Starting a new thread hoping (optimistically) to avoid so much smoke and
flames obscuring the knowledge I seek.

Last week I went into a Kawi dealership and asked the salesman if there
was a standard nomenclature or descriptive language for bike ergonomics,
similar to the one for handlebars (rise, width, pullback, etc. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_handlebar )

He got the terrified, cornered-rabbit look that salespeople get when
asked a question beyond their ken, and finally said there was no such
standard (with that vague look when they make up what they don't know).

And so I was left to wander dazed & confus'd searching here & there for
teachers & friends. (Lest I be accused of plaigurism by RGD, the above
is adapted from _Wilderness: The Lost Writings of Jim Morrison_).

And so the matter rested, uneasily, until I read Mr. ¿'s posting:

> Here in the States, we first started seeing the
> "ergonomic triangle" in magazines around 1987

Here at last was a glimmer, however dim.

> ...when disillusioned
> riders suddenly noticed that the racy sportbikes that they had
> dreamed of were gawdawful uncomfortable

I get uncomfortable just sitting on one, let alone riding it anywhere.

> compared to the standard, or
> "universal Japanese motorcycles" (UJM's) that handled so badly

Well I once had a ~1980 CB750 and it seemed to handle very well, whether
in town, on the slab or on twisty mountain roads in the West Kootenays.

> The lower, clip-on handlebars of the sportbikes put a lot of strain
> on
> the rider's wrists and arms and made his back and neck hurt as they
> enhanced steering feel and responsive handling.

I've already figured that one out. The only way I'd consider a sportbike
is if it's been converted to a streetfighter with a more neutral riding
pos'n including ape hangers so I can sight upright, etc.

> One longtime racer said, "Yes, it hurts after about half an hour, but
> you're having so much fun, you don't care."

I'm not into racing, so I don't care either.

> The older UJM's were set up so the footpegs were underneath the
> rider's butt, and he could "post", raising his butt up off the seat
> as
> if he was riding a horse when he saw a bump coming.

This part is true, ness paw?

> Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs, make any posting
> impractical.

Seems to me the body forward pos'n means that some weight will
necessarily be taken up by the rider's hands when lifting the
body with the feet.

> And the shape of some gastanks cause the riders foot
> to slip off the peg when he tries to slide his weight forward.

I can't say that part made much sense. Perhaps [¿] could specify
an example.

> Some hard core sportriders actually race through the
> canyons with their weight on the footpegs so they can quickly slide
> their butt from one side to the other,

Isn't this also what track racers do?

> The cruiser rider has to adopt the "sit up and beg" posture.

Is that really what "sit up and beg" means? To me, cruiser riders
assume a laid back attitude; I see no begging involved in
the body language.

> It's not even possible to "post" on a cruiser,
> the rider has to take whatever
> bump he encounters up his butt into his spine,

True (ouch)

> because the footpegs
> are too far forward. All the rider can do is try to pull himself up
> with his arms.

However, I see a *lot* of cruisers on the streets.

> This gets tiresome after about 45 minutes, and the lower back starts
> to hurt, unless the seat has a backrest. 120 degrees is the best
> angle
> for the backrest

Why not 90 degrees? That's what I had on my Ultra Glide's Mustang seat
and it felt fine.

> The motorcycle magazines started publishing ergonomic triangles with
> all their sportbike road tests around 1987. Pretty soon they were
> including esoteric things like swingarm lengths and angles too...

I having been looking for these, unsuccessfully so far. They're
not included in any bike specs I've seen on-line.

> But those latter specs relate to handling and traction. Ergonomics is
> the science of making human accomodations *comfortable* for average-
> sized people.

My objective, of course.

> Ergonomicists measured a population of people and said that 50th or
> 70th percentile people were the target population for the
> accomodations they were designing.

Alas, my body proportions seem to be at the edge of the bell curve.
In fact I think I'm descended from an Albertosaurus (long legs, short arms).

> The "ergonomic triangle" is made up of the footrest height above the
> pavement, the distance from the footrests to the seat itself

Which part of the seat?

> and the reach to the handlebars

Almost all stock handlebars seem too short for me, except possibly
the Harley Cross-bones ape hangers, on which I could adjust them
to tilt back to a position where I could sit upright.

[snipped sportbike stuff]

> A cruiser's form follows *style* and it has been accepted for decades
> that cruisers are just naturally going to be uncomfortable because of
> their sacrificing comfort for style.

