Yamaha v-Star 650 Silverado edition

[burkbuilds]

I stopped by the local Suzuki/Yamaha dealer Friday and walked around the show room a bit, a particular V-Star really caught my eye. It was a V-star 650 cruiser, I think the Silverado edition but not certain. Anyway, this bike was really tricked out with chrome, floorboards, a nice windshield and custom Mustang Seats with an adjustable drivers backrest! The seat height was about 28" and I thought I'd be disappointed in that for my 6'1" frame but I sat down on it anyway and wow, what a surprise, this bike fit me really well. I was more comfortable than I am on my modified Vulcan 500 with a seat height of about 30"! This bike has chrome all over the engine, it looks great and the Mustang seat was amazingly comfortable, you could even adjust the drivers seat backrest with a thumbscrew that moved it up or back to fit your needs. The bike had some nice saddle bags already on it and all of this for less than $6500 brand new, I was impressed. By the time I added all the extras to my Vulcan, floorboards, windshield, custom seat, saddle bags and supports I was up to that price easily and no where near the chrome or the stretched out frame of this bike! I don't really like the "big" bikes (read 900 cc's and up to me) but this was comfortable for my frame without weighing and feeling bulky. If my wife wouldn't kill me I'd probably think about trading in my Vulcan on this baby. The one drawback I found was when I read some reviews, they were great reviews, shaft drive easy maintenance comfortable, all that stuff but I did notice that the bike topped out at 90 mph, now I don't really plan to ride 90 mph, but my Vulcan 500 will do 104 mph and I guess I was surprised to find that the slightly larger displacement bike wouldn't even come close to matching that. I also noticed that this bike isn't water cooled, which a lot of bikes aren't but when I've been stuck in traffic a few times, I was really glad my Vulcan was water cooled. The only other downside was that the V-Star was rated at 49 mpg, I loved the GZ's 70 mpg, and I'm okay with getting high 50's to about 60 on the Vulcan, but dropping another 9-10 mpgs just doesn't thrill me with as many miles as I put on my bike.

I guess, bottom line, I'll stick with the Vulcan until I graduate from Engineering school, but maybe my next bike might just be this 650 or whatever they've got available like it in a couple of years! :2tup:

[JWR]

I did a Dealer test ride on the V-Star 650 and 1100 last year.

I liked the 650 a lot more than the 1100.
It seemed to have more low end grunt.
This could have been because we were doing a follow the leader type of ride.
I was really impressed with the overall looks and feel of this bike.

[primal]

A V-star 650 will be a step down from the Vulcan 500 performance-wise. A pretty significant one at that.

[JWR]

Yamaha V-Star
-maximum torque is reached at 38 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm.




Vulcan 500
Maximum Torque: 33 lb-ft @6,000 RPM .

Different riding......

[burkbuilds]

Primal, and JWR, I think you guys are probably right, but man what a great looking motorcycle and a great fit for my long legs! I really love the way my Vulcan runs, it is a sweet machine, I was coming back to school on I-75 this morning, running a little behind schedule and I ran 80-90 almost the entire way and she just purred along like it was nothing, steady, no shakes and handles like an extension of your mind. Have to admit that it tanked my MPG's though, I filled it up after school and was all the way down to 46 mpg, but hey, I was running 7,000 rpms most of the time! The Vulcan does what I need it to do, it is very practical for my current situation and that is why I bought it, but I'm not blind, it's not exactly the best looking bike out there, very little chrome and well, just kinda okay in the looks department, but what a great engine/handling package!

I wonder what you could do to that V-Star's specs by changing the gear ratio's a bit? It's obviously set up for low end torque not high speed running. I'd gladly give up some low end power band if it would cruise at higher speeds easier. Long gone are my days of wanting to blow somebody off the line at a traffic light, but I do like the option of getting from city to city at a slightly faster pace now and then! I also noticed that they are running twin 28mm carbs on the V-Star which may be part of the equation for low torque but not enough volume to run top speeds, my Vulcan has twin 32mm carbs on 23% smaller cc engine than the 650 has. Maybe a carb upgrade would make a big difference in the V-Star's top end, does anybody have any experience with a change like that?

[Water Warrior 2]

According to Yamaha the 650 Star was specifically designed to run best at 55 mph. It is a cruiser and not a hurry-up bike. Other than engine upgrades there is still a matter of the drive shaft and assorted gearing pieces. You would have to change the gear ratio of the rear end and that would not be any easy task. Nor would it be cheap.
This is Yamamha's entry level V-twin cruiser and highly unlikely they have any options available for regearing. They would rather have you upgrade to a larger Y bike.
A chain driven bike is easiest to regear providing it has enough engine to pull the bike at lower rpm and still provide some mpg economy.

