Are sport-touring bikes really comfortable?

[tricker]

Any bike can be good for the long trips if you prepare properly.. me, frostbitevinnie, rickster and peaches/rowdy/clint took the long trip to NC on our bikes.. zzr600, c90, vstrom, bandit

[boooya]

Originally Posted by Deno

Doesn't look very comfortable for the passenger for a 400 mile ride!

Actually it is comfortable for passenger. Had my wife on it yesterday for about 2.5 hrs and see loved it. Then again my last bike was a M-50 so anything for the passenger is an improvment. The '08 Bandit is actually designed to be a 2up sport touring bike, the pillion is wide and long.

[Clint]

And a simple backrest does wonders for comfort and confidence.

[womper]

i have nothing to compare and never sat on a sport touring...
i sat on a 636 once and didn't like that feeling at all... way too forward for me (i'm top heavy)
i know the 636 isn't the same and i should sit on the sport touring bikes... but are they more forward or neutral like a standard?

[Clint]

They're fairly neutral, with many giving a vertical torso orientation.

[intimid8er]

Originally Posted by Clint

And a simple backrest does wonders for comfort and confidence.

Since you have been doing at least one long distance ride a year since I've been here. Can I recommend to you an Airhawk seat pad. Awesomeness I say.

[tricker]

backrest... i don't need no stinkin backrest...

[Clint]

Originally Posted by intimid8er

Since you have been doing at least one long distance ride a year since I've been here. Can I recommend to you an Airhawk seat pad. Awesomeness I say.

I've been aware of their reputation for quite a while, but I've been too cheap to try one. Either that or there's something unmanly about riding on a pillow.

[intimid8er]

Originally Posted by Clint

I've been aware of their reputation for quite a while, but I've been too cheap to try one. Either that or there's something unmanly about riding on a pillow.

Frugal befits you better my friend. Cheap is sooo uh.....Cheap!

[1badbaker]

Originally Posted by 07M50zAllDaWay

I've thought about that, but the M is a little underpowered for long 2-up riding. Also, it's hard enough to stop solo with that sorry a$$ rear drum. If I can't get another ride in the near future, I may go that route. If there is a chance of trading it or adding another ride, I'd hate to sink about another grand into the M.

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I just spent 5days riding two up in some crazy southeast mountains....ie dragon, cherohala, and blue ridge parkway. The M can handle it. Upgraded the front brakes to EBC pads before I left and had absolutely no issues with two emergency stops from 50mph+. We did just under 400mi (393) on our longest day and with the exception of the stock seats, there were no problems. Interstate, gravel, moutain twisties....no problems. I'm about 170 and my girlfriend is right around 110.

I can see the point about spending another grand. Watch ebay and the for sale here. I got the sissybar/pad/brakets on Ebay for 180 and an explorer on here for 300.

[Clint]

There's nothing wrong with drum brakes on the rear. If you're not stopping well, it's because you're not using the front brake enough. I've owned two bikes with drum brakes, and neither had dual front rotors. Both stopped just fine.

[07M50zAllDaWay]

Originally Posted by Clint

There's nothing wrong with drum brakes on the rear. If you're not stopping well, it's because you're not using the front brake enough. I've owned two bikes with drum brakes, and neither had dual front rotors. Both stopped just fine.

Not to argue, but I'm curious. The two bikes you speak of, how did they compare to the M as far as weight and power?

[Clint]

Lighter. Not sure how power is a factor. They were a 1989 Yamaha Radian and a 1992 Honda Nighthawk. Point is, most (almost all, even on a cruiser) braking power comes from the front, and even a nonexistent rear brake wouldn't increase stopping distances all that much in the dry.

[07M50zAllDaWay]

Originally Posted by Clint

Lighter. Not sure how power is a factor. They were a 1989 Yamaha Radian and a 1992 Honda Nighthawk. Point is, most (almost all, even on a cruiser) braking power comes from the front, and even a nonexistent rear brake wouldn't increase stopping distances all that much in the dry.

How is power not a factor? A bike that can't do 100 doesn't need a very good 100-0 distance. The faster the bike, the better the brakes need to be.

The experts I've read would also disagree with your second statement. Most agree that the rear brake gives 25-30% of the total braking power, so your brake distance would increase at least 25% w/o using a rear brake.

[Clint]

What bike doesn't do 100? None that apply to this conversation, that's for sure. How quickly you accelerate to some speed has no bearing on braking ability (or need).

And no, most experts do not agree with your ratio. In fact, I challenge you to find one that does. "A guy you know" doesn't qualify.

I'll start: Motorcycle Safety Site

My Proficient Motorcycling is on loan somewhere, so I can't quote David Hough just now.

[07M50zAllDaWay]

Originally Posted by Clint

What bike doesn't do 100? None that apply to this conversation, that's for sure. How quickly you accelerate to some speed has no bearing on braking ability (or need).

