Letters
LETTERS
USEFUL NEW LAW
Re:Change to New York General Obligation Law No. 9-103, Article 9, allowing recreational use of motorized vehicles on private lands, without the land-owner being libel for personal injury.
New York’s “Forever Wild” conservation laws bar motorcycles from state park and forest lands. Therefore it is necessary that we have willing land-owners open up their land to motorcyclists.
About a year ago, members of the IBM Motorcycle Club in Poughkeepsie N.Y. requested that Assemblyman Fmeel S. Betros sponsor a bill to amend the General Obligation Law. This has been done, and the bill was recently signed into law by the governor.
In essence, the new law removes the financial responsibility of the private landowner when he allows motorized vehicles on his land for recreational purposes.
R.C. MACDONALD IBM Poughkeepsie Employees Motorcycle Club Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
VICTIM OF NOISE
I just finished reading the May issue of ('W and would like to make some comments . . .
Sunday I attended the last event at Langhorne, Pa. I asked why it was the last event, and the guy on the gate told me that the owner of the ground was asking them to leave, due to pressure from the township. Another victim of noise '
The sound level was so extreme that, even though 1 enjoyed the events very much, I was forced to leave about half way through the program because I got a headache.
It seems to me that it is high time that the AMA refuses to sanction or give points for any event where mufflers are not used. From what I have heard and read recently, the eventual alternative will be that there won’t be any events to sanction. Frankly, I have no intention of joining AMA (which, incidentally, doesn’t seem to have much interest in road riders anyway) until they institute such a program.
Your magazine has been helpful in acquainting me (as a beginner) with many facits of cycling, and 1 heartily recommend it to my friends.
RICKER .1. BODHOLDT Gladwyne, Pa.
“GRACIAS”
Just want to commend you guys on a truly fine magazine. Bikes are really coming on strong among us GIs over here, and we all read your CYCLE WORLD. I am riding a thumping 250 BMW along with my comrades on their far-out three-cylinder limeys. Germany is some of the best riding I’ve ever seen; everything is tailored for biking. Beautiful!
Yes sir, my motorcycle and this countryside are making my hitch with Uncle Sam a lot less dreary. Gracias.
SP/4 M.G. COOPER APO New York, N.Y.
LOVES 'EM
I have just read your May ’71 issue, and I was reading the Letters column and just about shot through the roof when one of the letters was, well, a few of the letters said that they hated the Suzuki commercials and even said a couple of words I didn’t like about Suzuki.
Well, if I ever saw them I would tell them something they wouldn’t like.
I’m 13 and own a Suzuki 120 trail and street scrambler. I race it. You keep all of them commercials about Suzuki. I love ’em.
STEVE SMITH Davison, Mich.
THE AMERICAN BUYER
I am thoroughly enraged at the writer of the Bonneville road test (May ’71 ).
'To perpetrate the idea that a Bonneville is exclusively for the “guy who would buy a Boss Mustang or a Z28” ought to be punishable by law. I have been assured by my local Triumph dealer that I need not be a red-neck to buy a Bonneville.
I further noted that the purchase of a Sportster or a Bonneville “indicates ‘arrival’ or the coming of the real motorcyclist, and real motorcycling.” Don’t you realize that when you say this you imply that all other cyclists and cycles are inferior?
I can assure you, CYCLE WORLD, that there are many non-red-necks riding Bonnevilles. The next time you test the Bonneville, as you seem to do annually, why don’t you call a spade a spade and say what the Bonneville is-an excellent motorcycle that is well beyond the financial reach of the average cyclist.
(Continued on page 8)
Continued from page 6
JERRY TAMAN1NI Alexandria, Va.
We were unaware that only red-necks buy mag wheels, Boss Mustangs and Z28s, but we are glad that you have set the story straight.-Ed.
CORNERING POTENTIAL
... to indicate one element of cornering potential, couldn’t you give the angle the bike could be leaned to. That would at least establish clear physical limits, which could in turn be compared by the prospective buyer to a bike he is familiar with.
CHARLES A. FOX Mt. Kisco, N.Y.
Within certain limits, permissible geometric angle of lean is useful in determ i n i ng cornering power - particularly when high traction racing tires are used. Certain racing sanctioners will therefore include measurement of this angle in a pre-race technical inspection.
