Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 7, 7:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:45b07162-394c-4fd9-824d-
:





On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at
all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines (
including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

Bertie

Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
course).

About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.

Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
day (and I've had both).

Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...

Still prefer my 1922 Raleigh... ..

Handling? Nothing beats a 1962 Matchless. . Brakes, I'll give you, but
the percentages are small. Performance is up but so is fuel
consumption...

Bertie

Get out... now that would be some ride!

A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
be the closest in feeling, I suppose?

The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
skins.

And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
remember....

(Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
piloted)

Dan

Dan wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
:

Get out... now that would be some ride!

A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
be the closest in feeling, I suppose?


What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)

The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
skins.

And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
remember....

!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
existent, though.


Bertie

(Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
piloted)

Dan

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)


One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
the road, to some degree.

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).

The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
(starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
expereince intruded on the ride.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.


!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
existent, though.

Bertie

My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.


Dan

Dan wrote in news:26c8c021-3ac3-48f6-837f-
:

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998
duke.
The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure
footed
and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)


One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
the road, to some degree.

Well, one of the guys at "Mad Sunday" during the Isle of Man TT a few
years ago decided to confront that problem head on by riding around the
course buck nekkid. When you ride around buck nekkid you do not want to
fall off. But he did. Eeep!
I wonder what his sensation of speed felt like!

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).

The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

Well, that's a good thing!
The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
(starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
expereince intruded on the ride.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.


I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
and all.



!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and
that's
pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so
you
have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost
non-
existent, though.

Bertie

My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.


My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.


Bertie

On Mar 8, 9:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!

But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

Well, that's a good thing!
The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Probably a BSA -- it was in Canada -- my cousins had one of every
motorized toy sold -- it was a pre-teen boy's wonderland. My uncle
built a Chalet (what they called cabins in Quebec) and all roads were
dirt (sand, really) or some scattered gravel. Not ideal for those
sorts of bikes but you couldn't go too fast or get hurt too bad.

We actually spent most of our time on a little Honda Trail -- I think
it was one of Honda's earliest foray's into "off road."

There were two springs on either side of the rear axle but all show!



Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

Never rode one -- would like to, but any I've seen are more jealously
guarded than any trophy wife.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.

I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
and all.

Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.

Bertie

That's one awesome feeling....

I rode bikes for a while during my break from aviation (when I
couldn't afford it). Very similar sensations, for alot less $$.

But not exactly the same. Thus the return to the addiction.


Dan

Dan wrote in news:1b8de725-9ae3-4323-8361-
:

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!


I'd do it if I wasn't almost sure to be run down on the road.


Probably a BSA -- it was in Canada -- my cousins had one of every
motorized toy sold -- it was a pre-teen boy's wonderland. My uncle
built a Chalet (what they called cabins in Quebec) and all roads were
dirt (sand, really) or some scattered gravel. Not ideal for those
sorts of bikes but you couldn't go too fast or get hurt too bad.

They're nice bikes. The fifties were kind of an in between time frm the
nice light rigid read things of the thirties and the more sophisticated
sixties bikes. I've ridden a Commando, which had rubber vibration
isolaters and that made it a litle vague compared to the earlier ones,
bu tstill a great bike. There was nothing like it when it came out, then
the CB 750 appeard and the rest is history.

We actually spent most of our time on a little Honda Trail -- I think
it was one of Honda's earliest foray's into "off road."

There were two springs on either side of the rear axle but all show!

I rode one of those back then. A friend had one A 175 I think. Nice
little bikes and so solid compared to the other things!


Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

I preferred those back then. Though the Luscombe was the one I really
liked best. I've had three of them.
My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..

My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride.
It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and
you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.

Bertie

That's one awesome feeling....

I rode bikes for a while during my break from aviation (when I
couldn't afford it). Very similar sensations, for alot less $$.

But not exactly the same. Thus the return to the addiction.

Yeah, they are very similar feelings, but I'm a much better flyer than
rider and I don't think I'll ever "be one" with one!
Stil, good fun...

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..

Heh.

Hadn't thought about those in a long time.

One of my friends used his on his paper route. Another friend tried to beat a
train on his and got smushed.

They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned desperately
for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5-
:
Get out... now that would be some ride!

A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably
be the closest in feeling, I suppose?


What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting
springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The
Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best
handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke.
The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very
tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed
and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course)

The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns,
suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can
take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older
skins.

And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to
remember....

!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's

Ducati will do 130, been there.

pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old
Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads
that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you
have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non-
existent, though.


Bertie
(Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
piloted)

Dan

On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog
wrote:

Ducati will do 130, been there.


With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.

Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog
wrote:
Ducati will do 130, been there.


With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.

Just like an airplane.