At least they *look* like motorcycles.

I've noticed from trying out lots of bikes (on showroom floors etc)
that comfort means my shins are at a negative angle from vertical
(ie, my feet further back than my knees); my back is vertical
and knees not bent too much. That seems to translate into a high seat,
low pegs and generous pullback.

SQ

On Jun 24, 9:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> Starting a new thread hoping (optimistically) to avoid so much smoke and
> flames obscuring the knowledge I seek.
>
> Last week I went into a Kawi dealership and asked the salesman if there
> was a standard nomenclature or descriptive language for bike ergonomics,
> similar to the one for handlebars (rise, width, pullback, etc. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_handlebar)
>
> He got the terrified, cornered-rabbit look that salespeople get when
> asked a question beyond their ken, and finally said there was no such
> standard (with that vague look when they make up what they don't know).
>
> And so I was left to wander dazed & confus'd searching here & there for
> teachers & friends. (Lest I be accused of plaigurism by RGD, the above
> is adapted from _Wilderness: The Lost Writings of Jim Morrison_).
>
> And so the matter rested, uneasily, until I read Mr. ¿'s posting:
>
> > Here in the States, we first started seeing the
> > "ergonomic triangle" in magazines around 1987
>
> Here at last was a glimmer, however dim.

Yeah he is dim. I recall seeing it in the early 80's. He's full of
shit and I'll elucidate as you go.

> > ...when disillusioned
> > riders suddenly noticed that the racy sportbikes that they had
> > dreamed of were gawdawful uncomfortable
>
> I get uncomfortable just sitting on one, let alone riding it anywhere.

You LEARN to sit on them.

> > compared to the standard, or
> > "universal Japanese motorcycles" (UJM's) that handled so badly
>
> Well I once had a ~1980 CB750 and it seemed to handle very well, whether
> in town, on the slab or on twisty mountain roads in the West Kootenays.

See once again he you qoute is full of shit...then again he's all out
liar.

> > The lower, clip-on handlebars of the sportbikes put a lot of strain
> > on
> > the rider's wrists and arms and made his back and neck hurt as they
> > enhanced steering feel and responsive handling.
>
> I've already figured that one out. The only way I'd consider a sportbike
> is if it's been converted to a streetfighter with a more neutral riding
> pos'n including ape hangers so I can sight upright, etc.

Use your thighs and lower back...sheesh.

> > One longtime racer said, "Yes, it hurts after about half an hour, but
> > you're having so much fun, you don't care."
>
> I'm not into racing, so I don't care either.

And he'd be wrong again.

> > The older UJM's were set up so the footpegs were underneath the
> > rider's butt, and *he could "post", raising his butt up off the seat
> > as
> > if he was riding a horse when he saw a bump coming.
>
> This part is true, ness paw?

No the dirt bag is lying again. The riders feet are usually straight
down from the knees or back 2-3". You can post on ANY motorcycle. When
he says you can't post of a cruiser he's lying yet again.

> > Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs, make any posting
> > impractical.
>
> Seems to me the body forward pos'n means that some weight will
> necessarily be taken up by the rider's hands when lifting the
> body with the feet.

No it just takes ACTUAL leg strength something he and most of the
population lack due to laziness.

> > And the shape of some gastanks cause the riders foot
> > to slip off the peg when he tries to slide his weight forward.
>
> I can't say that part made much sense. Perhaps [¿] could specify
> an example.

He can't because in 30 years I've yet to encounter that. So it's easy
to posit he's lying again.

> > Some hard core sportriders actually race through the
> > canyons with their weight on the footpegs so they can quickly slide
> > their butt from one side to the other,
>
> Isn't this also what track racers do?

Yep and he's only correct in the sense that you sit like that in the
twisties.

> > The cruiser rider has to adopt the "sit up and beg" posture.
>
> Is that really what "sit up and beg" means? To me, cruiser riders
> assume a laid back attitude; I see no begging involved in
> the body language.

Actually he is full of shit it's the "obstectrical chair" posistion. I
find 99% of cruisers ridiculous lookings.

> > It's not even possible to "post" on a cruiser,
> > the rider has to take whatever
> > bump he encounters up his butt into his spine,
>
> True (ouch)

Bull fucking SHIT. BTDT and I can do it on every cruiser out there.
Choppers otoh are more problematic and it'sa matter of pulling and
posting at the same time. Once again I prove him to be a liar and
ignorant of what he speaks. You are showing signs of catching on to
him finally.

