Wilsons Sandbox

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:17 am**

First of all, thank you very much to everyone who replied to my earlier post. Today I got a chance to test both of these bikes. I rode them only in residential areas, less than 35 mph and no higher than 3rd gear. The experience leads me to a specific question at the end of this post. Here are my impressions: -Throttle in first gear on the KLR seems less continuous than on the FZ6. On the KLR I'd try to go slow in first gear, then I'd try to increase the throttle a little bit and I would always get a sudden jerk. I noticed this happening on 1st gear on the dual sport (yamaha XT) that I rode in the MSF class too. With both of those dualsports the throttle seems to roll on smoother in higher gears. This may be just because I am new and lack precise throttle control, but for some reason it felt much smoother on the FZ6 (I did try the FZ6 after the KLR, so maybe I was just better at it by then). -the KLR650 is extremely comfortable in terms of ergonomics, the FZ6 seemed a bit less comfortable (basically just the seat), but not that bad. -KLR650 seemed to vibrate much more, making the mirrors shake and hard to use. I've seen comments about this in this forum so I expected it, but not to that degree and not at such low speeds. It seems like there is no speed (0-35) on the KLR that is more smooth than any speed I tried (0-35) on the FZ6. -Maybe it is because I was sort of expecting this, but the FZ6 felt more fun to drive, I think partially because it gave more of a sense of speed. On the KLR when I got to around 35mph I wasn't really nervous. I didn't seem to be going that fast. On the FZ6 I would think I was going 40mph and look down and the speedometer said 25. Maybe because the ride is lower to the ground? Whatever it was, it felt a lot less like a bicycle and I must admit the knowledge that I COULD open up the throttle and unleash all sorts of scary power if I wanted to (which I didn't, and don't plan to for a while) was exciting. Even if I never use that power, just the knowledge that it is there seems to add to the enjoyment of the ride for me. ...However, I take the comments that the FZ6 can get me into trouble seriously. Supposedly it delivers 84 horsepower to the rear wheel and has a 140mph top speed. The thing is though, I felt completely in control of the FZ6 when testing it so it is hard to resist the belief that I could always do that. (Something giving a false sense of security could be that the FZ6 engine is designed to have its power at high RPM, and I was riding at fairly low RPM) On the one hand, I think I should just listen to the advice of those that say the FZ6 is too powerful since I realize I really know very little about motorcycling. On the other, the sense of power and smoothness that the FZ6 gave seems almost too nice for me to deny myself for a year or more (UNLESS... see question below). I suppose I could always compromise by looking into the vstrom DL650, or a underpowered sportbike like the GS500F (but I am 6'3 so I think my options are somewhat limited). I neglected to mention in my other post that my ultimate goal in motorcycling is to get to the point where I can handle a high- performance sport bike. In my earlier thread people mentioned the benefits of learning on dirt (getting comfortable with the limits of your traction, etc), but here is my question which I think is determinative of whether I get a KLR: Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to practice)? Thanks again, Elliot

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:54 am**

if my ultime goal is 100% on-

> road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to > practice)? > > Thanks again, > Elliot >

Elliot, Have you considered trying the SV 650 Suzy or the new 650 Kawasaki twin? For your hieght U may do well to try to get a ride or at least sit on a DL650 also. That thing has better ergos than my R1150GSA. Legs are not as nearly cramped up. As for the twicty throttle response on the KLR, probably richening the mixture screw a bit and practice will eliminate that. I have a fried that put a 16 tooth front sprocket on his old KLR because he wanted more spread on first gear. Something you may have to play with. Andy in Jennings, La.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:00 am**

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, symme7ry wrote:

> Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt > (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the > benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar > with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- > road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to > practice)?

