Uh yeah... don't get a nice bike like that for your first bike dude. Get an old beater that you won't cry over when you tip it. Cause you probably will.

Big V-twins aren't as hard to start off on as some other kinds of bikes, but I'd look to something else as a first bike as a general rule. It helps if you think of it as your 'learner' bike, it makes it easier to ride an ugly one

You'd do better to get something smaller and older like a shadow 750 or the like to start on. Smaller, lighter bikes are easier to learn on, plus they're easier to maneuver at slow speeds. Even if you don't have a slow speed crash early on, lots of people tip over their bikes in parking lots etc. just from being new to maneuvering a bike. You're more likely to tip something bigger, and if you get something like that Fury as your first bike, you've now scrapped up and tipped your nice new bike.

Take one of the MSF classes, get yourself some riding gear, and get a smaller bike to start (750-800 for a cruiser, ~500-700 for a standard, no I4s). The MSF and an older, cheaper bike will let you know if you're even into riding without too much cost. It'll also give you an idea of what you like to ride. You might spend 6 months or a year on a smaller cruiser and decide that a big cruiser isn't for you, you'd like a standard more...or something.

As far as how many miles are acceptable: for a prob 10-15 year old Japanese cruiser I'd worry less about miles and more about how it was ridden and maintained. Some guys will have bikes that old with 2 or 3 thousand miles, but all that really means is that it sat for a lot of years and likely had little maintenance done to it. Rubber bits will be dry and fluids will be old. I'd take a bike the same age with 10 or 15,000 miles over one with less, potentially, if you know it's been ridden, oil's been changed, work has been done on it, etc.

I tell people this stuff on reddit and forums everyday so ask if you have any other questions, but the main thing is: Sign up for a riding class, get gear, and buy used, older, and cheap for a first bike. It's your first, not your last, and it'll make getting that 'dream bike' that much better when you have confidence in your riding abilities.

You continue to make assumptions...

GKY didn't say this: "you should get a smaller bike due to your lack of experience they are referring to engine displacement." You assumed it.

You nor GKY know anything about my motorcycle experience. You assumed it.

I didn't think this: "you think they're referring to the physical size of the bike" You assumed it.

"which is why you started spitting out your physical stats as a response" I gave a specific motor size and my physical size to answer either of two questions I ASSUMED GKY was referencing. 1) I was comfortable with a 1130cc bike. and 2) I was physically capable of safely operating the bike.

"You're a fucking moron, like always."

More ignorance.

When people talk of getting a smaller bike they are referring to the power output.

The difference in seat height and overall weight of the bike is minimal between various classes of engine size.

You're an obvious n00b and are too stupid to realise this.

You quoted the size of your head as a response to this to solidify the fact that you were too dumb to comprehend the point being made to you.

No one but you is talking about the physical size required to operate a bike, as physical size has nothing to do with experience.

Experience riding is what will determine how much you twist the throttle when coming out of a corner, how much brake and what distribution between front and back you choose to apply, how you operate the clutch etc etc. These are examples of the elements that are lessened in consequence when riding a bike with less of a power output.

And your response to this is "I'm 6'2 190 lbs". lol, you're a class A fucking idiot.

Hey gramps you stupid redneck, I was basically saying,"Learn how to ride on a bike that won't kill you with its power/torque". You should have figured that out when my follow up was about your funeral....but you didn't.

Me being surprised

Assumption.

Hey gramps you stupid redneck, I was basically saying,"Learn how to ride on a bike that won't kill you with its power/torque".

And?

Ignorance.

More ignorance.

When people speak generically I don't assume.

But a 5'4" midget like you would never own a full size bike. You couldn't touch the ground, never mind hold it up.

That wasn't my response, Capt. Ignorance.

I've ridden before. Though it has been several years. However, an 1130cc bike for someone who's 6'2" 190+lbs isn't "big". But I appreciate your concerns.

No it wasn’t to anyone with half a brain. Not to mention this post you dimwit:

And that means the only relevent way to benefit safety wise with a smaller bike is by way of lesser power output.

