I thought this article was interesting because I've got some riding
comfort issues. However it's a long way from here to San Fransisco
so I'll have to find the info some other way. Also, I wonder how he'll
deal with bike mods. Relocating the footpegs and controls isn't trivial.

SQ

In article "(San Francisco Bay Area, CA) Doc Wong Motorcycle Ergonomics
& Optimal Riding Position Workshop-July 10 Friday Night!"

DocWong wrote:
> Doc Wong Motorcycle Ergonomics & Riding Position Workshop-July 10
> Friday Night!
>
> You're invited to this all new workshop for 2009!
>
> When: Friday, July 10, 2009! 7:15pm-8:30pm
> Where: Active Life Medical Center (Chiropractic and Alternative Care)
> 1391 Woodside Road, Suite 200
> Redwood City, CA 94061
> How to register: just e-mail me at: docwong@aol.com
> Cost: $0.00
>
> This workshop is designed to help you make the necessary adjustments
> to your riding positions and to your bike to optimize your personal
> efficiency and comfort of riding your motorcycle in all conditions.
>
> To achieve this, I'll be covering different riding styles or positions
> on different bikes in differing conditons along with what needs to be
> changed to ergonomically fit your bike to you. Also, I'll cover the
> most common neck, back and wrist problems I see and what you can do to
> ride comfortably.
>
> Riding Positions will include optimal positions for street, sport,
> toruing, racing and dirt or dual sport riding. Which positions
> produce optimum performance and which get riders into trouble along
> with which causes the most pain and what to do about it. I'll
> demonstate on a couple of very different bikes, a sport bike and an
> upright dual sport bike. That way I can demonstrate the range of
> rding positions and the range of ergonomic adjustments you can do to
> your bike. Find out how certain riding styles and poor bike setup can
> be hazardous and how to solve them. The end result is you being more
> comfortable on your bike with less fatigue and having more fun!
>
> The ergonomics part of this workshop will cover how to adjust your
> bike to your body and style of riding. The ergonomics of different
> bike types and body types will be addressed and participants will have
> a working knowledge of what do do with their bikes
> adjustments.Optimize your bike for your riding style. Adjusting
> levers, foot controls, handlber bar placements
>
> I'll also cover exercises and stretches for you neck, back and wrists.
>
> After the talk and demonstrations, etc we'll go downstairs where
> you'll get on your bike and I'll coach you on body position and make
> suggestions on the ergonomics of your motorcycle.
>
> Ride street, ride track, ride dirt, trials.....ride.....well!
>
> Doc Wong
> Active Life Medical-Chiropractic and Natural Medicine
> 1391 Woodside Road, Ste 200, Redwood City, CA (650) 365-7775
> www.activelifemedicalcenter.com
>
> Check out the stuff on the Doc Wong (Free) Riding Clinics on my web
> site! http://www.docwong.com
>
> Note: Photos for "Doc Wong Crashes" are now on my web site.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To get the latest announcements on my Riding Clinics subscribe to the
> Doc-Ride Mail-list!
>
> Go to: http://www.micapeak.com/lists/doc-ride
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **Special acknowledgement and thanks to:
>
> Keith Code of California Superbike Schools for his help and guidence
> and support. The Doc Wong Street Riding Clinics are almost all based
> on his works. Get his books and tapes on the subject, read them and
> apply them....your riding will be much better for it!
> www.californiasuperbikeschool.com
>
> Gary Jaehne for his contributions on the Suspension clinics and in his
> book: "Sportbiking: The Real World"....great reading.
>
> Helimot Leathers: The leathers I use and consider the best!
> http://www.helimot.com
>
> Aftershocks Suspension where I take my suspension!
> http://www.aftershocks-suspension.com/pages/about.htm
>
> Repsol oils, the Moto GP oils that I now exclusively use on all my
> bikes!

On Jun 23, 2:09*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> I thought this article was interesting because I've got some riding
> comfort issues. However it's a long way from here to San Fransisco
> so I'll have to find the info some other way. Also, I wonder how he'll
> deal with bike mods. Relocating the footpegs and controls isn't trivial.
>
> SQ
>
> In article "(San Francisco Bay Area, CA) Doc Wong Motorcycle Ergonomics
> & Optimal *Riding Position Workshop-July 10 Friday Night!"
>
> DocWong wrote:
>

Please don't bring Doc's spam to reeky. It is bad enough AMS has to
deal with it.

