redkow97

I think upgrades increase the value of a bike, but only by the smallest margin. like $.10 on the dollar for the upgrades AT BEST. The fact is, a bike is not the sum of its parts. If you want to get what the parts are worth, then you have to part-out the bike. To use a shock and exhaust as an example, a full system is $450 and a decent shock would be $700 or so. If the asking price of the bike is $3500, you can't tell me that the bike is worth $1100 less with NO shock or exhaust. I vote put the bike back to stock if you really want $3500 out of everything all together.

I appreciate all the congratulations. another 6 weeks or so until we find out the sex. I honestly have no preference, as long as he or she takes an interest in the PW50 I will have in the garage before he/she is potty trained.

Wait, he wasn't joking? I hadn't noticed the boobies missing, but you may have found a way to get blood from a stone

upon a closer look, i think all the bikes have them. The top picture of Herrin shows how the graves bikes are set up. I think Cardinez and Fillmore use more traditional bar-end setups.

I thought they were required after the incident in the 200, but I suppose it's possible that rule was not applied to the superbike class.

safety aside, it's just gross to put your bare feet on the nasty oily pavement.

That sucks for Joey, and the rest of the team. He always turns it up a notch when the flag drops. I had fun watching him close in on the slower riders, but it would have been better to see him up front.

Well, I must have gotten some good karma by making my post, because I just got hired for a 6-week project :-) That certainly takes the sting out of the loan payments. I'll have a big bike again after I have a salary. The idea is to get something for the street that I can still track and race if I want to. I'm leaning toward SV650, or an early to mid 90's Honda or Kawasaki. If the right deal comes along, I would do a bandit 600 or katana. the SV is obviously a LWT bike, but the older 600's are still plenty fast (i'd probably gear it down for street use), and I can race vintage, and 600 classes with MotoSeries or WERA. I will definitely get motored on the straights, but I think I could pick off some of the newer racers on more modern machines, and maybe make Craig cry by keeping him in sight on a comparably archaic machine.

If you've paid close attention to my posts, this may already have been obvious, but the wife and I are expecting a baby in January. Our families have known for a fee weeks, but as of yesterday, it's up on Facebook and no longer 'secret.' I'm psyched to meet the crumb-grabber, but probably won't be getting another big bike for the foreseeable future. The time and expense just doesn't add up. I'll still be racing the XR as often as possible, but the combo of not working steadily, and $600/month in student loan payments coming due means no bike for now. Hopefully things change when I land a cushy job. Ha.

Wtf happened to Joey on Saturday? Mechanical on the grid? Looked like he started from pit lane, and spent the whole race chasing down the bottom half of the field.

Agree. I'm guessing there is a lot more action before that clip starts.

Yeah, I have absolutely NO objection to people buying ridiculous bikes purely for the sake of being ridiculous. If that's what you want, then buy it. It just kills me when people feel the need to try and justify their purchase as reasonable, when it clearly isn't. It's okay to be ridiculous, so long as you can afford it. My buddy Danny bought his first bike (a second gen SV650, ironically) and tried to tell me he was going to save gas. I gave him the same "lecture." He obviously bought the bike anyway, but not before trying to rationalize it other ways. I think he finally convinced his (soon to be ex) wife that it would save him time versus taking the DC metro, or sitting in traffic (because bikes are allowed in the HOV lanes). Those were actually decent reasons to get a bike, IMHO. Saved him a solid 20 minutes each way on his commute, and that's seriously valuable...

you can only make money if you're really awesome at it, and doing significant volume. There was a good show on Speed or Discovery where all the guy (and his crew) did was flip cars at auction. but they had the knowledge, talent, tools, and other resources to do it quickly, and turn over a car (or two) every month. Plus they had relationships with the painters and parts warehouses that got them better pricing, etc. Even then, their margins were surprisingly small at times. They were buying these cars for $4k - $10k, putting $20,000 into them, and still only selling them for $36k or so. That's why they have to do at least a car a month...

would you consider a kit-car? There are hotrod kit cars out there. My dad has casually considered a Shelby Cobra or GT40 kit car. I would happily help build and borrow either!

