Posted by David T. Ashley on February 29, 2008, 11:22 pm
I was thinking about picking a Honda Shadow Aero (shaft drive).
I've heard that anything but a chain saps something like 10% of the
available horsepower.
Is this true?
--
David T. Ashley (dta@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)
Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on February 29, 2008, 11:45 pm
David T. Ashley wrote:
> I was thinking about picking a Honda Shadow Aero (shaft drive).
Have you worn out the other one?
> I've heard that anything but a chain saps something like 10% of the
> available horsepower.
>
> Is this true?
Probably. But unless you're going to be taking it to the drag strip, it
isn't going to matter.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Posted by Jack Hunt on March 1, 2008, 10:35 am
>There is actually a California law that allows you to keep as many
>special interest vehicles as you want, but they must be kept out of
>public view.
Just one more reason why I'll never live in California again. The fact that a
state would try to limit what a person can and cannot own is reprehensible -
especially if it's something innocent, like a vehicle. I can see why an ordinary
citizen doesn't need a howitzer or a 50 caliber machine gun, but vehicles? Just
another stupid California nanny law.
--
Jack
Posted by The Older Gentleman on March 1, 2008, 11:35 am
>
> >There is actually a California law that allows you to keep as many
> >special interest vehicles as you want, but they must be kept out of
> >public view.
>
> Just one more reason why I'll never live in California again. The fact
> that a state would try to limit what a person can and cannot own is
> reprehensible - especially if it's something innocent, like a vehicle. I
> can see why an ordinary citizen doesn't need a howitzer or a 50 caliber
> machine gun, but vehicles? Just another stupid California nanny law.
>
I blame the Mexicans.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Posted by David T. Ashley on March 1, 2008, 1:11 pm
>>There is actually a California law that allows you to keep as many
>>special interest vehicles as you want, but they must be kept out of
>>public view.
> Just one more reason why I'll never live in California again. The fact
> that a
> state would try to limit what a person can and cannot own is
> reprehensible -
> especially if it's something innocent, like a vehicle. I can see why an
> ordinary
> citizen doesn't need a howitzer or a 50 caliber machine gun, but vehicles?
> Just
> another stupid California nanny law.
I don't know, there may be an upside to the meddling by government.
I saw recently that CA has a law where you have to spay and neuter pets.
Considering that something like 30,000 dogs and cats A DAY are euthanized in
the U.S., makes sense to me.
The law that I want to see is a restriction on overweight males jogging
without tops. I respect exercise and self-improvement and all that, but
there comes a point where a fat person should dress like a fat person. I
don't think you should prevent someone who is overweight from exercising
outdoors, especially since that would help them with the weight, but when I
see the blubber moving I want to see it through clothing, not directly.
I want to see the cops carrying bathroom scales in their trunks and
ticketing these people.
I could lose many pounds myself. You won't catch me jogging outdoors
without a top. That is offensive to the public.
XML Sitemap