On Jun 23, 1:09*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> I thought this article was interesting because I've got some riding
> comfort issues. However it's a long way from here to San Fransisco
> so I'll have to find the info some other way. Also, I wonder how he'll
> deal with bike mods. Relocating the footpegs and controls isn't trivial.

Hey, I'm only about 250 miles from Doc Wong's chiropractic clinic, but
I think
I wouldn't make it on the sportbike I'm riding without needing him to
fix me along the way.

Another rider, a guy about 6' 4" and 250 pounds was asking about the
ergonomics
of really small cruisers around 125cc to 250cc in the interest of high
gas mileage
so I answered his question about ergos before all the reeky buzzards
settled onto the thread.

Here it is again:

http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedi...derPosture.pdf

Here in the States, we first started seeing the
"ergonomic triangle" in magazines around 1987, when disillusioned
riders suddenly noticed that the racy sportbikes that they had
dreamed
of were gawdawful uncomfortable, compared to the standard, or
"universal Japanese motorcycles" (UJM's) that handled so badly
because
of their front-to-rear weight distribution.

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.

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

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.

Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs, make any posting
impractical. And the shape of some gastanks cause the riders foot
to slip off the peg when he tries to slide his weight forward.

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,

The cruiser rider has to adopt the "sit up and beg" posture. 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, because the footpegs
are too far forward. All the rider can do is try to pull himself up
with his arms.

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, but you might need arms like an orangutan to reach
the
handlebars.

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...

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

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

The "ergonomic triangle" is made up of the footrest height above the
pavement, the distance from the footrests to the seat itself and the
reach to the handlebars, and the relation of handlebar height to seat
height.

Some sportbikes had handlebars that were about level with the seat
height, making for a painful ride.

Ergonomic specialists also consider the step arch length criterion in
designing the seat.

This is the distance measured between the rider's two footprints
across the inner length of his legs and around the seat, taking both
the shape and the width of the seat into account.

Sportbike seats evolved to have an extremely slender waistline
exactly
where the rider sits, enabling him to easily reach the ground and
offering a very comfortable knee angle.

A comfortable seat height for an average-sized sportrider (he's
around
70~72 inches tall and weighs about 180 pounds) is around 32 to 33
inches above the ground, but shorter men require a seat height about
29.5 to 30.5 inches high.

Then there is the very important consideration of footrest height to
seat height. This should be something like 17 to 18 inches on a
standard motorcycle, where the rider's feet are under his butt.

Some sportbikes raise the footpegs up so high the knee is bent at an
uncomfortable angle, and the designers of racing leathers cut the
rear
side of the knee out and sew and area of elasticized fabric to reduce
binding to a minimum.

All of this ergonomic triangle business evolved from sportbikes being
seriously uncomfortable because their form followed their function.

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.

Then there is the inescapable issue of your own height and weight.

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo>

It was crap the first time you posted it and it's still crap.


--
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 Jun 23, 1:59*pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

> It was crap the first time you posted it and it's still crap.

So. We are once more assaulted by that sovereign of insufferables,
Neil Murray, who once again ensues with his opulence of twaddle and
his penury of sense. He mounts his keyboard and evacuates crass
vapidities from the colon of his mind, to the capital edification of
circumjacent fools, having nothing worth saying and saying it with
liberal embellishment of bad delivery and reasonless vulgaries of
attitude. There never was a poseur as hateful, a blockhead so stupid,
a crank so invariably and offensively daft. He makes me tired.

The Older Gentleman wrote:

> ¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
> It was crap the first time you posted it and it's still crap.

Well, TOG, in this posting at least Mr. Upside-Down-Question-Mark's
comments seemed to make some sense.

However if they really are crap I'm interesting in learning
the true facts of the matter (as opposed to the false facts).

SQ

On Jun 23, 6:26*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.spam@no.spam> wrote:
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > ¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snippo>
>
> > It was crap the first time you posted it and it's still crap.
>
> Well, TOG, in this posting at least Mr. Upside-Down-Question-Mark's
> comments seemed to make some sense.
>
> However if they really are crap I'm interesting in learning
> the true facts of the matter (as opposed to the false facts).