And no, most experts do not agree with your ratio. In fact, I challenge you to find one that does. "A guy you know" doesn't qualify.

I'll start: Motorcycle Safety Site

My Proficient Motorcycling is on loan somewhere, so I can't quote David Hough just now.

Darn, it was just "some guy I know" I know him because he wrote my state motorcycle manual from the DMV. I can also dig up a web site or two, but I will check out the link you provided as well.

I was not referring to acceleration, but pure top end speed. Obviously 0-60 time or 60-100 time don't matter when it comes to braking, but I surely want better brakes the faster and heavier the machine is. I know single front disc rear drum is adequate for some bikes(<650 cc IMO), but would you buy a Gixxer with that setup??

From Webbikeworld:
1. Which brake is the most effective?

The front brake is the most effective, giving between 60 & 80% of the bike's stopping power in hard stops, depending upon surface conditions

I checked out that link Clint, and found this interesting:
If you are keeping track, the total braking power applied to slowing you down or stopping you is NEVER GREATER THAN 40% from the rear brake and NEVER LESS THAN 80% from the front brake. Clearly this is not a zero-sum game.

If I take this as Gospel, somewhere along the line I have to end up with 120% braking power. This has gone too far though for what was a simple observation. I found a site that has info on breaking that would make Pythagoras wincehttp://www.dinamoto.it/DINAMOTO/on-l...raking_new.htm, but I'm not going to be dusting off my Physics books to try stop a bike. I remember having several bikes as a kid that had only rear brakes, they stopped fine.

[oyrider]

I've done a 500 mile day on my M50, but I've also ridden 1,000 miles in less than 24 hours on a Ducati ST3s and the Duc was more comfortable. Its also twice the price of the Suzuki and intended as a sport-tourer. The ST3 is taller too, but with my wife on the rear I can flat foot the bike. I'm 5'7", 165 lbs and my wife weighs 115. She has done 300+ miles with no complaints.

[donny662]

Originally Posted by 07M50zAllDaWay

I know single front disc rear drum is adequate for some bikes(<650 cc IMO), but would you buy a Gixxer with that setup??

Yes, if the bike is at the brink of doing a 'stoppie', all of the braking is being done by the front brake. The rear brake can't do anything because there is an insignificant amount of weight on the back tire to provide the traction necessary for the rear brake to do any work. A drum break is, in many cases, powerful enough to provide all the braking power the rear tire can handle.

I think the reasons a Gixxer wouldn't sell with a drum rear brake have more to do with weight and performance when the brake starts heating up (just because minimum braking distance is accomplished with just the front brake doesn't mean that the front should be the only brake to be used in any situation). On a dirt bike, the disc brakes perform better when wet; I've read that a drum brake becomes nearly useless after a water crossing that submerges the drum.

Most of the previous information I have learned by reading various articles.

On my mom's GZ250, I have made a few panic stops. My first instinct is to grab the front brake; using the rear brake along with the front is not second nature to me yet. When I grabbed the front brake, I started slowing down from 60mph at a considerable rate, but I had enough time to tell myself to apply pressure on the rear drum brake. Immediately, the bike started slowing down noticeably faster.

Would a rear disc brake help the bike stop faster? I'm not entirely convinced that it would. I know that the drum rear brake can lock up the back wheel without applying front brake at all. My mother and I were riding; she was on the GZ, and I was in the lead on the Marauder. I came upon the street we wanted to turn right onto quicker than I anticipated, so I hit my turn signal and braked hard. I looked in the mirror before I went to make the turn and noticed my mother coming up fast, and at about that moment, her rear tire started sliding audibly.

Luckily, my mistake didn't end in any injuries or even a dropped bike. We went straight through the intersection and stopped on the shoulder. I found out my mom didn't use the front brake at all. The rear drum is pretty powerful and can be used as effectively as a rear disc on the street in an emergency, if one takes the time to become well acquainted with it.

A disc brake still has it's advantages, mostly due to better 'feel' I believe, but you were discussing how drum brakes compare as far as 'power'. A rear disc brake may help a new rider become a better at braking just like ABS can save you in a pinch, but if the ABS actually engages, you've screwed up by applying too much pressure on the front brake, and likewise, if you need a rear disc brake to achieve minimum stopping distance, it's likely that your technique with a rear drum brake isn't up to snuff.

At the moment this all seems to make sense I'll revisit in the morning, and hopefully, it'll still make sense

[Clint]

Originally Posted by 07M50zAllDaWay

If I take this as Gospel, somewhere along the line I have to end up with 120% braking power.

Houston, we have a problem. Check your math, bud, paying close attention to the "more than" and "less than" modifiers.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I just hold that most riders don't use the front enough, and old information is partly the cause.

[tricker]

Originally Posted by Clint

I don't mean to be argumentative.

That's debatable....

get it, argumentative, debatable???? anyone?? tough crowd..

carry on with discussion