Care to share a little inspiration?
- Thread starter Drewski
- Start date
that 950 bolt looks pretty cool 8) but the seat is useless, totally put on there for some retarded fashion statement 
what i am saying is it needs to be at least 3" taller 4" would be better
the way it is now the transition from sitting to standing is just out of the range of practicality, plus the seat to footpeg relation is just too tight for good comfort or control
luckily a proper seat is not that difficult to do up but this fashion statement bullshit is well, bullshit
and besides the bratarded seats just look fucking stupid, it is a fad for non riders
what i am saying is it needs to be at least 3" taller 4" would be better
the way it is now the transition from sitting to standing is just out of the range of practicality, plus the seat to footpeg relation is just too tight for good comfort or control
luckily a proper seat is not that difficult to do up but this fashion statement bullshit is well, bullshit
and besides the bratarded seats just look fucking stupid, it is a fad for non riders
ABCanuck
Coast to Coast
I disagree. Totally depends on the riders stature. My thruxton's seat was relatively low, with clipons, and rear set location wasn't very aggressive. Yet I drove it from Seattle home in one day (1300 kms) without it being an issue. And I'm 6'5" so not exactly a jockey. Another inch of padding would be nice for sure though.
warpedworm
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong
deviant said:
I don't believe that the 4 cam Indy engine ever ran in any of the GT40's or any of the Ford
sports cars. They ran pushrod engines all the time, 289's and then 427's. The engine above was run in Indy cars, and someone tried one in a sprint or champ dirtcar, and Bruce McLaren
tried to destroke one to run in his F1 car without much success. IIRC I think Ford did possibly run a version of the 1963 Indy pushrod engine in the Ford GT's in '64 (might of been smaller then 289), which was also the year they brought the above engine to Indy, I think that is where some of the confusion comes from.
warpedworm
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong
deviant said:
Is that the Cagiva 500GP engine?
That's the NSR500warpedworm said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
warpedworm
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong
:-[ O.K., now I see the HRC bike in the corner of the picture, DUH!!!
Love the 500 2 stroke GP bikes, the baddest race bikes on the planet 8)
Love the 500 2 stroke GP bikes, the baddest race bikes on the planet 8)
farmerbraun
New Member
NSR 500
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Malcolm.
The 289 was the 4.2L Fairlane: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/2012-monterey-weekend/1967-ford-gt40-mark-1-2012-monterey-auctions-36830 They ran in the GT40 Mark 1. The Mark 2 GT40's ran the 427. The 427 was developed as a NASCAR engine. Galaxies running 427's dominated NASCAR at that time. The Cammer hemi was also a 427 (SOHC). That's the same time GM came out with the 427 six pack. And Plymouth came out with the 426 hemi. I'm not sure where you see any confusion.warpedworm said:
warpedworm
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong
deviant said:
From this quote, it sounded to me that you meant the 4 cam Indy engine replaced the pushrod engine in the GT40. When you probably meant that the 4 cam Indy actually replaced
the pushrod they used at Indy in '63 , but would have possibly used a Ferrari at Indy instead,
if the purchase by Ford of Ferrari had happened. Now that would have been a fantastic sounding Indycar with a V-12 Italian sitting right behind your head!!!!
HerrDeacon
Over 1,000 Posts
I love clean lines and minimalist anything and this bike ticks those boxes. Even though its probably just art, the design is so clean and creative, love it, very inspiring. Its built by Chicara Nagata.
