Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!tifsie!steven
From: steven@tifsie
Newsgroups: net.cycle
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <5800001@tifsie>
Date: Thu, 8-May-86 12:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: tifsie.5800001
Posted: Thu May  8 12:01:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 01:20:02 EDT
References: <5624@sri-spam.ARPA>
Lines: 57
Nf-ID: #R:sri-spam.ARPA:5624:tifsie:5800001:000:2995
Nf-From: tifsie!steven    May  8 11:01:00 1986


/* Written 12:19 pm  Apr 28, 1986 by alanj@orca.UUCP in tifsie:net.cycle */
>>I am in the market for a new bike (presently own a 1982 Honda FT500
>>Ascot) and have narrowed my choices down to the Honda Nighthawks.
>>Can anyone out there provide me with their experiences or opinions
>>about these two bikes ?

>I also am a happy Nighthawk owner.  I picked up a new '85 650 for $2345

>I'm not an particularly experienced rider -- about a year on my CM540E.
>>The 450 was fast enought for me, but a bit rough and too light, and too
>small for my body -- my legs cramped up after about 1/2 hour of riding.
>I was looking for (1) four cylinders and (2) a quieter engine, and (3) a
>I think the 700S is rather ugly, the low maintenance
>and looks sold me on the 650.  The ride and handling have kept me sold.
>(I have a friend that thinks the 700S is the prettiest bike out there.
>No accounting for taste!)

>In general:  Yes, go grab one!

>	-Alan Jeddeloh
>	tektronix!orca!alanj

>Question for Portland area readers:  I'm not too impressed with Beaverton
>Honda's service department.  Any recommendations?

>	-AJ

I just screamed through my 6000th mile.  My 'S' and I had a small
celebration with a tankful of 100 octane premium out on some rather
unchallenging Texas highways.  I am not real sure where the comments about
the "uglyness" of the Nighthawk S are coming from, unless it is because of
the poor cosmetic changes that Honda made to the 86's, if that is the case,
I agree, but if you are refering to the 84 or 85 models, you have got to be
the exception(s).  I bought my bike 1 year ago (yes from beaverton Honda,
and I was not real impressed, I've heard St. Johns is better) and road until
mid summer on some of the meanest roads I could find in Oregon, the trips to
the coast were fantastic.  Not only does the S handle well, but it turns
heads everywhere.  I have never gone on a ride or pulled into a gas station
without having someone comment (very sincerely) "Nice bike!".  I usually
just smile.  If you want to avoid constant and expensive shop maintenance,
this is your bike.  If you want performance that will consistently amaze you
and the guy that thought his Interceptor, Ninja, etc.. was such hot shit,
this is your bike.  If you want something that looks as good going 110 MPH
down a winding highway as it does under the streetlights around 11:00, this
is your bike.  You have already narrowed your choice down to the best two
bikes (in my own humble opinion) on the market for all purpose riding (and
even 'specialty' riding in alot of cases) so have no fear of choosing the
wrong one, but the 85 S is probably a better looking machine in the publics
eye than the 86.  This is not just a fanatics view point.  I did A LOT of
homework before choosing the Nighthawk S, and I am the kind of person that
is concerned with performance as well as style, I'll probably buy a Jaguar
some day...

			-Steven Speer
			 Texas Inst. (but Oregon native).
			 ...!ticsl!tifsie!steven