When did we stop appreciating...

[JimVonBaden]

Originally Posted by Wraith Rider

Maybe they worked (sometimes), but they worked not well.

Exactly! Lots of excuses and obfustication in his post.

To claim that brake and fork technology haven't improved is to put ones head up their rear.

Jim

[NJ-Brett]

My big beef with modern bikes is that they seem to be uncomfortable unless you get a really big one.
Most older bikes were set up to be comfortable even 2 up for a long ride with long thick seats and nice peg/bar locations.
The bikes were generally lighter and smaller, 350, 450, 500, 750, the 750 was a BIG bike.
The seats flipped up, had helmet locks, a place to stash your gloves.

Modern wonder bikes have thin hard seats, the passenger seat is often more of a decal then something to sit on if its even included at all, there are no grab rails, no small luggage racks.

Instead you get 1200cc's, water cooling, an ugly high bulbus 20 gallon gas tank, abs, and lots of plastic all over the bike and its 600 pounds.

Tires are much better (but don't last as long), brakes are better, engines are bigger, not sure they are much better, suspension can be better but often is worse (New Bonniville, Sportsters).
Center of gravity is often higher, seats lower, pegs higher.

90% of street bikes seem to be Harley copies or race bike look a likes, with only the TU250, the V7 classic and the new Bonneville a standard type bike.
The TU is too small, the new Bonneville is heavy, has a poor seat, poor suspension, the V7 classic LOOKS good, never rode one.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by JimVonBaden

Exactly! Lots of excuses and obfustication in his post.

To claim that brake and fork technology haven't improved is to put ones head up their rear.

Jim

30 years? The 82 GPZ and the 82 GS1100 were pretty well sorted. I wouldn't say there are huge improvements over those bikes. I wasn't real fond of the air forks but they worked though I will admit they didn't seem to last as long. Brakes were pretty darn good, transmissions were as smoother than some of the new bikes I have ridden.

I wouldn't argue that top of the line bikes have some large improvements available, but I try to steer away from ABS and upper tier bikes so for a rider like me the improvements are not leaps and bounds. Had horsepower not increased there would probably have been no changes at all.

[JimVonBaden]

Originally Posted by perterra

30 years? The 82 GPZ and the 82 GS1100 were pretty well sorted. I wouldn't say there are huge improvements over those bikes. I wasn't real fond of the air forks but they worked though I will admit they didn't seem to last as long. Brakes were pretty darn good, transmissions were as smoother than some of the new bikes I have ridden.

I wouldn't argue that top of the line bikes have some large improvements available, but I try to steer away from ABS and upper tier bikes so for a rider like me the improvements are not leaps and bounds. Had horsepower not increased there would probably have been no changes at all.

They were high quality for their time, but still not really close to a modern bike.

Compare the standards, avoid the exotics and race bikes, and though they seem similar, there are big differences in braking (no ABS), suspension and durability.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old bikes, that is why I keep buying them, but I am not fooling myself into thinking they are somehow equal to the modern bikes. Ride them back to back and the differences become obvious!

Jim

[perterra]

Originally Posted by JimVonBaden

They were high quality for their time, but still not really close to a modern bike.

Compare the standards, avoid the exotics and race bikes, and though they seem similar, there are big differences in braking (no ABS), suspension and durability.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old bikes, that is why I keep buying them, but I am not fooling myself into thinking they are somehow equal to the modern bikes. Ride them back to back and the differences become obvious!

Jim

I think you can get more mileage out of the newer bikes before a top end for sure and I don't care for ABS so thats a non issue for me though I see the benefits if you got it. I still don't feel there have been huge improvements since 82, incremental yes, but giant step's no. Though I concede if you go back 10 more years the improvements are pretty big.

Now to be honest I am doing a bit of picking and choosing when I compare, there were plenty of bikes in the 80's that were feeble in many aspects but just about any bike set to compete in the market against a CB 500/550 or a CB750 were pretty darn capable and would live in todays world without a huge penalty. I think the brakes and horsepower of some of todays bikes are more of a liability than an asset for a certain group of riders..

And I used cruisers in my post before because they are probably the best selling motorcycle.