Sounds like you know what you want and it is *not* a KLR. Some here will be saddened by that, but it is your life. As long as you continue with the slow reasoned and controlled approach that you are showing here, I think you can be very happy with whatever you get. You could also die on it, but that will be true no matter what bike you get. As long as you remember that motorcycling will *always* be more dangerous then "cage" driving, you should be ok. I don't like sport bikes and *I* tend to be more dangerous on them since I am pulled in by the power. Make sure you are not like me. If I get something other then my KLR650 it will be a V-Strom650. You may not be like me. Oh, and to your question. Dirt is fine for what it teaches, but there are plenty of people who do wonderful things on motorcycles and never see any dirt. There are sport bike classes that can teach you exactly what you are wanting and they will teach it on sport bikes. Follow your heart. -- Doug Herr doug@...

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:18 am**

The differences you describe between the bikes are exactly what you would expect from a big old single vs. and turbine smooth UJM 4 cylinder, they are characteristic of each layout. It does not sound like the KLR is what you are looking for, as a starter bike I don't feel you can beat the Suzuki SV650 but that is just my opinion, the Wee Strom would probably be better for you, ergonomically. I'm not a huge fan of the race reps. too specialized for the riding I do but for a starter bike some of the tuned for torque naked street bikes are good to learn on, the ZRX1100 is an excellent bike, I used mine for daily commutes, two up dairy queen trips and an Iron Butt ride but as in all things you pays your money and makes your choice. Good luck with whatever you decide. Andy

----- Original Message ----- From: "symme7ry" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:17 AM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] thoughts after test-rides, FZ6 and KLR650 > > First of all, thank you very much to everyone who replied to my > earlier post. > > Today I got a chance to test both of these bikes. I rode them only > in residential areas, less than 35 mph and no higher than 3rd gear. > The experience leads me to a specific question at the end of this > post. Here are my impressions: > > -Throttle in first gear on the KLR seems less continuous than on the > FZ6. On the KLR I'd try to go slow in first gear, then I'd try to > increase the throttle a little bit and I would always get a sudden > jerk. I noticed this happening on 1st gear on the dual sport (yamaha > XT) that I rode in the MSF class too. With both of those dualsports > the throttle seems to roll on smoother in higher gears. This may be > just because I am new and lack precise throttle control, but for > some reason it felt much smoother on the FZ6 (I did try the FZ6 > after the KLR, so maybe I was just better at it by then). > > -the KLR650 is extremely comfortable in terms of ergonomics, the FZ6 > seemed a bit less comfortable (basically just the seat), but not > that bad. > > -KLR650 seemed to vibrate much more, making the mirrors shake and > hard to use. I've seen comments about this in this forum so I > expected it, but not to that degree and not at such low speeds. It > seems like there is no speed (0-35) on the KLR that is more smooth > than any speed I tried (0-35) on the FZ6. > > -Maybe it is because I was sort of expecting this, but the FZ6 felt > more fun to drive, I think partially because it gave more of a sense > of speed. On the KLR when I got to around 35mph I wasn't really > nervous. I didn't seem to be going that fast. On the FZ6 I would > think I was going 40mph and look down and the speedometer said 25. > Maybe because the ride is lower to the ground? Whatever it was, it > felt a lot less like a bicycle and I must admit the knowledge that I > COULD open up the throttle and unleash all sorts of scary power if I > wanted to (which I didn't, and don't plan to for a while) was > exciting. Even if I never use that power, just the knowledge that it > is there seems to add to the enjoyment of the ride for me. > > > ...However, I take the comments that the FZ6 can get me into trouble > seriously. Supposedly it delivers 84 horsepower to the rear wheel > and has a 140mph top speed. The thing is though, I felt completely > in control of the FZ6 when testing it so it is hard to resist the > belief that I could always do that. (Something giving a false sense > of security could be that the FZ6 engine is designed to have its > power at high RPM, and I was riding at fairly low RPM) > > On the one hand, I think I should just listen to the advice of those > that say the FZ6 is too powerful since I realize I really know very > little about motorcycling. > > On the other, the sense of power and smoothness that the FZ6 gave > seems almost too nice for me to deny myself for a year or more > (UNLESS... see question below). > > I suppose I could always compromise by looking into the vstrom > DL650, or a underpowered sportbike like the GS500F (but I am 6'3 so > I think my options are somewhat limited). > > I neglected to mention in my other post that my ultimate goal in > motorcycling is to get to the point where I can handle a high- > performance sport bike. In my earlier thread people mentioned the > benefits of learning on dirt (getting comfortable with the limits of > your traction, etc), but here is my question which I think is > determinative of whether I get a KLR: > > Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt > (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the > benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar > with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- > road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to > practice)? > > Thanks again, > Elliot > > > > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:20 am**

