Does anyone here own a Yamaha Vmax, a V65 Magna or a supermoto?

[John_Kunkel]

That's not too bad for $100 IMO. Did it run ok?

I put $30 worth of parts in it trying to get it to run but failed and sold it for $130. The drivetrain will soon be in a sand rail.

[Orange_Crush]

FWIW, I called a friend of mine who is a Vmax fanatic with your question.  He owns three of them.  a 1986, a 1995, and a 2010. 

His view is this.  The Vmax is a hell f a lot of bike for someone with fairly limited riding experience.  They are EXTREMELY fast, but don't handle very well and, at least with the early ones, the brakes are not well matched to the power output.  Basically, its the equivalent of driving a Hemi Dart...brakes and all.

He recommends buying a smaller bike...he mentioned the Magna...to get your feet wet and then selling and moving up to the Vmax.  According to him, there are plenty of Vmaxes around so its not like prices are gonna skyrocket in the amount of time it takes you to get a good solid riding foundation.

Take it for what its worth, those were his thoughts.

[bull]

That advice is good, and I've heard similar. I've never ridden a Vmax so I have no idea if I would like one or not and I know the speed and handling is an issue for someone who hasn't ridden much. I've ridden quite a bit but not enough on a big street bike to not have lots of respect for the Vmax. Still, they only go as fast as you're willing to twist the throttle so I sometimes wonder why people say they have too much power. Handling is a different story.

My wife is not all that thrilled about riding with me either so I'm not dead-set on getting a cruiser, although I really like the V65s too. You have to watch the V65s though because there's a bad tranny design than often creates issues with 2nd gear slipping. I'm kind of waiting for tax time to roll around to see if someone might have to dump something quickly for cheap.

[bull]

I had a V45 a few years back.  Although older, very comfortable and I know the V65 has a ton of power for it's day.  Honda's have always been rock solid for me.  No long trips, but as said, the mpg for most bikes is pretty good.  Those conversions are cool, but any long trips and you'll be feeling those narrow seats. 

You're not kidding. I rode my buddy's Husky supermoto for about 25 minutes and I was already hurting.

[Charger_Fan]

FWIW, I called a friend of mine who is a Vmax fanatic with your question.  He owns three of them.  a 1986, a 1995, and a 2010. 

His view is this.  The Vmax is a hell f a lot of bike for someone with fairly limited riding experience.  They are EXTREMELY fast, but don't handle very well and, at least with the early ones, the brakes are not well matched to the power output.  Basically, its the equivalent of driving a Hemi Dart...brakes and all.

He recommends buying a smaller bike...he mentioned the Magna...to get your feet wet and then selling and moving up to the Vmax.  According to him, there are plenty of Vmaxes around so its not like prices are gonna skyrocket in the amount of time it takes you to get a good solid riding foundation.

Take it for what its worth, those were his thoughts.

I wanted to post pretty much this same opinion this morning, but I was late for the hellish commute.

The 1st Gen V-max is definitely not a starter bike, not even a 2nd bike, unless you like to really let the bike 'school' you on your way to getting to know a bike.   Because of the 20+ year old tube frame design & shaft drive, there is a certain amount of "body english" that must be used in certain hi-speed situations. I've got a few choice butt-puckering examples, if you really want 'em. The one big plus with one of these, is that you will rarely EVER run out of throttle in most any situation...raw power is always there, no matter what.

The 2nd Gen V-max has "only" 500cc's more engine (1700cc), with fuel injection & lots-o-whistles & bells. You can easily lay rubber at any point in the first 3 gears merely by whacking the throttle...no clutch   Although it does have a current up to date frame design & suspension, and handles VERY well once you have a few hours of saddle time & get past the "oh shit" factor.   I would own one right now, if I wasn't so damn broke. No way I'm selling my Aquamax though, he & I have been through too much together.

Regarding the V65 Magna, I will defer to my >> PREVIOUS << post on this bike, with an exclamation point....I wouldn't throw a leg over one of those bikes if you paid me! The riding position & rider's weight placement is all wrong, the frame flex is even WORSE than any V-max & the suspension just plain sucks. But they do do nice burnouts, that's the one positive, I suppose.