Edited to add, in general I think bikes have improved, some brands more than others. Harley has taken some big leaps with the EVO motors. I have had friends tell the the oil head was a huge improvent over the air head, but more than a few say they prefer the torgue of the air head. I dont know, never owned a BMW (or a Harley for that matter) and having owned an early 70's Jawa I would guess they had greatly improved. Mine was not much different than a 50's bike.

[JimVonBaden]

Originally Posted by perterra

I think you can get more mileage out of the newer bikes before a top end for sure and I don't care for ABS so thats a non issue for me though I see the benefits if you got it. I still don't feel there have been huge improvements since 82, incremental yes, but giant step's no. Though I concede if you go back 10 more years the improvements are pretty big.

Now to be honest I am doing a bit of picking and choosing when I compare, there were plenty of bikes in the 80's that were feeble in many aspects but just about any bike set to compete in the market against a CB 500/550 or a CB750 were pretty darn capable and would live in todays world without a huge penalty. I think the brakes and horsepower of some of todays bikes are more of a liability than an asset for a certain group of riders..

And I used cruisers in my post before because they are probably the best selling motorcycle.

Funny you pick the CB750. That was the standard I was referring to. My brother owned a low mileage one and I rode it a couple times. I know they are very popular, but that bike handled like crap, and the brakes were not very good even comparred to my Triumph Scrambler.

I guess it also depends on the rider. If you ride casually, don't push the bike hard at all, you might not notice the difference between old and new.

On cruisers, old ones are down right scarey, and new ones are just merely poor handling, IMHO. So maybe it is just me.

Jim

[perterra]

Originally Posted by JimVonBaden

Funny you pick the CB750. That was the standard I was referring to. My brother owned a low mileage one and I rode it a couple times. I know they are very popular, but that bike handled like crap, and the brakes were not very good even comparred to my Triumph Scrambler.

I guess it also depends on the rider. If you ride casually, don't push the bike hard at all, you might not notice the difference between old and new.

On cruisers, old ones are down right scarey, and new ones are just merely poor handling, IMHO. So maybe it is just me.

Jim

The DOHC CB750F was a fine bike, I never felt like it was ill handling in the slightest. But then again, I never have been the boy racer type.

For what it's worth, I thought the TR6C a fine handling bike other than the brakes were a little weak but better than the KLR I'm riding now.

I think you expect more from your bike than I do, I'm pretty mild, the KZ I had would shake it's head a little in 100 mph high speed turns, so knowing that I never saw much reason to push it to that level. I was paying my own way from 16 yrs on and a 50 mph plus speeding ticket would pay apartment rent for a month. The penalty wasn't worth the few seconds of adrenaline.

[icebox]

I love old bikes, have a 74 and a 92 in the garage, but it really is a stretch to compare old and new on performance. Not just brakes and suspension, but HP/litre. Just look at the diameter of modern dual front discs fer chrisakes. I was riding when Comandos were new, had a Trump and a BSA Lightning at the time. Rode 750 Hondas when new. But bring a 750 four or a Norton, or whatever to a track day and grab a FZ8, Street triple, or a big Monster. All Standards, well under 500 pounds, with close to a 100 HP without any mods, and the comparison just isn't there. Now the question of soul, character, or whatever it is that trips your trigger about old bikes is another question. New bikes seem like good tools, and it will be a long time before they aquire any soul. When I want a Sunday ride I grab the 74 on a nice day, don't want to clean the dirt off of it. Most days I ride something new...........

[Go Irish75]

I personally see the evolution of the motorcyle being so specialized that it just creates a natural split and rif in what use to be a thing we just all shared. It use to be just "cyclin' for the sake of riding". Now it's so damn specialized. You got your trackbike for this, your cruiser for that, your adventure bike for this trip but yet a different adventure bike for that terrain, your smaller bike for in town, your big GS for long hauls, your scooter for great mileage, your big CC bike for showing off at the local high school hangout, your hooligan for the weekends, your bike with ABS when the weather turns wet, your muddier for the back yard, but your super light 2 stroke for hitting the single track... I mean, where does it end? Just sayin.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by thumpty dumpty

I'm gonna disagree on the brakes. Better? Yes. Loads better? Not so much.

the 70s and early 80s dirt bikes i rode (mostly husky's which were good bikes for the time) had drum brakes on both ends or at least on the rear.

they sucked.

ride through a water crossing and you had no brakes until you dragged them long enough to heat them up and dry them out.

they were also actuated via cables or bars. you did not get nearly the braking power or feel that you get with modern brakes.