> > because the footpegs
> > are too far forward. All the rider can do is try to pull himself up
> > with his arms.
>
> However, I see a *lot* of cruisers on the streets.

Yep easier to get on and that is about it. Oh btw if you didn't notice
he's lying again.


> > This gets tiresome after about 45 minutes, and the lower back starts
> > to hurt, unless the seat has a backrest. 120 degrees is the best
> > angle
> > for the backrest
>
> Why not 90 degrees? That's what I had on my Ultra Glide's Mustang seat
> and it felt fine.

90 is the best he's just an ignoarnt wannbe and lying sack of crap.

> > The motorcycle magazines started publishing ergonomic triangles with
> > all their sportbike road tests around 1987. Pretty soon they were
> > including esoteric things like swingarm lengths and angles too...
>
> I having been looking for these, unsuccessfully so far. They're
> not included in any bike specs I've seen on-line.

Not to worry that triangle was out long before 87. I recall seeing it
in american bike rags in the early 80's.

> > But those latter specs relate to handling and traction. Ergonomics is
> > the science of making human accomodations *comfortable* for average-
> > sized people.
>
> My objective, of course.

Problem is what is average? The problem is most of the bikes built in
the last 20 years seem to be built for guys 5' 10" and tallers. Most
people aren't that tall...wtf?

> > Ergonomicists measured a population of people and said that 50th or
> > 70th percentile people were the target population for the
> > accomodations they were designing.
>
> Alas, my body proportions seem to be at the edge of the bell curve.
> In fact I think I'm descended from an Albertosaurus (long legs, short arms).

heh...but he still doesn't know anything about ergonomics and you
obviously do.

> > The "ergonomic triangle" is made up of the footrest height above the
> > pavement, the distance from the footrests to the seat itself
>
> Which part of the seat?

about where your butt tends to stay most of the time. No seriously!

> > and the reach to the handlebars
>
> Almost all stock handlebars seem too short for me, except possibly
> the Harley Cross-bones ape hangers, on which I could adjust them
> to tilt back to a position where I could sit upright.

Been that way for decades on all brands.

> [snipped sportbike stuff]
>
> > A cruiser's form follows *style* and it has been accepted for decades
> > that cruisers are just naturally going to be uncomfortable because of
> > their sacrificing comfort for style.
>
> At least they *look* like motorcycles.

and they aren't all uncomfortable. Oh a few are but it's mostly based
on model.

> I've noticed from trying out lots of bikes (on showroom floors etc)
> that comfort means my shins are at a negative angle from vertical
> (ie, my feet further back than my knees); my back is vertical
> and knees not bent too much. That seems to translate into a high seat,
> low pegs and generous pullback.

<amazing Karnack>
Moto Guzzi V7
</amazing Karnack>

Stick to standards dude and ignore the moron....

--
Keith

On Jun 24, 8:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:

> Starting a new thread hoping (optimistically) to avoid so much smoke and
flames obscuring the knowledge I seek.

Avoiding angry exchanges and extreme thread drift will never happen in
reeky...

> I've already figured that one out. The only way I'd consider a sportbike
> is if it's been converted to a streetfighter with a more neutral riding
> pos'n including ape hangers so I can sight upright, etc.

The streetfighter modification moves the weight distribution to the
rear, and the front tire sometimes doesn't feel as "planted" as it
originally did. This little problem might be solved with a front tire
that has a less pointy profile, though.

> > The older UJM's were set up so the footpegs were underneath the
> > rider's butt, and *he could "post", raising his butt up off the seat
> > as
> > if he was riding a horse when he saw a bump coming.
>
> This part is true, ness paw?

Wee.

> Seems to me the body forward pos'n means that some weight will
> necessarily be taken up by the rider's hands when lifting the
> body with the feet.

Yes. The rider also needs to understand how to position the control
levers and the correct hand position on said levers to avoid pinching
nerves in the wrist.
>
> > And the shape of some gastanks cause the riders foot
> > to slip off the peg when he tries to slide his weight forward.
>
> I can't say that part made much sense. Perhaps [¿] could specify
> an example.

You're unlikely to be riding an MV Agusta...
>
> > Some hard core sportriders actually race through the
> > canyons with their weight on the footpegs so they can quickly slide
> > their butt from one side to the other,
>
> Isn't this also what track racers do?