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "symme7ry" wrote:

>

Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to practice)?

>

--- I know that I would have been a better street rider sooner if I had learned on dirt first, and also if I had learned on a lower-powered bike. That said, there are lower powered sport-oriented bikes that I think are good starter bikes, such as Kawasaki's EX250 and EX500, or Suzuki's GS500, with the exception that they are faired which makes repairs more expensive after drops. I ride a Suzuki SV650, and Kawasaki just came out with a similar 650 as someone previously mentioned. I think it would be better to go lower power than that to start off, but I've heard others say differently. I dropped my SV650 when I was learning to ride on the street. It was actually the unfamiliarity with the engine braking power of a twin at low speed that led to me breaking loose the rear tire in a turn. I lost track of which gear I was downshifting into, thinking I was a gear higher, and shouldn't have been downshifting in a turn anyway. It's often a combination of errors that gets one into trouble when learning. Highsided at about 25mph into cross traffic. Not fun. In terms of your long-term plans, it's this statement that I would think about: "my ultime goal is 100% on-road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks..." The problem is that today's sportbikes are extremely powerful. I ride a ZZR1200, which is actually a sport tourer, about 135 horsepower, so I know the appeal of power. But where can you ride them to their designed potential legally? Where can you do it safely? I see an awful lot of people riding irresponsibly on the street. I'll bet they are not as mature as you sound, but I've also seen people influenced by their riding buddies, or other factors, and it only takes once to seriously injure yourself or someone else. It also doesn't take many tickets to price a young fellow out of the insurance market. The track is actually the BEST, and in my opinion the only place to exercise the capabilities of today's sport bikes, so I would suggest that you reconsider your long term goal in that regards. As you intimated in your post-test report, it's actually more fun to ride a lower-powered bike at lower speeds, than a higher-powered bike at low speeds. If you're going to ride responsibly on the street, staying within reasonable speeds, you may well find that a lower powered sport bike is more fun than a higher-powered bike that is mismatched to the conditions (over-powered). This seems to be better understood outside the U.S., as the number of sport bikes in the 350-500cc range are far more plentiful in Europe. Some of that probably has to do with tiered-licensing and higher-cost fuel, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with more familiarity with lower-powered bikes and a lack of "bigger is always better" attitude. If you have been forced to ride smaller displacement bikes by tiered- licensing then, by default, you know how much fun they can be. If you start with a high-powered 600cc supersport bike, as is so often the case here in the States, you tend to look down on smaller displacement without really having any personal experience with them. I'm generalizing of course. But it is interesting how many knowledgable riders keep small and mid-displacement bikes in their stable even after they are legally, financially, and technically able to ride anything they want. There's a reason for that, and it's because they are so frickin' fun to ride and so appropriate for the street conditions in which most of us do the majority of our riding. Have you considered a Supermoto? Suzuki makes a production one based on their 400cc dualsport, and I think you're going to see a lot more manufacturers starting to build them. Plus you could always convert a dual sport to supermoto yourself. That way you could ride a little dirt while learning, and later have a street-oriented bike that absolutely excels at legal speeds. Tons of fun. Just my thoughts. Randy

