You make a great point my friend. The example of the novice skier on a black diamond is well said. However the point I wanted to make is the classification of skiers who start on beginner slopes vs advanced slopes. Not that anyone said such a thing today—however the classifications are a start—but to say that the skier on the advanced slope will have a different learning curve than the skier on the beginner slope, serves as an inhibitor to that persons goals. By different I mean either detrimental, slower, or less beneficial as an end.

An example of this is in the k-12 schools. It is unequivocally accepted that there are classifications in this system, for example, accelerated, advanced placement, or those classes for the less mentally proficient. There are also classifications for these schools as institutions rather than within the system depending on area and demographics. Some are considered working class, some upper class, some elite. What happens when a truly talented child is placed into a working class school? These schools put less emphasis on further college education and entrepreneurial inspiration, and rather guide children to work the average job in his or her future.

You are correct in saying that the King and Pawn may go back in the same box, but they don't have the same functionality while you're playing the game. However, by simply classifying the Pawn, you are preventing the Pawn from being King. What if that Pawn is truly gifted and possesses an unparalleled talent for leadership and lives up to the highest standards of all people?

 

ok, i didn't say that its crazy to start on a big bike as opposed to a small one. i just said that people that start on smaller bikes have a better learning curve than people that start on bigger ones. look at racing. did ben spies start out his carreer on the makita suzuki? why did rossi waste his time in 125 and 250 before motogp.

or if we're onto the school thing, why dont we start teaching kids calculus in the first grade before fractions, or multiplication/division? im sure that after a while, they'll catch onto the basics and learn the principles of simple math along the way...


we live in america, not anywhere like europe that makes sure you have multiple years of riding expierience before getting a bigger bike, so do what you like. there's worse bikes to start on than a 954. i just dont think that it's a good idea to start on big bike like the 954. you said so yourself that it's not a good beginner bike...

 

Yeah you're right. I enjoy discussions like this even when the side I choose is not the strongest. I get into it! Anyways, safe riding.

 

I'm actually surprised at some of the comments here...no way in heck is a 954 a good starter bike.

Just my .02 cents.

 

jumping in a little late in this discussion! first bike was/is a 954 (3 weeks!). while many people have told me to get a 250 cc bike because anything above 600cc was just asking for it, I think otherwise.

i'm a little older now, I know my limits. If I were 20 again, I probably wouldn't get this bike lol

as you get older, you start fearing death more and more... amazing. plus, I'd like to be around when my son grows up so i can teach him how to ride.

I love this bike and I'm quite happy that I got it as my first. I know for sure that i'd get bored with a 600cc bike very fast. personally, I wouldn't go over a liter bike. The weight of this 954 is perfect and this is what got me to purchase this bike over a 600.

 

My suggestion...

If you have never riden an bike before then get a used 250 and learn on that for a few months before getting a 600.

If you have ridden dirt bikes/other motorcycles then start on a 600. Then when you get comfortable with it's capabilities then upgrade to a liter.

I suggest you take anything you get to a beginner through advanced/sportbike class. It could save your life on the street. The way you ride and how you react is better taught at the beginning, rather then learned throught trial and error. A good foundation is very important.

Once you have learned the basics, get to the track and have some fun learning advanced techniques!

Just my .02!

 

only fools start on liter bikes, I wont candy coat it for you, thats the plain n simple truth.

If you want to be a good rider, start small n work your way up. read all you can find on riding, listen to those who know and not the big ego go big or stay home types.

 

600's go as fast as $100k+ sportscars. Would you learn to drive in a Ferrari?

Just my .02

 

i wish i had got to !

 

Meh this whole subject is like screaming at the rain.

Someone will swear they've done it so the newb can do it too. They refuse to accept the pure luck involved in their learning to ride a larger bike. And I'm not just talking about the luck that comes into play when they slipped the rear and didn't lowside.

The pure luck of the genetic draw. They don't acknowledge they got lucky when they were born. Born with better balance, awareness, reflexes and other innate characteristics that most people simply don't have. Most people can learn those characteristics to some degree with experience and practice.

But simply put someone like Valentino Rossi was born better suited for riding a motorcycle than I was. I'm not flawed or broken. I, like most normal humans, have to take things slower than he on a motorcycle to remain safe