so you will be reading it tomorrow then ????Felix wrote:.....All the rest will have to wait for a day which doesn't end in "y" for me to read it ....



so you will be reading it tomorrow then ????Felix wrote:.....All the rest will have to wait for a day which doesn't end in "y" for me to read it ....
Yes, "tomorrow"Gosling1 wrote: so you will be reading it tomorrow then ????
![]()
![]()
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S FUGGIN MADE FOR! That is its purpose in life, its reason for existence. It is cool and sexy because it is a tool focused on getting from point A to point B in minimum time and it does the job well. If you buy it because of this coolness and then ride it badly and inappropriately, you are a poser feeding off the bikes reputation. Lame. Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone with a sportbike should fang it everywhere on the roads, but riding slower should be a choice. For a shit rider, using the bike properly isn't even an option, so there's no choice. And of course the bike should be taken to the track too. You don't keep greyhounds as lap dogs at a retirement home.ozten wrote:Why is it people seem to think that if you own a ten you have to ride it like your valentino. You dont have to ride it flat out whereever you go, Kristy obviously wants one cause she thinks it is one sexy bike, if she is smart enough not to try and pretend to be the fastest rider in the world i say good on ya, i fully support it and with the outstanding brakes and linear power delivery i dont think it will be dangerous at all.
You just keep telling yourself that... when you come up with a more plausible explanation for how you, with that whole month of riding under your belt, can bring yourself to talk about how "individualistic" bikes are and do on, it'd be good to hear it.Kristy wrote:Believe me I-K, none of the chips you have tried so hard to impose, have stuck to my shoulders.So, these forums don't get know-nothing n00bs with chips on their shoulders bringing an attitude when they misinterpret the responses they receive?
That's probably as close to the perfect encapsulation of the question at hand as I've ever seen expressed.MiG wrote:...riding slower should be a choice.
This description fits a hell of a lot of bikers out there !!!MiG wrote:...... but I'm very disappointed by the number of shit riders on really fast bikes.....
I feel a bidding war at fowles coming on....... I need a new track bike too!SnypR wrote:Kristy wrote:Hey guys, after watching the performance of the Kawasakis at the GP I've decided to forget the 10...think I'll get a Fireblade!
damn, l was looking for a cheap ZX10R for a track bike, but l guess a fireblade will do.
Wow, can't believe this thread is still going!Saki wrote:Oh a stock supra will do it.. LOL haha your right tho gos, and thats the point i am trying to make, a modern 600 like the 636 is just as capable as a 12r and 12 is almost twice the size bike!Gosling1 wrote:One thing to consider here is the Law of Diminishing Returns, when you aim for really high top speeds. The additional horsepower required to get that extra 40kmh, at those speeds, is way more than you would expect. Each additional 10kmh requires much more than just an additional 10hp...(using the 1:1 hp/weight ratio as an example) , and at those speeds, the quality of the aerodynamics start to make all the difference as well.....Saki wrote:.....My 636 i had it upto 270kp/h. My 636 u could basically say is 50% the literage of the zx12r and yet i was only going 40kp/h slower. Plus wats more my 636 was stock. this 12r wasn't .....
I wonder how many HP that Supra had to crack 330kmh ??
I think its that car film called detonate, i can't remeber exactly, but the supra had HEAPS of work, where as the 12 had few bits and peices! but deerrrrr anyone could tell u that!![]()
![]()
I have to agree with mmaster, i love a good flaming! on another note i might get a kebab for tea!
So what you're trying to say is you have no evidence to support your view.I-K wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of "prerequisite knowledge"? Your Mrs is a teacher. She can explain it to you if necessary...ross79 wrote:stating that my suggestions are technically incorrect, yet I see no evidence to support your view.
This particular mate didn't want to go through the hasle of buying a 600 getting sick of it than wasting money when it comes to sell and upgrade. Otherwise I would have suggested a heavier 600ross79 wrote:What's to say yours are any better?I-K wrote: I don't go around telling people they should think about 250kg/135hp sportstourers as solutions to the issues they're having handling their 130kg/30hp 250's.
As I've mentioned previously, (maybe I need to type slower so you can understand). I just made a suggestion, you seem convinced I'm brainwashing everyone into getting bigger bikes.ross79 wrote:Not everyone wants to ride like Rossi, they're just happy to take things at their own pace on a bike they want. Whether that's a 250 or 1250 so be it.I-K wrote: That statement is at odds with someone who makes a habit of putting ideas into people's heads about what bike they should ride...
all hail Yak fat! best discovery ever!Glen wrote:Yup still going. Da de da de dum de da.................... I think I know what will fix it though........ Yak fat (the answer to everything)
What is Yak Fat I hear you all say.........Wattie wrote:all hail Yak fat! best discovery ever!Glen wrote:Yup still going. Da de da de dum de da.................... I think I know what will fix it though........ Yak fat (the answer to everything)