Where did the myth that sport bikes are "more difficult to ride slow" originate?

[ninebadthings]

Sorry, have a DRZ and a bmw GS in the garage next to my VFR, no contest. Sport bikes are reasonable once you get used to them, but just don't have the maneuverability at slow speeds of a dual sport or standard bike.

But what are you calling slow speed, I'm talking at around walking speed. Above jogging speed, no problem, everything is good except choppers and cruisers with stupid handlebars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrwwfUDpk6M&feature=related

Firecracker...I'll have a go slow contest with a crusier guy any day, will even let you attatch all those flags to your bike that you like so much...I don't ride in parades or charity rides because I ride a motorcycle for sport, not a social occasion.

[BusterBrown]

This is not a myth, but simply a misunderstanding. Just as "the exception that proves the rule" makes little sense unless you read "proves" in a somewhat archaic sense as meaning "tests" (as in "proving ground") similarly "cruisers are best ridden slow" does not mean "cruisers are the best at slow riding" but rather "going slow is all they do well".

Obviously, a trials bike is better at going slow than a cruiser. So is a dirt bike or dual sport. A sport bike should be at least as good, since the riding position permits the rider to use his legs and get his whole body into balancing the bike.

Indeed, the cruiser is the worst at going slow, ironic since that is what it does best.