redkow97

To be fair, one could argue that no one needs a bike at all. At least no one I know has a bike purely for transportation. THAT is a badass biker move.

Ps, that's a 2.5 v6 with 165 hp and a decent transmission in a pretty small car. On a "race diet" with a stripped interior, it would be fun and quick compared to other LeMons.

Buy this for $500, and then race it in the LeMons series. http://cleveland.craigslist.org/cto/2945847714.html $4500 is more than enough to buy a roll cage, helmets, race suits, etc. you can probably sell off some interior parts to make money back too.

I've seen that before, and it is pretty cool. Harder than you think to pull off that well too. Plus to sound good when you're that spread out is very hard.

I know i've said this before, but unless you think the cop is going to "appreciate your honesty" and let you off, never, EVER admit to going even 1 mph over the speed limit. 56 in a 55 is an admission of guilt, and you can be ticketed for it. "I thought I was doing 5 over" is even worse. "do you know how fast you were going?" is a yes/no question. Or one you can say, "I thought I was going the speed limit, officer, but based on the fact that we're having this conversation, I'm guessing you don't agree..."

and ignorant, considering that whole "gentleman's agreement" between the big 3 and the US government. I'm gonna go ahead and judge this book by its cover and assume that kid's an idiot and can't disable the governor.

I'd race an XR1200 if I thought i could hack it. Otherwise, I have nothing particularly against HD; I just find that there are better bikes available for comparable or less money. I do like the fat front tire look on cruisers though. And nothing wider than a 200 on the rear.

Masking tape on tank. Note to yourself saying "GP SHIFT!!" did the trick for me. There is no advantage in a street scenario, but also no draw back.

Vanson makes high-quality custom leather race suits. I know the mid-atlantic director for NESBA has a simple custom black 1-piece Vanson. They may also have a "fashion" line though, so make sure that's actually a riding jacket. If it is, I wouldn't hesitate to trust my skin to Vanson riding gear.

another consideration that I hadn't thought of, but makes sense: "New Mexico does not address lane splitting by name, but has language requiring turn signals be used continuously for at least 100 ft (30 m) before changing lanes." Ohio has the same law, or substantially similar. So if a cop sees you initiate a lane-split, you probably hadn't planned it and signaled 100 feet in advance. If they see you actively splitting lanes without your signal on, that would technically be a violation as well, because you're in the process of continually changing lanes. The bottom line is that I don't think a cop is going to pass up an opportunity to generate some revenue for the State unless they have bigger shit going on.

That's not necessarily true. The argument will be "the legislature clearly went out of its way to authorize lane sharing between 2 motorcycles. Had they intended to authorize lane sharing between a car and a motorcycle, they would have extended that clause to do so. The act of lane-splitting clearly goes beyond the authorization of section 4511.27, and amounts to a lane violation persuant to 4511.25." i may be off on the exact code numbers. didn't pull them back up. But the fact remains, the law outlines the proper way to occupy a single lane. You can't cross any lane markers unless it is to make a safe pass, and you're not going to convince a judge that passing in the same lane as a moving car is safe. So yes, lobby your representatives to explicitly legalize lane-splitting. That is the only way to do so without the risk of being ticketed.

no. unless it's 2 motorcycles, Ohio law prohibits 2 vehicles occupying the same lane side-by-side. You can argue all you want that it's "safe," but 1) I think you'll find that argument to be a loser in front of a judge, and 2) you're still breaking the law even if you convince them it's safe. That provision is for PASSING, as in completely crossing the lane marker, passing the vehicle in front of you, and then moving over again. If the lane next to you isn't empty (if it is, you can just pass, and not split), then by definition, you are riding with 2 vehicles in one lane at some point. The only way you are going to not violate the law when lane-splitting is if you're splitting 2 (or 3) bikes. In that case it would be legal to ride up to 4 abreast on a 2-lane single-direction highway. You could act as the 3rd or 4th rider in that situation.

The law is pretty clear that 2 motorcycles are the only vehicles permitted to ride 2 abreast in a given lane. A legal pass requires crossing the lane marker.

why does being on an R6 equate to miserable failure? When I took my test, some guy on a big honda cruiser whooped us all (granted, he was on his second try, and had practiced a lot), and then there was the jerk on a scooter who made it all look easy. No one failed, and the 2 people who came close only did so because they were sharing a clapped-out old CB350, and failed to get up to the required speed for the accelleration/stop portion of the test. (the guy joked that he was going to need to shift into 2nd gear to hit 15mph or whatever it is) But there were people on virtually every kind of bike there... big cruiser, small cruiser, my EX500, scooter guy, and a couple sportbikes.

$1100 F2 for sale in WERA vintage forum.

while "lane splitting" is not explicitly illegal, this functionally prohibits it: This qualifies things a little for bikes, but does not change the "single lane" provision above. That first one is the real nail in the coffin though. It is always "practicable" fpr a motorcycle to fit in a single lane. I would guess that provision is more for oversized loads that are physically incapable of fitting in a standard-width lane. The last sentence of the first code section allows for PASSING, not hanging out between lanes.

I would be shocked of Brandon isn't planning on riding the mod Ohio round.