Yes.

> Is that really what "sit up and beg" means? To me, cruiser riders
> assume a laid back attitude; I see no begging involved in
> the body language.

I didn't invent the phrase. The vertical back and hand position on
high rise bars resembled a dog sitting up and begging to some moto
maven and the image caught on.

> However, I see a *lot* of cruisers on the streets.

That's what a motorcycle *is*, to some riders.
>
> > This gets tiresome after about 45 minutes, and the lower back starts
> > to hurt, unless the seat has a backrest. 120 degrees is the best
> > angle
> > for the backrest
>
> Why not 90 degrees? That's what I had on my Ultra Glide's Mustang seat
> and it felt fine.

A 90 degree back rest won't support any weight at all, but it might
keep the wind from blowing you backwards at high speeds.

> > The "ergonomic triangle" is made up of the footrest height above the
> > pavement, the distance from the footrests to the seat itself
>
> Which part of the seat?

The lowest part, that which is under your butt.

> > A cruiser's form follows *style* and it has been accepted for decades
> > that cruisers are just naturally going to be uncomfortable because of
> > their sacrificing comfort for style.

> I've noticed from trying out lots of bikes (on showroom floors etc)
> that comfort means my shins are at a negative angle from vertical
> (ie, my feet further back than my knees); my back is vertical
> and knees not bent too much. That seems to translate into a high seat,
> low pegs and generous pullback.

That's the comfort model for the typical "western handlebar" that most
riders like.

Europeans favored a wide, but lower bar that caused them to have to
lean forward a bit.

Some bars sweep back so much it feels like I'm pushing a wheelbarrow,
and the hand controls swing back and forth in an arc during low speed
maneuvers.

"Sean_Q_" <no.spam@no.spam> wrote in message news:h1up98$tub$1@aioe.org...
>
> He got the terrified, cornered-rabbit look that salespeople get when
> asked a question beyond their ken, and finally said there was no such
> standard (with that vague look when they make up what they don't know).

What you'll find is that there is a relatively small group of people even
within Kawasaki who know.

For example, I'm sure that Kawasaki has certain corporate standards for, for
example, the steering tube as far as how strong it must be, what kinds of
decelerations of the front wheel it must support (for example, two morbidly
obese Americans riding the thing and running into a curb-stop or a building
while parking at 5 MPH), what material safety factors must exist, etc.

But once the design of the frame and certain key components is done and
verified, everyone else just accepts it as gospel and has no idea how it was
designed--even within Kawasaki.

Same for ergonomics. I'm even guessing that for a motorcycle, there might
not be ergonomic standards, except that it has to look pretty in the
showroom.

In any case, asking the salesperson will terrify him or her. That is so far
outside the knowledge that they have access to ...

All interesting.

Datesfat

On Jun 24, 11:42*pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In any case, asking the salesperson will terrify him or her. *That is so far
> outside the knowledge that they have access to ...

Terrify? Most MC salespeople I've met wouldn't know ergonomic from
egg omelet, Mr Mann's intellectual curiosity not withstanding.

On Jun 24, 11:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:

> > Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs, make any posting
> > impractical.

> > Some hard core sportriders actually race through the
> > canyons with their weight on the footpegs so they can quickly slide
> > their butt from one side to the other,
>
> Isn't this also what track racers do?

Isn't it obvious to you that when someone writes something so
obviously contradicting what he himself just moments ago claimed, that
he has no idea what he is talking about?

"Riders of sportbikes can't do what they actually do." Sheer idiocy.

> > It's not even possible to "post" on a cruiser,
> > the rider has to take whatever
> > bump he encounters up his butt into his spine,
>
> True (ouch)

Not true.

On Jun 24, 11:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> Starting a new thread hoping (optimistically) to avoid so much smoke and
> flames obscuring the knowledge I seek.

> I've noticed from trying out lots of bikes (on showroom floors etc)
> that comfort means my shins are at a negative angle from vertical
> (ie, my feet further back than my knees); my back is vertical
> and knees not bent too much. That seems to translate into a high seat,
> low pegs and generous pullback.

Sounds to me as though you have the knowledge you seek. Now you're
apparently intent on trolling.

On Jun 24, 11:30*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > Starting a new thread hoping (optimistically) to avoid so much smoke and
>
> flames obscuring the knowledge I seek.
>
> Avoiding angry exchanges and extreme thread drift will never happen in
> reeky...