The only thing questionable was the assertion that UJMs prior to 1987
handled poorly because of improper front to rear weight distribution.
While neither the tires nor I were all that competent back then, I had
no problems making my 1984 700 Nighthawk UJM go where I pointed it.
And it was damned comfy too.

On Jun 23, 2:20*pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Please don't bring Doc's spam to reeky. *It is bad enough AMS has to
> deal with it.

Yeah! It's rather akin to cross-posting.

On Jun 23, 6:24*pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:20*pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Please don't bring Doc's spam to reeky. *It is bad enough AMS has to
> > deal with it.
>
> Yeah! *It's rather akin to cross-posting. *

Hey, I resemble that remark. Catch me if you can, I am the
gingerbread man!

On Jun 23, 4:07�pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:

> The only thing questionable was the assertion that UJMs prior to 1987
> handled poorly because of improper front to rear weight distribution.
> While neither the tires nor I were all that competent back then, I had
> no problems making my 1984 700 Nighthawk UJM go where I pointed it.
> And it was damned comfy too.

It had a 16-inch front tire, didn't it? That was the "conventional
wisdom" of chassis engineers in the mid-1980's.

I rode my friend's 1985 Nighthawk S and found it to be a lot lighter
and quicker handling than my GS-1100, even though it had more front
end rake and trail.

My friend said that his biggest fear when riding the Nighthawk was
that some
5-year old kid was going to come and demand the return his toy...

On Jun 23, 3:26�pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:

> However if they really are crap I'm interesting in learning
> the true facts of the matter (as opposed to the false facts).

Don't hold your breath waiting for Neil Murray to expound coherently
on ergonomics and handling, his forte is rhetoric and "winning"
debates where
nobody really gives a damn except the master debaters in reeky.

On Jun 23, 6:41*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 3:26 pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>


> nobody really gives a damn except the master debaters in reeky.

And yet you wrote / copied a regular dissertation. I use dissertation
loosely, it was more a series of half truths, lies and unsubstantaited
BS.

Come on, UJMs didn't handle badly because of weight ratios. To much
HP and speed combined with poor suspension and a mild steel double
cradle frame (all compared to a modern bike) made early high
performance UJMs a handful. The more moderate UJMs are still fine
bikes.

The really sad thing is that the British made some wonderful UJMs,
only the UJM killed them.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=389...,lpid,,cat,144

BryanUT wrote:

> The really sad thing is that the British made some wonderful UJMs

Did you mean "UBM's"?

SQ

Typical you C&P and act like you are so all knowing. What an
idiot...not surprising considering all the prescription shopping you
do.

Fetch bitch.

On Jun 23, 6:38*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:07 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The only thing questionable was the assertion that UJMs prior to 1987
> > handled poorly because of improper front to rear weight distribution.
> > While neither the tires nor I were all that competent back then, I had
> > no problems making my 1984 700 Nighthawk UJM go where I pointed it.
> > And it was damned comfy too.
>
> It had a 16-inch front tire, didn't it? That was the "conventional
> wisdom" of chassis engineers in the mid-1980's.
>
> I rode my friend's 1985 Nighthawk S and found it to be a lot lighter
> and quicker handling than my GS-1100, even though it had more front
> end rake and trail.

Really Gee those pigs couldn't handle with my ride on ANY road. Your
so hot bring it on bitch. I got just the road for you MT49 makes your
best road look like SHIT.

> My friend said that his biggest fear when riding the Nighthawk was
> that some
> 5-year old kid was going to come and demand the return his toy...

That's because your friend was a bear AND at 6'9" and 600lb he made it
look like a toy...how a fat bastard like that is allowed on a
motorcycle is beyond me.

Fetch bitch.

On Jun 23, 5:55*pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Come on, UJMs didn't handle badly because of weight ratios. *To much
> HP and speed combined with poor suspension and a mild steel double
> cradle frame (all compared to a modern bike) made early high
> performance UJMs a handful.

The first chassis "experts" who tried to tune the suspension of
motorcycles like the first 900 Z-1 and the KZ1000 that followed
believed that chassis flex and sloppy swing arm bushings were causing
the wild wobbles.