Anyway, let your common sense direct you. You've posted a wide variety of bike examples at the first of this thread, that are as much different from each other, as they are in color. A small light bike will be more maneuverable & easy in traffic, but will beat you up on the highway. A heavy road bike will last many more miles, be more highway comfortable, but not as nimble in traffic. However, once you're accustomed to a bike, it can become an extension of you & you'll know it's limits.
Oh & riding in a hail storm sucks, no matter what bike you're on.
 

[bakerhillpins]

I've had a variety of things pulling on my chain lately but wanted to finally get something up on this.

I have been riding MC for 16 yrs now and always owned Honda V4s of the crotch rocket variety. Love them. If your looking at an older V65/45 magna you should spend a little bit of time reading up on the cam oiling problems the early models had:
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rblander/moto_long.html
I went through this site years ago when I bought my VF500 (which didn't have the issue) and it was useful.

Personally I would suggest you avoid the supermoto bikes. They are a ton of fun but I have known several folks who rode dirt all their life and thought these bikes would be perfect. But what they found was that they were tons of fun but were remarkably uncomfortable in the long haul. Mostly the complaints were that the seat was to narrow and produced pressure points quickly. If you were going that route I would suggest the BMW GS bikes.

All of the folks talking about comfort on cruisers over the sport bikes I have to disagree. I thing the cruisers are uncomfortable for 2 major reasons. First is that they transmit the bumps right up my spine and second they are tiring at speed because you have to "hang on". On my sport bike I lean into the wind blast and it ends up supporting my weight where I end up getting hand/arm fatigue in the long haul on the un-wind screened cruisers. Plus I usually use a tank bag and can rest my weight on it. Overall it affords me more room to adjust my seating. Now, realize I ride a 96 VFR which is more of a sport touring bike. So that means that my ass rests lower than my wrists. The real sport bikes that have ass in the air are not comfortable to me.

A coworker owned a V65 magna and it would haul arse. He really enjoyed it and it ran well for him. He easily kept up with us squids.   My first was an 86 VF500. Fun bike. The frame flex on the bumpy roads up here in NH was always good for some pucker factor though and I suspect you would see that on the older Magnas too!
I ride a 96 VFR750 now. In the non snow/mud months it is my primary mode of transport (one hour commute each way). Lots of fun! NO frame flex, but I need to go through the suspension as its beat now. Probably 8-10k miles a year. Rubber is expensive! I burn at min a set of tires each year at $360 a set for med grad tires. I don't save much by buying lower and I will avoid the fun tire threads that can start on the biking boards. 

I will also echo the suggestions to start smaller. The older bikes have plenty of power to kill you just as quick and can be much easier to manhandle when needed. Personally I LOVE my 96 VFR750. If it matters I tend to get 42-48 mpg on my VFR and average 65mph on a mix of highway/back roads.

[Charger_Fan]

I think the cruisers are uncomfortable for 2 major reasons. First is that they transmit the bumps right up my spine and second they are tiring at speed because you have to "hang on". On my sport bike I lean into the wind blast and it ends up supporting my weight where I end up getting hand/arm fatigue in the long haul on the un-wind screened cruisers. Plus I usually use a tank bag and can rest my weight on it. Overall it affords me more room to adjust my seating. Now, realize I ride a 96 VFR which is more of a sport touring bike. So that means that my ass rests lower than my wrists. The real sport bikes that have ass in the air are not comfortable to me.

I agree on the points here & will only add my opinion a smidge.
I also dislike most cruiser bikes because of their upright, arms wide, foot-forward riding position. It's all wrong, way too much wind blast & you always seem to be "hanging on" to the bars...and that's not even with a headwind. However they are fun if you're only bar-hopping or on a leisure around town cruise. But if you want any kind of real "natural bike with rider feeling" (I think that's what I'm trying to convey here), you need to have your feet under your hip area & lean forward over the front end a bit, into the wind. You will handle it better & the bike will handle MUCH better.

