When was it that 750's became "too small"?
To be honest I don't think the 600-750 is small. I think what has happened is mainly horespower and torque. We have more traffic and traffic moves at a much higher average speed on main roads. While you can keep up on the smaller bike the problem you run into is that if you need to get out of the way quickly or try to move past a trouble spot it takes more time with the smaller bikes.
Now I say this from personal expierence. I had owned a 500 vulcan and recently moved up to an 1100 vstar. While around town the vulcan was more than adequate once I was on main roads or highways I really felt uncomfortable on the vulcan. Mainly because it took longer to get the bike wound up and moving. If I needed to mover around a vehicle or pull away from one I really had to gas it. With the 1100 it responds and accelerated much quicker which I have been grateful for on a few occassions.
Just to be clear I am not goosing it at red lights or between vehicles or anything like that. I'm talking when I am stuck behind a cager who is barely keeping up with traffic and is pinning me between a bunch of cages or when I run into a line of semis. Its just not a real good feeling to be trying to move away from a bad situation and having the bike feel like its straining. I am sure everyone has had that happen at least once.
Now I say this from personal expierence. I had owned a 500 vulcan and recently moved up to an 1100 vstar. While around town the vulcan was more than adequate once I was on main roads or highways I really felt uncomfortable on the vulcan. Mainly because it took longer to get the bike wound up and moving. If I needed to mover around a vehicle or pull away from one I really had to gas it. With the 1100 it responds and accelerated much quicker which I have been grateful for on a few occassions.
Just to be clear I am not goosing it at red lights or between vehicles or anything like that. I'm talking when I am stuck behind a cager who is barely keeping up with traffic and is pinning me between a bunch of cages or when I run into a line of semis. Its just not a real good feeling to be trying to move away from a bad situation and having the bike feel like its straining. I am sure everyone has had that happen at least once.
The vulcan 500 produces its max torque at over 5500 rpms. It has a sportbike engine and it needs to be wound up to high rpms to get maximum push. Your 1100 probably gets its torque at lower rpms like a traditional cruiser. Without going into enough details to get chastised on here, I've had it wound up to around 8k and when keeping it above 6k rpm in all gears it flies.
"There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true."
- Sir Winston Churchill
06 Kawasaki Vulcan 500 Ltd.
- Sir Winston Churchill
06 Kawasaki Vulcan 500 Ltd.
Your correct imp. As a matter of personal preference I prefer to simply cruise and take it nice and easy. With the 1100 I find it is easier to do. Again as a matter of personal preference I prefer a more immediate throttle response. Also the 500 is somewhat limited as far as mods and accessories go. While I am sure they are out there they are harder to find.
Also as I mentioned in my previous post when on the highway for example or a fast main road I get nervous having to wind the bike up that much with cagers cramming around me. But like anything its a matter of personal preference so no offense meant have a good ride.
Also as I mentioned in my previous post when on the highway for example or a fast main road I get nervous having to wind the bike up that much with cagers cramming around me. But like anything its a matter of personal preference so no offense meant have a good ride.
Personally I think the Vulcan 500 was made as a diabolical plot to convert newbie cruiser fans into sport bike riders...but that's off topic.
On the displacement issue, there's been plenty of times when I've noticed my 500's speedo indicating 95-100 mph to keep people from gating me in the fast lane (When I lived in central Florida, 120 mph in my car was sometimes not enough). So the occasional need for a high top end is definately present. As is the ability to get from 50 to 80 so you can merge with the fast lane. Certainly 500cc's can do it well enough, if not as well as some larger machines.
But as for the monstrosities that threaten to scrape their 'floorboard' thingies when leaning on their kickstands? Well at first one would think that it's about boasting how much you've spent on your machine, but if that were the case, bmw's and goldwings would be more popular. They can't be about carving up the corners of ANY road. They aren't usually particularly fast bikes. Their weight gives assurance that they don't stop all that well. What else is there?
They look thick and powerful. They sound very powerful (you can often literally feel them running from a distance). They lurch forward rapidly at the twist of the throttle, with little regard for what gear they're in. To look at them it's hard to tell if they were made in 2005 or 1905, so they have a timeless quality about them. Most are artfully styled and painted to be beautiful in one way or another. These impractical behemoths, therefore, are icons, or projections of power and ideals. And projecting a sense of power, is something they do very well.
The bottom line is, if you think of a motorcycle as a means of cheap rapid transit, then you have to scoff at the big slow incapable cruisers. If you think of a motorcycle as a timeless powerful mount that scares small children and sets off car alarms while boldy anouncing your presence...Then sport bikes and sport standards must appear to be weasely little sissy peds, that have to be fast to run away from everyone.
Which is wrong or right is a matter of perception, but I think both sides have a few screws loose, or they wouldn't be riding motorcycles in the first place
On the displacement issue, there's been plenty of times when I've noticed my 500's speedo indicating 95-100 mph to keep people from gating me in the fast lane (When I lived in central Florida, 120 mph in my car was sometimes not enough). So the occasional need for a high top end is definately present. As is the ability to get from 50 to 80 so you can merge with the fast lane. Certainly 500cc's can do it well enough, if not as well as some larger machines.
But as for the monstrosities that threaten to scrape their 'floorboard' thingies when leaning on their kickstands? Well at first one would think that it's about boasting how much you've spent on your machine, but if that were the case, bmw's and goldwings would be more popular. They can't be about carving up the corners of ANY road. They aren't usually particularly fast bikes. Their weight gives assurance that they don't stop all that well. What else is there?
They look thick and powerful. They sound very powerful (you can often literally feel them running from a distance). They lurch forward rapidly at the twist of the throttle, with little regard for what gear they're in. To look at them it's hard to tell if they were made in 2005 or 1905, so they have a timeless quality about them. Most are artfully styled and painted to be beautiful in one way or another. These impractical behemoths, therefore, are icons, or projections of power and ideals. And projecting a sense of power, is something they do very well.
The bottom line is, if you think of a motorcycle as a means of cheap rapid transit, then you have to scoff at the big slow incapable cruisers. If you think of a motorcycle as a timeless powerful mount that scares small children and sets off car alarms while boldy anouncing your presence...Then sport bikes and sport standards must appear to be weasely little sissy peds, that have to be fast to run away from everyone.
Which is wrong or right is a matter of perception, but I think both sides have a few screws loose, or they wouldn't be riding motorcycles in the first place
I ride a 1200cc bike to work and a 110cc bike at work. Neither is any harder to manouver or park than the other.-Holiday wrote: As far as the CC debate, bigger is by far not always better. I've much rather ride one of the lighter, lower cc bikes around the city. Much easier to move around in traffic, park, etc etc. 1200cc is by far overkill for city traffic and just doesnt make sense.
Engine size is irrelevant in this instance as it has to do with bike size and style.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/mintbread1/header.gif[/img]
-
Gummiente
- Site Supporter - Platinum
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 11:34 pm
- Real Name: Mike
- Sex: Male
- Years Riding: 38
- My Motorcycle: 03 Super Glide
- Location: Kingston, ON
I think you need to take a recent BMW - any model - and a new Gold Wing out for a run. You would not BELIEVE what they are capable of these days.usamare wrote:but if that were the case, bmw's and goldwings would be more popular. They can't be about carving up the corners of ANY road. They aren't usually particularly fast bikes. Their weight gives assurance that they don't stop all that well.
Mike 
It isn't WHAT you ride,
It's THAT you ride