Re: Interesting 400 Four

From: crn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:06:36 +0000 (UTC)

SteveH <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<crn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <chateau.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....

Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
1 mph speed advantage flat out.

Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?

I refer you to TOG's comments ref: missing the point.

But what IS the point ?.

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Interesting 400 Four
  - From: SteveH

References:
- Interesting 400 Four
  - From: TOG
- Re: Interesting 400 Four
  - From: crn
- Re: Interesting 400 Four
  - From: SteveH

Prev by Date: Re: Interesting 400 Four
Next by Date: Re: Interesting 400 Four
Previous by thread: Re: Interesting 400 Four
Next by thread: Re: Interesting 400 Four
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Interesting 400 Four
... any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a ... mph speed advantage flat out. ...
(uk.rec.motorcycles.classic)
Re: Interesting 400 Four
... about the rearset pegs and the flat bars.... ... any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a ... mph speed advantage flat out. ...
(uk.rec.motorcycles.classic)
Re: Interesting 400 Four
... on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. ... any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a ... mph speed advantage flat out. ...
(uk.rec.motorcycles.classic)