[bonehead]

BB-I borrowed my friends V-Star 650 to go to San Antonio a couple of weeks ago and was having to watch my speed on the interstate. Almost every time I looked down at the speedo I was going 80-85 and the bike did'nt even feel like it. I was very impressed. IMHO that's fast enough on the hiway. My 90+ days went long ago along with my 20's and 30's.

[dannylightning]

BB-I borrowed my friends V-Star 650 to go to San Antonio a couple of weeks ago and was having to watch my speed on the interstate. Almost every time I looked down at the speedo I was going 80-85 and the bike did'nt even feel like it. I was very impressed. IMHO that's fast enough on the hiway. My 90+ days went long ago along with my 20's and 30's.

i ran in to a guy that had one of those and i asked about it, he said it would run at 100mph if you need it to. but you can do 80mph all day

[burkbuilds]

bonehead and dannylightning, thanks for the input, I'm not really interested in going 90+ either, but I didn't want to be topped out at 80 something if I needed to get out of the way and I didn't want to be pushing the bike hard just running in the upper 70's which I seem to do more than I probably should. I'm really "drawn" to that bike right now, but my wallet is empty so it's really a moot point anyway. It was definitely the most comfortable fit I've had on a bike just sitting on it in the showroom, of course that doesn't really tell me how it will feel going down the road for a couple of hours, but it is a good place to start. The frame on the 650 is just slightly longer than the frame on a Honda Shadow 750 ACE bike and that's what my son in law rides so I've taken it for a few spins and it fits me pretty well too but that 650 Yamaha was even better looking than the Shadow 750 in my eyes. Plus the one in the showroom already had a lot of features I'd want like the floor boards, custom Mustang seat with a drivers backrest and the nice saddle bags and supports and a very nice windshield too for a pretty low price considering. Oh well, it doesn't cost anything to dream!

[Easy Rider]

I'm really "drawn" to that bike right now,

Well, you just HAD to look, didn't you ?? :roll: :biggrin:

I don't know if it's better to stumble on something like that when you don't have the money........or when you DO. :cry:

I tried to stop looking.......but it IS difficult.

[Water Warrior 2]

I'm really "drawn" to that bike right now,

Well, you just HAD to look, didn't you ?? :roll: :biggrin:

I don't know if it's better to stumble on something like that when you don't have the money........or when you DO. :cry:

I tried to stop looking.......but it IS difficult.

Easy, looking is free. Also when looking just keep repeating to yourself...........I am a responsible adult with no money....I am a responsible adult with no money.....I am a responsible adult with no money.

[burkbuilds]

Even if I'm not a responsible adult, I have no money, and that pretty much ends it! Easy, I was looking for insulated riding pants when I went in there!

I'm not complaining, I really like my Vulcan and I'm still blown away by the performance from that 500 cc motor, makes you wonder why such a "mid size" motor can run with bikes so much larger and why Kawasaki is eliminating this bike from production next year? I absolutely can run dead even with my son in laws 750 Shadow and that's a 50% larger engine, I can hang tight with him from a dead stop and I've got at least as much top end if not more than he does. Now there is no comparison when it comes to looks, His shadow has more chrome and a better "shape" than my Vulcan ever dreamed of but performance wise and smoother running, I'll take the Vulcan.

[alantf]

and why Kawasaki is eliminating this bike from production next year?

And in Europe, LAST year! :poorbaby:

[Water Warrior 2]

BB, I do believe the Vulcan uses the same basic engine as their entry level sport bike of a few years ago. It would be de-tuned a bit for cruising but still have some get up and go.

[burkbuilds]

WW, it definitely will go! I am not sure what the red-line is, but I've seen other posts on a Vulcan forum that claim it's 9,500. No doubt it is turning a lot more rpm's than my son in laws Shadow 750 ACE at the same speed, but it doesn't seem to be under any "strain" doing it, and I noticed that when we'd stop at a traffic light side by side his bike is visibly shaking at idle. I read somewhere that Honda purposely redesigned that engine to be slightly out of balance so that it would produce more of a rumble sound to rival Harley Davidson. They actually used to have a "twin" crankshaft that countered the vibration from the V-Twin and they took it out and put in a single for the American Classic Edition (ACE). If that's true, they were successful, his bike has a great low rumble to it to go along with all that chrome, but I can't imagine having to ride it for very long because of the vibrations.

Alantf, yeah, I wish you could have gotten one of these 500's, I think it would have been ideal for your riding needs, It handle very nimbly in tight situations and yet you can "run with the big dogs" on the highway all day long.