Yikes. 4 cylinder with 2 bikes is ambitious. But then again, your Kia has a 2.4 I-4, and mine has a 2.7 V6. Without even doing the math, it's clear that your enginge has larger cylinders, and quite possibly more torque. But I would keep as much additional weight off that trailer as possible. I always estimate 500 lbs. per bike, and your trailer is probably closer to 500 as well. You're within 150 lbs of your tow limit WITHOUT the generator...

plus a billion to seat time. Resist buying stuff that is just going to cost you more to replace in a crash. from a bone-stock bike, I'd insist on stainless brake lines, and that's about all you really NEED. my short list of "when I can afford it" mods would include rearsets, bodywork (maybe not in that order), and clip-ons after your first set breaks...

technically no. Assholes like me will just point and laugh at the trackday guy who thinks he's fast enough for white plates I had thought you were racing. I had white numbers on my bike until I bothered getting a race license. Would only have been legal for endurance.

white plates? getting a little ahead of yourself? ;-)

it does. if you have the 4 cylinder, the published limit is indeed the 1650 someone else posted. If it's the V6, you can TOW 3500, but you still can't stop more than 1650... But like Pauly said, just leave yourself a lot of extra room. If you've got too much of a rearward weight bias, the first sign i have noticed is more noise from the hitch pulling UPward on the ball under normal (small) bumps. And empty trailer is loud. A loaded trailer should be pretty quiet. The generator will severely sway the weight distribution though. I would try to keep the generator right over the axle (or inside the tow vehicle) if possible, and then use something lighter (5 gallon gas can seems about right) to redistribute weight on the trailer. Remember, the further you are from the wheels, the more the mass multiplies as it relates to force on the tongue. lever/fulcrum effect.

what year sorrento? The engine options changed considerably when they updated the sportage and sorrento. But the brakes are the limiting factor either way. That trailer probably weighs a solid 500 lbs with decking and the rails. I generally estimate my HF folding trailer is 300 with the decking... But as others have said, If you can pick up the trailer and walk it around by the tongue, you're probably well under that 200 lbs. limit. I have pulled 2 bikes with the kia 2.7 v6. They claim the towing capacity with the I-4 is 1,000 lbs, and with the v6, it's 2,000, but only if you have trailer brakes. sure. I'm going to put brakes on a 2,000 lbs. trailer... Anyway, 2 bikes placed over the trailer axle should be fine. I would just get a buddy or two to sit on the bikes with teh brake on and have them move forward and backward to see where you get ~100 lbs. of tongue pressure. Hell, if you chock the trailer wheels and put the tongue on a jack-stand, and sit the jack-stand on top of a bathroom scale, you can probably do it yourself. Just remember that chocking the wheels part, and have a second jack-stand under the BACK rail of the trailer in case you shift the weight too far back and start to rotate the trailer up around the wheels. I may do this now... just do see how my weight is distributed. But 200 lbs. on the tongue is probably a conservative "limit" anyway. If you get 2 fat friends in the back seat and a couple of kegs in the hatch, that can't be any less stressful than having more than 200 lbs. on the hitch, leverage or not!

says the guy with a bike that costs 4 times as much as mine!

it's hardly an aesthetic decision. I only mentioned the plate being the only thing left because it makes your trailer more useful when you're not transporting bikes, and it doesn't interfere with the folding of the trailer. Ratchet straps compress your forks during travel. The TRS allows the bike full suspension travel over bumps. No danger of blown fork seals. Every time the trailer hits a bump with straps, the bike's suspension compresses, and the straps go slack for a moment. That means they could come un-hooked and your bike could fall over. It's impossible for a similar accident to occur with the TRS, which holds the bike by the rear axle. The lack of straps also leaves more useable space on (or in) the trailer. I've loaded 8 bikes (with the help of 1 other person) in under 15 minutes with the TRS. With straps, it would have taken 3 times as long. The TRS is also much stronger than ratchet straps. I have not seen pictures, but I have read reports on the WERA board of racers flipping their trailer on the highway. they opened the doors to find the bikes hanging upside-down from the floor, and otherwise un-damaged. I would also bet my bike that straps have a higher failure rate than the TRS under "normal use" conditions, and the straps will need to be replaced MUCH more often. For Pauly's purposes (transporting many different bikes of various makes and models) I would agree that the pin costs of the Pit-Bull system would be impractical, but for those of us with 1 or 2 bikes that we transport frequently, it makes a LOT of sense. Put it this way, I gave Imprez a ride to the track last summer, and it would have been VERY difficult, if not unsafe, to fit both our bikes on my trailer without at least one of them being in a pit-bull TRS. My bike could ride much closer to the edge of the trailer, and left his bike room to be a bit closer to center, so we even HAD a place to the left of his to anchor the second strap. The system does run about $240, but I've never seen one sell used for less than $180... Usually more like $200 Like I said, if you're transporting your bike with any frequency, you won't regret the investment. For me, the ability to load on my own (without flagging down a neighbor to sit on the bike, or waking up my wife at 5 AM as I'm trying to leave for BeaveRun) was worth the price on its own.