Or, "Why unqualified people shouldn't do their own repair work."
Let's get this out of the way. Lots of motorcycle owners do their own repair work. And many of them do it quite well. Don't take this as an attack if you're one of those. If you're anything like whoever did the work on my bike before I got it, you're welcome to take this as an attack.
When I bought my bike, I figured out very fast that the clutch was slipping. It still ran OK, but it was slipping. It was already November by the time I got it, so I basically rode it home, registered it, and put it away. Then I moved in the middle of the winter, and I only really started trying to get it roadworthy a few months ago, just before starting this journal. For those who can't be bothered to go back and look, the bike is a 1982 CM450C.
I finally started looking at replacing the clutch about a month ago. After lots of research, parts pricing, and general dithering, I made the decision to hire a professional to do the work. Why? Well, because I'm not confident in my skills, and I wanted to know my clutch wasn't going to just fall apart.
I found a nearby shop -- Extreme Motorsport, who moved to Waltham, MA while they were working on my bike -- who have consistently good reviews on Yelp, and decided to give them a try. Again, let's get this out of the way: They're not good. They're friggin' awesome, and if you need work done on an old bike, you should go there. If you need work done on ANY bike they're willing to work on, you should go there.
So I took the bike over, and told him what I was looking for: complete clutch rebuild, see if he can figure out what's going on with the front brake, and replace this death-trap of a front wheel (dry rot that got visibly worse between mid-May and late May). No problem... sourcing parts may be a bit of a challenge, but the work is easy. Boy does he regret saying that.
I got a call about two weeks later, after the clutch parts finally came in: one of the former owners, or their mechanic, did some serious damage. A bolt was installed backwards. Everything was torqued wrong. The friction plates had no friction pads on them. On top of that, the friction disks had been installed out of order, and may in fact have been the wrong disks for the bike. The steel disks were recoverable but not good. The springs could be compressed all the way with just finger pressure. And, worst of all, one of the pins on the pressure plate that supports the springs was cracked all the way around. Everything else is relatively easy to get -- you just send a small fortune to Honda, and they send you the parts -- but a pressure plate? Where do you get a pressure plate for an '82 Honda?
Basically, it was sheer luck that the bike was even rideable. On top of that, one of the two pistons in the brake caliper had basically frozen, which was the source of my braking problems, and the rotor was not in fantastic shape, though it was still usable.
The good news is that I'd picked up a new rotor when I saw it on eBay for $15, on the theory that spare parts are hard to find. The fantastic news is that my mechanic had a supplier who was able to ship him a barely used clutch assembly -- basket and all -- from a CM450 that had been wrecked with about 2000 miles on it. So the parts are essentially factory new, and I have my bike back again.
So if you're thinking about doing mechanical work on your bike, and you don't know what you're doing? Please: think twice. Consider that you may be costing somewhere down the line a great deal of time, effort, and money.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Market segments and motorcycle magazines
As you might guess from my last post, I've looked at a few motorcycle reviews recently, trying to find information about the CB500X.
One of the things I noticed was that all the magazine reviews mentioned fuel economy, and all of them said something along the lines of "Well, Honda says it should get upwards of 65mpg, but we only got about 50-55." Out of curiosity, I went to look at fuelly.com, which is a good source to find out what sort of fuel economy the sort of people who use fuelly get. The average there? Mid-60s.
That seemed kind of weird. Then I realized something... the people who use Fuelly are mostly pushing for better mileage. The people who write motorcycle reviews for modern motorcycle magazines mostly seem to want to ride sportbikes. They shift late and ride aggressively. No WONDER they're getting lower mileage than is normal. One of them even admitted it, which is what started me thinking.
There's not much point to this post, but I thought it was interesting how much of a difference riding style can apparently make.
One of the things I noticed was that all the magazine reviews mentioned fuel economy, and all of them said something along the lines of "Well, Honda says it should get upwards of 65mpg, but we only got about 50-55." Out of curiosity, I went to look at fuelly.com, which is a good source to find out what sort of fuel economy the sort of people who use fuelly get. The average there? Mid-60s.
That seemed kind of weird. Then I realized something... the people who use Fuelly are mostly pushing for better mileage. The people who write motorcycle reviews for modern motorcycle magazines mostly seem to want to ride sportbikes. They shift late and ride aggressively. No WONDER they're getting lower mileage than is normal. One of them even admitted it, which is what started me thinking.
There's not much point to this post, but I thought it was interesting how much of a difference riding style can apparently make.
Decisions
... or a lack thereof.