However, on many street machines it is less of a consideration, particularly if you measure that angle with the machine unloaded and static. Ground clearance varies constantly when a bike is in motion, and is dependent upon the stiffness of front and rear suspension. Street tires stick much better than they did in the days of yore, but can still give out before the rider ever reaches the geometric limits of lean imposed by the bike ’s engine width, exhaust pipes, footpegs or center stand. Wheel size and wheelbase also affect the cornering power of a machine in relation to how much lean is needed to go around a different corner.
Finally, the rider himself may alter the motorcycle’s geometric leaning capability by the way he places his body in relation to the machine when he enters a corner. This is the basis of road racer Paul Smart’s exaggerated lean-in style, which seems quite useful on the bulky 750-cc AMA multi-cylinder machines.
Thus geometric angle of lean is not truly a clear physical limit, and may be affected to the bad or good by several other factors. - Ed.
DOUBLE THE PLEASURE
Let’s face it. There’s a certain sadistic glee in correcting an error made in a published article. Your mail would drop off 50 percent if this weren’t so. But it’s double the pleasure and double the fun to correct an error made in a correction.
(Continued on page 10)
Continued from page 8
The March article on braking by Stephenson and Habberstad contained an error, sure enough, but the July correction by Mr. Ormsby completely missed this error, claimed Stephensen and Habberstad were wrong where they weren’t, and introduced some errors of its own.
The error in the original article is simply that the static weight distribution given in Figure 2 is wrong, probably nothing more than a mistake in arithmetic. You can check this yourself by multiplying the front wheel load by its moment arm (283 lb. x 40 in.), and comparing it to the rear wheel load times its moment arm (413 lb. x 17.3 in.). Obviously these aren’t equal, which they have to be for the machine to be in balance. The correct figures are 210 and 486 lb. on the front and back wheels respectively, if the moment arms are correct.
But this has little to do with the main point of the article, which is about the weight shift under hard braking. The formula for weight shift given by Stephenson and Habberstad is completely correct: acceleration in g’s, times total weight, times height of the eg above the ground, divided by wheelbase. This gives a weight shift of 292 lb. If we add this to the (wrong) static front wheel load in Figure 2, and subtract it from the (wrong) rear wheel load of Figure 2, we come up with the loads of Figure 3: 575 and 121 lb. on front and rear. On the other hand, if we add this weight shift to the correct static load on the front and subtract it from the correct static load on the rear, we get 292 + 210 = 502 and 486 - 292 = 194, which are the numbers computed by Mr. Ormsby. So Ormsby is right in detecting an error, but he detected the wrong error. There is nothing wrong with the original formula for weight shift under braking.
As for the maximum braking capability of the Honda Four, Stephenson and Habberstad are right, if the static weight distribution is as shown in Figure 2 (283 and 413 lb.); the maximum is then 1.417 g’s. On the other hand, if the horizontal moment arms are correct in Figure 2, the static weight distribution must be 2 10 and 486 lb., and Ormsby is correct about the maximum braking— actually 1.667 g’s. Since Figure 2 shows the vertical moment arm as 27 in., while the text calls out 24 in., I am willing to accept that a typographical error was made on all the moment arms in this Figure, which means that Stephenson and Habberstad’s calculations are all correct and Ormsby completely missed the point.
Finally, all that jazz about three different ways to calculate wheel loads during braking (the “method stated in the article” plus “two independent methods”) is a lot of hokum. It’s like saying that 3 + 2 = 5 is a different method of adding two numbers than 2 + 3=5. Both of the “independent methods” proposed by Mr. Ormsby are merely such rearrangements of the rule given in the original article.
For example, to find the maximum braking by the approach of Stephenson and Habberstad takes quite a bit of arithmetic. You have to calculate the static weight distribution, then you have to find the weight shift as a function of braking acceleration (or deceleration, if you prefer), then subtract the weight shift from the rear tire load until you find some braking acceleration at which this load becomes zero. That’s the fastest the bike can stop.
I can give you a much simpler way. Divide the horizontal distance from the front tire contact patch to the eg by the vertical distance from the ground to the eg. That’s the maximum braking acceleration in g’s. This is not a different method. All it is is a rearrangement of the same calculation so that the arithmetic is simpler.
(Continued on page 12)
Continued from page 10
To sum up, there is nothing wrong with the original article that can’t be explained by a few scrambled numbers in Figure 2. All those high-powered criticisms of Mr. Ormsby completely miss this simple point.
J.G. KROL Anaheim, Calif.
You 're our hero, .1.0. — Ed.