But the *real* experts at the factory figured out that what they
needed was a whole bunch of extra *trail* in the front end. So factory
team bikes had about 6 inches of trail instead of 3-1/2 or 4-1/4 like
the street bikes.

They didn't handle worth a shit in a parking lot, but they didn't
wobble so badly on high speed tracks.

> http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=389...nid,218,ad,666...

You could buy yourself a couple of nice used Japanese sportbike for
$8,000.

The Norton would be a short distance Sunday ride...

On Jun 23, 8:38*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:07 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The only thing questionable was the assertion that UJMs prior to 1987
> > handled poorly because of improper front to rear weight distribution.
> > While neither the tires nor I were all that competent back then, I had
> > no problems making my 1984 700 Nighthawk UJM go where I pointed it.
> > And it was damned comfy too.
>
> It had a 16-inch front tire, didn't it? That was the "conventional
> wisdom" of chassis engineers in the mid-1980's.
>
> I rode my friend's 1985 Nighthawk S and found it to be a lot lighter
> and quicker handling than my GS-1100, even though it had more front
> end rake and trail.
>
> My friend said that his biggest fear when riding the Nighthawk was
> that some
> 5-year old kid was going to come and demand the return his toy...

IOW you were full of shit, Saddlebag called you out on it, and you
have no coherent response at all. As usual.

More fucked in the head bullshit:

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

"It's not even possible to "post" on a cruiser" Horseshit.

"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."

Nonsense.

You should stick to White Supremecist racist nonsense; you're much
more convincing as a Nazi than pretending to be someone who knows
anything about motorcycles.

On Jun 23, 8:01*pm, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 5:55*pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Come on, UJMs didn't handle badly because of weight ratios. *To much
> > HP and speed combined with poor suspension and a mild steel double
> > cradle frame (all compared to a modern bike) made early high
> > performance UJMs a handful.
>
> The first chassis "experts" who tried to tune the suspension of
> motorcycles like the first 900 Z-1 and the KZ1000 that followed
> believed that chassis flex and sloppy swing arm bushings were causing
> the wild wobbles.
>
> But the *real* experts at the factory figured out that what they
> needed was a whole bunch of extra *trail* in the front end. So factory
> team bikes had about 6 inches of trail instead of 3-1/2 or 4-1/4 like
> the street bikes.

Funny thing there nimrod...both "geniuses" were whacked in teh head.
Just like you, I know WHAT the problem was and it wasn't suspension
and it wasn't the trail. But you aren't smart enough to figure out
something a KID figured out back then.

> They didn't handle worth a shit in a parking lot, but they didn't
> wobble so badly on high speed tracks.
>
> *>http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=389...nid,218,ad,666...
>
> You could buy yourself a couple of nice used Japanese sportbike for
> $8,000.
>
> The Norton would be a short distance Sunday ride...

Shows what a inexperienced lying sack of ignorance like you knows. A
norton is good for any touring, racing or scramble. It's all in the
setup.

Now fecth you ignorant cunt.

saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 6:26 pm, Sean_Q_ <no.spam@no.spam> wrote:
> > The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > > ¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <snippo>
> >
> > > It was crap the first time you posted it and it's still crap.
> >
> > Well, TOG, in this posting at least Mr. Upside-Down-Question-Mark's
> > comments seemed to make some sense.
> >
> > However if they really are crap I'm interesting in learning
> > the true facts of the matter (as opposed to the false facts).
>
> The only thing questionable was the assertion that UJMs prior to 1987
> handled poorly because of improper front to rear weight distribution.
> While neither the tires nor I were all that competent back then, I had
> no problems making my 1984 700 Nighthawk UJM go where I pointed it.
> And it was damned comfy too.

And the assertion that clip-on handlebars are uncomfortable (it depends
on where the pegs and seat are located)

And that having forward-mounted footrests is a good thing.

And that 'posting' is impractical on moern sports bikes. Ever watched
racers? they hardly *ever* sit in the seat. They manage it fine.

And that having handlebarss level with the seat height makes for
discomfort. It varies. look at old BMW boxers - generally superbly
comfortable and with narrow flat or low bars.

And that sports bike seats 'evolved to have a slender waistline...'.
This is such a generalisation it's laughable.

And that sports bikes are seriously uncomfortable. Some are, some
aren't. He's never ridden any, so what does he know.