No one spoke generically. If you had a clue about riding you’d realise there was no assumption to be made.

If it wasn't said it was assumed. And you both keep conveniently overlooking the fact I addressed engine size and bike size.

No possible way someone too physically small would have problems operating a bike too physically big. Nope, no way.

Too Big too Small doesn't reference anything specific. Mr. Assumption.

lol

well you make sense, thx but i really dont want to spend any actual money on a learner... I think I'm going to go for a junky of about 1000-2000$

BLAH BLAH BLAH more ignorance BLAH BLAH BLAH

you'd be crazy starting off with a big Harley (lol redneck bike, etc) and should get a smaller bike instead.

I've ridden before. Though it has been several years. However, an 1130cc bike for someone who's 6'2" 190+lbs isn't "big". But I appreciate your concerns.

I've ridden before. Though it has been several years. However, an 1130cc bike for someone who's 6'2" 190+lbs isn't "big". But I appreciate your concerns.

They aren't called golf's anymore in North America. it's either a GTI or a VW Rabbit and I think it's awesome.

This thread needs less dummies, more motorcycles

Dear Upset internet user,

I realize that you must have the last word on everything, could never admit you were wrong and would defend the most retarded of positions until the end of time. However, if you are still missing the point or unclear on the actual definition of the word assume (not the made up definition you've manufactured to support your obsessive argument) I'm going paint you a picture so clear, even someone with your unwillingness to accept ideas other than your own can understand.

This is GKY's original statement:



At no point in this statement does GKY reference the specific size of anything. He in fact says "big Harley" as opposed to "smaller bike". Harleys aren't known for being fast and powerful race bikes. They're known for being loud an colossal cruisers. But that's neither here nor there. The FACT is, GKY doesn't specify the "big" or the "small". One would have to assume it was the physical size or the size of the engine or possibly some other inane observation rattling around inside the head of an angry computer nerd. So the only way for YOU to decide that GKY was referring to the engine size was to apply the definition of the word Assume ("suppose to be the case, without proof").

This is my original response:



You'll notice I ASSUMED GKY was either referencing the size of the engine or the physical size of the bike. Because I addressed them both in my response. Could I have worded it better? Sure. But that doesn't negate the content. I was stating that I didn't think an 1130 cc engine or the physical size the bike would be too big for ME. Even a "12 year old" could figure that out.

Now I know you're going to have to say something. Most likely continuing to ignore the actual definition of the word assume or continued criticism of me somehow not knowing there's a difference between motor and bike size. But before your incredibly unoriginal OCD kicks in and causes you to draft another ridiculous response (similar in context and structure to the one I've provided above), think. You can't change GKY's original statement and you can clearly see I understood the gist of what GKY was trying to say. So unless you can change the definition of the word assume, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact you're wrong.

BTW, further discussion of this pointless anyway. I'm not even buying the bike.

man, that black...dukati makes the naked style look easy to look good I prefer it over all the other options you posted... but of course, it's a fucking dukati.

however that old school white honda is pretty magnificent looking too.

can I get that naked look with pretty much any stripped down streetbike, or do some look better than others?

But I guess not, the one you own unfortunately has that futuristic shape build into the lights, hud,and frame ...that kinda takes away from the look

Just as I expected, too stupid to understand that you're the only moron desperately clinging to the idea that anything was assumed.

You lose, as always.

You get the naked look best with bikes that are meant to be naked. You can see that a lot of things on them like wires, overflow tanks, etc are hidden and overall they have a pretty clean look. Bikes with fairings usually aren't as pretty underneath the plastic.

I crushed the parrot into fantasy land.

LawLy want a cracker?

This thread needs less dummies, more motorcycles

Honda just released a new CB that looks like the old ones ...
You get the naked look best with bikes that are meant to be naked. You can see that a lot of things on them like wires, overflow tanks, etc are hidden and overall they have a pretty clean look. Bikes with fairings usually aren't as pretty underneath the plastic.