I have two motorcycles right now. I didn't mean to. I had a Honda Rebel, which was (and still is, I assume) a fantastic bike; efficient, easy to ride, efficient, fun, efficient, and simple to park. The problem is, it's not much fun above about 60, and I knew I was going to be moving to where I'd need to be able to keep up in 70mph traffic. Also, I'm 6 feet tall, and the Rebel is, well... short.
One day, the opportunity to buy an '82 CM450C in what appeared to be great condition basically fell out of the sky; the guy wanted to be rid of it, he didn't have space for it, and he didn't really understand why I'd think a 450cc bike was big enough: I bought it for $400. Well, that's the bike that sparked this blog, so you can see why I say it appeared to be in great condition. In the end, I think I've put about $900 into making it reliable, which isn't all that bad. New brake pads and tires, well, that was inevitable. I'm still baffled by how little the clutch repairs cost, since it wasn't so much a "repair" as a "complete replacement."
The idea was, I would buy a bigger bike, ride it around for a while, and see how I liked it. At the end of a trial period, I'd sell one or the other. Last summer, I tried to sell the Rebel, and got no interest.
So now I have two bikes. I don't really have space for two bikes -- or, at least, I'd like to be using that space for other things -- but I have them. So I need to make a decision. Do I keep them both? Do I try to put one of them on the market this spring? At this point the Rebel likely needs, at a minimum, some carb work and a turn signal light bulb, but it should be OK other than that. The tires might be getting oldish, but I've been moving both bikes around to avoid flat spots.
What I'm thinking is that I'll get the Rebel back on the road, and switch back and forth for a while. In the end, the Rebel just isn't big enough for me -- that's part of why I was looking for a bigger bike in the first place -- so maybe I'll hang a "For Sale" sign on it wherever I park.
The other problem is that I'm being tempted. Honda has two bikes I'm actually tempted by: the NC700x and the CB500x. Both come mighty close to what I envision as my "perfect bike." Both are more or less a "standard" posture. Both have reasonable options for luggage. Both are fuel injected. Both get remarkable fuel economy. And both can go fast enough that I'll feel like I can keep up on the highway. Both are a little heavier than I'd like, but they're well under 500 pounds, which is my hard and fast limit. I've ridden a bike that weighed 500 pounds. Moving it around without engine power sucked.
I have two motorcycles right now. I didn't mean to. I had a Honda Rebel, which was (and still is, I assume) a fantastic bike; efficient, easy to ride, efficient, fun, efficient, and simple to park. The problem is, it's not much fun above about 60, and I knew I was going to be moving to where I'd need to be able to keep up in 70mph traffic. Also, I'm 6 feet tall, and the Rebel is, well... short.
One day, the opportunity to buy an '82 CM450C in what appeared to be great condition basically fell out of the sky; the guy wanted to be rid of it, he didn't have space for it, and he didn't really understand why I'd think a 450cc bike was big enough: I bought it for $400. Well, that's the bike that sparked this blog, so you can see why I say it appeared to be in great condition. In the end, I think I've put about $900 into making it reliable, which isn't all that bad. New brake pads and tires, well, that was inevitable. I'm still baffled by how little the clutch repairs cost, since it wasn't so much a "repair" as a "complete replacement."
The idea was, I would buy a bigger bike, ride it around for a while, and see how I liked it. At the end of a trial period, I'd sell one or the other. Last summer, I tried to sell the Rebel, and got no interest.
So now I have two bikes. I don't really have space for two bikes -- or, at least, I'd like to be using that space for other things -- but I have them. So I need to make a decision. Do I keep them both? Do I try to put one of them on the market this spring? At this point the Rebel likely needs, at a minimum, some carb work and a turn signal light bulb, but it should be OK other than that. The tires might be getting oldish, but I've been moving both bikes around to avoid flat spots.
What I'm thinking is that I'll get the Rebel back on the road, and switch back and forth for a while. In the end, the Rebel just isn't big enough for me -- that's part of why I was looking for a bigger bike in the first place -- so maybe I'll hang a "For Sale" sign on it wherever I park.
The other problem is that I'm being tempted. Honda has two bikes I'm actually tempted by: the NC700x and the CB500x. Both come mighty close to what I envision as my "perfect bike." Both are more or less a "standard" posture. Both have reasonable options for luggage. Both are fuel injected. Both get remarkable fuel economy. And both can go fast enough that I'll feel like I can keep up on the highway. Both are a little heavier than I'd like, but they're well under 500 pounds, which is my hard and fast limit. I've ridden a bike that weighed 500 pounds. Moving it around without engine power sucked.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
An Open Letter to the American Motorcyclists Association
Dear AMA,
I was recently pointed to your article, "FAQ: Is the Centers for Disease Control Trying to Reduce Motorcycle Use?" This article left me with grave concerns about the motorcycling community, but not the ones you wanted me to have.