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:14 am**

I generally remain a silent member of this group but I can not help but chime in my opinion here. It really sounds like your overall goal is to get proficient enough to ride a sportbike style motorcycle. For this reason, I would strongly suggest getting a small version of this style of bike. I have ridden a few sportbikes but I am not familiar with the different models out there. By getting a smaller, basic version (600cc to 750cc) you will get to experience the riding style offered by the sportbikes and still have the opportunity to "grow" if you decide to stick with riding. After all, there is the possibility that you start riding and decide that it is not for you. Get enrolled in a motorcycle safety class. They will provide excellent tips and training, even if you have some experience on bikes. Respect the power that it has, as you should any bike. Take time to learn its capabilities---as well as yours before pushing the limits. Finally, get out there and ride. Regardless of the machine we choose, we all are part of the same family of enthusiasts.

----- Original Message ----- From: "symme7ry" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:17 AM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] thoughts after test-rides, FZ6 and KLR650 > > First of all, thank you very much to everyone who replied to my > earlier post. > > Today I got a chance to test both of these bikes. I rode them only > in residential areas, less than 35 mph and no higher than 3rd gear. > The experience leads me to a specific question at the end of this > post. Here are my impressions: > > -Throttle in first gear on the KLR seems less continuous than on the > FZ6. On the KLR I'd try to go slow in first gear, then I'd try to > increase the throttle a little bit and I would always get a sudden > jerk. I noticed this happening on 1st gear on the dual sport (yamaha > XT) that I rode in the MSF class too. With both of those dualsports > the throttle seems to roll on smoother in higher gears. This may be > just because I am new and lack precise throttle control, but for > some reason it felt much smoother on the FZ6 (I did try the FZ6 > after the KLR, so maybe I was just better at it by then). > > -the KLR650 is extremely comfortable in terms of ergonomics, the FZ6 > seemed a bit less comfortable (basically just the seat), but not > that bad. > > -KLR650 seemed to vibrate much more, making the mirrors shake and > hard to use. I've seen comments about this in this forum so I > expected it, but not to that degree and not at such low speeds. It > seems like there is no speed (0-35) on the KLR that is more smooth > than any speed I tried (0-35) on the FZ6. > > -Maybe it is because I was sort of expecting this, but the FZ6 felt > more fun to drive, I think partially because it gave more of a sense > of speed. On the KLR when I got to around 35mph I wasn't really > nervous. I didn't seem to be going that fast. On the FZ6 I would > think I was going 40mph and look down and the speedometer said 25. > Maybe because the ride is lower to the ground? Whatever it was, it > felt a lot less like a bicycle and I must admit the knowledge that I > COULD open up the throttle and unleash all sorts of scary power if I > wanted to (which I didn't, and don't plan to for a while) was > exciting. Even if I never use that power, just the knowledge that it > is there seems to add to the enjoyment of the ride for me. > > > ...However, I take the comments that the FZ6 can get me into trouble > seriously. Supposedly it delivers 84 horsepower to the rear wheel > and has a 140mph top speed. The thing is though, I felt completely > in control of the FZ6 when testing it so it is hard to resist the > belief that I could always do that. (Something giving a false sense > of security could be that the FZ6 engine is designed to have its > power at high RPM, and I was riding at fairly low RPM) > > On the one hand, I think I should just listen to the advice of those > that say the FZ6 is too powerful since I realize I really know very > little about motorcycling. > > On the other, the sense of power and smoothness that the FZ6 gave > seems almost too nice for me to deny myself for a year or more > (UNLESS... see question below). > > I suppose I could always compromise by looking into the vstrom > DL650, or a underpowered sportbike like the GS500F (but I am 6'3 so > I think my options are somewhat limited). > > I neglected to mention in my other post that my ultimate goal in > motorcycling is to get to the point where I can handle a high- > performance sport bike. In my earlier thread people mentioned the > benefits of learning on dirt (getting comfortable with the limits of > your traction, etc), but here is my question which I think is > determinative of whether I get a KLR: > > Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt > (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the > benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar > with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- > road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to > practice)? > > Thanks again, > Elliot > > > > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:22 am**