WW, I think you are right about the basic engine block being the same as from the Ninja 500 with a lot of changes to give it more mid range torque at the expense of some top end speed but it still has those "genetics" that allow it to hit some pretty high rpm's compared to most bikes in the Cruiser category. I noticed the Yamaha 650 actually used the block from their 535cc motor bored out a little more and increased the stroke length to give it a larger displacement and then they narrowed the carburetor throats down from 34mm to 28mm to give it more response off the line at the expense of top end overall speed.

[Water Warrior 2]

Memory tells me the Ninja 500 twin is about 50 ponies. I have had cars with less horse power. A number of years ago I was considering the Ninja and the young lad (salesman) told me it wouldn't be powerful enough to pull out and pass most cars on the highway. Give me a break here, the power to weight ratio alone tells me this is lots of bike.

[burkbuilds]

After school today I headed back home since my Friday classes were canceled, and I just couldn't resist dropping in at the Suzuki/Yamaha dealers to sit on the Yamaha 650 V-Star Silvrado Edition again and really assess it. First, they "revealed" that the Mustang seat was an extra $690 on top of the price, then they added up the other accessories and so we are now talking about nearly $8,000. for this bike, way more than what I'd consider paying for it. Then I sat on it and realized that I'd have to put risers on the handlebars to keep them off my knees (another $150 approx according to the salesman). The saddle bags were very stylish, but wouldn't hold as much as the ones on my Vulcan, the windshield was beautiful, but it didn't offer any "hand guard" protection like my windshield does on the Vulcan. The sales man told me he owned two of them and got between 48-52 mpg which is 8-12 less than the Vulcan, and he finally conceded that I probably wouldn't get the same performance as the Vulcan until I got up to the Suzuki 800cc bikes (I think that's the M-50, and C-50) then I realized that although the seat was way more comfortable than the one on my vulcan, the leg room wasn't as much because I've modified my seat to be about 3" higher and further back than this one. So, even though it does look amazingly better than my Vulcan, it just isn't going to do what I want and it costs too much, oh well, the love died fast huh? The good news is that I'm now even happier with my Vulcan and that is a good thing!

[Water Warrior 2]

After school today I headed back home since my Friday classes were canceled, and I just couldn't resist dropping in at the Suzuki/Yamaha dealers to sit on the Yamaha 650 V-Star Silvrado Edition again and really assess it. The good news is that I'm now even happier with my Vulcan and that is a good thing!

Yup, sometimes a test sit and added info can be quite a reality check. But now you know and are free to find another dream to fill your thoughts.

[burkbuilds]

Right now I'm dreaming about getting an "A" in Dr. Nassari's Manufacturing Processes class!

[primal]

First, they "revealed" that the Mustang seat was an extra $690 on top of the price, then they added up the other accessories and so we are now talking about nearly $8,000.

1998 Suzuki Marauder 800 w/ saddlebags - $1700
eBay Mustang Seats and Jardine Sissy Bar - $250

Total: $1950

I don't see why anyone would buy a small cruiser new. ;)

[dhgeyer]

I've been fortunate enough to own both a Vulcan 500 and a Ninja 500. Let's get one thing clear: these two bikes have the same engine and transmission, with slight modification of the cams on the Vulcan for more mid range torque at the expense of a bit of raw horsepower in the high end powerband. In fact, when I tried to get a Kawasaki service manual for the Ninja 500, the dealer found out that one is not available. They use the one for the Vulcan. I once went to pull away from a light real fast on the Vulcan 500, and, being fairly new to my second incarnation of riding at that point, popped a wheelie by accident. Scared the crap out of me! Not too many cruisers out there will get air that easily!

The Vulcan 500 is a cruiser in its body configuration and riding position, and the handling is like a small to mid size cruiser. It has a longer wheelbase than a sportbike, and different steering geometry. But the engine response, powerband, sound, and torque characteristics are still much more typical of a sportbike than a cruiser. So, it's kind of a unique bike. And, yes, it absolutely will walk away from cruisers with much larger displacement engines. Given the engine it has in it, that shouldn't be a surprise. Comparing the Vulcan/Ninja 500 engine to the typical cruiser V-Twin is comparing apples to oranges.

BB, here is some genuine, free, do as I say and not as I did, advice. Enjoy your Vulcan for a few years. A couple of years at least. Learn about, and test ride some bikes that aren't cruisers. Try a few standards and sportbikes. Learn a lot more about what's out there, what different bikes are for, and what you might like/dislike about them. There is so much variety now, much more than when I was in school 40 years ago. You can go through a dozen or more bikes in a few years like I did, but that's an awful expensive way to learn about motorcycles. I should have spent a lot more time reading, test riding used bikes at dealerships, riding friends' bikes, and etc. Buying a bigger cruiser may or may not give you what you really want. Cruisers, as a rule, compared with other types of bikes, look cool, and sound cool. Compared with other bikes, they don't really actually DO anything well. They aren't generally as fast, certainly don't handle as well, have seriously limited cornering clearance, and they aren't as comfortable for touring (as in long days in the saddle).