First of all, let's address the question of why the CDC is involved. You say "AMA Vice President for Government Relations Wayne Allard has delivered a letter to the CDC director and the task force asking for an explanation of their goals." While I am not a representative of the CDC, I believe I can answer that question. From their webpage, their mission statement is that the "CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S." Basically, they exist to protect and support health and healthy behaviors ("Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment") in the United States. Their goal in looking at motorcycle safety, then, is to improve safety. Full stop.
Next, let's address what you seem to believe is the central issue here: whether being forced to wear a helmet will change whether people ride motorcycles. Let's look at two countries, according to the best statistics I can find. In the US, motorcyclists may or may not have to wear a helmet, depending on state laws. Over the entire country, it appears that about 3% of the total registered vehicles are motorcycles. In the UK, licenses are graduated (you start on a small bike, and can move up in increments) and helmets are required for all riders. In the UK, about 2.6% of vehicles on the road are licensed motorcycles. That would seem to imply that helmet laws and graduated licenses both have no effect on the overall percentage of riders, although we don't know how many Brits would be riding without those laws.
Let's look more closely at the United States, then. All statistics here are from the Federal Office of Highway Policy Information, and the data is from 2011. The document can be found here. All figures include only registered motor vehicles, not those being driven without a registration.
In two states with no helmet laws (the only two at the time data was collected), Indiana and Illinois, about 3.3% of the registered motor vehicles are motorcycles. In several states where helmets are mandatory for all riders, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri, about 2.8% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. I chose those three to give a good range of climate, lifestyle, and politics. That's a difference of about 0.5%. Unless your only goal is to increase the number of motorcycle riders, by any and all means possible, that's not much of a difference.
Almost every European country has laws requiring helmets, and motorcycles are, at least in the countries I have been to, far more prevalent, although I don't have numbers to support that.
Finally, let's address one more major concern, and the reason I am not -- and will not be, without a change in your policies -- a member of the American Motorcyclist Association. In this article, you say "On the contrary, the AMA strongly encourages the use of a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.... Helmets do not prevent crashes and the AMA believes government resources should be directed toward programs that reduce the risk of crashes occurring such as voluntary rider education and motorist awareness programs." In another recent document, you state that "the safety of motorcyclists [is] the utmost priority of the AMA".
Let's look at some facts. The following paragraph is taken from the Governors Highway Safety Association report from 2012, available at http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/spotlight/motorcycle2012.html.
"Two initial reports suggest the consequences of Michigan’s helmet law repeal. The MLive
Media Group examined state police data for more than 3,000 motorcycle crashes in the six
months after the repeal, April 13 to Oct. 13, 2012. They concluded that motorcyclists without
helmets were three times more likely to die and 43% more likely to suffer serious injuries
in their crashes than motorcyclists wearing helmets (Keep, 2012). In March 2013, Carol
Flannagan of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) analyzed
Michigan’s motorcycle crashes for the full year. She estimated that motorcyclist fatalities would
have decreased by 21% if Michigan had not repealed its helmet law (Klug, 2013a). In fact,
fatalities increased by 18%, from 109 in 2011 to 129 in 2012 (Klug, 2013b)."
Also from that report:
Helmets are proven to reduce head injuries and fatalities in accidents. Rider education is proven to reduce the number of accidents. Proper riding gear -- leather or abrasion-resistant synthetics, backed with armor in critical points -- is proven to reduce injuries in accidents. If rider safety was truly your utmost priority, you would work to promote laws requiring the wearing of helmets and other safety gear, and the training of riders. Requiring all riders to take and pass a rigorous training course before being licensed would, I suspect, do more to reduce motorcycle fatalities than any other possible step. As of 2001, a DOT NHTSA report indicated that 45% of motorcycle fatalities were single vehicle. Forty-five percent. All the "motorist awareness programs" in the world won't reduce that number. Training will. Wearing a helmet will. Wearing armored riding gear will. And if you're not going to advocate for those, then you're not making motorcyclist safety your highest priority. It's coming in somewhere after "lifestyle", "image", "freedom", and getting more people on motorcycles, whether they're safe or not. That makes it your fifth priority, at best, by my count.