A very good friend of mine worked for DFAS for a few years before leaving to take another job in the private sector. Based on what I remember from casual conversations about his work, the following might be of interest: - Jack said that the volume of money they deal with is so immense (remember, they're auditing ALL defense expenditures, including orders for hundreds of $40M aircraft) that it would take well over $1M of error for any single project to get a second look. With Soldiers' pay, I'm not surprised a few thousand here and there goes unnoticed, and is low on the priority list when it's brought to their attention. That doesn't make it right, but in their eyes - remember, these are accountants - they're sweating the BIG stuff, and not the small stuff. The human impact is not something they can quantify with the dollars and cents. In my eyes, THAT is the fundamental flaw. They need a separate agency to deal with personnel expenses so that these "low dollar" errors are given the attention they deserve. - I believe "DFAS" is not technically a government agency, but rather a private company that is contracted exclusively by the United States government. If that's accurate, that means that they theoretically could be fired and replaced. Their entanglement with the government makes such a solution unlikely, but it is an option. I think this is a private-sector failure that has perpetuated because the government has managed their vendor poorly. These types of errors have gone on for decades, but DFAS hasn't been fired. I doubt there have been any real consequences. I'd like to see individual case-workers assigned to various soldiers. The case workers ought to have their paychecks withheld until the soldiers' compensation issue is resolved. I expect that would produce quicker results for all involved. I'll send this article to Jackson and see if he has any comment. I expect a one or two line reply with something to the extent of "they don't know their asses from their elbows in that place. That's why I quit." standby.

Do the math. riding to work is rarely a money-saving proposition. You might break even, but unless you are riding a VERY inexpensive bike, and have a pretty long commute, the cost of the bike, bike insurance, riding gear, tires, etc. are usually greater than your fuel savings. that said, if you want a bike for fun, that is a separate justification beyond the gas savings. It just kills me when people tell me they're going to buy a bike "to save money." Right... Because spending thousands on an additional vehicle, hundreds on insurance, and another grand or so on gear is the best way to save money? like i said, it takes a REALLY cheap bike and a pretty long commute to overcome the investment costs.

There is always something (usually many things) to complain about on any vehicle. "But for the price," redeems those flaws. The simplicity of eliminating liquid cooling from The equation makes the GS500 (arguably) better than a ninja 250. I'd actually like to see those two race.

That was true of a lot of bikes in the 80's and 90's though. Suzuki's ability to throw (more) modern fairings on the GS500 kept it selling pretty well without a dime of additional development cost. My dad owned one for a cup of coffee. Bought it to learn in. I actually liked it. Rode great. It was a turd, but it was fun to ride.

I agree that the clutch should be addressed, but this would be a great learning tool if you're okay with being blasted in the straights. The GS500 has a decent chassis, and handles really well. Plus if it's going to be a track bike, someone could part the street bits and practically break even...

I don't remember anyone (certainly not "most" people) telling him NOT to get an R1. What I saw were a lot of reasons an R1 might not be the best option, and some suggestions for other bikes (or keeping his current bike). There are a lot of different schools of thought on what makes the best bike. Depends on how you ride, and what you want from the bike. The OP's only complaints about the SV650 were lack of power. That makes the "upgrade" options very broad. A bigger twin, a VFR, an inline 600 or inline 1000 all fit the bill for "more powerful than an SV." Any comments about the R1 were based purely on the fact that hte OP has been looking at one that happens to be available.

I don't think ALL cops, or even the majority of cops are "out to get you," but you point out some valid flaws in the current system. Most cops these days have a criminal justice degree, or something similar, but there is still a huge percentage of active-duty officers (and supervisors) who have a high-school education, and 6 months of police academy. What they learn on the job is productive at teaching them how to survive, but counterproductive in teaching them how to be good police officers. On top of that, I think it takes a very specific temperament to be a truly great police officer. That temperament alone is rare. Then you factor in the very average financial compensation police officers receive, and it should not surprise us that our police force is not as highly qualified as we'd like. Know your rights, and be prepared to put up with some harassment for asserting them. Stay calm. Be polite. Choose your battles.