What I'm saying is, don't just buy a bigger version of what you have without exploring the alternatives. You might find yourself disappointed, as I did when I traded in the Vulcan 500 for a Vulcan 1500 Classic FI. I thought that by going big like that I'd get more long range comfort, and this just didn't turn out to be the case. I tried everything to make the big Vulcan work for me - the Mustang saddle which you describe so well, complete with adjustable driver's backrest, highway pegs, pullback bar risers, gel seat covers. Nothing helped much. The riding position of a cruiser doesn't work for me for long periods of time. That lesson cost me $10,000, and I could have, and eventually did, learn the same thing from books and articles on touring. The first time I got on a standard, it was a revelation.

I've owned a couple of cruisers since then. Have kind of a love/hate relationship with them. They do look cool and sound cool. But, to be honest, I don't consider cruisers to be appropriate motorcycles for serious riders, or at least serious rides.

Free advice, and worth every cent you paid.

Dave is now ducking.

[Sarris]

Dave, I do disagree with your "serious rider" comment. I happen to fit the cruiser style bike much better than a sport bike or standard. Being a large person, I find the humped tank intrusive into my (large) torso and the rear or center mounted pegs with the forward leaning position concentrates my weight directly on my (large) balls and wrists. It also causes me neck strain having to hold my head and helmut (sic) up. I find that position very uncomfortable. I just don't have the need for speed at 3x the legal speed limit. Look at the typical sportbike geek. They either ride in full leathers or in shorts, tank tops, and flip-flops. Most constantly speed and weave in and out of traffic, and a lot die on the highway because they cant "handle" the speed or can't anticipate the traffic because of their speed.

I enjoy the comfort of laid back riding with my fairing, cruise control and CD player. I have no need to look (or for that matter act) like a BOY racer. As far as miles ridden, I'll keep up with anyone.

Please don't assume that people who ride a touring or cruiser bike lack riding skill or seriousness in their focus. That is not at all the case. Just different strokes for different folks.

You're a good man Dave, but you sound like the typical high brow BMW rider who thinks their shit doesn't stink. And you're flat wrong about cruiser/ touring bikes and cruiser/touring people.

Soooooo........ :fu: (I mean that in the nicest way. LOL)

[primal]

Dave, I do disagree with your "serious rider" comment. I happen to fit the cruiser style bike much better than a sport bike or standard. Being a large person, I find the humped tank intrusive into my (large) torso and the rear or center mounted pegs with the forward leaning position concentrates my weight directly on my (large) balls and wrists. It also causes me neck strain having to hold my head and helmut (sic) up. I find that position very uncomfortable. I just don't have the need for speed at 3x the legal speed limit. Look at the typical sportbike geek. They either ride in full leathers or in shorts, tank tops, and flip-flops. Most constantly speed and weave in and out of traffic, and a lot die on the highway because they cant "handle" the speed or can't anticipate the traffic because of their speed.

I enjoy the comfort of laid back riding with my fairing, cruise control and CD player. I have no need to look (or for that matter act) like a BOY racer. As far as miles ridden, I'll keep up with anyone.

Please don't assume that people who ride a touring or cruiser bike lack riding skill or seriousness in their focus. That is not at all the case. Just different strokes for different folks.

You're a good man Dave, but you sound like the typical high brow BMW rider who thinks their shit doesn't stink. And you're flat wrong about cruiser/ touring bikes and cruiser/touring people.

Soooooo........ :fu: (I mean that in the nicest way. LOL)

+1

I, for one, find my Marauder to be far more practical than any of my previous bikes (GZ, Kawasaki KZ550, and Suzuki Katana). With the Mustang seat is is also the most comfortable bike I've had, though I do have to give credit to the Katana's seat, which for a stock seat was amazingly comfortable as long as you ignore the nut-crunching ergonomics of the bike itself.

Standards are nice, but my KZ wasn't great on the interstate. Talk about wind buffeting! Sure, you could add a windshield, but my Marauder cuts through the air at 70 MPH with surprising ease, so easily in fact that I think I'll only NEED a windshield if I actually do any significant amount of touring. For my daily 15 mile trek on the interstate I'm content with my bike as it is.

Just goes to show that everyone is different, with different preferences. I'm quite content with the performance of my 800cc cruiser. Considering I had to keep the RPMs on my Katana down in 1st and 2nd gear to help preserve the tranny, my Marauder is nearly as quick as the Kat up to about 45 MPH. It won't leap ahead at interstate speeds like the Katana would, but the family jewels are thanking me now that each bump and seam in the road isn't being directly transmitted to my crotch like it was on the Kat.

