Turning The TW200 Into A Street Bike (Mostly)
in [Tech]
|
From: TOG on 13 Aug 2008 08:45 On 13 Aug, 12:43, "Bill Miller." <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: <snip> Still smarting about being caught out lying over your so-called 'dictionary' definition, aren't we, dear? <G> First time I've ever come across someone using a dictionary as a sock puppet. Utterly glorious.
From: TOG on 13 Aug 2008 08:55 On 13 Aug, 12:31, "Bill Miller." <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: ><snip> >I guess you have enough "sweeties" and "dearies" in this newsgroup > to keep you afloat. Maybe it should be renamed > alt.sexuality.rec.motorcycles. > .....and we move onto the next stage in the development of a classic Usenet Looney: the general denigration of the newsgroup and its posters, as a group. You're doing really, really well, laddie. Conforming exactly to type, and being led by the nose. Now, it's about time for your barely coherent rant. Have you ever paused to consider that you're parading your mental instability in front of a global audience?
From: Blattus Slafaly on 13 Aug 2008 09:09 Geyser wrote: > Blattus Slafaly wrote: >> Bill Miller. wrote: >>> On Aug 9, 5:52 pm, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)" <dittohead1...(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> "Bill Miller." wrote in message So I guess it just boilsdown to >>> finding >>> tires that fit the current wheels that are more"highway-friendly." >>> >>>> There is nothing "unhighway-'unfriendly" about the tires that come >>>> on the TW. >>> >>> Except for the fact that the tires I linked to would be "more >>> friendly" on the highway than the straight knobbies of the stock TW200 >>> and still remain somewhat friendly to off-road use. >>> >>>> If you want a street bike, why not just buy one and ride tha >>>> occasionally/seldom off road? I've done that with my VStar and >>>> would much rather have knobby tires on the highway than street tires >>>> off road. >>>> Sue >>> >>> Because, as I stated, the TW200 provided me with the best fit and the >>> 196cc motor with enough power to fit my needs. It's just too bad that >>> Yamaha doesn't produce a street bike in the 150-200 cc category and >>> this conversation wouldn't even be happening. And the tires I linked >>> to are not straight "street tires," just more of an on-road style than >>> the stock knobbies on the TW200. And I believe that most would agree >>> that the front tire I linked to would provide better steering and >>> handling than the stock TW200's fron tire, especially perhaps in wet >>> weather. Here's that link again... >>> >>> http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/29/393/14780/ITEM/Bridgestone-TW203-Trail-Wing-Dual-Sport-Front-Tire.aspx >>> >>> >>> I think if you compare the tread on this one with the stock TW200 >>> you'll see how it is perhaps more highway-friendly while still >>> functional for light off-road riding. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >> What kind of gas mileage does a 250 street get? > > For an XT250, Yamaha claims 73 mpg. > Yamaha says the TW200 gets "up to an estimated 78 mpg", so what would > explain the 100-120 mpg yours supposedly gets? > > One thing I like about the TW is the gas tank. It still doesn't have > "watercooled styling" with fake radiator shrouds. I'd say their estimates are low. All I know is I go 100 miles and stop at the gas station and it won't take a full gallon. What does that mean? The EPA ratings are fucked. I get 52 mpg with my Jetta diesel. The EPA says it 38mpg. All I know is how much fuel it takes per miles driven. I guess the average driver has his foot buried in the floor mat all the time. -- Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
From: TOG on 13 Aug 2008 09:20 On 13 Aug, 13:57, "Bill Miller." <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 5:45 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Still smarting about being caught out lying over your so-called > > 'dictionary' definition, aren't we, dear? > > Not smarting over anything. My definitions were valid, No, they weren't. You claimed a dictionary definition to prove your point. And there was no dictionary definition, was there? You made it up. If your definition had been valid, you'd have been able to find a dictionary source to back it up. But you couldn't, so you were forced to resort to lying, and reckoned you wouldn't be called out over it. Unfortunately for you, though, and as I pointed out, words are my business, and I can frequently tell when someone's dug themselves a lovely deep hole with the 'very exact instrument' (as I called it) that is the English language. I even warned you: "You must be prepared to be tripped up by someone who can wield the instrument better than you can". It's not often you see such a perfect demonstration in action, is it? I mean, people get away with all kinds of fibs and obfuscations[1] on Usenet, but rarely do you see someone first warned that they're on thin ice, and then watch while they fall straight through it, as they try and lie their way out of trouble. [1] You may need a dictionary for this[2]. [2] A real one.
From: . on 13 Aug 2008 09:39
On Aug 13, 6:18 am, Blattus Slafaly <boobooililili...(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > FUEL CONSUMPTION: (urban) 53.3mpg / (extra urban) 83.1mpg / (combined) > 68.9mpg Those mileages are based upon Imperial gallons, which are have 20% more volume than U.S. gallons. Diesel / AYGO 3 & 5-door 1.4L Diesel 5-speed Man Urban: 53.3 mpgimp (5.3 L/100 km / 44.4 mpgU.S.) Extra-urban 83.1 mpgimp (3.4 L/100 km / 69.2 mpgU.S.) Combined: 68.9 mpgimp (4.1 L/100 km / 57.4 mpgU.S.) |