Oh, there's some truth in there somewhere (a lot of cruisers are
uncomfortable, yes), but that's always his way. Chuck in some facts and
add bullshit, hoping the credulous lap it all up.




--
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

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:

> It had a 16-inch front tire, didn't it? That was the "conventional
> wisdom" of chassis engineers in the mid-1980's.

Here we go again. No, it wasn't. It was a very short-lived Japanese fad,
and confined almost entirely to Japanese engineers.

>rode my friend's 1985 Nighthawk S and found it to be a lot lighter
> and quicker handling than my GS-1100, even though it had more front
> end rake and trail.

Here we go again. The world has moved on since your horrible old GS.



--
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

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 5:55 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Come on, UJMs didn't handle badly because of weight ratios. To much
> > HP and speed combined with poor suspension and a mild steel double
> > cradle frame (all compared to a modern bike) made early high
> > performance UJMs a handful.
>
> The first chassis "experts" who tried to tune the suspension of
> motorcycles like the first 900 Z-1 and the KZ1000 that followed
> believed that chassis flex and sloppy swing arm bushings were causing
> the wild wobbles.
>
And they were right. Partially. The whole chassis was defective. And
badly supported swigning arms and headstocks and plastic swinging arm
bushes were not ideal.

> But the *real* experts at the factory figured out that what they
> needed was a whole bunch of extra *trail* in the front end. So factory
> team bikes had about 6 inches of trail instead of 3-1/2 or 4-1/4 like
> the street bikes.

And thery were right. Partially. It improved straightline stability, but
make anything with a wheelbase the length of a bus and it'll track
straight.

Jesus, have you *ever* wondered why modern bikes have short wheelbases
and don't wobble?



--
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

¿ <macmiled@gmail.com> wrote:

> nobody really gives a damn

Ah, the siren call of the man who knows he's posted horseshit.


--
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 Jun 23, 9:10*pm, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> More fucked in the head bullshit

So. We are once more assaulted by Tim Morrow, understudy of the
insufferable
Neil Murray.

Tim also fouls whatever newsgroup he infests with his opulence of
twaddle and
his penury of sense. He mounts his keyboard and evacuates crass
vapidities from the colon of his mind, to the capital edification of
circumjacent fools, having nothing worth saying and saying it with
liberal embellishment of bad delivery and reasonless vulgaries of
attitude.

Few poseurs are as hateful, few blockheads so stupid,
and cranks so invariably and offensively daft.

Tim Morrow makes me tired.

On Jun 23, 11:17*pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

> Ah, the siren call of the man who knows he's posted horseshit.

So. We are once more assaulted by that sovereign of insufferables,
Neil Murray, who once again ensues with his opulence of twaddle and
his penury of sense. He mounts his keyboard and evacuates crass
vapidities from the colon of his mind, to the capital edification of
circumjacent fools, having nothing worth saying and saying it with
liberal embellishment of bad delivery and reasonless vulgaries of
attitude. There never was a poseur as hateful, a blockhead so stupid,
a crank so invariably and offensively daft. He makes me tired.

On 24 June, 14:26, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:17*pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>
> Gentleman) wrote:
> > Ah, the siren call of the man who knows he's posted horseshit.
>
> So.

<Snip the usual luser's whine>

So back up what you've posted, with examples. You can't, can you?

On Jun 24, 9:24*am, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:10*pm, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > More fucked in the head bullshit
>
> So. We are once more assaulted by Tim Morrow, understudy of the
> insufferable
> Neil Murray.
>
> Tim also fouls whatever newsgroup he infests with his opulence of
> twaddle and
> his penury of sense. He mounts his keyboard and evacuates crass
> vapidities from the colon of his mind, to the capital edification of
> circumjacent fools, having nothing worth saying and saying it with
> liberal embellishment of bad delivery and reasonless vulgaries of
> attitude.
>
> Few poseurs are as hateful, few blockheads so stupid,
> and cranks so invariably and offensively daft.
>
> Tim Morrow makes me tired.

IOW, you have no actual defense of your indefensible bullshit
assertions, as usual. You don't make me tired, you doddering old
fool; you make me laugh!

Here's another one: "Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs,
make any posting impractical."