[dhgeyer]

Hey, guys, check out the results of the 2009 Iron Butt Rally. It's a PDF file - just so you know. Scroll down to page 3 for the results of all finishers, and non-finishers. The only Harley mentioned was a DNF (did not finish). I didn't notice any other cruisers among the finishers anywhere. They may be in there, I just scanned, but looking at the results, I think you'll get the point.

http://www.ironbuttrally.com/IBR/2009/2009IBRfinish.pdf

I'm not a huge fan of the Iron Butt Rally, or Iron Butt riding in general. But it does separate what works from what doesn't for the ultimate touring experience. Most of the finishers, and all of the winners and placers were on touring or sport touring bikes. These machines have about the same riding position as a standard, with the sport touring bikes leaned forward a little, but not a great deal.

Overweight people look better on cruisers, and maybe are more comfortable on them. That I can't say, not being overweight. Overweight people don't tend to be the best riders, either. And I mean that in the nicest way.

And don't assume that all BMW riders are snobs. People have the same impression of Harley riders, and that's not true either. Also, don't assume that all sport bike riders are squids. Sport bikes handle better, and some people just enjoy that. You don't have to be a speed freak to enjoy good handling. It just feels better.

[primal]

Define "ultimate touring experience." Honestly, the whole Iron Butt thing would be pretty dull for me, and not my idea of what touring should be, i.e. spending so much time on the road that you don't actually get to see anything.

And for the record, #14 was a Victory Vision. ;)

[dannylightning]

well dave, you find one bike that works best for you. dont say things such as cruisers are not for serious riders, come on those are some words you should eat cus that is your opinion. and when you say (cruisers look cool and sound cool but don't do any thing) you should really add a FOR ME to the end of that sentence.

feel free to state your opinions but don't do it in such a way that's gonna get every one else worked up or offend people.

i have a 800cc cruiser, it looks cool and it sounds cool but does it have power, yes it does. when i get on it and look in my rear view the guy behind me is in the dust and it will do 100mph easy, i cant see any reason i would need any more power than my 800 has. sure it would be fun to have a sports type bike but excessive speed is not a necessity nor in my opinion is it safe and me personally, i don't like going fast most of the time, i like to cruse around and enjoy the ride

one problem i have notices with sport bikes is that they all have a seat height that i consider to be too high. plus i find them to be extremely uncomfortable. a lot of people also do stupid things on them and end up in bad shape from it. like the guy that came up next to me on his crotch rocket looked over at me on my bike and sped away on one wheel while looking back at me to see if i was paying attention to how cool he thought he was while i just shook my head and thought what a idiot.

however i have no problem with any one who wants to ride that type of bike, im sure they can be quite fun and i understand not every one who owns one acts like the idiot i ran across yesterday. do i think sport bikes are cool, no not at all but that is my opinion but im not gonna tell any one that there crap or make fun of them for riding one unless they act like a idiot on the thing.

it's fine if you like sport bikes better but please don't set here and try to say cruisers are crap especially when most of us ride one, that is basically what you just did, it is disrespectful and its not appreciated.

[burkbuilds]

Dave, thanks for the good input, not many here have actually owned the Vulcan 500 before, so it's nice to hear what you found out about yours when you had it. I've got several physical "characteristics" that don't work well on a sport bike for me. One, I've got several bad disks in my lower back and leaning forward, even a little just doesn't work for me, also having my legs up under me in a sitting position hurts so my feet really need to be out in front of me if I'm gonna be able to go for more than just a couple of minutes. The cruiser seating position seems to work best for my situation except that I can't take that little "turn up" right at the lower back that almost all the seats seem to have, so I always have to modify my seat so that it doesn't put any pressure on that part of my lower back. The back rest, which sits up higher, allows me to press back and get a little arch in my back which helps a lot with the comfort level in my situation. The mustang seats that I've sat on gave great "butt" support and that seemed to take some "pressure" off and let me relax my hip flexors a little more than my current seat which I may modify again to be just a little wider like that Mustang seat I tried out on the 650. A slightly higher seat height compared with most cruisers I've sat on, also helps my comfort level, I think mainly because I've got pretty long legs and it gets my thighs more parallel to the road and me in a more "upright" seating posture which works pretty good for keeping my lower back from getting "irritated". I found that floor boards made a big difference for me as well, probably just a little less tension in the legs vs foot pegs. So, in a lot of ways, my "position" requirements are very unique and probably don't fall into any of the stock categories in the bike design world. The standard seat height is better for me, but the foot position is not and the cruiser seat style seems to be the closest to comfortable for me, but it's almost always to low and seems to always have about a 4-5" turn up at the back which puts pressure where I can least take it. I always have to mod my seat for comfort and that doesn't really look as good as the stock "lines" for a cruise or a standard. That may just be the price I have to pay to be able to ride, my ride is never gonna look cool with the seat mods I have to make but at least I can ride that way. Right now I'm trying to design a new seat configuration for my Vulcan that might accomplish both comfort and "style" but I haven't gotten it figured out just yet, but I'm still in the design stages right now. Anyway, thanks for the input!

