ASK THE OLD BLOKE ?

The idea for this section began with a suggestion from a reader. The idea is to have a page where people can write in with questions, which I will try to answer, but which will also be published on the web-site so that other readers can offer their answers too.

How does this work? Well, what happens is you can send an email by clicking the "email" button at the bottom of the page, (the address, if you want to just cut-and-paste it into your email program, is as follows: theoldbloke_bikes@yahoo.com.au) and I will publish the question, and whatever answer I might have come up with, on the page here.

And if you see a question you can offer some help with, or even just an opinion, then send me an email and I will publish your reply too.

Click here to send an email.

Click here to return to the front page.

Click here to go to the previous Questions page.

BATTERY WOES

Martin is the proud – but now frustrated! – owner of a 2008 model Triumph Sprint ST. His frustration came when he went to replace the battery. He explains what happened.

Did I do something wrong or are the Triumph design people just plain stupid?  What I thought would be a 10-minute job took 8 hours! This included two trips to the local Battery World shop and a phone call to the local dealer; who’s answer to my question, "How do I remove and replace the battery"? was, "With great difficulty".

I removed the seat (ever tried to remove the seat and put it back? If you haven't, add another hour to the job!). Some time ago I discarded the Triumph system and had the frame drilled and threaded but that's another story.

O.K. remove the battery connections, lift out the battery and replace it - wrong! The lug on the end of the tank to retain the front of the seat sticks out too far by at least 10mm. Remove the bolt which retains the rear of the tank so that the tank can be lifted up at the back to give clearance. Trouble is as soon as the nut is removed (and be careful not to drop it down into the frame somewhere) everything moves out of alignment making it very difficult to pull the bolt out. Don't even try before you have removed the side fairing completely, which can only be removed once the pannier locating arms have been taken off first. With a second person lifting the tank as high as it will go you can just wriggle the battery free. Then replace the battery using the same procedure.

Next step is to put the tank bolt back but of course the tank is now out of alignment with the rubber shocks and the two side lugs. I was on my own at this stage so it took another hour and a half. I eventually had the bolt inserted on one side which caused the other side to go out of alignment even more. Eventually, with the use of all sorts of lever systems, it was done and then it was just a case of putting back the seat side fairing and the pannier arms.

The required battery is a 12v 10amp sealed type, this is a must because the battery goes in sideways. The battery dealer came up with an alternative, slightly smaller one but when I tried to fit it one dimension was a fraction bigger and it wouldn't fit. It's a 30k round trip to the dealer, hence the need for two trips.

For the sake of others is there a better way - other than buying a different bike?

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

This is incredible isn’t it! Perhaps typical of British engineering? (Although Europeans are probably even worse!). Back in the early 1970s I considered buying a 2nd-hand Rover 2000; until I looked under the bonnet. It looked as if they designed the mechanicals, and then just dropped a body over it with no consideration as to how you would get to the afore-mentioned mechanicals. I bought a Triumph 2000 instead. And they had their problems too. Like the diff oil-seal. If you need to replace that you can’t get at it without removing the whole of the rear suspension! I have a Triumph 2500TC, and that has a leaky diff which I just keep topping up with oil as required. I once owned a Fiat 1100 which was a ridiculous thing! To replace the starter motor you had to jack the car up, remove the front wheel, remove the exhaust manifold, disconnect the gear-linkage, and a few other ancillaries. I did that job about three times! Local repair shops refused to work on them! But back to bikes.

Martin sent a separate email detailing why the seat is hard to remove. That’s surprising in itself. Most bike seats are a matter of inserting the key, and pulling it off. On my bike from key in to seat on ground takes about 5 seconds! I take mine off fairly frequently to swap between the lambswool cover and the AirHawk.

I know that battery replacement can be a difficult task on some bikes. On one of my former bikes it was an extremely tight fit and you couldn’t undo the connections until it was clear of the box it was housed in. But the leads were too short to let you remove it too far. So the procedure was to wriggle it as far out as you could, then undo the connections and wriggle it further, eventually clearing the frame and box section it was in. Replacing it was even more fiddly, trying to hold the battery level and the connections in place and do it up and push and squeeze it back in.

But back to Martin. I did a search on the ‘net and the best source of information was a Triumph-owners site that Martin had sent the same question to. Of course there was the usual “I can do it in 20 minutes” type reply, but from others it seems that it is almost as difficult as Martin describes. Except that, as is always the case, once you’ve done it once and know what you’re doing, it is easier. Holding the tank in place seems to be the main issue.

