My second motorcycle: VFR800

Recap:

After a summer of riding a 1992 Yamaha Seca II, I was ready to move up to something more interesting. That's not to say the Seca was a bad bike - it was sufficient for what I needed. But the useless headlight, buzzy engine, and cold-start difficulties left me wanting more. I tried to buy a Bandit 1200, but it was snapped up before I could get it.

/Recap.

So I started reading on the internet, and managed to narrow it down to three bikes: A Honda VTR1000 Superhawk, VFR800 Intercepter, or a used ST1100 they had in Cannon Falls.

Dorky first owner

In the end I chose the VFR on the promise that it offered better ergonomics than the Superhawk. I called the dealer (Hopkins Honda), negotiated a $500 discount on a brand new Millennium Yellow 2000 VFR, and then waited for it be shipped from Seattle. Purchased unseen, unridden. Somewhere in this deal Paul ended up buying the Seca for a little less than I had in it.

My first ride was when I picked it up. Paul drove me from Rochester to Hopkins one morning to get it; the seventy miles back to Rochester was cold and uncomfortable, but I was amazed with the bike. It had power to spare, but since I was supposed to keep it under 7,000 RPM I had no clue how much it actually had .. I was afraid to tap into it all! It sounded great, handled like a dream. The seat made my butt cry, the lower bars tortured my wrists, my cheap dressy leather jacket ballooned up around me. I loved every minute of it.



We got to Rochester at 11am. The plan was to get the bike early, then go back to work. Screw that - Paul jumped on his Seca and we rode down to Lanesboro for the afternoon. We were unable to pry the more conscientious Chuck away from his duties (and his Shadow probably wouldn't start either).

Ledbetter point, WA

The VFR fed the obsession. I bought better gear - first a Harley Davidson jacket (as that was the only local place to find MC-specific clothing). That jacket looked cool, even more so after I blacked out the HD logo on the back, but it was worthless. No rain, cold, heat, asphalt, curb, tree or car protection. Same with the chaps. That taught me to stop looking at what other motorcyclists in our area (i.e. Harley riders) did; and start doing the research myself. Keep in mind this was in 2000 ... long before the growth of the motorcycle industry we have today, or the internet forums supporting it. Basically what I did was buy stuff from motorcycle-specific warehouses, return it, try again, etc. Eventually I settled on a First Gear jacket and pants combo and Sidi On-Road boots. This gear was everything the Harley stuff wasn't. In fact I still have it, hanging in a closet.

Oooh Micron high mount!

The VFR needed some modifications too. Sargent World Seat for my bum; Gen-mar risers for my wrists; Heated grips for my hands; and as late fall approached a taller Givi windshield to help protect against the wind; and  aYoshimura RS-3 slip-on for my ears. The Yosh sounded good but I wanted something louder that didn't stick out very far and installed a Micron high-mount. These also fixed a 5000-rpm flat spot.

Technologically the VFR is Honda's equivalent to the Prelude. This is the platform where Honda tries out new stuff, in this case single-sided swingarm, linked brakes and gear-driven cams. It kind adds a whirring sound to the motor which is very unique (as if the V4's exhaust on a 275-degree crankshaft didn't already sound good). In my opinion, this is still the best sounding bike out there. The big twins (i.e. Ducati, Rotax, the Superhawk) sound good too, but the V4 has a certain harmony the twins lack. Imagine strumming two strings on a base guitar ... then imagine four.

Mt Lassen, CA

Incidentally, I got to ride a Superhawk a few years later. Compared to the VFR it has much better suspension and tracks through corners better. The low end torque is prodigious, and it feels much narrower between the legs. However, there is a lot more vibration. The VFR's V4 is smooth and hardly transmits any vibrations to the rider - even less than the inline-fours I've ridden.

I rode the VFR. A lot. I ventured out of Rochester and discovered the Mississippi river. We rode many of the roads in the Lanesboro area. Then one day I packed a giant duffel full of camping gear and made a day of riding up the Mississippi river to St. Paul to a KOA in St. Paul.

Not long after, while we were shopping for a motorcycle for Jenn (she didn't like the pillion position, and I wasn't crazy about having her there). Later I'll get into more detail about her first bike - I just wanted to mention it because Chuck ended up buying the ST1100 in Cannon Falls.