Randy, Well Said!!! No snippage in case someone needs to reread it. Elliot, it sounds to me like you've decided the KLR650 isn't the bike for you but you haven't admitted it yet to yourself. : ) I'd expect the FZ6 to be smoother than a single and would be disappointed if it wasn't. I has lots more power pulses and they are smaller than a thumper. You mentioned the riding position of the FZ6 as less comfortable but not that bad. That tells me you better not be planning on being on that bike for extended periods of time. The not that bad will become unbearable. I knew a guy in Oklahoma, he lived 4 doors down the block from me. At the time he had 12 bikes, was a racer, and had spent lots of time on tracks. He rode a sport bike to Wichita Falls about 90 miles away. He told me the next day he almost hitched home to get his truck so he could haul the bike home. The riding position was unbearable for him after only 90 miles, so about 90 minutes or less. Folks have ridden the KLR650 well over 500 miles at a stretch numerous times. I did an 812 mile day two years ago. And I was moving comfortably after the ride. When touring with the KLR I'm often in the saddle for 8-12 hours at a time. So even if the KLR isn't the bike for you I'm thinking the FZ6 might not be right either. I think you will get loads of benefits from learning to ride in the dirt. It will also be a safer environment than on the road. You asked "...if my ultimate goal is 100% on-road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to practice)? If you are a good motorcycle rider you will be responsible, knowledgeable, skilled and will be able to transition from one bike to the next. It won't matter whether you ride a KLR650 or an XYZ super fast sportbike. There is no safe place (for either you or other folks in the area [on or near the road] ) if you are riding fast and not on a track. Period. When you exceed the speed limit you'll be endangering yourself and others. Folks expect other road users to adhere to the limits established by the traffic folks. If I'm crossing a road with a 40 mph limit and see a vehicle approaching from 200 yards away I may decide I can safely cross the road. At 40 mph I'll have maybe X number of seconds to make it across. If the bike is approaching at 80 mph (I use that cause sport bike riders here often ride that fast or faster in many areas) I'll have 1/2X number of seconds to make it across. I'll be expecting the vehicle to be doing 40 mph as that's the speed limit. Same as I don't expect to be passed in a no passing zone. And same as when a vehicle is gonna pass me they expect I'll use a left turn signal and not just turn without signalling. Last thing on this note. Riders who travel fast often do dangerous things just cause that's often what you have to do to ride fast in a slower environment. They give other riders a bad name as the folks that get annoyed only know it was a biker that shot past them. Getting a bad name is a lot easier than getting rid of a bad name. So... pick your poison and enjoy it. I think if you learn to ride a slower bike smoothly and responsibly you'll become a better rider than the guy who learns on a fast bike with most excellent handling. You'll know how to ride and the other guy can only use the throttle and the brakes. I don't know how many very fast bikes I can stay with or leave in twisty conditions just because the rider of the other bike doesn't know how to ride. They rely on the horsepower, handling and brakes to make them move faster in the straights than my bike will go. But I can catch or leave them in the twisties. I don't ride fast bikes. I am told by folks I'm a responsible person and rider. I know I can't control myself when it comes to excellent power, handling and brakes. If the bike is suppose to be ridden fast that's how I'm gonna try to ride it. Since I know I can't control myself very well I don't ride fast bikes. Period. But I sure have fun on the slower bikes that will still break the speed limit. I hope if you decide on a fast bike you really can control your right wrist. You don't mention who you might be riding with. If it's a sportbike crowd having a sportbike might be important. If it's a cruiser crowd then a cruiser might be important. But with a KLR you'll be able to stay with either group if they ride at reasonable speeds. And they might even be a bit impressed when you can ride a little 35 horsepower thumper and stay with them. Smooth is fast. Best, Jeff Jeff Saline ABC # 4412 South Dakota Airmarshal Airheads Beemer Club www.airheads.org The Beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota 75 R90/6, 03 KLR650, 79 R100RT On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:20:19 -0000 "Randy Shultz" writes:

