smccrory

No, you're right - loosely tensioned cam chains rattle and grind against the tensioner (and worse things). I didn't hear even the slightest hint of that. But have you balanced your carbs this season? Do it, and if you come to Columbus I'll do it with you. Do this before adjusting your valve clearances. Do you have hydraulic lifters? If not, when were the valves last gapped? It's not hard, just tedious, and that may silence any excessive tapping.

Oh crap, someone else as pedantic as me??

I got a little of it on my CRF, but it was after the worst.

JavaSCRIPT sir, JavaSCRIPT. :-)

Eeeek! Creepy movie, creepy character, and bad things done with air pressure.

And that includes rail guns that inject a rod into the animal's cortex. As far as I know, that device has only one purpose...

I love your story, and since we have a reasonable tone going, perhaps we can make use of it. First... I wouldn't have disagreed with your statement except that your definition of what a weapon means to a person is selective and incomplete. My definition, and the definition of millions of law-abiding gun owners, embraces a weapon in many ways: as a collectible, an investment vehicle, a facilitator of bonding and coming-of-age rituals (hey Jimmy, dad says you can come this time!), a defender of life and limb and family, of engineering appreciation, of historical gateway, and so much more. You have to understand that when you characterize a gun as exclusively for intimidation, destruction and injury, it misrepresents the experience of millions of owners, and that should explain the emotional responses you get every time. When you do that, you mischaracterize ME as an intimidator, destroyer and injurer just by fact of owning a gun, and we know we're not. Law-breaking gun owners are a different matter, but that gets very much to the a-priori locale of will, of intent... This story is fascinating, and moreso that you tell it in this thread. Duane, this directly speaks clearly to the intent of the operator, and not the designer or the object itself. Duane, the answer to your logic is right there in your past. You may still NOT LIKE guns and you may still OPPOSE them, but I present that you must now do so now for one fewer reason. The use of the gun is tied to the will, the intent, of the user, not the designer or the device itself.

I'm also an engineer, have been for 30 years, so what you're describing (strictly above) is not in dispute. But your extension beyond that point is where the juju comes in and it "offends" my engineering and scientific sensibilities. When an object is efficient at something and designed with that tuned efficiency in mind, its efficiency does not govern its use or take on some evil inherency. Those things may shape the object's likely use perhaps, but the attributes do not govern them. You say one the one hand that guns are designed for "Accuracy, Precision, Damage, Conceal-ability, Functionality, these are all design elements that are maximized within the design intent of the weapon," and you are quite right, yet you go beyond and imbue guns with some inherent propensity to intimidate, destroy and injure. Do you believe that an engineer just like you and me, working for Smith and Wesson with a family, mortgage, a car and smartphone is also mixing Crowley-esque intimidation, destruction and injury juice into the metal? Of course not. I bet if anything, they are thinking about the mom, grandpa, nephew or father defending themselves, target shooting at a boy scout event or protecting their livestock. And as much as the NRA would like us to believe that guns have THAT inherent value, they don't really have it either (sorry Wayne and Ted, you're full of BS on that one). You used the pejorative "destroy" regarding my paper targets, cans and milk jugs. But the targets fulfilled their purpose in being destroyed, and in doing so created a greater experience for the participants. As such, the destruction brought about by the BB, pellet, .22, shotgun, pistol and rifle rounds was a minor part of their total context. A sling shot would have done the same, and man, I guarantee you that a modern slingshot can kill a man, but that's doesn't make the slingshot inherently anything except a pack of particles singing in form. As for the murder of grain mice and gophers, a gun was a lot more humane than poison, I'll tell you that.

Let me ask you this: What is the purpose of a computer? To bully, intimidate, force a fat kid to commit suicide, assemble a group of terrorists for a common IED goal, spread fear and hate, exploit women for porn? No? That's certainly a set of uses it is incredibly efficient at. What about a wet towel? To mock-suffocate a prisoner? Few things do it better. But if not, then does that towel now inherently have bad juju built into its fibers? What about a gun after it's murdered a tin can? It it now inherently a can killer? There is design intent/context, and there is transmission intent/context and there is use intent/context, and Aleister Crowley called this WILL. He was an EXPERT at convincing people there's inherent value in "magical" objects, yet when you read deeper, it's clear that those values were not inherent at all - they're imbibed into the PERSON handling the objects based on elaborate belief systems. Superstition. That was perhaps his primary secret originally intended only for the most qualified of practitioners. Duane, you're being superstitious about guns, it's as simple as that, and again, I'm shocked that an atheist would. C'mon man, use your knowledge of science! But you asked me a question: What do I use my guns for, if not to destroy, injure or intimidate. OK, here's what I do, or have previously used them for: Target shooting at paper targets, milk jugs, tin cans and steel plates. Collection to admire their historical context, usually accompanied with a history book binge. Elimination of grain bin mice and field gophers whose holes can break the legs of farm horses. Personal and home defense. Clay shooting - a very fun marksman sport. Bonding with my daughter with one of the aformentioned activities, teaching her respect for dangerous things and confidence around them and other sources of stress (it's helped to relieve panic attacks). Bonding with my nephew and other family members for similar reasons. I think that's it...

To you, perhaps, and therefore I'd be happier if you didn't own one because you would use it to express intimidation, destruction and injury using the gun. But the gun itself does not imbue those properties any more than an airplane's sole purpose is to taxi, or an elbow's sole purpose is to defend. To say so requires superstition, and I would most certainly not expect an atheist to be selectively superstitious about an inanimate object.

+1. My V-Star 1100 was tons noisier. Valves tick.

I used to get that with my NH CB700SC too. Maybe it's easier to spot as a non-cruiser. To a lot of Harley guys, I think that waving to a UJM is a beatable crime by fellow SOA fans.

You're being kind even with that. A gun does not have an inherent purpose, let alone a sole one. It's a grouping of atoms that vibrate together, like a hammer or a tractor or a knife or an elbow. It may have been engineered and assembled to be more efficient at certain uses, like a hammer, a tractor, an elbow... but it is not conscious. It does not crave cake. Is makes lousy toast.

Downloaded to my iPhone 5, I'll give it a try, thanks!

Entirely reasonable requirements IMHO.

Having owned an '85 NH CB700SC, yours sounds completely normal to me.

Yummy.

Congrats!

I agree that Leads are the more important asset to be able to even form into a group. But if there are intersections that require blocking for group cohesion, or riders that need special attention or coaching at stops, then large groups diminish the sweep's effectiveness.

If there aren't enough leads and sweeps to manage extra riders, they may have to self-assemble or ride their own ride. I don't want to sweep a Slow group with more than a dozen bikes in it.

Brian, I'm guessing you have more tank metal than my 650 Strom. That's the thing that makes it a tougher pick for me - metal only down the center, and I'm not really a fan of straps.

And the rider was just a couple years older than me, so I'm betting he wasn't riding like an all-out hooligan. Ugh, that's awful.

Those sneaky engineers!

I think a lot of them look great, but I'd never be able to ride one for more than an hour.

Ive been asked to sweep in Slow, which I'm cool with. Pay it forward, as they say :-)