Post by wheelbender6 on Jun 22, 2016 19:33:38 GMT -5
The Savage/S40 isn't for everybody, and its cool if you don't like them, but; "Hot, shaky, underpowered throwback to 1985" Sounds like the definition of a Thumper to me. Big singles will never keep up with a nice twin, triple or four (except maybe a KTM). "could not pace even my Burgman 400" The Burgman 400 is a great machine, but a Savage/S40 in good tune should have no trouble hanging with it. "they are tuned so lean to pass emissions that hers barely ran" Fuel injection would be nice, but it only takes about 30 minutes to re-jet the single carb a little richer. "If you're much more than 5'5", you'll be cramped" Rycamotors.com sells accessories and kits to adjust the rider fit and seat height. "Also, i was amazed that it had no fuel gauge! " Point taken. The Savage/S40 could use a bigger fuel tank. The stock tank is very Sportsteresque.
Actually the last time I rode with a Savage the rider commented that he had trouble keeping up with me with the way my bike zipped right up the 70 mph from a standing stop. He was one of those who was convinced I had somehow slipped a 750 into my Sport City and could not understand how a 250 could pull away like it did.
His last words on that ride were: "Aprilia? Isn't that like a Ducati? Ok that explains it."
Nice bike for what it is and will probably last about forever since they are not pushing the envelope in stock trim.
Last Edit: Jun 22, 2016 23:40:31 GMT -5 by rockynv
... The Savage/S40 could use a bigger fuel tank. The stock tank is very Sportsteresque.
The Sportster Superlow has a 4.5 gallon tank! My Savage has a nominal 2.8 gallon tank, but mine was 2.91 gallons. Tested. Twice. Luckily is light for pushing to the gas station.
I had no problem on trips -- it is easy to find gasoline stations on the Internet. Even on US-60 I had no problem getting gas. Two hours on the saddle is about time to stop and stretch your legs anyhow.
Here in Florida they did it differently. You can ride without a helmet if you have sufficient insurance or a high enough personal bond to pay your medical expenses if you get into an accident. Its about avoiding huge medical payouts for truly avoidable head and facial injuries in minor accidents.
I chose to wear a full faced helmet and gear instead or relying on insurance and found it cooler to ride out in the scorching sun with the gear on and last June when I slid on some sand blowing across the road while traveling at 45 MPH I walked away with a few bruises while my helmet was all ground up along the left side of my face and chin. The jackets armored areas were scuffed but fully protected my arms, shoulders and back and the carbon fiber sliders on my gloves showed my knuckles would have been ground down including the bone if I had not been wearing them. Without the gear it would have been lost weeks (maybe months) at work and a long stay in the ER or potentially a trip to the morgue.
Insurance companies hate giving large payouts to potential Darwin Award candidates so they just push legislation to encourage what should be Common Sense.
Here they simply list in your policy the type of accidents they will not cover and one that many now list even in regular health insurance and some life insurance policies is riding a motorcycle without wearing motorcycle helmet/jacket/gloves/long pants/boots. This is standard for the US Military too and can result in denial of benefits/pay and potentially a dishonorable discharge.
Look at your health, accident and life insurance to see whats listed under extreme activities not covered. Some may be surprised.
Riders without helmets should, when they crash, be left to bleed out unless they have at least ten million dollars of medical coverage.
Riders that wear helmets tend to ride faster, crash harder, and statistically have more deaths. Helmets should be left on the race track, not racing on the streets. Why don't you ask helmeted riders also be left to bleed out? Why do you hate people that simply enjoy riding.
The S40 is not a racing motorcycle. Mostly, people that ride the S40 do not ride stupid. That is why Progressive listed the Savage in the first and third slots on least crashed and least stolen motorcycle. (less crash = less stolen for parts.)
Note: Took off the helmet at the California/Arizona state line and didn't use is again until back entering California. ('cept about an hour riding thru a rain/hail storm.) The Suzuki LS650, S40 or Savage depending on the year, is an excellent city bke that can do just fine touring the Interstates.
Probably because nobody really wants a Savage (they are practically given away used), the parts are mostly worthless (it's cheaper to get another one than fix one), and I suspect many are barely ridden. (A 10+ year-old Savage with under 20,000 miles is nothing unusual.) Just saw one locally on CL: 3100 miles on a 1998 for $1750. Also saw a 2003 with 7800 miles for $2300, a 2005 with 13K for $2500, and a 2011 with 1730 miles for $2500 from a dealer.
If you consider a Savage a "touring bike", you must have some REALLY low standards. I'd rather tour on a 400 Burg. Heck, I'd rather tour on a Honda Helix, or a CSC Cyclone.
Last Edit: Jun 26, 2016 19:26:49 GMT -5 by Jarlaxle
Post by wheelbender6 on Jun 26, 2016 20:21:16 GMT -5
"(it's cheaper to get another one than fix one)" That is why most automobiles and motorcycles are scrapped when the engine gives out, rather than restored. "Mostly, people that ride the S40 do not ride stupid." I have never seen an S40 (or anything except sport bikes) doing wheelies in the left lane. "If you consider a Savage a "touring bike", you must have some REALLY low standards" Or, you really enjoy vibration.
"I became insane, with long intervals of Horrible Sanity" - Edgar Allen Poe
... "If you consider a Savage a "touring bike", you must have some REALLY low standards" Or, you really enjoy vibration.
As I said, Suzuki did too good of a job on the counter-balancer, very low vibration. At touring speed the the vibration is like the massage bed in a cheap motel. A sport bike has a higher frequency vibration, like the drill in a dentist's chair.
Probably because nobody really wants a Savage (they are practically given away used), the parts are mostly worthless ....
Damn! You really hate the Thumper, don'tcha.
Facts: The Suzuki LS650 was first produced in 1986, and is still being built. MSRP: 2000: $4,249 2001: $4,299 -- $50 increase 2002: $4,299 2003: $4,299 2004: $4,349 -- $50 increase 2005: $4,399 -- $50 increase 2006: $4,399 2007: $4,399 2008: $4,399 2009: $4,899 -- $500 increase 2010: n/a, motorcycle market crash 2011: $5,099 -- $200 increase 2012: $5,399 -- $300 increase 2013: $5,699 -- $300 increase 2014: $5,499 -- $200 decrease! 2015: $5,499 2016: $5,499
In 2008 someone in Suzuki noticed that the S40 keeps getting sold, and started jacking up the MSRP. Yamaha noticed that the Thumper keeps plodding along, and for 2015-16 they have marketed the SR400 -- at an MSRP of $5,990. A rather interesting bike. It is not "retro." It is the same bike originally made in 1978 and has been produced in the Japanese Domestic Market since. They haven't bothered adding an electric starter -- it's kick only.
There are those who appreciate the qualities of the Big Single. Enough that they can continue produce the S40 year after year. We like our Thumper. We don't care if you don't. We don't bad mouth your motorcycle choice. Why do you have to rag on the S40?