The 'Yeah, right..' thread.

[A100man]

Dismantled old bike, non known if runner, mis-matched engine/frame, damaged fairing, some bits painted - gimme 1900 for it, no offers!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134681681602?

Yeah, right. Do you think I've got 'Pillock' tatooed on my forehead or summat.
____________________
Now: A100, GT250A, XJ598, FZ750

Then: Fizz, RS200, KL250, XJ550, Laverda Alpina, XJ600, FZS600

[Bhud]

Great thread idea. A lot annoys me when it comes to what motorcyclists do, tbh. As for the above:

[Bhud]

Here's another:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385822199234

[Easy-X]

BUT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SALE THAT'S WHY I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

I always thing, “Yeah, right” when sellers say it’ll pass the MOT. Prove it! I guess they’d argue that if it takes 2 months to sell that’s 2 months MOT lost but… meh! Show me it’s roadworthy.

[Villers]

[slowasyoulike]

"If you want to build one of these then I can honestly say this is a rare opportunity you should move quick on, without getting lost in the price which is lower than what I have spent on it and in the larger scheme of things its a detail you will forget."

Or, you know, fuck building one; you could buy a working example for less than the price of this box of broken/missing (it's 99% COMPLETE M8) bits.

What an absolute bellend.

[slowasyoulike]

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

[slowasyoulike]

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

[virus]

Another favorite of mine is 'just needs a carb clean' when in actual fact it needs someone to actually spend some money on a dyno and get it rejetted to suit or just put the fucking airbox back on...
____________________
own: 81 xs1100g...
owned: 85 rat CG (sold), 91 GS500e (stolen), 84 gsx400f (scrapped), 81 z250 (siezed, siezed, scrapped), 83 cb250rs (sold), 84 gpz750r ratfighter (killed) 84gpz400 (sold), '80 cb650 ratfighter (wrote off) 95gsx6/12f ratfighter (killed) 91 xj900 (sold)
stinkwheel Well I just had my hands up a pigs fanny. Which makes your concerns pale into insignificance.

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

And don’t they say 90% of “carb faults” are something else… (electrical?).

[A100man]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/145236776325?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rsUAAOSwSFNk1Tvh/s-l800.jpg

[xX-Alex-Xx]

[Nobby the Bastard]

[Bhud]

"I was going to do something awesome and just didn't have the time or space, plus my dog died, and I suddenly lost interest because of a new and amazing job" is the "yeah, right" bit. It throws everything into doubt because the line of thinking is inconsistent and the reasoning is poor. All you know for sure in that case is the guy had a working bike and now he's got boxes of parts he wants gone.

People do all sorts of stuff with bikes, it's true. But finishing a project is one thing. The other side is "yeah, right".

Another one I saw on Facebook recently (pseudo cafe racer 80s twin which bits chopped off and Ebay accessories added which blew its engine while being ridden down an American highway with a buddy filming him from a car):

[grr666]

Talking of which I have a slightly knackered 125 scoot for sale 2013 plate £400
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off.

[WD Forte]

'MOT exempt' boils my piss as this can often refer to unroadworthy
form over function shite.

the arseholes spend possibly thousands fuckin a bike up yet shy away
from £28 for an independent inspection to prove it's roadworthy.

yeah right
____________________
bikers smell of wee

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

[Easy-X]

"Let's see now... ABS, nope. Disk brakes, nope. Emissions, nope. Indicators, nope. Visible smoke... hmm... nope" etc. A proper vintage bike will have so little from the modern checklist I suppose they thought it hardly worth the bother.

The spirit of the thing is garage queen, occasional outing to Box Hill. This is one of the reasons I think they'll stop the rolling 40 year thing past the 2030s as you could easily daily a '90s bike.
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

I just don’t get why a cheap, older vehicle is assumed to be better maintained and safe.

[Bhud]

It's something I may have discussed before. I have to be careful what I say here because people do read this forum (and regurgitate it elsewhere sometimes), and people's thoughts on different subjects change over time, and even if something is well-argued, it may not necessarily be correct.

But with the classic vehicle exemption they were thinking 1920s Bugattis, RR Silver Shadow, Porsche 356s, E-Types, Countach, Testarossa, etc. People who've got these cars have a "man" to maintain them in tip-top condition. It wasn't meant for Austin Allegro, Mini, etc. This is because the people who pushed for the classic car exemption were highly influential, and even had political power. When they admitted the historic category, they weren't thinking about some nob fooling about with a CB250. They were trying to get a sort of equivalence with EU historic exemption, albeit on more stringent grounds, at the time. That's the basis for everything. High-end classic cars driven by the very rich and powerful. Bikes were tagged on as an afterthought, as they are registered vehicles too.

Cracks are beginning to show (earlier than I expected). The ULEZ thing: highly controversial and now the 40 year rule is being repeatedly brought up among the people who haven't quite cottoned on to the bigger picture of what's happening (technology and globalisation replacing the need for a motivated working class). As long as "I'm a hardworking nurse", and they can blow out in Benidorm once a year, and who needs lawyers when I'm a freeman-of-the-land, etc. The kind of people who don't understand how things work. So you join the dots... Is it going to last. I have no problem with anyone bodging together whatever they like but they should try and fly under the radar.

The argument the classic car clubs ran with was correct at that time (which was less fraught with controversial political pressures). They stated, their cars were hardly ever driven. That claim was true. This historic thing was never about cheap old bikes.

[A100man]

[Robby]

The 40 year rule is because of most of them hardly ever get used and are owned by people who know how to keep them going.

They don't require an MOT, but still are required to be safe for use on the road. If you run into someone because your brakes are knackered, you're just as liable as in a 39 year old vehicle.

There are plenty of what-if loopholes, but they are not a policy problem. Classic vehicles make up a tiny amount of overall traffic, and have few serious accidents. The law would only need to change if there was a measurable problem.

I would estimate that there are a lot more unroadworthy vehicles driving round with dodgy MOTs, than unroadworthy classic vehicles driving round with no MOT.

Which reminds me, I haven't ridden the CB250 in about 11 months.