Not much to say here that Martin doesn’t already know; but if you have a similar model Sprint and have any tips Martin would be very pleased to hear them!

Readers' Replies:

Peter wrote in to say that he "struggles with people complaining about how hard it is to work on their bikes." I've put his comment on the Feedback page, but basically he makes the point that bikes like the Sprint ST are designed for a purpose, that purpose being performance and handling. And to achieve these gaols, the designs and engineering requirements don't always make for ease of maintenance. It's a good point. As he says, if people buy a Ferrari they don't complain about maintenance being difficult. I still say though, that there are cases where the designers could have made things easier, by simply altering the shape of a component, or placing a bolt in a different place etc, things that wouldn't effect its intended purpose, but would make it easier to carry out regular maintenance.

GPS FOLLOW-UP

On our Questions page a little while ago we had a question from Craig about GPS systems. He ended up getting one from Aldis. But apparently that didn’t work out. He writes, “Regarding the GPS I got from Aldi, it’s a piece of crap! There’s no back support at all.” He says he has found another one at a Brisbane bike show, called Strike GPS 4 Bikes. He asks if anyone knows anything about those?

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

I had a look at the web-site and this Strike one does look very impressive! It’s a bit (well, a lot!) more expensive than the Aldi one – and there are the Garmin units that were suggested before to consider too – but they do look good. Anyone have any experience with these?

WHAT COMES AFTER THESE?

Russell wrote in response to Chris’s Yamaha MT-01. As an owner of a big-bore naked himself, a GSX1400 (like the one in the photo), he said it got him thinking about what sort of bike you would get after owning one of these big-engined bikes. He writes, “Most people upgrade to get more power while still retaining the easy riding nature, but that’s hard to achieve after the MT-01, GSX1400, Yammie 1300 etc. I suppose consider more comfort but even then there aren’t many bikes more comfortable than mine.

"So I guess the objective would be later technology or a completely different style of bike altogether? Or perhaps own more than one! Might be a good new thread for the site. What do you think?”

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

Hmm, yes, a good question! I suppose a different style of bike is one answer. For example, I still like a fairing, so personally, I'd be interested in something like the FJR, were it not for the weight. (I don't really want anything heavier than what I've got). As we get older (who? Me?) I suppose we might down-size, to something lighter. We might end up with a scooter. (A maxi, of course!). There are a couple of readers who reckon today’s maxi-scooters are definitely the way to go.

Actually, a reader might have already given an answer to this. Bill recently traded his GSX1400 on a  Suzuki Boulevard C109RT. So in his case, a different type of bike was the answer.

Maybe the two bike option is the go. For example, I’d like to have a small trailie tucked away in the shed. Although I know what my wife would say to that!

So, readers, what do you think?

Readers' Replies:

Ivor was the only one to offer any suggestions on this. He says, "In the absence of any other replies, yes I've seen the question there for a while now, I'll toss my two-bob's worth in. I reckon after you've gone the 'bigger-and-better' route the only way to go is different. Change direction, get something different. (Variety being the spice of life and all that!). Although not too different that you hate it!" Yes, good advice. Or you could do what Aussie has done - be happy with what you've got and keep it forever!

SERVICING – IS IT NEEDED?

Russ wrote to me with a question on servicing. He asks, “How do you know if the valves need adjusting? Any symptoms for the 'mechanically challenged' to pick up on? i.e. noise, loss of performance, rough idling etc. My bike was checked at 24,000km and it is now over 40,000 and I suspect will have to be checked at 48,000. But is this necessary or just a case of over-servicing?

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

This is a good question, as it raises the more general issue of servicing, and how much of it is necessary, and how much of it is “dealer-profiteering”.

Firstly, yes, there are symptoms of valves being out of adjustment; but they have to be a fair way out before the symptoms become noticeable. If the valve-clearance is too loose there will be noise; a tapping sound. Several valves loose will produce a general top-end clatter. If the clearances are too tight there won't be rattles or engine-noises, but you can pick it up in the sound of the exhaust. There will be a popping type miss in the sound of the exhaust. An old trick was to get a piece of stiff cardboard and hold it over the end of the exhaust. This made a flapping sound as each exhaust pulse pushed the cardboard away and then let it slap back. If a valve was too tight there would be a bigger pulse of gas, resulting in a bigger gap between the flapping back sound. Other symptoms like rough idling etc, can also be an indication.