Because idiots like you will always be with us.

> > I've already figured that one out. The only way I'd consider a sportbike
> > is if it's been converted to a streetfighter with a more neutral riding
> > pos'n including ape hangers so I can sight upright, etc.
>
> The streetfighter modification moves the weight distribution to the
> rear, and the front tire sometimes doesn't feel as "planted" as it
> originally did. This little problem might be solved with a front tire
> that has a less pointy profile, though.

No. I ride a superbike with an upright Streetfighter riding position
every day. I've ridden it with both triangular profile front tires
and round profile front tires, both on the road and on the racetrack.
The tire - regardless of profile - does not have as much WEIGHT on it
because the rider has less weight on the handlebars. Therefore the
bike wheelies more easily, and understeers under power, out of
corners. It does this REGARDLESS of the tire profile. The only
difference the profile makes is in the feel of the transition from
upright to leaned over, whether that transition is linear, or
"accelerated" by the tire profile to make it feel as if the bike is
falling into the lean.
>
> > > The older UJM's were set up so the footpegs were underneath the
> > > rider's butt, and *he could "post", raising his butt up off the seat
> > > as
> > > if he was riding a horse when he saw a bump coming.
>
> > This part is true, ness paw?
>
> Wee.

And a rider can do the same thing on a hardcore superbike, a casual
cruiser, and a tourer.

> > > And the shape of some gastanks cause the riders foot
> > > to slip off the peg when he tries to slide his weight forward.
>
> > I can't say that part made much sense. Perhaps [¿] could specify
> > an example.
>
> You're unlikely to be riding an MV Agusta...

I've ridden the MV Agusta Brutale and the F4. Neither had a gas tank
that caused my foot or feet to slip off the peg or pegs when I slid my
weight forward. Nor has this been reported to me by the owner of
those bikes, or by my race sponsor, who is an MV Agusta dealer.

Once again, you are simply lying.

(SnipMoreBS tm)

On Jun 24, 10:24*pm, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 11:00*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > > It's not even possible to "post" on a cruiser,
> > > the rider has to take whatever
> > > bump he encounters up his butt into his spine,
>
> > True (ouch)
>
> Not true.

The idiocy here is just astounding at times.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:42:31 -0400, "Datesfat Chicks"
<datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote:

>What you'll find is that there is a relatively small group of people even
>within Kawasaki who know.

And how on earth do you know that?

>Same for ergonomics. I'm even guessing that for a motorcycle, there might
>not be ergonomic standards, except that it has to look pretty in the
>showroom.

Ah, yes. You're guessing. And you're wrong. There are ergo standards
for motorcycles, but there's no requirement to comply with them. For
example, there is an ISO standard for motorcycle mirrors. It says that
the 50th percentile male must be able to see something that is some
distance (100', IIRC) behind him. Manufacturers are very aware of
human ergonomics, they just don't cater to a wide variety of human
bodies. Their bean counters say they don't need to make machines that
a person 6'8" or 4'8" can ride comfortably.

I've long believed the next big revolution in motorcycle design will
be adjustable ergos. I keep waiting. In the meantime, aftermarket
companies keep filling the niche. Helibars, Baren mirrors, all the
saddlers, etc.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

On Jun 24, 9:30*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Krusty you ignorance and LIES are showing again.

When you get an education and grow up...you'll still be a loser.

Tell me smart ass what was the cause of the high speed weave the early
'wings experienced in sweepers and WHY didn't it happen on twisty
roads?

BTW Krusty...stop cruising the high schools for dates.

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote in news:aff97233-fe76-4ba8-86c7-dbe52863d4a8
@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com:

>> However, I see a *lot* of cruisers on the streets.
>
> That's what a motorcycle *is*, to some riders.
>

It's just a comfortable (for some - many) position for tooling around.
If you have no plans to ride fast and corner hard why bend yourself up like
a pretzel?
I've noticed a definite shift away from cruisers and into more neutral
bikes and tourers over the past few years.
As people get used to riding and venture furthr they see the benefits of
windshields, fairings, better riding positions and more comfortable
seating.
Neither sportbikes nor cruisers do that well.

The guy I rode from Winnipeg to Sioux City with has a Deuce, Harleys most
cruiser-like bike, and he had to stop every hour and a half or so. I got
him to stretch it to 2 hours. He blamed it on his arthritis in his back.
I blamed it on his bike.
I have arthritis in my back too and it doesn't hurt like his does. Of
course, he just says his back is worse, which it might be, but is too cheap
to buy a better bike or even a windshield for the one he has.

