new bike .... soon

[Eric L. Green]

On Mon, 30 May 2005, cdearl1 wrote:

> Internationally, a product called "Permethrin" is widely used, > including by the military. It's a supposedly non-toxic chemical you > spray on your clothes. It lasts for several washings. Some company's, > like rei, are now selling bug clothes treated with it. As recommended > by my travel doctor, I used it on a recent trip to the Ecuadorian > coast. I believe it actually kills bugs, it's not just a repellent.

It is both a repellent and an insecticide. Like most insecticides it is a nerve agent (as an aside, Sarin and VX and other such chemical nerve weapons are little different from common insecticides like Malathion, they're just a bit more potent), but unlike most insecticides, it seems to mostly affect only invertebrate nerves (i.e., insects). I wouldn't bathe in the stuff or drink it (ingesting nerve agents is NOT a good idea!), but once it dries it is reasonably safe, and is what's sold over-the-counter in most common roach and ant preparations today rather than the nasty older insecticides that act as nerve agents for mammals (such as humans) too. Permethrin-coated mosquito nets and clothing are recommended for tropical climates because they not only repel the mosquitos, but also kill the mosquitos who happen to bump up against it, and help reduce the mosquito population too and thus help protect other people in the vicinity. That said, good old DEET is plenty effective against ticks and mosquitos, and applied to clothing is about as non-toxic as can be. I do recommend, however, that you do not use the high-concentration sprays on clothing. The higher the DEET concentration, the more likely it is to cause staining, and it really doesn't take much DEET at all applied to clothing in order to make the ticks go "YUK!" and drop off. The high-DEET preparations are good for applying directly to various parts of your body where some of the stuff might wash off due to sweat and etc., but that's about it. I slogged through high grass on foot with a regular old low-DEET preparation and got not a single tick on me in the end. The week before, I'd slogged through that area without the spray-on DEET, just some high-DEET lotion around my pants cuffs and legs, and ended up having to flick ticks off me like I was brushing seeds of grain off of my pants (which, thankfully, were light khaki colored so I could see the dark brown ticks crawling on them before they got up to my nether parts!). -E

[Eric L. Green]

On Mon, 30 May 2005, Harry Myhre wrote:

> Lyme disease is bad. > Friend of mine at work SOMEHOW picked it up out here in California. > It's really rare out here.

Not so rare anymore. However, our ticks out here do require 48 hours or so of constant feeding in order to transmit it to you, so if you do a tick check every night, you should be okay Lyme-wise. I am lucky enough (?) to be allergic to tick saliva, so I find out real quickly when a tick has bit me -- the area around the tick swells up big-time. Luckily I've only had one tick latch on in the past year, and I caught him within a few hours when the swelling started and sent him to that great tick haven in the sky. I'll tell ya, hiking out of the back-country with a lump on your leg the size of a quarter ain't no laughin' matter, tho...

> Southern California - 80 degrees, blue skies, sunshine

Northern California -- 75 degrees, blue skies, sunshine . - E, A16

[Mike Frey]

>> Lyme disease is bad. >> Southern California - 80 degrees, blue skies, sunshine > Northern California -- 75 degrees, blue skies, sunshine .

Central PA -- Sunshine and 74 today. A couple drops of rain late in the day. Perfect tick weather. I got "lucky" with my bout with Lyme. I felt like I had the flu. I was taking a shower and on my thigh was the classic bulls-eye rash. 2 tests confirmed it, and I was simply on antibiotics for 2 weeks. Powerful stuff! The pharmacist told me that my skin would be more sensitive to the sun. The next weekend, played golf and lathered up with sunscreen - except my hands, which never burn. Oops - never say "never". Even my fingers got sunburned - bad enough to peel.

[Tosh Hotchi]

Thanks all for your responses. I picked-up the bike on Saturday afternoon and then hung out with family through Sunday evening. This morning I left at 07:00 and decided to take Hwy 1 b/c the break-in period of 500 miles required RPM's no more than 4000. As you guys know, this is pretty darned slow. By the time I got to Monterey, I was about 20 miles from reaching the magical 500 mark so I decided to head inland on 152 to meet-up with the 101. At Gilroy, I went balls-out and opened it up to 5000 RPM which was enough because of traffic etc. So here are my first impressions. Premise: My other bike is a 2002 Honda VFR which I've put 42000 miles on. This is the first dual-sport bike I've ridden and I'm 5'7" or so. The good: 1) I like looking for potholes and going for them. 2) When I see a dirt road along the highway, I now can explore it. 3) Twisties. I didn't expect anything like this but I should have known given the weight, the extra torque you get from the wide handlebars, etc. I had a lot of fun around the Big Sur area. 4) Somewhat related to 3: navigating through traffic (i.e. lane splitting). It's very light and agile and also I can barely even feel the bots dots. 5) The seating position rules. My back thanks me for allowing it to stay straight. 6) Great gas mileage. The bad: 1) Lack of power. It's pretty nice when you can roll-on and get out of the way. 2) I can barely feel my fingers now (1 hour after arriving home) because of all the buzzing. Also associated with the buzzing is blurred vision...when looking into the mirrors that is. I was seeing at least doubles. 3) It's a bit tall. Of course, that's my problem but I may as well blame the bike. 4) I'm not entirely convinced that the rear brake works. Perhaps there is an adjustment but it seems like the brake lever action is way too long to get braking started. All-in-all I'm not super excited about the bike but I haven't had a chance to use it where I'd envisioned: off road. It's now due for valve checks etc., so it'll be a while before I get to it. Where's a good place to get the service manuals? Thanks all, Tosh A19 - 580 miles --- "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005, Harry Myhre wrote: > > Drive back to SFO on the 101. > > Don't take highway 5; it's too boring. > > Not to mention that it's wall-to-wall trucks. And > the rather, err, > INTERESTING aroma of the stockyards around Coalinga > and vicinity... > > > 101 is just a little longer but it's a little more > interesting. > > Highway five is all straight driving. Perfect for > big rigs. > > You probably won't have to deal with as many big > rigs on 101. > > Definitely an advantage. Not to mention that you > don't get the, err, > aroma, of the stockyards sticking to your nostrils > for a hundred miles. > > > If you have enough time - then by all means take > highway one up the coast. > > Take camping gear in a duffle bag, bungee it to the > back of your new KLR, > and camp in the national forest at Big Sur. Or if > you're feeling a little > wimpy, camp in the campgrounds at the state parks. I > don't recall which > ones have campgrounds and showers in the Big Sur > area, anybody? Ah, quick > Google search finds: > http://www.bigsurcalifornia.org/camping.html > > Beautiful countryside there! > > > If you took two days going up highway one that'd > be best. > > If you only have one day to get back to SFO, then > just take highway 101. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > thotchi > >> Subject: [DSN_KLR650] New bike .... soon > >> > >> 2) Having *little* experience (just rode around > the block type > >> experience) on a dualsport, I'm not sure what to > expect. > >> Concern is light weight/tall which may be a > problem if it's > >> windy and > > I think this "problem" is overrated. If your KLR is > set up right (make > sure they do NOT leave the forks in the shipping > position!), the KLR > handles wind about as well as can be expected, it > just needs getting used > to because you're upright up in the wind. > > >> the small windshield which I assume doesn't > afford > >> much protection. > > Nope, not much protection, at least not if you're > 5'11" or taller. Still, > it's better than nothing, and does take the worst of > the wind blast off > your chest. It's a good compromise between the > protection of a "real" > windshield and the needs of people who ride in the > dirt, who need > something durable and that they can see their front > wheel over. > > -E >

__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/