TRIBUTE TO BRADLEY
I was saddened by the death of Rusty Bradley, the young Kawasaki rider. His death caused a part of me to die too, since motorcycles have become a part of me over the years. It really does get to me and 1 hope this is the last of the tragic accidents for the year.
Kawasaki is going to have a hard time finding such a rider as Bradley.
JOHN W. REID APO New York, N.Y.
A LOUD BLAST
1 have had an experience that would interest Ivan Wagar. It happened at Houston Kawasaki where my dad and I were looking at the Frail Boss. While we were waiting for the 100 to be set up a man was screwing around on a Jr. Green Streak. As you have tested this model, you know how much noise it produces. Phis might be fine for racing, where people enjoy this; but in a parking lot in the suburbs of Houston? Phis was at an important intersection where many could hear it. The guy riding it didn’t even seem to be testing it. Anyway, after one spectacularly loud blast in our direction, my dad got fed up and we left. But not just like that. First he told them (the rider and some guys watching) that this was what is killing the sport. Then he told them we weren’t coming back. Phis wasn’t said in parlorlanguage either. Anyway the Junior got put away and we left. I noticed the dealer heard my dad and didn’t look too happy. More things like this ought to happen so that dealers shape up. I don’t mean that racers ought to be silenced, but that parking lot racing should be curtailed. 1 think this because people driving up and down the street in front of Houston Kawasaki got a bad impression of the sport, not just of the store. Phis isn’t even good for the rider either, because the noise would damage his ears.
ROBERT HURLBERT Houston, Pexas
(Continued on page 16)
Continued from page 12
SIX-BIT STANDOUT
While reading the article you printed on Mike Patrick, I became deeply interested in it. I think it was the best article I have read in a long time. In October ’70, I got my first copy of CYCLE WORLD. I have purchased every issue since then. Along with your magazine, I got several others. Yours was the only one I really enjoyed.
When you raised the cover price to 75 cents, I was tempted to quit purchasing CYCLE WORLD. I decided I would buy it one more time and see how I liked it. 1 read it, and afterwards, I had already decided to keep on buying it. 1 didn’t see what 25 cents a month would matter. I really think it’s great.
Thanks for making a mag that stands out in the crowd. 1 love it. You can consider me a CYCLE WORLD buyer for a long time to come.
RICKY BOYD
Borger, Texas
WHYZIT A WHATZIT?
I’ve just bought the May issue of CYCLE WORLD. The preview of the Honda 500 is great. After reading through the magazine, I came to Slipstream. This month it was a “whatzit.” I know the whatzit is the Triumph T-120R Bonneville that you road tested in the May issue of CW. What I really want to know is why did you put a whatzit in Slipstream?
JERRY JONES Sparks, Nev.
Some times, we ask ourselves the same question. — Ed.
DISPELLING AN ILLUSION
As an Australian a long way from home, with an insatiable thirst for other people’s impressions of my country, many thanks for the articles “Riding ’Round Australia” and “Australian Outback” in the May ’71 edition, and also for dispelling the “kangaroos in the main street” illusion.
RODNEY J. STONE Ontario, Canada
RIP-OFFS
You people are ripoffs.
Everyone knows about adrenaline, sometimes called epinephrine, which is the active principle of the medullary portion of the adrenal glands. Secretion is brought out by fear of survival. If the secretion is just slight, as in the case of a slight “risk,” the feeling would be no more than a hit of speed, and, therefore, you feel elated. Sure adrenaline rushes are fine, and someday you’ll realize that man deliberately “poisons” himself many ways slightly just to experience the body’s reactions. Basically, there isn’t too much phenomena in man unless you provoke it in more experiments.
(Continued on page 18)
Continued from page 16
If you didn’t realize it yet, this is in reference to “Motorcycling: A ‘Risk Exercise’ ” in your June issue. And 1 would certainly have much more respect for the magazine if you let other readers know the facts. By the way, 1 ride a Bonneville and I sure take risks and I sure feel elated. Like where do you think motorcycle addiction stems from?
HENRI KLOK (no address given)
Like, from fun, Henri!—Ed.
EIGHTH IS IN ERROR
It has come to our attention that in your article on pages 36 and 38 you have Gordon Bowden listed as 8th-place finisher at Daytona and as riding a Bultaco motorcycle. This is in error. Everyone in the South knows that Mr. Bowden is currently leading in the Spring Series by 1100 points. Mr. Bowden rides a Sprite motorcycle manufactured in Halesowen, England and distributed by White’s Motor Products in Jacksonville, Fla.