I realize you're joking, but I feel like you can get used to any amount of power, which makes it sort of futile to constantly be "upgrading." The most powerful bike I have owned was my 600RR, but after a full weekend of racing it, 110 horsepower didn't feel that fast anymore. Maybe an R1 or a ZX14 would prove me wrong, but I feel like you'll get used to any amount of power if you ride often enough. I used to joke that I drove my Ranger so that my EX500 felt fast, and I rode the EX500 on the street so that my F2 felt fast on the track. I miss the hooligan factor of having a street bike to rip through the gears on highway ramps, but I have more fun on my 6hp bike than I did taking my EX500 to the 'big' tracks. I'm not saying that big bikes aren't good fun, but just consider how much you're going to spend to get something else that you'll eventually "out-grow" as well. The OP said $30-$40 more each MONTH for insurance. Plus it's not going to be as good on gas. It's going to be easier to crash (spinning up that rear is a serious possibility), easier to get a ticket on, etc. 100hp is about all I'd want for street use. I'd settle for SV650 power/torque.

I would have to look into it to be sure, but that doesn't sound right to me... If I pull up to a DUI checkpoint completely sober, but the officers hear someone screaming from inside my trunk, I'm guessing the separate probable cause for searching my trunk is still going to hold up in court when they charge me with kidnapping. Now they do need that separate and independent probable cause, but I can still be cited for something other than DUI. In similar fashion, if I am drunk, police are within their rights to perform a search that is "incident to my arrest," which means they can look for evidence to support the charge for which I am being arrested (whatever that charge is). For a DUI arrest, they can look for beer cans under the seat, etc. If they're searching under my seat and find weed or child porn or whatever, that's still going to be admissible in court as long as it is found in a place that was reasonable for the officers to be searching given the DUI charge. That's why cops LOVE to get warrants for drugs, or find probable cause to search for drugs - because they can fit in really small places, which means you can search virtually anywhere. Police are also allowed to perform an inventory search when they impound a vehicle, after you have been arrested and the vehicle has been seized. They usually get warrants for those though, because there's no real rush to search once the vehicle is under police control. He should not be detained without being suspected of committing a crime, period, but it doesn't have to be suspicion of DUI. Their failure to articulate what crime he was suspected of committing is the bullshit part. But all they would have needed to said is that "you're suspected of DUI," and then taken his ID to verify his age. Remember, driving with a .01 BAC is a "DUI" for anyone under 21. I was just saying that it has been held by the supreme court that your ID cannot "incriminate" you, thus you don't need to be Mirandized prior to providing your ID, nor do you have a right to have an attorney present prior to providing your ID. You can refuse to provide an ID if you want, but they're just going to detain you until they determine that you have not committed any crime, including operating a motor vehicle without a license.

The officer has the wrong temperament for the job. The driver was legally within his rights. The only point I disagree with is that providing identification when asked is (by definition) not an interrogation, nor is it considered incriminating, so there is no reason to refuse providing identification. Otherwise, he was correct. You cannot be detained unless you are suspected of committing a crime, and you have a right to ask (and be told) what crime you are suspected of. The only reason DUI checkpoints fly to begin with is because you implicitly consent to them by driving into them. That's why they have to be announced to be legal. That is NOT consent to a search of your vehicle, etc. The cop was being a jerk and trying to bully the driver into compliance. I think the video would show that the search was bad, and anything they HAD found would have been suppressed in court. The driver should be compensated for any damage done to his vehicle, and the police should use this as a teaching experience for the officer on camera, and everyone else on staff. The only thing they succeeded in doing here is detaining and harassing a law-abiding member of the population that they are supposed to protect. If I were his supervisor, I'd at least give him a slap on the wrist. A week suspension, unpaid or something. But the union would be up the chief's ass for that, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I think we're getting tripped up on the difference between saying "the R1 has 200% of the horsepower an SV has" verus saying "The R1 has 100% MORE horsepower." so 200% of 72 = 144 (200/100 = 2. 2 x72 = 144) 100% MORE than 72 also = 144, because I'm starting with 72 (100% of the SV's power), and then adding 100% of 72 to that.