But, as I mentioned, they need to be a fair way out before you get these symptoms. Basically if you have these sort of symptoms, then damage is already being done.

Normally valves get tighter with wear. The valve-seats wear and the valve recesses deeper into the head, which causes the gap to close. This in turn causes the valve to be open for longer than it should be, which can cause the valve to burn out. So I think it's important to check them regularly – at least as regularly as the manufacturer recommends anyway. It's a lot cheaper to have them checked and adjusted than it is to have them replaced! So if it's in the schedule to have them checked I would definitely be getting them checked.

As for general services, I have never taken cars or bikes in for scheduled services and had everything done “as it says in the book”. The main reason is that these sort of scheduled services are usually very expensive. And to me, it's an unnecessary expense. So I do things to reduce the cost, while still maintaining the bike / car in good mechanical condition.

Some things, like oil-changes, I do myself. Likewise things like checking chain adjustment, lubing the chain, checking / replacing spark-plugs, and so on. Doing these things saves quite a bit of money. And I also know it's been done properly.

Then there are a few more minor things that I would consider unnecessary, or “over-servicing”; so I don't get those done.

But there are other things – such as checking valves, replacing timing-chains / belts, and so on – that I think are very important. I have those done at, or usually before, the scheduled mileage.

So when it comes to a scheduled-service mileage, what I usually do is do what I can myself, and then make a list of those other things that I consider should be done. I take the bike / car to a trusted mechanic and get them to do the items on my list. That way the bike gets what it needs and it doesn't cost an arm-and-a-leg to have the service done. Another point here is that the dealers usually charge a higher hourly-rate than independent repair-shops. So I go to a mechanic I know and trust.

Now, I know that some people would disagree with this and say that it's best to take it to an authorised dealer and get everything done by-the-book. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Apart from the expense; and the fact that sometimes the dealer's mechanics aren't all that good!

Just a final point. I think it's a good idea to have the mechanic do a general safety-check too. That's because little things can creep up on you. The feel of the bike can change so gradually that you don't notice it. But a mechanic, who isn't riding your bike every day, will be more likely to pick up any subtle faults.

Readers' Replies:

Peter wrote, “I agree with most of your response to servicing. The key thing here for me is find a mechanic you trust and stick with him. They get to know the bike and you know what he did last time so he can not say the last guy didn’t do this or I had to fix that because the last guy broke a bolt etc.” Yes, a good point indeed.

Rod didn’t comment on the actual servicing, but had a comment on the cost. He wrote: “I find the costs exorbitant for both car and bike. Bike dealers, particularly the large businesses, are charging in excess of $80 per hour for servicing and the poor old mechanic that does the work is earning $25 per hour if he is lucky.”

WHY SO OFTEN?

In a follow-on from the question by Russ on servicing, Rod poses this question. “Why is it that motorcycle engines need valve adjustments so regularly; when the average car would probably never have a valve adjustment during its lifetime? I understand that most motorcycles have highly tuned motors but so do a lot of cars.”

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

Firstly, I should say that I don’t think any car would actually go through its life without needing the valves adjusted. True, valve-adjustment – and indeed replacement – now isn’t anywhere near the regular maintenance issue that it once was. But most cars still require a valve-adjustment at certain intervals. To get an idea of the differences, my late 90s Toyota Camry requires a valve adjustment every 80,000km. (Later models I think specify it being checked at intervals of 100,000km). My bike requires valves to be checked every 20,000km. 

I think there are a couple of reasons for this. The first thing is gearing. Bikes run much lower gearing than cars, and so the motor turns over (with the valves opening and closing) much more for any given distance. My Camry runs at 40 kph per 1,000rpm in top; a typical Commodore of Falcon pulls about 50kph per 1,000rpm. Most bikes run at about half that. So the engine does at least twice the amount of work. But in practice it’s probably more. We’re looking at top-gear gearing. In practice bikes tend to rev a lot harder – mainly because we ride them like that; holding the gears longer into higher revs to access the greater performance. (I’m talking in general terms here; my own bike has lots of low-down grunt and I tend to ride it at very low revs most of the time; but in general terms, bikes will be held in the lower gears a lot longer than cars). So this will further increase how much work the engine does for the same distance. We might roughly assume that in real terms a bike engine might do, say, three times the work for the same distance, maybe more.