[dhgeyer]

Define "ultimate touring experience." Honestly, the whole Iron Butt thing would be pretty dull for me, and not my idea of what touring should be, i.e. spending so much time on the road that you don't actually get to see anything.

And for the record, #14 was a Victory Vision. ;)

I agree with you 100% about "the Iron Butt thing". It's not something I would ever attempt, or want to do. It's an extreme behavior. However, the point I was making is that, like many extreme behaviors, what people learn from doing it can be instructive to us all. Another example, totally unrelated, is what the bench rest rifle shooters of the late 1940's and early 1950's learned and taught us about what makes a rifle accurate. Up till then there had been a lot of misconceptions about that, but those guys pushed the envelope way out there, and we all benefited and learned, including today's Joe average hunter. Rifles, even hunting rifles, are made differently in some ways than they were before the early bench rest shooters did what they did. So is ammunition. Same with the Iron Butt riders. They have learned a lot the hard way so that we don't have to. If a style, or set of styles, of bike is overwhelmingly proven to be the best for 1000 mile days, there's a good chance that it will also be best for non-fanatics who want to do 200 to 400 mile days, which is a fair daily average for touring, or even extended day rides. The last two rides I did were 219 miles and 275 miles, two days apart, In 35 to 55 degree weather, and one of them was about half in the rain. For that kind of riding, especially at my age, I need something that works, and I'm not too concerned about image.

I got an opportunity to look at a Victory Vision recently, by the way. It's not a cruiser. It's Victory's version of very highly stylized touring bike. If you see one, you'll either love it or hate it. It's a pretty "out there" design. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Danny,

I don't recall using the word "crap" once. What I said was that, performance wise, handling wise, control wise, and long distance comfort wise, cruisers are not the most functional motorcycles, and are not, for the most part chosen by knowledgeable people who care most about those parameters. That's not opinion. Statistically, it's provable fact. That's not to say that you or anyone else shouldn't ride a cruiser if that's what you like to ride. I like cruisers. I've owned several of them, and will probably own others. I own one now - the GZ250. I love it. I don't think it's crap at all. But if I want the best handling and the most comfortable long distance ride, I'll choose something else.

My comments were addressed originally to a rider who is relatively new to riding (the original poster in this thread), and who has only owned cruisers. All I really said, or intended to say, is that he should look at some other options. Looking at, and learning about, other options is generally a good thing to do before spending large amounts of money. Something I learned the hard way.

[dhgeyer]

BB,

OK, I understand why a sportbike won't work for you. You seem to have the right idea, in terms of modifying something to fit your needs.

I'll just make one more suggestion. If you ever get a chance to ride a standard style, something like a Honda Nighthawk 650 or 750 (both out of production now for years), or something like a Suzuki SV650 (the naked version, not the sport version), or a Suzuki GS500E (not the GS500F sportbike), or a Kawasaki Versys (newly introduced, and the first standard to come on the market in a long time), you might want to consider them as a starting point for your project. Or even, dare I say it, a BMW Roadster (I got my '96 R850R for under $5000.00). In BMW model designation language, a roadster is a model that ends in "R". The current version is the R1200R. Based on what you say, you would need to make a few mods to these bikes also. You would probably want pullback risers for the bars to get you even more upright, and definitely highway pegs to get your feet out for longer stretches. But, with their higher seats and more upright seating position to start with, the standard style might give you a better starting point. All the mods I mention are either factory or aftermarket options, so you wouldn't have to fabricate anything. The standard style bikes also don't generally have that thing at the back of the seat that gives you trouble, so you might not have to rebuild it. Just an idea - might work for you or might not.

In the meantime, the Vulcan 500 is a great bike. I wish I still had mine.

[Easy Rider]

I've owned a couple of cruisers since then. Have kind of a love/hate relationship with them. They do look cool and sound cool. But, to be honest, I don't consider cruisers to be appropriate motorcycles for serious riders, or at least serious rides.


I gotta agree.......but I thought the pegs on the Vulcan 500 were somewhere in between a true standard and forward stretch cruiser.