It was the summer of 2000 when Paul on the Seca, Chuck on his ST1100 and me on the VFR took our first sport-touring ride. Loaded with camping gear we rode north. Paul had his giant square cotton sleeping bag precariously bungied in a garbage bag on his rear seat, on top of his camping stuff. I had my giant duffel which drooped over the sides. Chuck had the right bike - all his stuff fit in the sidecases. In Hinckley Paul learned what happened if you didn't pay attention when you're filling your tank. Chuck hauled firewood on his back seat. We saw a bear entering St Croix state park and set up tents in the dark.

The second (and third) night was in Bear Head Lake State park - wowzy, Hwy 1 had a lot of corners! Chuck dragged his toe, Paul went to Canada for the first time (just to get a photo of a speed limit sign with 'kph' on it) and the US border patrol let me back into the country even though I only had a driver's license (I wasn't a US citizen at the time). Hwy 1 in the dark was quite an experience. Now we know how disgusting the windshield wiper fluid at gas stations can be, especially when you use it on you helmets. P.U.

The fourth night was at Jay Cooke state park. It was pouring rain, so we only set up one tent, and three of us slept on a queen mattress. It sucked. Especially for Chuck, in the middle. There was a leak above him, and he kept a towel on his chest to absorb it and wring it out once in a while. At least we had a really nice hike along the river the next day.

Yeah, we were hooked.

Hells Canyon

Ron, somewhere in the Blue Mountains, OR

It didn't take me long to decide that the midwest kind of sucked for motorcycling. Short hot humid buggy summers and no topography. Jenn and I had a falling out, and I decided to move to Oregon in the fall of 2001. In January of 2001 we got together again, but I stick to my decisions, and moved to Oregon anyway. Good for me, Jenn came with! And I continued to ride the VFR. It had about 10,000 miles on it after a year of riding in Minnesota, but between 9/2001 and 5/2003 I had put an additional 22k miles on it (32k total). The Pacific Northwest VFR (PNW-VFR) mailing list provided lots of group riding experiences, as did sportbikes.us (those guys are nuts... 25% of the group ride with racing slicks on the street)... I met some dude named Ron who had a couple bikes, including a 1991 VFR, and with a few of his friends we set out on a 9-day tour of the PNW. Down to California, up through central Oregon and Washington, across the cascades and back home. It was a great trip, my first long one. By now I was totally addicted.

Elk Pass, near Butte, MT

In the summer of 2003 we rode to Yellowstone N.P. and met Paul, Joan and Chuck ... it was cold and bastardly. Jenn rode back home, to Oregon, I went to Rochester for work (this was when IBM stopped paying for my flights to Rochester). A few weeks later, Chuck and I rode back to Oregon, taking the high-line (Hwy 2) as much as possible. 






At 40,000 miles, winter 2003, the VFR experienced it's first mechanical failure: a stuck thermostat. It was a $32 part nestled between the V of the cylinders and required tearing nearly everything off the top of the bike. Shortly thereafter I upgraded the forks to GP Suspension custom bits and a new rear shock.

What a PITA it was to pack the green bag

Spring 2004 I rode to Texas and back to visit Jennifer while she was at HSA school in Wichita Falls, and the VFR experienced it's second mechnical failure at 42K: a headlight burned out. If you go way back to the first posts of this blog you'll find my story about that southwestern ride.

By the summer of 2004, a small group of us in Portland had established that we really enjoy riding together. Our riding styles were similar, we enjoyed each other's company, and Ron knew the Pacific Northwest very well. We would ride together for a week or two every summer, in addition to long weekends once in a while. It is one of the periods of my life that I miss the most. Unfortunately, in June of 2004, tragedy strikes. Ken, on his Superhawk, blows a corner in Mad River, California. I think the Superhawk was sold for salvage in Redding; Ken went home in a casket. This is the first (and hopefully only) motorcycle fatality in our midst.

Oregon Coast

That fall the VFR had 55,000 miles on it. From May 2004 to August 2004, I had put 15,000 miles on it. May of 2005, it had 60,000 miles on it and we were planning a move back to Minnesota, ostensibly to start a family. It was another excuse to ride across the country again ;-) I rode the VFR, and Chuck rode Jenn's Magna. Once back in Minnesota, Paul and I took a long weekend in October to ride the along the north shore. Just before our departure, while BS'ing in my driveway, some guy on a Kawasaki ZRX1200 in Lawson green rides past, and waves. Two minutes later, he pulls into our driveway, and introduces himself as Bill, the founder of the Red Wing Ironworks Motorbike Club. From this encounter a whole new group of friendship was established.

