OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
It was OK when I bought my two Yamahas, one in '78 and the other in '80.
You are absolutely right in where one should ride when the traffic is moving
(except that one should ride on the tire tracks not the grease strip), but
when the traffic stops is when bikes tend to split the lanes. It is insanity
to split lanes when traffic is already doing 70+, indeed it is insane to
drive between cars that are moving more than about 2. I am more than happy
to keep my place in line at any speed over 10 mph.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4048DEF9.C2F55CDD@***.net...
> It was illegal back in the sixties, and seventies when I was
> riding, back in the days when we were supposed to ride only in the
> center of the lane with the grease so as to be visible from a car's rear
> view mirrors.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> CRWLR wrote:
> >
> > No, it is not and never has been that I can recall. It used to annoy me
as
> > well, until I discovered that the bikes were not actually violating the
> > rules. Now, when I am in standing traffic and in the #1 lane, I stay to
the
> > left, and when in the #2 lane, I stay right. The bikes seem to favor the
> > space between the 1 & 2 lanes as the place to split.
You are absolutely right in where one should ride when the traffic is moving
(except that one should ride on the tire tracks not the grease strip), but
when the traffic stops is when bikes tend to split the lanes. It is insanity
to split lanes when traffic is already doing 70+, indeed it is insane to
drive between cars that are moving more than about 2. I am more than happy
to keep my place in line at any speed over 10 mph.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4048DEF9.C2F55CDD@***.net...
> It was illegal back in the sixties, and seventies when I was
> riding, back in the days when we were supposed to ride only in the
> center of the lane with the grease so as to be visible from a car's rear
> view mirrors.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> CRWLR wrote:
> >
> > No, it is not and never has been that I can recall. It used to annoy me
as
> > well, until I discovered that the bikes were not actually violating the
> > rules. Now, when I am in standing traffic and in the #1 lane, I stay to
the
> > left, and when in the #2 lane, I stay right. The bikes seem to favor the
> > space between the 1 & 2 lanes as the place to split.
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"KJ" <here@there.net> wrote in message
news:x1U1c.178264$B81.1981049@twister.tampabay.rr. com...
> BMW 101 for Bill:
>
> Bimmer = motorcycle
> Beemer=automobile
>
I wasn't aware of that distinction. I thought Beemer was what people that
didn't know better said, and Bimmer is what BMW drivers drive.
> the K1200RS is a motorcycle, in reference to the OP's questions.
> a 740i is a car....totally irrelevant for this discussion.
>
> most boxer BIMMERS should get between 45-55 mpg, but as stated earlier,
the
> "flying brick" K series bikes are trading that mileage for power; now
> 130bhp, and 0-60 in 3.2 stock.
>
"Boxer"? What's that?
And, to set the record straight, my reference to my BMW was my car. I have a
3 Series that churns out about 25 mpg on average. Sorry I confused you or
anybody else. I could be interested in a BMW motorcycle, so your comments
are appreciated.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:40480A0C.CD73CD59@***.net...
> > My Brother owns a 740i V12 Bimmer. Your mileage of course will
> > vary: http://www.autobytel.com/content/res...detail/BMW.htm
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > KJ wrote:
> > >
> > > and your lack of trust is based on what exactly? more folklore bill?
> >
>
>
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"KJ" <here@there.net> wrote in message
news:x1U1c.178264$B81.1981049@twister.tampabay.rr. com...
> BMW 101 for Bill:
>
> Bimmer = motorcycle
> Beemer=automobile
>
I wasn't aware of that distinction. I thought Beemer was what people that
didn't know better said, and Bimmer is what BMW drivers drive.
> the K1200RS is a motorcycle, in reference to the OP's questions.
> a 740i is a car....totally irrelevant for this discussion.
>
> most boxer BIMMERS should get between 45-55 mpg, but as stated earlier,
the
> "flying brick" K series bikes are trading that mileage for power; now
> 130bhp, and 0-60 in 3.2 stock.
>
"Boxer"? What's that?
And, to set the record straight, my reference to my BMW was my car. I have a
3 Series that churns out about 25 mpg on average. Sorry I confused you or
anybody else. I could be interested in a BMW motorcycle, so your comments
are appreciated.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:40480A0C.CD73CD59@***.net...
> > My Brother owns a 740i V12 Bimmer. Your mileage of course will
> > vary: http://www.autobytel.com/content/res...detail/BMW.htm
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > KJ wrote:
> > >
> > > and your lack of trust is based on what exactly? more folklore bill?
> >
>
>
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"KJ" <here@there.net> wrote in message
news:x1U1c.178264$B81.1981049@twister.tampabay.rr. com...
> BMW 101 for Bill:
>
> Bimmer = motorcycle
> Beemer=automobile
>
I wasn't aware of that distinction. I thought Beemer was what people that
didn't know better said, and Bimmer is what BMW drivers drive.
> the K1200RS is a motorcycle, in reference to the OP's questions.
> a 740i is a car....totally irrelevant for this discussion.
>
> most boxer BIMMERS should get between 45-55 mpg, but as stated earlier,
the
> "flying brick" K series bikes are trading that mileage for power; now
> 130bhp, and 0-60 in 3.2 stock.
>
"Boxer"? What's that?
And, to set the record straight, my reference to my BMW was my car. I have a
3 Series that churns out about 25 mpg on average. Sorry I confused you or
anybody else. I could be interested in a BMW motorcycle, so your comments
are appreciated.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:40480A0C.CD73CD59@***.net...
> > My Brother owns a 740i V12 Bimmer. Your mileage of course will
> > vary: http://www.autobytel.com/content/res...detail/BMW.htm
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > KJ wrote:
> > >
> > > and your lack of trust is based on what exactly? more folklore bill?
> >
>
>
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a different situation. You were riding along and
something
> > happened and you lost control ... at that moment, you controlled the
> > inevitable crash.
> >
> > What I'm referring to is this ... I'm riding along and come upon a
> > refrigerator in the middle of the road and I choose to "lay her down"
> > instead of braking and maneuvering to avoid the accident or slow the
speed
> > of impact. It is always better to stay in control as long as you can
....
> > your bike is likely much more capable than you think it is ... if you
are
> > already crashing then you can try and control the crash but you
shouldn't
> > choose to crash.
>
> Now imagine that refrigerator moved, right out in front of you in
> the lane you had chosen, then again.
Because I still have control of the motorcycle I can continue to maneuver
and attempt to avoid the fridge. Had I been sliding on the ground with
sparks flying, I would be unable to control my rate of deceleration and
direction ... thanks for proving my point.
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Motorcycle fuel mileage
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the particulars but maybe you shouldn't have been 10'
behind
> > this fool.
>
> Now there is the issue in a sentence...
>
> He came whipping out of a side road and I was 10' from face planting
> into the side of the sucker.
Not much you can do there but try to anticipate every idiot doing the
stupidest thing possible ... impossible.
> > > The second one was close enough that I stopped myself from going under
> > > him with my foot on his door.
> >
> > In that one, it's likely that you would have been able to bring your
bike to
> > a stop rubber side down with no contact. Maybe not ...
>
> The bike is too small. It has 1.25" wide tires and weighs in around 75
> lb. Flipping it sideways on purpose to have two 4" wide strips of
> rubber and a foot rest digging in is/was a better bet than the 1" width
> of rubber on the ground.
That's a rare situation, I'd say. You call that a bike? ;-)
--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.