I would consider it closer to a standard than a cruiser but my memory is weak and I've never been on one either. :roll:

At my age, I'm not sure the riding comfort difference is all that important.......as I find I must stop about every 90 minutes or so to stretch the cramps and for "relief"....... regardless of what I am riding in or on. :cry:

[primal]

I got an opportunity to look at a Victory Vision recently, by the way. It's not a cruiser. It's Victory's version of very highly stylized touring bike. If you see one, you'll either love it or hate it. It's a pretty "out there" design. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Well, it may not be a cruiser in the traditional since (the same way that a Sportster technically isn't a cruiser), but it's still got a lot of the cruiser ergonomics.

Victory Vision:
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/071007top.jpg

Marauder 800:
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/photogall ... G_4382.jpg (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/photogallerys/IMG_4382.jpg)

Honda Goldwing:
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/goldwing.jpg

Looking at the Victory and Marauder pics, the seating position is much the same. Notice how on both bikes the ankles are directly under the wrists. In contrast, the Goldwing rider's ankles are well behind the wrists in more of the standard seating position.

[burkbuilds]

My foot position on my Vulcan looks almost exactly like Primal's post of the Marauder 800, I do have some extenders on the handlebars but that only moved them back about 1 3/4" from factory settings.

[Sarris]

Deleted to keep the Peace

:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

[burkbuilds]

Hey gentlemen,
I am getting some pretty good input on this post overall, but I really don't want it to turn into a knock down drag out fight and name calling, so how bout' we all shake hands and try to be a little more civil before this starts to get out of hand, everybody okay with that?

[Easy Rider]

but I really don't want it to turn into a knock down drag out fight and name calling,

WTF ??? :??:

[Water Warrior 2]

but I really don't want it to turn into a knock down drag out fight and name calling,

WTF ??? :??:

Easy, I don't think we want to know.

[dhgeyer]

Blanket apology to any feathers I may have ruffled. Wasn't my intent. Well, maybe that one comment - sorry about that.

[burkbuilds]

Thanks, I appreciate everybody "chillin" !

[dannylightning]

Danny,

I don't recall using the word "crap" once. What I said was that, performance wise, handling wise, control wise, and long distance comfort wise, cruisers are not the most functional motorcycles, and are not, for the most part chosen by knowledgeable people who care most about those parameters. That's not opinion. Statistically, it's provable fact. .

well you may not have said the word crap but that is basically what you are implying.
every time i have set on a sport bike all i can think about is how uncomfortable they are to set on and how much my back would hurt after a 20 min ride on it, i cant imagine taking one for a long distance ride. i will agree those bikes have more power and better handling but i really cant agree with the comfort statement

as far as cruiser handling, my bike is on the larger side and i can turn on to any side street at 20mph easily (that is a pretty sharp turn) and still not scrape the foot peg on the ground, i cant see any need to take a corner any faster than that. especially when you never know if your gonna run it some gravel or any thing else on the road.

not every one cares about those parameters so that is kind of a dead end statement about the "facts" sure if you want a motorcycle that races down the road at 200mph and takes corners at stupid speeds your gonna get that kind of a bike. but not every one has a death wish :lol:

bottom line here, to me it sounds like you are saying that cruisers are crap. not trying to start any kind of fight here. just did not appreciate what was said. and i cant see how riding a sports bike is comfortable in the least bit. especially if you back hurts all the time, maybe i have not set on the right kind of sports bike. i have set on some that were not comfy and some that i thought were horribly not comfy. sure sport bikes are better in some aspects but cruisers are better in others and look a lot better, that is my opinion.

this is the last time i will complain about this. i have said what i have to say. your post does give people something to think about and i do see what you are saying except for a few of the statements, i just feel that you want the wrong way about giving that information.

[Easy Rider]

well you may not have said the word crap but that is basically what you are implying.


This is just a little bit ironic......since you have been on the OTHER side of someone taking an off-hand comment of yours and making WAY too much out of it in the past. :cry:

I think a lot of "us" need to loosen up a bit. :popcorn:

[dannylightning]

well you may not have said the word crap but that is basically what you are implying.


This is just a little bit ironic......since you have been on the OTHER side of someone taking an off-hand comment of yours and making WAY too much out of it in the past. :cry:

I think a lot of "us" need to loosen up a bit. :popcorn:

not sure what you are referring too exactly easy but im not making that big of a deal out of it, i don't think. im just speaking my mind, that's all.

if i do, did or have said any thing that offends some one or some one don't agree with what i said i hope they do speak their mind and tell me about it.

there is a difference between a disagreement and a fight and i cant see this turning in to any kind of fight any time soon.. just a few guys stating how they see things.