Now, add in the fact that bike engines are much higher-stressed than cars and rev to much higher rpm. Most cars wouldn’t rev much above 4,000rpm in day-to-day driving. Most bikes are probably hardly ever under that. And operating at higher revs generally means more wear. So, considering all this, it’s probably understandable that valves have to be checked four or even five times more regularly.

As I mentioned, this is all speaking generally. Personally, my bike spends a lot of its time under 4,000rpm, because it goes very well at low revs, and I don’t rev it out very often. I know your bike (Rod owns an FJR1300) is much the same – you don’t need to rev it hard. But many bikes are ridden much harder than we ride them. The manufacturers know this and so set their service-intervals at distances that will be suitable for the harshest of use.

An obvious question then; does this mean that if you ride gently, on a bike that will operate happily at low revs, can you increase the distance between service items like valve-adjustment? Well, yes, I think that you could. Although personally I would tend to stick to the factory recommendations on this – just to be sure. 

Readers' Replies:

Greg wrote in to make the point that many cars don’t require valve-adjustment because they run hydraulic valve-lifters. Good point. Although there are still a lot of cars around that use mechanical valve actuation. It’s mainly cars like Commodores and similar that run Aussie (or U.S.) 6-cylinder engines; a lot of 4-cylinder cars still run mechanical lifters. A further permutation is cars that have part hydraulic actuation; a fairly common situation as I understand it. With this system there is a hydraulic component (in some cars this is referred to as an HLA or “Hydraulic Lash Adjuster”), but the valve-clearances still have to be adjusted manually.

WHICH FUEL?

Craig wrote in with a question on fuel. “I’ve been told by a work mate that regular unleaded is the best fuel for carb bikes. She has an 09 GSF500 Suzuki. The dealer told her this. I’m a bit confused now as I read on your web site to use premium unleaded fuel for my 95 model XJ900.”

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

In my opinion the question of whether to use regular unleaded or premium unleaded has more to do with the engine's compression-ratio than it does to how the fuel is delivered to the engine; carbs or injection. That's because regular unleaded has a relatively low octane rating of 91. The old Super petrol used to be about 97. Our regular unleaded is not much above what used to be called "Standard" back all those years ago. Running a high-compression engine on low-octane fuel will result in "pinging", as well as loss of performance and economy. (I wonder if the dealer would recommend using regular unleaded in an early model carburettored GSXR, Fireblade, or R1, etc?).

From the information I have, the GS500 runs a compression ratio of 9.0 : 1. That would be high enough, in my opinion, to require premium unleaded. The bike will run on regular unleaded, but I don't think it would be running at peak efficiency; and it might encounter pinging – especially at full throttle or under heavy loads, particularly at low revs.

So, in my opinion, the dealer is wrong; I think you can discount the theory of regular unleaded being best for carbies. Compression-ratio is the issue. And if it were mine I'd be running it on premium. (The 95 premuium, not the higher-octane 98). Oh, and one more thing, don't run it on ethanol blend fuel. That's a definite no-no! Suzuki state that none of their bikes is approved to use an ethanol blend.

Oh, and the other point I suppose is that (at least in NSW) regular unleaded is being phased out; I was told recently that most servos will have stopped stocking it by the end of the year. Which kind of makes it a moot question ultimately.

BROKEN BRAKES?

Craig wrote in with another question on the Suzuki – this time on brake-pads. “A work mate has a 2009 GSF500 Suzuki. 2000kms in and front pad had to be replaced! The new ones have been put on but are still squeaky. She has been told it is a problem with this Suzuki model. Any info would be appreciated.”

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

That's a bit scary isn't it – 2,000km and a need for new brakes! I would be surprised if this was a problem with the model though. It's been around for years, so I would've thought if there was a known brake-wear problem, Suzuki would've fixed it long ago. Sometimes though, there can be a problem with the actual brake-pads; with certain batches coming out with faulty or inferior pad material. I once had a Toyota Corolla that wore its clutch out by 54,000km. Poor quality clutch-plate material apparently. The replacement clutch was still going strong when we sold the car at 190,000km.

I did a bit of a search on the internet for reports on brake problems, but didn’t find any. If anything, the word seems to be that because the brakes are pretty generous, given the weight of the bike and it’s performance, they should last longer than average. So I’d be inclined to think that there is a problem; one that is not normal for the model.