--
Bob Mann

Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.

saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com> wrote in news:95de8a02-6edc-4ab4-9641-
e426748fc55e@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

> Terrify? Most MC salespeople I've met wouldn't know ergonomic from
> egg omelet, Mr Mann's intellectual curiosity not withstanding.
>

I wouldn't get into that either.
Mind you, I have come up against people assuming a certain set of
ergonomics would be perfect for me because of my height.
Then they find out that not everyone who is 5'7" is built the same.
I'm about 6' from the waist down and 5'2" from the waist up.

--
Bob Mann

Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.

"Bob Mann" <bobmann@mtsremove.net> wrote
> I wouldn't get into that either.
> Mind you, I have come up against people assuming a certain set of
> ergonomics would be perfect for me because of my height.
> Then they find out that not everyone who is 5'7" is built the same.
> I'm about 6' from the waist down and 5'2" from the waist up.
>
I'm just the opposite, built more like a chimp or gorilla with a 31' inseam
but need "tall" shirts.

Remember when the first thing we did with a new bike was change bars and peg
position to fit our various shapes? Sit on the bike on the center stand,
close your eyes and reach for where the grips should be then buy bars that
put them there.

"Turby" <turbosurfer@beach.comber> wrote in message
news:cvb645l5bbcsg1kcvfvdqs0mef6rkhk5dr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:42:31 -0400, "Datesfat Chicks"
> <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What you'll find is that there is a relatively small group of people even
>>within Kawasaki who know.
>
> And how on earth do you know that?

I used to do electronics for a certain automobile company. I was far enough
downstream that the major mechanical parameters of the vehicle were already
established.

In some cases, like when one is buying airbags or brakes from a third party,
it is THEIR engineers who have certain information. That makes it doubly
hard to find any uncommon information, as you'd be searching for the right
person in a different company.

My point is just the a salesperson is as far downstream as you can get. By
the time information gets to him it has been diluted and sanitized by the
people who prepare dumbed-down information just for salespeople. They won't
be able to answer any reasonably detailed question.

Datesfat

On Jun 25, 9:03*am, "Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> Remember when the first thing we did with a new bike was change bars and peg
> position to fit our various shapes? *

I can't remember any motorcycle that had adjustable foot pegs except
for Honda 250's and 305's from the early 1960's...

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 9:03 am, "Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember when the first thing we did with a new bike was change bars and peg
> > position to fit our various shapes?
>
> I can't remember any motorcycle that had adjustable foot pegs except
> for Honda 250's and 305's from the early 1960's...

I can.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & XBR500 Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:33:30 -0400, "Datesfat Chicks"
<datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Turby" <turbosurfer@beach.comber> wrote in message
>news:cvb645l5bbcsg1kcvfvdqs0mef6rkhk5dr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:42:31 -0400, "Datesfat Chicks"
>> <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What you'll find is that there is a relatively small group of people even
>>>within Kawasaki who know.
>>
>> And how on earth do you know that?
>
>I used to do electronics for a certain automobile company. I was far enough
>downstream that the major mechanical parameters of the vehicle were already
>established.
>
>In some cases, like when one is buying airbags or brakes from a third party,
>it is THEIR engineers who have certain information. That makes it doubly
>hard to find any uncommon information, as you'd be searching for the right
>person in a different company.
>
>My point is just the a salesperson is as far downstream as you can get. By
>the time information gets to him it has been diluted and sanitized by the
>people who prepare dumbed-down information just for salespeople. They won't
>be able to answer any reasonably detailed question.

IOW, when you wrote "a relatively small group of people even within
Kawasaki", you meant sales people, and not the thousands of Kawasaki
employees who are not sales people.

And if that's what you meant, you're right. But that should be a
given, no matter what the product is. As for the internals of
components, they have virtually nothing to do with ergonomics.
Ergonomics is the interface between the customer and the product, and
Kawasaki has total controll and makes the decisions on all of that,
whether it's the feel of the grips, the tread on the pedals, placement
of guages, or the flexibility of the mirrors.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

"¿" <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote
> I can't remember any motorcycle that had adjustable foot pegs except
> for Honda 250's and 305's from the early 1960's...

Well guess what ....