ROBERT W. WILKES White’s Motor Products Jacksonville, Fla.
DOG DAYS
I have a problem which maybe you could help me with. What do you do when a dog attacks you? While out riding one day, I got trapped in a 10-mph zone with a dog that chased me and kept trying to bite my feet. I tried blowing my horn, blowing a whistle, gunning my motor (with the brakes on), and even pushing the bike along with the motor off. Pretty soon there were six dogs around my bike, all barking and trying to bite my ankles.
Every time 1 tried to speed up, one dog would run in front of me and I would have to stop to avoid hitting him (or her).
This persisted until I was able to get to a road with a 25-mph speed limit. I was able to go faster than the dogs, and to my relief, was finally rid of them.
You have a great magazine; in fact, it’s the best of the three I have subscriptions to.
SAM JAMES Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
(Continued on page 20)
Continued from page 18
Dogs are a bummer, at least when bikes are concerned. What it is that provokes a dog to approach, follow or attack a motorcycle is unclear. Some just want to play; a playful dog covers his teeth with his tongue. The exposedtooth kind are not playing; you are the enemy; your engine is growling at them. So they get after you.
At which point, the game begins. Sometimes you can psyche them out. If you’re going slowly enough, you can move over on them, pretending to attack, and then cut away and outrun them. A variation on this maneuver is the swift kick, which is self-explanatory. Another psyche-out involves yelling “bad dog, ’’ hoping to shame the animal, although fewer dogs respond to this in these days of permissive dog raising. If the dog's owner is nearby, you can opt for the Direct Appeal (“Mister, will you get your g-n dog off my motorcycle. ”).
Your particular problem is quite troublesome as the rules are in the dog’s favor, and obviously you are outnumbered. Therefore, in the interest of safe motoring, you may do well to exceed the IO-mph speed limit and outrun the first dog before he calls his friends.
The speeds necessary to do this are modest in most cases. By actual test, with a healthy 30-lb. mongrel named “Daisy, ’’ we find that she can sustain a 100-ft. burst of 26 mph, and a 5-min. sustained drive of 22 mph, which decreases to 18 mph after running 15 min. Therefore, a one-block blast at 30 mph is enough to make her lose interest.
German Shepherds, which are notorious bike chasers, have a slightly higher top speed, so 35 mph is necessary. Your chances are improved by zig-zagging if the dog gets close. Big dogs don’t change direction well.
Little foo-foo dogs are neurotic devils and therefore change direction all the time. Don’t let them fool you. They wouldn’t know what to do if they ever caught you. You can traumatize them neatly by outrunning them, then turning around and chasing them. Great sport. - Ed.
WE DON’T CARE?
I am sorry to read that you and your magazine are not concerned about air pollution produced by motorcycles (Jan. ’71, pages 26 and 27). Some motorcycle magazine should do an indepth study of emission control, and when finished I would suggest you read it.
From your reply to Mr. McWilliams’ letter, one would have to conclude that you know very little about emission control of internal combustion engines. Granted, the displacement of an engine is a factor that does alter emissions. It might be noted that in many cases Detroit has lengthened the stroke of their engines in order to meet emission control standards (i.e., increased the size of the air “pump”). Also, the relationship of bore and stroke and combustion chamber designs are extremely important factors. The “other factors” you mentioned are much more important than you imply.
I would suggest you test different motorcycles in different states of tune with one of the new infrared combustion analyzers. You will see what I mean.
As far as the theory that 50 lb. of pollution devices will be enough to start you walking, first I believe the emissions of many motorcycles could be reduced by 60 percent to 80 percent with the addition of less than 10 lb. of weight. All ’71 GM cars show a reduction of some types of emission in excess of 80 percent over comparable 1960 model cars. Most have emission control systems weighing less than 50 lb. Secondly, if 50 lb. will put you to walking, it is hard to believe you care very much about the real cycle world.
I will assure you that if I were a self-seeking politician 1 hardly think it would be worth my time to write an “idiotic or precipitous motorcycle antismog bill.” !f I were a concerned politician and noted your remarks, I might feel compelled to do so out of public interest.
I work in the automobile industry. At the present time it appears we were almost too late with emission controls. Don't make the same mistake.
R.D. NELMS Wichita, Kan.