> --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "symme7ry" > wrote: > > > Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt > (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than > the > benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar > with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% > on- > road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to > practice)? > > > --- > > I know that I would have been a better street rider sooner if I had > > learned on dirt first, and also if I had learned on a lower-powered > > bike. That said, there are lower powered sport-oriented bikes that > I > think are good starter bikes, such as Kawasaki's EX250 and EX500, or > > Suzuki's GS500, with the exception that they are faired which makes > > repairs more expensive after drops. I ride a Suzuki SV650, and > Kawasaki just came out with a similar 650 as someone previously > mentioned. I think it would be better to go lower power than that > to > start off, but I've heard others say differently. > > I dropped my SV650 when I was learning to ride on the street. It > was > actually the unfamiliarity with the engine braking power of a twin > at > low speed that led to me breaking loose the rear tire in a turn. I > > lost track of which gear I was downshifting into, thinking I was a > gear higher, and shouldn't have been downshifting in a turn anyway. > > It's often a combination of errors that gets one into trouble when > learning. Highsided at about 25mph into cross traffic. Not fun. > > In terms of your long-term plans, it's this statement that I would > think about: "my ultime goal is 100% on-road, fast sportbike riding > > (but not at race tracks..." > > The problem is that today's sportbikes are extremely powerful. I > ride > a ZZR1200, which is actually a sport tourer, about 135 horsepower, so > > I know the appeal of power. But where can you ride them to their > designed potential legally? Where can you do it safely? > > I see an awful lot of people riding irresponsibly on the street. > I'll bet they are not as mature as you sound, but I've also seen > people influenced by their riding buddies, or other factors, and it > > only takes once to seriously injure yourself or someone else. It > also doesn't take many tickets to price a young fellow out of the > insurance market. > > The track is actually the BEST, and in my opinion the only place to > > exercise the capabilities of today's sport bikes, so I would suggest > > that you reconsider your long term goal in that regards. > > As you intimated in your post-test report, it's actually more fun to > > ride a lower-powered bike at lower speeds, than a higher-powered > bike > at low speeds. If you're going to ride responsibly on the street, > staying within reasonable speeds, you may well find that a lower > powered sport bike is more fun than a higher-powered bike that is > mismatched to the conditions (over-powered). > > This seems to be better understood outside the U.S., as the number > of > sport bikes in the 350-500cc range are far more plentiful in Europe. > > Some of that probably has to do with tiered-licensing and > higher-cost > fuel, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with more familiarity with > > lower-powered bikes and a lack of "bigger is always better" > attitude. > > If you have been forced to ride smaller displacement bikes by > tiered- > licensing then, by default, you know how much fun they can be. If > you start with a high-powered 600cc supersport bike, as is so often > > the case here in the States, you tend to look down on smaller > displacement without really having any personal experience with > them. > > I'm generalizing of course. But it is interesting how many > knowledgable riders keep small and mid-displacement bikes in their > stable even after they are legally, financially, and technically > able > to ride anything they want. There's a reason for that, and it's > because they are so frickin' fun to ride and so appropriate for the > > street conditions in which most of us do the majority of our > riding. > > Have you considered a Supermoto? Suzuki makes a production one > based > on their 400cc dualsport, and I think you're going to see a lot more > > manufacturers starting to build them. Plus you could always convert > > a dual sport to supermoto yourself. That way you could ride a > little > dirt while learning, and later have a street-oriented bike that > absolutely excels at legal speeds. Tons of fun. > > Just my thoughts. > > Randy > > > > > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:25 am**