How about 25 years old? I assume new fork seals, fresh pads, and a tune-up aren't "a lot of work?"

i'm not talking about tune-ups. shit broke on them a lot more often (partially at least because the suspension sucked so bad). at least in my experience.

Quit lobbing softballs.

if you honestly think 70s dirt bikes come even close to comparing to modern dirt bikes as far as capability in pretty much any category goes, you need to stop lobbing softballs at your own head or something.

Braking poor? Squeeze harder.

thus attempting to make up for the fact that the older bike has crappier brakes.

Shudders in a corner? Keep practicing.

again attempting to make up for a shortcoming of the older bike compared to a modern one.

i rest my case.

[dbuzz]

Originally Posted by Go Irish75

I personally see the evolution of the motorcyle being so specialized that it just creates a natural split and rif in what use to be a thing we just all shared. It use to be just "cyclin' for the sake of riding". Now it's so damn specialized. You got your trackbike for this, your cruiser for that, your adventure bike for this trip but yet a different adventure bike for that terrain, your smaller bike for in town, your big GS for long hauls, your scooter for great mileage, your big CC bike for showing off at the local high school hangout, your hooligan for the weekends, your bike with ABS when the weather turns wet, your muddier for the back yard, but your super light 2 stroke for hitting the single track... I mean, where does it end? Just sayin.

In a higher mortgage for a larger garage ?

[Go Irish75]

Originally Posted by dbuzz

In a higher mortgage for a larger garage ?

Sooooooooooo true. Hard to build that in between the divorce proceedings.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by icebox

I love old bikes, have a 74 and a 92 in the garage, but it really is a stretch to compare old and new on performance. Not just brakes and suspension, but HP/litre. Just look at the diameter of modern dual front discs fer chrisakes. I was riding when Comandos were new, had a Trump and a BSA Lightning at the time. Rode 750 Hondas when new. But bring a 750 four or a Norton, or whatever to a track day and grab a FZ8, Street triple, or a big Monster. All Standards, well under 500 pounds, with close to a 100 HP without any mods, and the comparison just isn't there. Now the question of soul, character, or whatever it is that trips your trigger about old bikes is another question. New bikes seem like good tools, and it will be a long time before they aquire any soul. When I want a Sunday ride I grab the 74 on a nice day, don't want to clean the dirt off of it. Most days I ride something new...........

For many riders the HP/Liter thing is of no import. Could care less whether it's 60 hp or 120 hp. I'll never do a track day in my life. As I said before the things you like in a bike are a liability to many riders, you tube is full of examples.

But I get your point.

[Wuwei]

Broken record here--what I miss most is the loss of the "standards," including the UJMs like the CB750, or like this one, the 1974 Suzuki GT550 that I had a lot of fun on. Bikes that had plenty of power, decent handling, decent comfort for two-up (nice long flat seats), decent all-arounders. Not saying they are better technologically than today's bikes, just that the overall concept was right.

[icebox]

All three bikes I pointed out are MILD standards, you tube is full of what I would call squid bikes, doing really stupid stuff. Why anyone would want a R1 on the street is beyond me. The only place they can be truly appreciated is on the track. I don't do track days, at 62 I still just like to ride. And with new I just spend more time riding, not wrenching. Winters are long up here so the old bikes are great for a snowy Saturday with a cold beer. New bikes you just bolt shit on. I wave at cruisers, sport bikes and even at BMWs and scooters. Still think we are all part of the same club.

Originally Posted by perterra

For many riders the HP/Liter thing is of no import. Could care less whether it's 60 hp or 120 hp. I'll never do a track day in my life. As I said before the things you like in a bike are a liability to many riders, you tube is full of examples.

But I get your point.