Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.cycle Subject: Re: first bike? Message-ID: <1241@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 14:05:50 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1241 Posted: Fri Nov 1 14:05:50 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 04:57:17 EST References: <2922@sun.uucp> <1221@ihuxn.UUCP> <851@ihlpa.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 65 -- [Dan Starr] > Comment: Huh? The TWINSTAR?? Is this the same bike that made Cycle > magazine's "Ten worst of the decade" list? That has been described in > the press as a "bottom feeder" and "a toy not to be taken seriously"? > The bke that requires a special steering technique if the rider's taller > than 5'2" (swing your knees way out, so the handlebars don't run into them > on turns...)? I have to wonder if Mr. Perlow is recommending this little > pile in the hopes of inflicting upon others the same pain the bike has > inflicted upon him (those of you who were tuned in last year may recall > that he was complaining that the vibration through the handlebars had > caused an apparently permanent numbness in his hands...)... I wasn't aware that the Twinstar's rep was so bad--I haven't had any problems with mine, though I am always careful to keep it well tuned. (Which is an absolute snap with only one carburetor.) My motivation was entirely altruistic, Dan. If people *don't* buy 'em, I'll be able to get another one even cheaper (for parts--it is flimsily made, and I don't expect it'll last more than a few years without some internal attention.) He may also be right about the fit if you're tall. I'm 5'7", and it fits me perfectly--I'm comfy for an entire three hour ride. As for the vibration problem, Dan did not mention that I had removed the stock bars and put on shorter scrambling ones. What I finally did was to fill said new bars with lead shot. Problem solved. I have no illusions about the Twinstar being a good bike. It's not. If I have any serious failure on the highway, I'll just pull off the plate, push it off to the side, wave goodbye to it and hitch the rest of the way. It was that cheap. But that's why I consider it OK as a first bike. It's very rare that you luck out the first time and get what you really want or need. That's just a personal philosophy--start out with something you'll be able to throw away when you finally figure out what you should have gotten. And your first bike will take a *LOT* of punishment. That's also why I suggested buying a used bike, even though the previous user(s) may have tortured it unmercifully. (Chances are, if it's still running OK, it's got a few more good seasons left.) Dan makes a good counter-argument for buying new, though. The idea is to ride and enjoy the machine, not walk while you fret over the next repair bill. If you're not inclined to do your own maintenance, by all means, buy a new bike--and one with a good reputation for staying out of the shop. If you see doing your own maintenance as part of the whole MC gestalt, you'll want one of the older bikes-- something you can actually tear apart without "special tool ACD-354J" and with individual parts (the new ones have a lot of unalterable factory-assembled modules) and with a tunable ignition system. I won't argue with Dan, even though he rides a Harley. (H-D seems to be cleaning up their act--they used to wind up at the bottom of all the heavy cruiser ratings, but not recently). Dan's been touring for a long time and knows his stuff. I, on the other hand, am one of those nuts who rides around all winter (but never too far--on the other hand, at -10F everywhere is too far), even here in Chicago. As I did in Wisconsin, on my 1966 Honda S90. Now *there* was a bike. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 01 Nov 85 [11 Brumaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***