Old guy on a Sport Bike?

Thanks for the advice everybody-all of it was much appreciated. 

@myf16n, I ordered the book and will read it. "A twist of the wrist" by Code is also on it's way.

I'm not 100% sold on ABS but will continue to research it. It think the problem is that I always dreamed of owning a 916 variant, not just any sportbike. 

Thanks again to all.

V understandable. Still such a looker after all these years. Definitely try and sit on one though. And just like Porsches, you're buying the service history, not miles. 

I had a crotch rocket (yamaha R6) from 2001-2006 or 7.  That would have been in my mid 30s.  I enjoyed them a lot.  The performance was super fun.  They excel at puddle jumping, hooning, and that's about it.  Outside of that, they're about as useless as trying to haul lumber in a Smart Fourtwo.

I was able to ride mine about 75-100 miles, but it wasn't comfy.  Above 70mph or so, the wind hitting your chest gives you a little rest, but all of the other times you're basically holding a push-up for hours on end.

When I turned 40-ish, I switched to cruisers (Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad is my current ride).  It's a Cadillac, but it has the opposite problem of a crotch rocket.  Your feet are forward, so you're using abs and arms to hold your position.  If you were to let go of the grips on a crotch rocket, you faceplant into the risers.  If you were to let go on a cruiser, you would fall back.

I'm currently sorting out what I want next because I'm 50 and my back doesn't like the cruiser position for longer trips, and I think it's going to be either a sport-touring or a bagged-up adventure bike.  They are more upright with your feet under you, and I find I can go longer without hurting.

Nothing wrong with an older guy on a sport bike, but just be aware of their ergonomic shortcomings.  To get the full experience requires a LOT of rider input.  Super fun for short periods

This is of course my opinion for my body.

I bought a bike when I got divorced and rode for a couple years.  I traded to a Concours 1000 and within a month I locked the front wheel and high sided off it at 60 mph.  I know I ran out of traction and talent at the same time and it was entirely my own fault but as a friend put it "some of us don't have the gene that keeps us from doing stupid E36 M3".

So now I have a Miata, it satisfies the urge to have wind in my hair, I don't have to wear a romper suit, it doesn't want to be laying on its' side (all bikes want to be doing this), and it puts at least "some" metal between me and the numbnuts out there who can't look up from their phones.

So save yourself the inevitable pain and skip ahead to something roadstery.   

I'm looking at the original post and have to question why the author needs a full-on sport bike at all? He has no motorcycle experience, so even a 600cc crotch rocket may well be too much bike for him. He also lives in Colorado, where the scenery is great, and there's a lot of interesting fireroads to be had. I'd recommend something like a nice 600-800cc twin sport tourer. It'll still be damn fast by most standards, allow for a more relaxed seating position, be able to handle a bit of gravel and dirt, and if he gets bored of it after a season, go all-out next year.

This is probably why lol. I'd personally love to have a 90s Duc as my 2nd bike, a play thing. And then something like a mid sized adventure bike for Colorado, like a Tenere 700 or 790 Adventure. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

600's just lack the torque for distance cruising IMHO, liter bikes are better at it IMHO. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm looking at the original post and have to question why the author needs a full-on sport bike at all? He has no motorcycle experience, so even a 600cc crotch rocket may well be too much bike for him. He also lives in Colorado, where the scenery is great, and there's a lot of interesting fireroads to be had. I'd recommend something like a nice 600-800cc twin sport tourer. It'll still be damn fast by most standards, allow for a more relaxed seating position, be able to handle a bit of gravel and dirt, and if he gets bored of it after a season, go all-out next year.

Ehh, it looks like more of a 'I've always wanted one' thing which is perfectly fine. Of all those he listed, only the RC51 holds a chance of not getting gapped by a 20 year old Kawi 636. I view these all as reasonable entry bikes at this point. 

I wouldn't count my opinion for much, but a couple of things:

• I started out on an RZ350, spent a few years with an EX500, and an RSVR was still pretty alarming the first time I rode it. I remember thinking "that engine has no idea I'm even here."
• Motorcycles can be nonintuitive, and they are likely to display this to a new rider at The Wrong Moment. Take a class and do the drills. I think the intro class is important, but I think I actually got more out an intermediate/skills class I took later that gave me a chance to brake and turn harder than I was doing on the street and gave me a ton more confidence in my ability to do something evasive when people aim their stupidity and Altima at me. After thirty years and  handful of track days, my scariest moment on a motorcycle is still basically the first time I had to tighten my line to avoid a car and all my experience was on 25lb bicycles. You cannot body-english a 400lb bike and if you haven't ingrained intentional steering inputs it will probably stand up when you brake. You can learn these things, but find the easiest and least painful way to discover what you don't know.
• You're not crazy. I got my first bike when I was 20ish. I got the RSVR when I was 40-something. I'm 52 and have a Ninja 250 for the track, and intend to re-expand my bike involvement. Also, stop calling 41 "old guy." Pretty sure society's been trying to tell me it's time to pack it in since I was 30, and I'm about sick of it.

In reply to WOW Really Paul? :

I promise my R6 had more torque than my 1500 Vulcan, you just had to rev it to 7500 to get it.  And, the R6 weighed 407 lbs, while the Vulcan weighs 775 as it sits right now.

Once I was at speed, it had little to do with torque.  It was the riding position.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm looking at the original post and have to question why the author needs a full-on sport bike at all? He has no motorcycle experience...

I was trying to figure out if that was the case. You don't want to learn to ride on a 916. The throttle on one of those has to accommodate everything from idle to fast to insane to ungodly, leaving only a small sliver for the slow setting. And the brakes and steering are the same. These bikes immediately do exactly what you accidentally tell them to do.

If you have no motorcycle experience, I would recommend getting a cheap, beginner friendly option to learn to ride first. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there, from a Grom or dual sport to something like the smaller Ducati Monster or KTM Duke single. 

Get a bike with ABS and all the electronic nannies.  Trust me.  Get as much training as you can.  Don't buy a liter sport bike as your first motorcycle.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The newest r6 had half the torque of the 1500 Vulcan....r6 makes twice the hp of the Vulcan.