Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Motorcycling: What is a Sport Bike?

Sportsbikes are controversial today. Many insurance companies charge a premium for sportsbikes, and sometimes blacklist them altogether. It was not always like this, as the definition of sportsbike has changed over the years.

Going back to the fifties, there was a divide between American machines which were big, large displacement engines, wide balloon tires. Then there were European machines, lighter, with narrower tires. The engines were smaller, but still had the ability to propel the bikes to about 100 mph. They were also better at cornering (taking corners at high speed). Their proficiency at taking on curvy roads was partly the smaller size of the bikes, which made the best of frame stiffness. Another big factor was higher ground clearance when leaned over, with parts tucked up so that they didn't drag on the road surface and upset the lean angle.

The difference between American and European machines was reflected not only in the motorcycles, but in the roads, where American roads tended to be straighter, and intersections involved traffic lights and stop signs rather than roundabouts. The difference, surprisingly also showed up even in bicycles, where American style bicycles had balloon tires, and European bikes had narrower high pressure tires. Cars were the same, with the original sports cars coming mostly from Europe. Racing also took different forms in Europe and the USA, with oval racing being the norm in America, and twisty road courses being common in Europe. And it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that most European drivers had a better appreciation of driving on a twisty road than an American driver.

Now getting back to the motorcycles. After the war, the British started exporting their bikes and sports cars to America, where more Americans were discovering the fun of driving as a sport, rather than a method of going from point A to point B. British bikes like the Triumph, Vincent, BSA, and Norton all became popular in America, competing with the home brand, Harley Davidson. Harley Davidson fought back by introducing the "Sportster", a lighter version with a similar seating arrangement to the European bikes. When the Japanese makers got into the fray in the sixties, they mostly produced bikes like the European bikes, and totally ignored the traditional heavy American style bikes.

As the seventies progressed, bikes started to become more specialized, and new types of bikes emerged. In one direction was the heavy touring bike for long distance riding. In another direction was the scrambler, for riding off road or on the street. And in yet another direction was the sport bike, which set new, higher, standards for speed and cornering.

In time the sports bikes came to resemble the top racing bikes, except equipped with lights and other on-road requirements. In Europe, they were called "race replicas". These bikes were so fast that they could have actually won world championships, if they were transported through time back to the fifties.

I have ridden only a handful of these newer "race replica" sport bikes. The first was a Yamaha FZ1000 from about 1990. I found a stretch of deserted open road and got it going as fast as I have ever ridden a bike before or since. Once I reached that speed, I backed off and got down to the speed limit. It was fun, but really I only wanted to do it once. On the other hand, when cornering, I found this bike not as stable and reassuring as my BMW K1100LT (more of a touring bike), but that could simply be lack of familiarity. It was definitely more uncomfortable for normal speeds. Race bikes (and also, of course, race replicas) place the rider head first into the wind, to reduce wind resistance. This means you lean far forward, placing a lot of weight on your hands, and you have to bend your neck back up to see the road. This is great for wringing the last hundredth of a second off your lap time, but not so good for an average rider over 30 years old who is putting along at the legal speed limit. Or even at only twice the legal speed limit!

There was another issue that developed with the new sport bikes a.k.a. race replicas. They were high and short. In the hands of an expert racer this was good, as it gave a lot of ground clearance for cornering. The disadvantage was that by accelerating hard you could easily stand the bike up on it's rear wheel, thus falling off or losing the passenger. Also, braking hard would cause the rear wheel to come off the ground and get out of alignment. A professional racer can handle these situations, but an average rider cannot.

But soon, this very dangerous characteristic of race replicas became an attractive feature, with some riders wanting the bikes precisely because they could easily perform awesome "wheelies" and "stoppies".

In America and Canada, these bikes can be ridden by anyone even with no riding experience. I don't have any actual statistics, but I've heard stories and I have no trouble believing they are true, about stunt riding on sports bikes.

I like bikes that have some performance potential. But I can do without wheels coming off the ground when I accelerate or decelerate. And I can do without the uncomfortable posture. There are lots of bikes that fill the bill for me, they are called "sport-touring" bikes. I can see the thrill in the wheelies, and I admire the skill that a good racer must have to ride one. I apparently have accidentophobia, which prevents me from having much fun on a race replica bike myself, especially on a public road.

Things have gotten crazy in Ontario, with huge fines, suspensions and impounding bikes on the spot without the right of a court trial for stunt riding and racing on a public road. And now that the cat is out of the bag, of course police officers are going to abuse their powers, after all they are only human. I would like to see a return to sanity before I get my license suspended and bike impounded for a simple case of lane-splitting.

1 comment:

  1. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Regulation 455/07 when it was brought in, relying primarily on press reports that it was intended to discourage speeding offenses of more than 50 Kph over.

    However, once I actually read the damned thing, I was appalled! This is political sleeze at best, and conviction without trial at worst.

    Admittedly we're outside the body of criminal law and the Charter presumption of innocence, but impounding a vehicle (loss of use, towing and storage charges, &c.) at the whim of a cop is in and of itself criminal.

    What's especially egregious about the wording of this regulation is not its vagueness (and therefore its openness to interpretation) but its reliance on intention.

    Surely our legal tradition is designed to punish the act not the unacted upon intention to act. Shifting the punishment to intention smacks to me of
    thoughtcrime.

    And, yes, much to my horror, according to 457/01 - 3.6, if I lift my butt while I'm crossing a rough patch of road, I'm deemed to be performing a stunt. Simply absurd!

    Although I wonder if there might be a legal defense that I was, in fact, sitting in the driver's seat, albeit not on it.

    But even a victory there would be cold comfort, seeing as I'd not be able to recover those towing, storage, fees, &c.

    This may be well intended (see: intentions, yet again!) legislation, but it is badly flawed. It puts way too much power in the hands of the police.

    ReplyDelete