At the end of 2005 I had 70,000 miles on the VFR. Anticipating a long cold winter, I decided to dig into lots of preventative maintenance. I rebuild the forks, sent the shock to Traxxion, replaced every bearing I could get my hands on, rebuilt the brake calipers, replaced every fluid, all the dash bulbs and repacked the Micron.

In the summer of 2006 Paul and I discovered the joy of West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and the Ozarks. It was so much fun we did it again in 2007 and included Deal's Gap. The endless corners and smooth pavement and Uncle Phil's numerous belly-filling stops made the trips unforgettable!

But let's not forget the September 2006 trip to the Black Hills. This was my dad's return to motorcycling, on a 1982 KZ1100. Jenn was on her Magna, and my brother was on his own pristine 2000 VFR.

Oooh there's TWO of them!

Then, in the spring of 2007, I crashed it at DCTC, with 87,000 miles on it. My brother hauled it to Red Wing. The damage wasn't bad .. merely a missing footpeg, some scratched up plastic. State Farm thought I added an extra zero to the odometer, but when they realized it was 87.714 they totaled it out. I bought it back for $750, sold to my brother, he put $150 of parts on it.

It was sad to see it go, but I am getting older and on the most recent trip to Arkansas my back did not tolerate a 450 mile day on the interstate. I was also looking for a better way to carry more gear on long trips, and increased wind coverage for the cold wet days. I don't think I would have been able to sell it to anyone outside the family.

This is what "totaled" looks like

Thor continues to ride it.

In 2008, and again in 2011, we rode west. Last year he joined us on the Walt Ride.

It has about 102,000 miles on it and the oil analysis says it is showing "some" wear, and their advice is to keep the oil change intervals short, at 4000 miles. I did a valve adjustment at 99570 miles and not a single valve was out of spec. Oh .. that reminds me .. there was another failure. At about 96,000 the recitifier burned out, and the blinker relay is starting to stick. That one is a PITA to get at (in the nose fairing, right above the headlights.

Chilling along US Hwy12 in Idaho

In the Bighorns

And that's the story of my yellow VFR.

In case you hadn't heard....

... marriage in Minnesota will be extended to same sex couples, starting in August.

Legally, the ability to enter a "civil marriage" will be allowed for two consenting adults. They will have the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriages, and religious organizations may continue to restrict whom they choose to wed, and they are protected from being fined (not sure what that is about, probably some arcane government thing, but I suspect it has something to do with discrimination and receiving my tax dollars).

Contrary to the fears expressed by some in the debates leading up to this:

• Children may not be married to adults
• A person may not have multiple wives or husbands
• You are still not allowed to marry your dog or your brother or your lawn mower
• My marriage will be just as strong in August as it is today

What I find interesting is that this issue is almost a litmus test to determine if a conservative lawmaker falls into either of these categories:

• For smaller government, with less intrusions into private life, allowing individuals to make decisions as they see fit
• For smaller government, allowing organized religion to dictate individual behaviorvia legislation

How did my representatives vote?

In the house, Tim Kelly (R) voted against it. In the past he has voted against the marriage ammendment (which codified that only a man and a woman may marry) and he introduced legislation to make a "civil union" legally the same as "marriage". Considering this, I am somewhat perplexed that he voted against the "civil marriage" law. Perhaps there is a political nuance that I missed. I still agree with him more than I disagree with him, but his opponent in the next election will get a little more consideration.

Senator Matt Schmit (D) voted for the Civil Marriage law. Other than this, I don't know much about him or his voting record - his web page is blank, and all I have received is election cycle propaganda that he supports "working families" and unions (presumeably at the expense of us who got college degrees and don't perform hard labor).  His record on gun rights is unknown. At least I can give him credit for this one vote.