My suggestion would be to have the brake system checked. The first thing would be the lever. Check that there is the right amount of free-play. If the lever doesn’t have any free-play it could be applying some pressure to the brakes all the time, which would cause them to wear prematurely. If the lever adjustment seems okay, the next thing would be to get the calipers checked. As you probably know, in normal operation the pads are just lightly touching the rotors, but if the calipers are stiff and don’t allow the pads to fully release, it would be like constantly riding with the brake on; which as I said above, would cause the pads to wear out quickly.

XJ900 SUSPENSION

Craig wrote in with a question on suspension for his Yamaha. “I own a 1995 model XJ900 Diversion. I’ve had steering bearings checked at bike shop, Team Moto. They said that it needs progressive suspension front and back; cost $600 fitted. Just wanted to know if anyone has any experience with this type of suspension?”

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

I'm not sure that saying it “needs” progressive-rate suspension fitted would necessarily be correct; although it is probable that the standard suspension has sagged a bit and needs refreshing.

In saying this, I'm assuming from what you've said, that the standard springs aren't progressive-rate. This is surprising, I would've thought the springs would've been progressive-rate. I've looked at specs but haven't been able to determine if this is the case or not.

Most suspensions on modern bikes are progressive-rate; and there is no doubt that it is far superior to single-rate springs. With this type of suspension the initial compression is softer, then the spring becomes stronger the further it is compressed. You can easily see this with exposed twin-shock type suspensions where you'll notice the top few coils are wider apart (because they are softer and flex more) than the coils further down. This gives a good ride through the initial movement of the suspension while still retaining the strength to resist excessive dive under brakes or acceleration etc.

By the way, if you look at the mono-shock at the back, you should be able to see if the spring has this wider-apart-at-the-top appearance. If it does, then the suspension is progressive-rate. If the coils are all evenly-spaced it probably is single-rate.

I have read a report on the XJs that said they tend to dive at the front under brakes, and then bounce up and down a little before settling. This sounds pretty dramatic, but is, apparently, not as bad as it sounds, and is normal for the bike. Not a problem once you get used to it; although as the suspension ages the effect would get more pronounced where it might become a problem.

My thinking on this is that returning the suspension to standard would make it as good as new. Progressive-rate springs would make it better than new. And I have to say that $600 for both ends, fitted, sounds like a good deal to me. They would need to be set up properly though, to suit your weight and riding style.

Any readers have any suggestions or comments on this – particularly with regard to the XJ900?

Readers' Replies:

Rick has a couple of Diversions, so he’s got plenty of experience to draw on. He wrote, “ I have a couple of Diversions and both have at some time developed a bit of front wheel wobble, i.e. moving the bars from side to side if you take your hands off. One already had the forks dropped 10mm through the clamps and it had less problem with wobble than the one which hadn't had that adjustment. On that one, as the springs had begun to sag I had new heavier progressive springs fitted with I think slightly heavier fork oil. It also had the forks adjusted down 10mm. The problem went away until the tyres started to wear a bit but well before they needed replacing. Several people have asked me about the wobble and interestingly Spannerman recently in replying to someone's enquiry about wheel wobble on some other bike, eluded to the trait as being common with XJ 900s. (I think he was actually referring to the earlier model, but apparently it is a trait of this too. Elwyn). The replacement of front springs with heavier and peogressive springs seems to be worth doing as these are quite heavy bikes and springs do sag. The Diversion is a great bike so as long as you don't ride around no hands you won't have any worries.”

Possum wrote in with a very detailed reply that covered other areas as well, such as brakes etc. He wrote, “IKON Suspension from Boronia St North Albury (what used to be KONI) is the Australian distributor for 'Progressive' brand fork springs. That will tidy up the front; and they make a great range of units for the back end too. But before spending up on new fork springs, I would drain and flush the forks (use 300 ml of diesel) and replace the grey sludge that comes out, with nice fresh Automatic Transmission Fluid, available everywhere for less than $10/litre. Most bike fork oil is $15/500ml and is usually SAE10 weight. ATF is also SAE10 weight! Consult your handbook for the correct volume.

"I recently did a flush and change on one of my son's bikes and it has made a difference.”

He went on to detail other worthwhile checks and maintenance, such as servicing the brakes, including fitting braided lines; which I’ve passed on to Craig.

A final, very worthwhile piece of advice: “As always, only undertake those tasks you are mechanically comfortable with; it will be cheaper in the long run to pay someone to do it right the first time, than pay to have him fix your screw-ups.”

WHICH BIKE?

