On 4/11/08, Navendu Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How would it behave as a tourer? > > > As Sumeet said, touring is not about the bike but the rider. I used to > hear that RTR is a very uncomfortable bike for long distance riding, > well there are some more uncomfortable bikes out there, on which > people tour regularly. So .. :-) > I think I was not very clear. I said, "its not about the bike but the rider". - If that was not the case i.e., ride is not important than bike, then every owner of ZMA/P180/P200/P220 would have completed SS in India after all Arnob, Amit and Shirali have done on these bikes. - If that was not the case i.e., ride is not important than bike, then wonder how come Stoner won the MotoGP last year and Hayden before him and Rossi before him and so on, while their team mates on a similar bike didn't even finished close second to them (in the overall championship)?
Yes, without a bike, rider can't do anything but its not the bike who ride the rider but its the other way round. So, in my view its rider who is more important than a bike. As someone (was it Rossi?) has rightly said "Its not about the Bike". :-) If we don't agree to "Its not about the Bike". One more example. Rossi can still finish races on a 100cc commuter but if he is up against riders with comparable riding skills (other MotoGP racers) then he will not be able to challange them while other racing on say a 150cc "performance" bike. But let Rossi ride the 100cc commuter and any of us on the 150cc "performance" bike, I'm sure the "performance bike" will be looking for a humilation. :-) So, if rider is not more imp than the bike, how come a 150cc bike (which on paper is more powerful than a 100cc commuter) will loose to a 100cc commuter bike? Ofcourse, on a better bike one can do things in better ways. Nav -- In the Virtual World www.Navendu.net