Here are the links if you'd like to read more:

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=gay
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22244034/gov-dayton-to-sign-bill-granting-minn-marriage-equality
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22209594/minnesota-house-passes
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22238078/marriage-equality-minn-senate-passes-freedom-to-marry-acthttp://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22249590/minneapolis-city-hall-to-open-at-1201-am-for-marriage-on-aug-1


Ok. Time to move on  to the next issue. Like why our governor wants to raise taxes when we have a surplus. More wierd stuff.

First Bike: 1992 Yamaha Seca II

Last night we attended a viewing of "Girl meets bike", a locally made film. The photography was done very well, the storyline was somewhat confusing, and the acting ... not so great. The core of the story was a girl, Kat, who is a horrible judge of character, including herself. She proceeds to have sex with nearly everyone who makes more than two appearances in the film, then buys a motorcycle and finds her true passion. There is a trailer in the link above if you're interested in more; there is a DVD of the movie here in Red Wing someplace.

This got me thinking about my first motorcycle. I've always wanted one. I recall my father purchased a neighbor's old motorcycle when I was about 12. It was in boxes and we didn't put it together before we moved to Norway. When we moved back to the US when I was 16 I started to study for the driver's exam but then included the motorcycle handbook as well. Once I got into cars, my interest in motorcycles was delegated to the back burner.

In the spring of 2000 I had been working for IBM in Rochester and generally bored with the status quo. Somehow I got it into my head that a motorcycle would be fun and started thinking about it. I didn't know any riders so I was on my own - creating my own rules, principles, and ideas of what it meant to ride. I think this was a blessing, because Rochester is solidly Harley-Land, and any influence I would have experienced would have been to buy a Harley, some chaps, an orange shirt with a bar and shield on it, and become a mediocre rider with the wind in my hair.

My roomate (Chuck) had a 1983 Honda Shadow 750 in storage which did not reliably start so I made a deal with him: If I get it running: If I could get it running, I could learn on it. We putzed with it for a while. In the meantime, I concluded cruisers must be the most comfortable and set my sights on a Honda Sabre 1100. But when I found out about a 1992 Yamaha Seca II with only 4000 miles on it that was for sale for not much money ($2000 I think), I decided that would be the way to go. We did do a bunch of work on the Shadow but it would never run very well until 2012. That's a different story.

So I got this Yamaha Seca II. My brother rode it from Hastings to Rochester, wearing Carharts and some sort of jacket on a VERY cold evening. This was in the early spring; it sat in the back of Chuck's garage until it warmed up.

 And then the fun began.

I started going in circles in Chuck's cul-de-sac, learning how the clutch, brakes and throttle worked. After a week or so, I had my permit and went down the cul-de-sac, across the street, and around in THAT cul-de-sac. I was riding it slow, at bicycle speeds, steering it like a bicycle. The Minnesota motorcycle manual claimed I was supposed to "push on the left handlebar to turn left" and that make no sense whatsoever. I was a proficient bicyclist. I knew that pushing on the left handlebar results in the wheel turning RIGHT and the bike going RIGHT. Duh. I couldn't believe the manual would have such a blatant mistake in it.

Eventually I got out of the cul-de-sacs and into the neigbhorhood streets. It was not easy. I was afraid letting go of the handlebars would mean the bike would crash I would die at 20 mph, just like a bicycle. I also found that motorcycles were hard to turn, nearly jumped several curbs. It must be the heavy weight of the bike on the front wheel that makes it hard to turn. So I thought about it .. and figured, ok, I'll try to make the bike lean! Next time I needed to turn left, I leaned my body to the left ... and that made the bike go where I wanted! Awesome, I got the hang of this!

I was able to leave the neighborhood, and started to ride it work, then across town, then to the local state parks, and out along the river. The wind tried to rip my helmet off, my jacket billowed with trapped air, my legs were cold, and other motorcyclists kept trying to get my attention by waving and I couldn't figure out what they needed to tell me.

I bought chaps to keep my legs warm (doesn't really work BTW) and a Harley jacket. I bought a nicer helmet which had an unscratched shield I could see out of at night, didn't smell funny, and didn't try to decapitate me at speed. I wore out the rear tire on the Seca.