[burkbuilds]

Different bikes for different purposes and for different people. I happen to find that the "cruiser" style comes closest to fitting my riding needs, my style preferences and my somewhat ailing body. If I were 20 something again and wanted to ride a bike that could handle better under high speed and I wanted to go really fast, I'd probably pick a sport bike, if I wanted to tour the country I'd probably get a Gold Wing. I don't think anybody was intentionally trying to insult anyone else or their choice of a ride in these posts, people were just trying to state what they found best or worst about different types of bikes for them and that's a good thing, that's what we want is for someone to say, "I had this type of bike and I liked (or didn't like) this aspect of it compared to this other type of bike". That doesn't mean everybody is gonna find that true for them. WW's wife rode a GZ most of the way across Canada and , if I understood correctly, didn't find the seat to be an issue for her comfort. How many of us do you think that would be true of, not many, but it was true for her. Same thing with a sport bike, some of us might find them to be more comfortable and significantly better handling than a cruiser is, but they aren't more comfortable for my old body and therefore probably wouldn't handle better for me because I can't fit and move the way I'd need to to make them handle the way they are capable with someone else. As for style and looks preference, well beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I ran into a young man on campus the other day riding a brand new Ninja Sport bike and I think his words were "this is my dream bike!", well, not mine, I think my dream bike would probably look like a cruiser not a sport bike but that's just me and my friend Max, well, his "dream bike" was this huge Honda Goldwing that he rode from Tennessee to Nova Scotia after he retired, somebody else is thinking "Harley Davidson" none of that means anybody is calling someone else's ride a piece of crap.

[Easy Rider]

well you may not have said the word crap but that is basically what you are implying.


This is just a little bit ironic......since you have been on the OTHER side of someone taking an off-hand comment of yours and making WAY too much out of it in the past. :cry:

I think a lot of "us" need to loosen up a bit. :popcorn:

not sure what you are referring too exactly easy but im not making that big of a deal out of it, i don't think. im just speaking my mind, that's all.


Well, you may not have SAID you were mad about what he said but it sure SOUNDED LIKE IT.

I think your interpretation of what he said is WAY out in left field; I don't think "crap" was implied at all.

Like I said, we need to lighten up a bit and be careful about INTERPRETING others comments.
If you must comment, make it about what someone actually said; not about what you THINK he really meant. Please ?

[dhgeyer]

Well, there's no sense arguing with some folks, and I'm not going to try. In case anyone wasn't aware of this, there is a huge variety in riding positions among different sport bikes, from extreme crotch rockets to fairly upright, almost standard bike ergos. There is also a difference between sport bikes, sport touring bikes, and touring bikes, although some models are kind of crossovers. Lumping them all together is just ignorance.

High performance (speed and cornering ability) can get a stupid, inexperienced, or careless rider killed. It can also save a competent rider's life if he/she is put in a bad situation by another driver. Bikes that handle better can evade collisions better. Food for thought for those with an open mind.

I have owned, ridden, and toured on cruisers, sport bikes, and sport touring bikes. Haven't had a full out touring rig yet. I've also read pretty extensively (lotsa books) on riding skills and touring techniques. I like all types of motorcycles, but I do know that some are better suited to some uses than others. I know this from my own experience, and from the collective experience of hundreds of riders I've read, talked to, and conversed with on dozens of forums like this one. If you've only ever owned one type of bike, you should consider obtaining more information before becoming too opinionated about other types. Not that I'm opinionated or anything......

[Easy Rider]

Not that I'm opinionated or anything......

Yes you are........no you aren't.......what?......where?.......Oh, just never mind !! :retard:

PS....incase you haven't noticed: On the Internet, experience seems to count for NOTHING and some folks try to insist that all opinions are created equal........which, of course, they aren't. :cool:

[dhgeyer]

PS....incase you haven't noticed: On the Internet, experience seems to count for NOTHING and some folks try to insist that all opinions are created equal........which, of course, they aren't. :cool:

Nah. D'ya think so? ;)

[Water Warrior 2]

It isn't what we ride but the fact that we do ride. I prefer a sit up and beg position. I can stand on the pegs when I want to and every bike I have owned was this way. That being said, Lynda's V-twin cruiser is a pretty decent fit and handles better than I thought it would. As for sporty type bikes there are so many and varied positions with seating and handle bar reach that I could probably find one I would enjoy riding. The Honda VFR would be a good candidate or a baby Ninja with it's wild 250 vertical twin.

[dannylightning]

i read that statement again, not sure if i was in a bad mood or just woke up when i read it or what, but i guess i did make too much out of it. sorry

[music man]

Looking at the Victory and Marauder pics, the seating position is much the same. Notice how on both bikes the ankles are directly under the wrists. In contrast, the Goldwing rider's ankles are well behind the wrists in more of the standard seating position.


When i rode a Goldwing, i was actually caught off guard by the seating position it has, I don't guess I had ever paid that much attention to them before, but I was expecting to be laid back like I was in a Lazy-Boy recliner or something, but it was totally different, and to be honest, quite comfortable in that seating position that it has.