the links.

Hey everyone, I occasionally (not often) post a link to one of my stories in here if I think it's something that might interest people. This is one of those, unless you all are more cynical bastards than I think. It has no direct motorcycle content (just side-by-sides) so I'm posting it in Off-Topic. Mules on Patrol: Kawasaki Aids Troops in Afghanistan I was pleased with the way it came out, so thought I'd share.

Nice. That goes a long, long way to making up for lectures. And if your girl loves the fact that she has your great grandmother's engagement ring instead of something new from the jewelry store at the mall, that probably proves she's the right one.

Exactly. We can go on for days about how we find a cruiser more comfortable, or a sport-touring bike more comfortable, or a medieval torture rack more comfortable and it doesn't mean squat to a guy with a bad back. He has to find a riding position that works for his particular situation.

Setting aside the predictable responses (OP: "I think I want a Harley" yields "Harleys suck" which leads to "Buy a ___ because I own a ___."), there are a few good suggestions in this thread, IMO. First, it may be difficult given your situation, but you really need to try to get a significant test ride on a bike, because of your back issue. What feels comfortable for a few minutes sitting in the driveway is not necessary comfortable after two hours on the road when you hit a pothole. The seat may be comfy, but if you have three inches of suspension travel, you can take some pretty hard jolts to the spine on a rough road. Cruisers built to have extra low seat heights are probably a bad choice in your case. Second, consider that a more extreme cruiserish position, with forward controls, for example, puts all your weight on your ass. You can't take pressure off by using your legs. Anyone with physical issues may find that comfort issues that aren't apparent when sitting in the showroom can be true pains on the road. Good luck with your search.

It's true that to a certain extent racing rules determine the streetbikes available, but I would argue that the manufacturers wanting to show off their 1000s was the reason superbikes went from 750cc to 1000cc, not that manufacturers made 1000s in response to the rule change. In any case, I was setting aside sportbikes and talking about non-race-replica streetbikes. Actually, the race replicas don't even sell very well any more. Kawasaki sells as many Ninja 250s as it does ZX-6Rs and ZX-10Rs combined. Maybe that's why Honda is suddenly coming out with affordable and user-friendly bikes such as the CBR250 and its new line of 500s.

Like I stated in my blog post, it's not that I need a 750, it's just that I find it interesting that the one size of motorcycle that every manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson) used to make is now the size nobody makes.

I totally agree with you about the 675 triple. It's just about my all-time favorite engine and I love my Daytona for the track or for sporty street rides. Trouble with the Street Triple is the same problem as my Speed Triple. Out on multi-day trips, the lack of wind protection and the difficulty of attaching luggage become drawbacks, at least to me. I suppose it would be possible to put some wind protection on the Streetie, but the result would probably be an abomination, aesthetically.

Yeah, 30 years of riding backroads and I've never owned anything bigger than 885cc, so I didn't know a liter bike was "required." My bad.

True, and my Daytona 675 is more than I need for track work. But the 750cc streetbike I'm describing wouldn't be more powerful than a 600cc sportbike. Peak power would probably be a little less. But it would be tuned for a flatter torque curve, for street use, so there would be no need to rev to five-digit rpms. Maybe 600s are the new 750s.