At some point I discovered David Hough's Proficient Motorcycling, and started to consider the Honda Sabre again. By now I knew that cruisers weren't necessarily comfortable, and the Sabre's 1100cc had even less power than the Seca's 600cc. Hmm.... a trip to Hopkin's Honda one day had me sitting on an older VFR750. The price was right, but it had "a lot" of miles on it (12,000) so I was considering a new Bandit 1200 instead, for about $7k. I went home to think about it ... and decided to buy it! But when I called I found out someone else had put down $1400 on it. I had to find something else.

But what?

Snow.

Stupid snow.

More Gay Marriage

One of my three readers sent me an email regarding my recent rant on gay marraige:

How about people over 55?  They shouldn't be allowed to marry, either, if marriage is about propagation of the species.  And what about couples who don't have children?  They should certainly not be allowed to marry!  What do we do with them?  Are gays God's little joke or do they just not exist?  Are the people that we don't like just not counted in God's list of creations? 

I've wondered the same and it could have affected my marriage.

Throughout the years while Jennifer and I were trying to conceive this has struck close to home. We were wed by a judge and no religion was involved, yet Minnesota issued us a "Marriage Certificate", not a "Civil Union Certificate", and Minnesota for Marriage is trying to change state law, not church law. So I did a little pointing and clicking and thinking and here's what I've found.

If you go to Minnesota for Marriage's (MfM) website (http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/myths-facts/) they address the issue of whether infertile couples should be allowed to marry, with the following statement:

The aspect of the sex relationship that makes the couple's relationship suitable to marriage is its potential for procreation.

Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding what 'potential' means, this is the definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

Women who have entered menopause, had a hysterectomy, ovaries removed, etc. have no potential for conceiving a child. Nor do men who have been "snipped" or had their testicles removed or problems with their sperm. There is no potential for procreation. There is no disagreement on this issue, and their statement thus implies that if you can't procreate, you shouldn't be married.

Minnesota for Marriage talking point goes on to state the following:

It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or even if factors such as infertility might prevent conception from occurring.

This is where the fuzzy logic starts. What doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that they can't procreate, they can still be married? Isn't that completely counter to their previous statement? No matter how much I warp my mind, as long as I maintain a minimal grasp on logic I am unable to see how these statements can possibly be consistent with this group's message that gays can't have kids and therefore can't marry, but heterosexual couples who can't have kids can marry.

I think the intent of that statement was to make their point that even if couples are infertile, as long as the parts fit together it's OK for them to remain married. But that's not what those sentences actually say.

In their talking point they close with this sentence:

Whatever one thinks of same-sex unions, they are not remotely procreative in nature and calling them "marriage" undermines the true meaning of the marriage relationship, damaging this great social institution.

Let's change one word - the logic remains the same:

Whatever one thinks of infertile mixed-sex unions, they are not remotely procreative in nature and calling them "marriage" undermines the true meaning of the marriage relationship, damaging this great social institution.

From all of this, the only logical and consistent message this group has, is that people who can't have children should not be allowed to marry. Couples who choose not to have children, will still be allowed to marry.

My personal (and cynical) opinion is that Minnesota for Marriage is trying to pull the wool over voter's eyes. They know that to come out and say they oppose all infertile marriages would significantly erode their (waning) support. Crafting illogical gibberish to try to explain that they support marriage for infertile mixed-sex couples but not infertile gay couples is a political calculation which will only appeal to those who have already decided that they are against gay marriage for other reasons. They have already made up their minds and they will accept illogical gibberish if it supports their decision.

I'm not done yet.

Note the statement:

... the true meaning of the marriage relationship ...

So, what is the true meaning of the marriage relationship? Raising children? Or two adults who love each other making a public and legal commitment? Or one man and one woman who love each other making a public and legal commitment? This is where the core of the issue really lies.

They make the claim that gay marriage will somehow damage mixed-sex marriages. For anyone who is married and feels their marriage will be damaged because your gay neighbors get married then please come forwards and explain why. We hear trite statements like "they are gross", "they are sinful", "by restricting who can marry, it will be more valuable", but never "I will love my spouse less if those two girls get married".

It is my opinion that by allowing more people to enter a legally committed monogamous relationship, not only will the institution of marriage be strengthened, it also improves the environments in which children are raised. I have yet to hear a coherent argument that the institution of marriage is strengthened by restricting it to fewer people.

When will my political rants end and my motorcycle and travel articles resume? First it must stop snowing. Today is May 1st and we're expecting 6-9 inches of snow before tomorrow.