wow. local MSF inst. trying to pawn off zx-12r to a new rider

[OreoGaborio]

Jesus... this turned into a shit show in 2 seconds flat, huh?

I kind of agree with the general opinion I'm seeing here.... As a soon to be MSF instructor myself, I'm pretty surprised that this guy would allegidly try & sell someone FRESH outta the BRC a 12R... Obviously there's no rules/laws/regulations saying you can't do that, but it sounds pretty irresponsible if you ask me. If anything else, it's certainly bad press for the MSF, that's for sure.

In response to TheAwesome's "you don't have to be able to ride, or know anything about riding for that matter, to be an MSF instructor" comment..... Sure, not all MSF instructors are the best riders... But there's nothing wrong with that. You need to realize that good riders don't always make good instructors... and bad riders don't always make bad instructors. It's not just about skill, it's about knowledge and teaching ability (and patience for people like those found on internet forums :P)


IMO, the BRC does an adequate job of teaching people the basics and giving them a solid foundation upon which they can CONTINUE to build upon. By no means does it teach EVERYTHING you need to know & by no means is it advertised in that manner. It gives you the skills to hopefully survive long enough to get to the next point and continue your rider education. It's CERTAINLY better than no training at all.

[OreoGaborio]

Originally Posted by pickle.of.doom

Noobs are discouraged from buying big bikes because 90% of them don't go for any kind of rider training. If you are trained in riding, you are no longer a noob.

Well this begs the question, when are you "trained" in riding?

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

In most cases, yes. But not when the other viewpoint is ignorance, or goes against common sense, for the sake of creating an argument. My viewpoint is skydiving without a parachute is dangerous. Do you want to show off your "KNOWLEDGE" and defend the other view?

ahh yes... those are on the same level. last time I checked I didn't claim to have any knowledge of skydiving

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by ebbs15

ahh yes... those are on the same level. last time I checked I didn't claim to have any knowledge of skydiving

Some people here just need to unwad their fucking panties. I even threw in the in-your-face sarcasm indicator on that post.

Sarcasm aside, what is so hard to understand about this?

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

In most cases, yes. But not when the other viewpoint is ignorance, or goes against common sense, for the sake of creating an argument. My viewpoint is skydiving without a parachute is dangerous. Do you want to show off your "KNOWLEDGE" and defend the other view?

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

Some people here just need to unwad their fucking panties. I even threw in the in-your-face sarcasm indicator on that post.

Sarcasm aside, what is so hard to understand about this?

1. my panties aren't in a wad... it's the internet, shit doesn't bother me.

2. this is... er.. was a discussion not an argument.

3. i was talking about having a discussion or debate defending an viewpoint that you don't agree with. Having an argument defending anything is fuck'n retarded when it involves the internet. as everyone's got multiple P.H.D.'s in what ever they're talking about... and have got a close personal friend that actually went through it, if they didn't themselves.

4. Here we (TRY) to have discussions... and for the most part they work... as most of us are adults.... but we all slip up sometimes... but usually work it out and continue with the conversation... rather than have it turn into a flame war and pissing contest...

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by ebbs15

3. i was talking about having a discussion or debate defending an viewpoint that you don't agree with. Having an argument defending anything is fuck'n retarded when it involves the internet. as everyone's got multiple P.H.D.'s in what ever they're talking about... and have got a close personal friend that actually went through it, if they didn't themselves.

I agreed with this in my original reply. "In most cases, yes". But arguing a viewpoint tha's ignorant (skydiving without a parachute or that at ZX-12R is a better starter bike than a 600RR) to create an argument is different. It doesn't "show knowledge" about anything.

That's all I said.

[Mr Lefty]

that's not what he was saying... or at least what I was talking about...

he was saying that a 0 experienc rider on a 600 ss would be more dangerous than a MSF trained person on a 12R...

I don't know if he agrees with it or not... I can see valid points from both sides...

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by ebbs15

that's not what he was saying... or at least what I was talking about...

he was saying that a 0 experienc rider on a 600 ss would be more dangerous than a MSF trained person on a 12R...

I don't know if he agrees with it or not... I can see valid points from both sides...

These are the comments I was referring to. Seemed to me he just kept upping the ante to keep an argument going. For argument's sake.

Originally Posted by pickle.of.doom

Why would crashing in a corner on a zx12r be an different than on an r6? The r6 would probably be carrying more corner speed....

Originally Posted by pickle.of.doom

Throttle will kick you off on either bike. The 12r with its extra weight and stability would actually be a better bike to fuck up the braking part on.

Originally Posted by pickle.of.doom

Also, I think in a lot of cases, a 12r IS probably more forgiving than a more modern 600, which is a lot lighter, a lot more high strung, with a shorter wheelbase, as well as a more aggressive rake and trail, brakes that bite a lot more, etc etc.

Regardless of Little Pickle's views, you and I were clearly not on the same page. I agree arguing both sides of a view is beneficial, it's one of the first challenges you are given in a debate class, but I don't agree there's a benefit to making stupid arguments because "this is the internet!".

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

These are the comments I was referring to. Seemed to me he just kept upping the ante to keep an argument going. For argument's sake.








Regardless of Little Pickle's views, you and I were clearly not on the same page. I agree arguing both sides of a view is beneficial, it's one of the first challenges you are given in a debate class, but I don't agree there's a benefit to making stupid arguments because "this is the internet!".

but again... what you quoted has merit... the fact is; 600's can carry more corner speed than a 1200; straight line the 12r is gonna be more planted than a 600 due to weight... and the brakes aren't gonna be as touchy; and the 12 of yesteryear isn't as, as he put it... high strung, tuned for every last bit of hp or torque.

I don't know if i'd say that the 12r is better... but I don't believe it's as black and white as you think.



and as I said before... until lately... we had quite a few discussions on this forum about very touchy subjects... but as most of us are adults and know each other we were able to have civil discussions. in those settings playing devils advocate is just fine... actually look at the "Adspace for No God" thread... it's what I'd been doing in 90% of my posts... not to just piss in anyone's Wheaties... but to get the discussion passed the 'you're wrong, I'm right' stage.

[t-homo]

This thread makes me understand marko. Good god.