I was recently pointed to your article, "FAQ: Is the Centers for Disease Control Trying to Reduce Motorcycle Use?" This article left me with grave concerns about the motorcycling community, but not the ones you wanted me to have.
First of all, let's address the question of why the CDC is involved. You say "AMA Vice President for Government Relations Wayne Allard has delivered a letter to the CDC director and the task force asking for an explanation of their goals." While I am not a representative of the CDC, I believe I can answer that question. From their webpage, their mission statement is that the "CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S." Basically, they exist to protect and support health and healthy behaviors ("Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment") in the United States. Their goal in looking at motorcycle safety, then, is to improve safety. Full stop.
Next, let's address what you seem to believe is the central issue here: whether being forced to wear a helmet will change whether people ride motorcycles. Let's look at two countries, according to the best statistics I can find. In the US, motorcyclists may or may not have to wear a helmet, depending on state laws. Over the entire country, it appears that about 3% of the total registered vehicles are motorcycles. In the UK, licenses are graduated (you start on a small bike, and can move up in increments) and helmets are required for all riders. In the UK, about 2.6% of vehicles on the road are licensed motorcycles. That would seem to imply that helmet laws and graduated licenses both have no effect on the overall percentage of riders, although we don't know how many Brits would be riding without those laws.
Let's look more closely at the United States, then. All statistics here are from the Federal Office of Highway Policy Information, and the data is from 2011. The document can be found here. All figures include only registered motor vehicles, not those being driven without a registration.
In two states with no helmet laws (the only two at the time data was collected), Indiana and Illinois, about 3.3% of the registered motor vehicles are motorcycles. In several states where helmets are mandatory for all riders, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri, about 2.8% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. I chose those three to give a good range of climate, lifestyle, and politics. That's a difference of about 0.5%. Unless your only goal is to increase the number of motorcycle riders, by any and all means possible, that's not much of a difference.
Almost every European country has laws requiring helmets, and motorcycles are, at least in the countries I have been to, far more prevalent, although I don't have numbers to support that.
Finally, let's address one more major concern, and the reason I am not -- and will not be, without a change in your policies -- a member of the American Motorcyclist Association. In this article, you say "On the contrary, the AMA strongly encourages the use of a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.... Helmets do not prevent crashes and the AMA believes government resources should be directed toward programs that reduce the risk of crashes occurring such as voluntary rider education and motorist awareness programs." In another recent document, you state that "the safety of motorcyclists [is] the utmost priority of the AMA".
Let's look at some facts. The following paragraph is taken from the Governors Highway Safety Association report from 2012, available at http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/spotlight/motorcycle2012.html.
"Two initial reports suggest the consequences of Michigan’s helmet law repeal. The MLive
Media Group examined state police data for more than 3,000 motorcycle crashes in the six
months after the repeal, April 13 to Oct. 13, 2012. They concluded that motorcyclists without
helmets were three times more likely to die and 43% more likely to suffer serious injuries
in their crashes than motorcyclists wearing helmets (Keep, 2012). In March 2013, Carol
Flannagan of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) analyzed
Michigan’s motorcycle crashes for the full year. She estimated that motorcyclist fatalities would
have decreased by 21% if Michigan had not repealed its helmet law (Klug, 2013a). In fact,
fatalities increased by 18%, from 109 in 2011 to 129 in 2012 (Klug, 2013b)."
Also from that report:
- "29% of fatally injured motorcycle riders had a BAC above the legal limit of .08 (NHTSA, 2012c)"
- "35% of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding (NHTSA, 2012c)"
- "Almost half of all motorcycle fatal crashes did not involve another vehicle"
Helmets are proven to reduce head injuries and fatalities in accidents. Rider education is proven to reduce the number of accidents. Proper riding gear -- leather or abrasion-resistant synthetics, backed with armor in critical points -- is proven to reduce injuries in accidents. If rider safety was truly your utmost priority, you would work to promote laws requiring the wearing of helmets and other safety gear, and the training of riders. Requiring all riders to take and pass a rigorous training course before being licensed would, I suspect, do more to reduce motorcycle fatalities than any other possible step. As of 2001, a DOT NHTSA report indicated that 45% of motorcycle fatalities were single vehicle. Forty-five percent. All the "motorist awareness programs" in the world won't reduce that number. Training will. Wearing a helmet will. Wearing armored riding gear will. And if you're not going to advocate for those, then you're not making motorcyclist safety your highest priority. It's coming in somewhere after "lifestyle", "image", "freedom", and getting more people on motorcycles, whether they're safe or not. That makes it your fifth priority, at best, by my count.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)