Baker's VFR750 & my Aquamax with drag handlebars (Lennard's bike has the same bars, from what I can see) have about the same rider position, from what I recall from memory...it's been at least a dozen years since I've been on a VFR750. The center of gravity between these two bikes is night & day, though & the VFR is a bunch lighter. 
BTW, I have always loved the pearl white ones...pics do no justice

[bull]

Regarding the V65 Magna, I will defer to my >> PREVIOUS << post on this bike, with an exclamation point....I wouldn't throw a leg over one of those bikes if you paid me! The riding position & rider's weight placement is all wrong, the frame flex is even WORSE than any V-max & the suspension just plain sucks. But they do do nice burnouts, that's the one positive, I suppose.

I do remember your opinion about the Magnas but I never did figure out a way to agree with you on it. When I ride a different bike for the first time there's almost always an initial learning curve. For example when I rode my nephew's Suzuki GSX 600 I damn near wrecked it on the first corner because of the screwy way you have to steer those things. But the first time I rode a Magna, and the three times since, there wasn't that weird uncertainty with the handling I've experienced on so many other bikes. Granted I didn't ride them for very long (maybe a total of 60 minutes during test drives) but you'd think I'd pick up on any weirdness the first time I rode one. I didn't. It just felt like a very natural/comfortable ride.

[bull]

I don't see myself buying a cafe/sport bike like a VFR or GSX. When I rode my nephew's it seemed like I was sitting on my nuts the whole time.

[Charger_Fan]

I don't see myself buying a cafe/sport bike like a VFR or GSX. When I rode my nephew's it seemed like I was sitting on my nuts the whole time.

I don't know if I should be embarrassed or .. well, embarrassed. I don't recall my nuts getting in the way on the VFR, ... ,although I do recall a certain amount of nut discomfort on a 1991 GSXR 1100 that led me to vow to never climb on one again for anything past a parking lot ride.

With Slo-Suki's though, there's a lot of difference between letters on the early 90's/late 80's bikes. Same with all rice rockets....that's when they were all really trying to dominate for power. For a few years there, every year meant at least one of the big "Jap-3" coming out on top. I remember cruising down the "street strip" for a couple years('88~'89), and watching how the sportbikes "grew in size" before my eyes. Both it rear tire size & overall girth.   
Here's a GSX1100 for example...


Then you add a "R" ("Race" & they weren't kidding) to that...(the insurance companies clued in about 2 years later...)
(The 1990 GSXR1100)  I still remember those twin headlights haunting my rearview! Fast little bastards...


BTW, the "Katana" (can-A-tuna  ) on the 1st pic later became Suzuki's "universal insurance smokescreen name" for all their sportbikes. Today, any Suzuki Sportbike is 1st a Katana, 2nd a "GIXXER" (gsxr), then it's real engine size...still a can-A-tuna.
Though the Kawie & Yamerhooskie (probably not their real names) companies still both have their universal smokescreen names to this day, they're no better. I'm sure Suzuki is right there with them. By now, sportbikes have pretty much been written off a an "occupational hazard" 
From an insurance standpoint, I guess, they aren't paying out as much as they once were. However, being in the bike biz for a dozen+ years, the insurance game on these still ain't cheap.
Albeit maybe cheaper than a wadded SRT8 HEMI Chally...

[bull]

I forgot the R on my nephew's crotch rocket. The R on his is above the GSX in the graphocs so I didn't know where to type it but it does have an R in the name. I don't know what all these letters mean and I don't really care that much unless I see something I like and I'm trying to figure it out.

Here it is:

[bakerhillpins]

BTW, I have always loved the pearl white ones...pics do no justice

 

I don't see myself buying a cafe/sport bike like a VFR or GSX. When I rode my nephew's it seemed like I was sitting on my nuts the whole time.

I don't think you are doing your self any justice by equating the riding position of all sport bikes based upon the GSXR. An important thing to note is the height separation between grips and seat pan. Take a look at how different the height is between this GSXR and my VFR above. This is a significant difference in forward lean and wrist and hand pressures when riding. In my opinion the GSXR line of bikes were primarily geared for racing where the VFR had a racing heritage but production bikes were specifically set up to be more for long haul riding.

VFRs are amazingly comfortable and nimble bikes for their weight (not really a light sport bike). The 94-97 model that I own won best sport bike of the year for several years. Older models like mine and the 800 (2000-2003) years are reasonably inexpensive and wonderful bikes.  