>Throttle in first gear on the KLR seems less

continuous >than on the FZ6. Some break-in and adjustment of the idle air screw out solves this. Most bike are jetted lean in the idle/low speed range for emissions. Is the benefit of getting a bike which I can practice with on dirt (so I can be familiar with limits of traction, etc) greater than the benefit of getting a low-powered sportbike (so I can get familiar with the sportbike riding style early), if my ultime goal is 100% on- road, fast sportbike riding (but not at race tracks, unless just to practice)? There is less risk to a new rider riding the KLR than a crotch rocket, FZ6 or other. It is also more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow and improves skills faster. Another issue is cost when you drop it. You will drop it. The KLR survives falling over and sliding down pavement with little more than a loss of dignity but drop the FZ6 and you're going to be into big coin! I've held a motorcycle licence since 1965 and this KLR is my 36 or 38th bike. Way, way over 100,000 miles. Last October we hit a patch of polished road in the rain and high sided- HARD! Damage? Broke the right rear turn signal light, scraped the lid on my sewer pipe tool carrier. Some time later I noticed a small scrape on the muffler which likely occurred then. Changed the light and no one would notice. Drop an FZ6 and you'd be lucky to escape $2,000. I have no interest in what you buy so have no motive other than trying to give good advice. Buy a dual sport for your first. I might recommend a 250 Sherpa over the 650 but the 650 would be a good choice for a new owner. HIH Norm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:47 am**

Elliot,

> -Throttle in first gear on the KLR seems less continuous

Not sure, maybe it wasn't carburated correctly (a not uncommon situation). It doesn't have the linear acceleration of an inline-4, thats for sure. Like I said, these are two so very different bikes it begs the question of how they were grouped together for comparison in the first place.

> -KLR650 seemed to vibrate much more, making the mirrors shake

Correct. You'll get vibration on an I4 also, just different, higher pitch, usually in the footpegs. But it's very very noticable on the KLR.

> -Maybe it is because I was sort of expecting this, but the FZ6 felt > more fun to drive

Yeah. The FZ6 is going to be very smooth and quiet, speed will be more deceptive. The KLR makes you work for it

)

> ultimate goal in motorcycling is to handle a high-performance sport bike. > people mentioned the benefits of learning on dirt

Most of the successful road racers all started doing dirt track, speedway or similar. Watch On Any Sunday and Faster. Look at an older model CBR F3 or F4i. Great bike. Get an adult owned low mileage non raced one. Should be able to find one with < 10K miles. Even cheaper if the plastic is scuffed/damaged. I rode my F2 for 36K miles on street, gravel and track days. Killer bike. So reliable (just like my current VTR1000). Certain year ZX6's would work too and maybe the YZF600. Avoid the GSXR, esp since you're 6'3". Remember it's not the bike, it's the rider. I once followed a women down the Rattlesnake Grade in WA State (awesome and somewhat scary road). I was on a Ducati and she was on a bone stock KLR (stock brakes). I'd heard she was fast, but I wasn't prepared for how fast and effortless she was on that KLR. She left me in her dust. To close. It depends on your style and you have no real idea what yours is yet. I got my KLR after 15 years of exploring paved roads in OR/WA/ID on sportbikes and getting fed up of turning around (or creeping along) when the road turned to gravel but that was me amd ot took 15 years. If you really want to be like Garry McCoy

you may learn more buying a dedicated dirtbike and if you really want to see your life flash before your eyes go try a KTM 2-stroke

Tony

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:09 am**

> You mentioned the riding position of the FZ6 as less comfortable > but not that bad. That tells me you better not be planning on being > on that bike for extended periods of time. The not that bad will > become unbearable.

Sorry Jeff but this is a load of old crap

) The FZ6 would be comfortable for 600+ mile days easily. Have you actually looked at the pics let alone ridden one. You're story of your buddy in Wichita Falls would make sense if Elliot was considering a R6 or GSXR. You're wearing your everything shiny and not a BMW must be a hardcore sportbike blinkers here. The Hurricane/CBR600/F2/F3/F4 lineage were extremely capable bikes and the FZ6 has much better ergo's than these did. I did many a 3000 mile week on my old F2. Someone else mentioned the SV-650, thats a great bike too. Probably in the $2k range used now. Tony

Wilsons Sandbox

what's a doohickey then?

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650

thoughts after test-rides, fz6 and klr650