Ryan wrote in with a question on what bike to buy. He has just got his Ls and is trying to decide which LAMS bike to buy. “My plan is to purchase a new bike that is going to help me (a novice) to learn to ride and progress, and that will also allow me to keep well after I have my P's. So I do not want to purchase a bike that I am going to outgrow too quickly. Please note I am not too interested in overall performance and speed but a good all-rounder."

"I will be using for weekend rides mainly, but I am keen to go on bike trips with my father and father-in-law who do bigger trips such as from Brisbane to Victoria once a year. So comfort is more important.

At present I have the following new LAMs bikes in mind: Yamaha FZ6n, Kawasaki ER-6n, Suzuki SFV-650 Gladius, and Honda CB400". (Honda pictured above).

"I cant find any reviews on what would be the better suited as a tourer or the best all-rounder (especially with how hard some may be revving at 110km/h). If you have any thoughts or suggestions please let me know."

The Old Bloke’s Reply:

It’s good to hear from a new rider, Ryan! And also someone who, I assume from what you write, is a younger rider. There are a few younger people who are regular readers of the web-site, and it's always good to hear from a younger rider.

An interesting question, because there are a lot of LAMS bikes out there! But you've helped by narrowing it down to four. I have ridden three of the four, and a riding friend owns the one I haven't ridden. So I have some experience with them. I'll give you my thoughts. (And if you click on the names that will take you to the tests of each).

The Yamaha FZ6 is a good bike, but I have issues with the engine characteristics. All its performance is high in the rev range, so you've got to rev it hard to access the power. This becomes a problem with the LAMS version because apparently the limit works on throttle travel – it restricts how much throttle you can use. So it's hard to get it up into the revs and access the power you need. As I mention in the tests, I think that most of the mid-size 4-cylinder bikes are under-geared, so they are working a bit harder at highway speeds.

The Kawasaki ER-6 is a bike that impressed me a lot. As I mention in the test, there were some things I didn't like about it, but what did impress me was that it is a good all-round bike. It came out as my pick as the best all-round mid-size bike when I did a comparison of those.

The Honda CB400 is a great little bike! But, “little” is a significant word here. Power and performance is fine, especially for what it is, but where you might find it wanting is on that trip from Brisbane to Victoria; mainly because of the gearing. Being a 400, it is lower-geared than the others. In the test I said it felt fine cruising at 110kph. But by the end of a couple of thousand kms the low gearing and high revs would make you wish you'd got something bigger! A great bike, but not really for interstate touring.

The Suzuki Gladius I haven't ridden. But you cab read the story of how a riding friend swapped a Suzuki GSX1400 for one – and likes it! He rode the LAMS version when he test-rode it too, and reports that the restrictions only come in at high revs, which you don't really need to use a lot. Remember he was coming off a 1400cc bike and reckoned it went well!

You asked about gearing; what revs they are doing at 110kph. A lot of road tests – as you've found – don't mention this. To me, it's important, so I always mention gearing. It's a big issue if you do a lot of highway riding, as you've said. So here is a comparison. At 110kph the Kawasaki is doing 5,000rpm, the Yamaha is doing 6,000rpm, and the Honda is doing 7,000rpm. That's a big difference! I checked with the owner of the Gladius, and he reports it is doing 5,0000rpm at 110kph.

So which one? For me, the Yamaha gets ruled out because of its power characteristics. A road-test I read recently also suggested power was a problem – because of the LAMS restrictions, but also the characteristics of the engine. The Honda isn't intended to keep up with your older riders and their bigger bikes as they head for Melbourne. So that leaves the Kawasaki and the Gladius. Either would do the job, and you'd probably be happy with either. Probably comes down to which one feels best to sit on and which one you like the look of. On my riding friend's recommendation, I think I'd be giving the Gladius a good look; although he suggests that you factor in the cost of an AirHawk, as the seat is a bit hard!

Just one other suggestion. The Yamaha XJ6 is available in a naked (I notice you've picked nakeds) LAMS version. I haven't ridden one of these either, but I've had a look at them. It's a comfortable bike, and the good thing is that the engine characteristics have been tuned to give more power low down. It's designed for people new to riding, or who don't want to have to scream the engine to get it going. The only down-side would be the gearing, which is the same as the FZ6, so a bit on the low side for my liking. But I recently read a report by a journo who rode one from Sydney to the Snowy Mtns, and was a lot more impressed than he expected to be. So I'd say it's worth a look too.