"It's the only road bike you'll ever need. OK, there's only 100bhp, but it's beautifully delivered. The handling may be soft but is fine for the road. On one memorable trip down a very twisty, bumpy B-road at night jumping from the GSX-R onto the Honda was like swapping a shopping trolley for a Mercedes. The VFR went much faster, needing far less effort.

http://www.simonevans.co.uk/v-four/vfr750-3.htm

[bull]

Is it just me or is the quality much better on a Honda and Yamaha compared to a Suzuki and Kawasaki? Especially the Kawasakis to me seem cheaply built.

[Orange_Crush]

Bull, I agree witht he above VFR recommendations.  I friend of mine went from a Harley FXLTSREPSTCS (I don't know how in the hell they name those things, all I know is that it was a softail).  He sold it and later bought  a VFR.

I rode both of those bikes a lot and was MUCH more comfortable on the VFR than the Harley.  The VFR's fairings belie the fact that it is intended for touring and commuting more than it is for racing.  You sit quite upright on it, especially compared to an "R" bike.

The VFR is a bike that does everything very well but nothing spectacularly (other than doing everything well).  It has a lot of power (not Vmax power...but still plenty).  It handles very well (though not as well as a gixxer), which is awesome for weekend blasts on mountain roads.  And is very comfortable for extended trips (Though not as comfortable as a Gold Wing).

[Vainglory, Esq.]

I agree wholeheartedly on the VFR thing.  This was my ride (2000).  It was literally every day transportation since I had no car and no place to park one anyway.  So I needed something comfortable and fairly sizeable.  Of course, I wanted some power too.  I am still completely enamored of this bike, except I hit a deer with mine back in 2006, and it got totalled.  

I agree that this is a type of bike that does everything well.  I took it on trips from L.A. to Vegas with no issues whatsoever.  I pounded on it, put it up wet, never washed it once, let it sit for a whole summer, etc., and it gave me no problems.  Always fired right up (fuel injection FTW) and ran like a top right away.  I also think you'll find that it's about a million times more comfortable than those ridiculous Harley-type things.  You might as well be trying to control a Barca lounger at freeway speeds.  Insane...

[bull]

Jeez, five gallon tank or what? Huge.

[bakerhillpins]

Is it just me or is the quality much better on a Honda and Yamaha compared to a Suzuki and Kawasaki? Especially the Kawasakis to me seem cheaply built.

Ive always held that opinion. YMMV.

Jeez, five gallon tank or what? Huge.

My 96 has a 5.5 gal tank and I routinely get 250mi from a tank. (Light comes on at about 4.5 gal and I know I have the room so I burn it until 250. It sounds big but it doesn't seem to use up that much actual space on top of the bike. 

[Vainglory, Esq.]

Yep, the tank is pretty large, which is kind of nice, actually.  It took only one stop to get to Vegas.  Mileage was pretty good, but nothing out of this world.  And I agree that the tank is pretty well tucked in; you don't really notice it much in terms of riding position.

And as far as relative quality goes, having owned only Suzukis and Hondas, I can say that the quality difference was worlds apart.  Give me a Honda any day of the week.

[Patronus]

Those are all great, for old dudes.

[bull]

Those are all great, for old dudes.

What do you mean? No training wheels?

[Patronus]

I was thinking more like roller-blades.    

[bull]

Well, despite all the talk above I'm leaning heavily toward a supermoto, probably a KTM or converting an XR 650L. I'm waiting for the other show to drop on a possible medical bill but if that news turns out good for me it will probably happen.

[General_01]

All this talk has me wanting a motorcycle. May be going to look at a 1982 Yamaha XJ650 Maxim. I thank you Bull for starting this thread. My wife , not so much.

[Patronus]

590 590!

[bull]

590 590!

A KTM 590 would be nice. I guess I have some sentimental feelings toward the big four stroke single piston Hondas having owned that old XL 500 for so long. I loved that thing. But it would be pretty dumb to buy an XR and then spend another $1,500+ to convert it. Honda should have jumped on that deal years ago. All the Japanese companies are really screwing the pooch on the supermoto style bikes. Of the four, Suzuki is the only one selling one bigger than 250cc.

Oh, BTW, Ducati's now got a new/fun way to die: http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/11/15/ducati-hypermotard/