I rode my 2000 Ducati 750SS with CFM rearsets and clip-ons below the
level of the seat ... to work today. It has a more radical racetrack
riding position than my buddy's Ducati 996SPS, in fact it has a more
radical racetrack oriented riding position than any racebike I've ever
raced. I remember the motorcycle magazines making a big deal about
Ducati narrowing the focus of their supersport bikes and making them
more radical in riding position than their superbikes when they
updated the SS line in 1999.

So, I remembered on my way in that you had made the above ridiculous
claim. I'm 51 years old, and I posted with EASE (not to mention grace
and style) on that bike, when ever and where ever I wanted to, on the
way into work this morning.

You should try engaging your brain before you spew more such nonsense
out in your posts to this group.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:20:00 -0700 (PDT), BryanUT
<nestle12@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 2:09*pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:

>> In article "(San Francisco Bay Area, CA) Doc Wong Motorcycle Ergonomics
>> & Optimal *Riding Position Workshop-July 10 Friday Night!"
>>
>Please don't bring Doc's spam to reeky. It is bad enough AMS has to
>deal with it.

I've heard about Doc Wong for years. I always thought his stuff was
cool, but I didn't know much about him other than he had seminars and
led rides. I thought he was respected in the bay area.

Then I looked at his webpage. He's a chiropractor and a Scientologist?
uh oh. It looks like he may be just another strange ego on the loose.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

Tim wrote:

> Here's another one: "Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs,
> make any posting impractical."

[snip]

> So, I remembered on my way in that you had made the above ridiculous
> claim. I'm 51 years old, and I posted with EASE (not to mention grace
> and style) on that bike, when ever and where ever I wanted to, on the
> way into work this morning.

Sorry, could someone explain to an iggerant newbie what "posting" means
in the context of riding a bike? I assume you're not talking about
posting to Usenet while riding but stranger things have happened.

On 24 June, 16:25, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 9:24*am, ¿ <macmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:10*pm, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > More fucked in the head bullshit
>
> > So. We are once more assaulted by Tim Morrow, understudy of the
> > insufferable
> > Neil Murray.
>
> > Tim also fouls whatever newsgroup he infests with his opulence of
> > twaddle and
> > his penury of sense. He mounts his keyboard and evacuates crass
> > vapidities from the colon of his mind, to the capital edification of
> > circumjacent fools, having nothing worth saying and saying it with
> > liberal embellishment of bad delivery and reasonless vulgaries of
> > attitude.
>
> > Few poseurs are as hateful, few blockheads so stupid,
> > and cranks so invariably and offensively daft.
>
> > Tim Morrow makes me tired.
>
> IOW, you have no actual defense of your indefensible bullshit
> assertions, as usual. *You don't make me tired, you doddering old
> fool; you make me laugh!
>
> Here's another one: *"Some sportbikes, with their rearset footpegs,
> make any posting impractical."
>
> I rode my 2000 Ducati 750SS with CFM rearsets and clip-ons below the
> level of the seat ... to work today. *It has a more radical racetrack
> riding position than my buddy's Ducati 996SPS, in fact it has a more
> radical racetrack oriented riding position than any racebike I've ever
> raced. *I remember the motorcycle magazines making a big deal about
> Ducati narrowing the focus of their supersport bikes and making them
> more radical in riding position than their superbikes when they
> updated the SS line in 1999.

I know, I know. He does spout crap.

My 750SS is a pre-FI model, as I'm sure you know, and it's
extraordinarily comfortable. I'll admit it: it's the last thing I
expected. I've done over 550 miles in a day on it and remained compos
mentis. That said, a friend's 748 was crippling. It all depends on the
bar/seat/peg arrangement, so the racist fool has got one thing right
when he talks about ergonomics.

Trouble is, he thinks that all sports bikes are hideously
uncomfortable, because his only frames of reference are shitty old
prehistoric Suzukis and some antique Yamaha.

Mark Olson wrote:

> Sorry, could someone explain to an iggerant newbie what "posting" means
> in the context of riding a bike? I assume you're not talking about
> posting to Usenet while riding but stranger things have happened.

In horseback riding terms, "posting the trot" is standing or raising
your butt off the saddle every other stride when the horse is trotting.
I didn't read the original post, but I'm guessing that it's something
like that. Gettin' your butt off the seat.