When did we stop appreciating...

[perterra]

Originally Posted by rivercreep

F.W.I.W. I guess I see that there is a difference between attacking groups of people vs a concept.
People can be hurt, a concept can not.
I try to refrain from hurting people. Concepts = I feel free to label since concepts have no feeling.
...again, to me, there is a clear difference.
If one wants to identify WITH the concept, (and put on the shoe) that's up to them.

Ps. The "irony" is now understood! (I missed it the first time, posting B.C.)

I didnt see anything you posted as personal attack on anybody, I took it as venting. I think I understood the gist of the vent but I'm kind of torn on it. I'd like to see bikes simplify but on the other hand I dont want it too simply when I have to pile some miles on quick.

But the US buying public appears to be fickle as hell, we say we want one thing, but when it comes time to lay our money down we pick it apart and buy what we rail against. So there is either a vocal minority and a large group who stays quiet or we dont really know what we want.

[lemieuxmc]

There is a big difference between change and improvement.

A motorcycle is fundamentally a simple device, if it is built with good design principles and quality materials, it will give a long and reliable service life with easy repairs if necessary.

Very few motorcycles made today represent much of an "improvement" over the level of a late '70s Honda or BMW. Yeah I know they are a lot faster (at speeds you don't ride), handle better (at levels most people won't appreciate), and are much more complicated (so it's harder to work on and get parts for).

Why do you think Harley is doing well? They know what a Harley should look, ride, and sound like, and they are working at fixing the things that piss of Harley owners and providing more of the accessories that Harley owners want to BUY!

[Wuwei]

According to this article and many others our reliance on GPS navigation is causing us to lose our inner sense of direction. I suppose that is OK if the GPS is working and you can follow it, but I find that I just don't need it most of the time. I can look at a map and usually ride for an hour or more without having to refer to it again, and there is something to be said for a little bit of getting lost--more adventure and you can find new places that way. It's fun to figure out which way to turn just by reading the terrain, looking at the sun, noting the wind direction, etc.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by rivercreep

Concepts = I feel free to label since concepts have no feeling.
...again, to me, there is a clear difference.
If one wants to identify WITH the concept, (and put on the shoe) that's up to them.

So it's completely ok if I find the concept, of thinking someone stopped appreciating motorcycling because he doesn't agree with some other ones about what motorcycling is about, stupid?

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

Very few motorcycles made today represent much of an "improvement" over the level of a late '70s Honda or BMW.

I wouldn't say that "at least every modern Honda", which are worlds above these late '70s things, is "very few".

[JimVonBaden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc
Very few motorcycles made today represent much of an "improvement" over the level of a late '70s Honda or BMW.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Even if you look purely at basic MC features like forks, brakes, motos and gearboxes, today's bike are far more competant and reliable, and the majority of riders can take advantage of those features. If a bike handles and stops faster and better, then even beginner riders will ride better and safer! IMHO.
Jim

[Thanantos]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

Very few motorcycles made today represent much of an "improvement" over the level of a late '70s Honda or BMW. Yeah I know they are a lot faster (at speeds you don't ride), handle better (at levels most people won't appreciate), and are much more complicated (so it's harder to work on and get parts for).

So I assume you normally ride a '78 CB750 or did you go DOHC with a '79?

[lemieuxmc]

My 1976 Honda 750F was fast, smooth, fairly easy to work on, (and if I still had it) would get much more attention at bike night than a new RT.

My '77/7 is still fast enough to get you killed, pretty easy to work on and gets lots of attention at bike night.

I can't see much functional difference between my '98 Guzzi V1100 and a 2012 California Vintage or any of the comparable cruisers that CW group tested a couple of years ago.

When I finish my '72 Combat Commando with the Boyer ignition, Mikuni carb, new shocks and fork kit, brake upgrade, Barnett clutch, etc, it will be plenty fast, stop plenty quick, I will be in it less than 8 grand, and it's only going up in value.

Please tell me how new Hondas and BMW's are "better" than the older ones, different sure, but "better"? I'm right here and all ears.


Edit; I thought the '78 K10 was a much better bike than the 79 DOHC. If I could get a '78 with a set of late model forks and brakes... that would be just tits!

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

Very few motorcycles made today represent much of an "improvement" over the level of a late '70s Honda or BMW.

i don't ride street bikes enough to know about them, but in the world of dirt bikes, that statement is not even remotely close to true.

for one thing, late 70s bikes might as well have had no suspension at all compared to today's bikes. they also weighed a lot more. the brakes absolutely sucked compared to today's bikes...as did the ergonomics.

the difference is huge for pretty much any rider of any level.

[lemieuxmc]

Dirt bikes are different and you have to split it between competition bikes and recreation bikes.

For recreational use by most normal people, the 1997 Honda XR250 with a 280 kit or the XR 400 with suspension mods, an aftermarket exhaust and rejetting is very nearly the perfect motorcycle... according to Dirt Bike magazine.

And if I had a time machine, I doubt that many of todays riders could hang with DeCoster and Hannah when they faced off at Unadilla in 1978.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

For recreational use by most normal people, the 1997 Honda XR250 with a 280 kit or the XR 400 with suspension mods, an aftermarket exhaust and rejetting is very nearly the perfect motorcycle... according to Dirt Bike magazine.

i'd concur that a somewhat modded XR400 is a very nice bike. a bit heavy on single track, but still, as you and Dirt Bike say, a very, very good bike for recreational use by most people.

it is also a HUUUUUGGGGEEE improvement over late 70s bikes, though.

[lemieuxmc]

Dude... what part of very few didn't you understand?

The 1997 Honda XR's are "modern" motorcycles.

Jeremy McGrath thought that the 2003 CR250 was better than the later aluminum framed bike and one of the magazines did an article on whether an updated 2003 Honda would be competitive against the new bikes around 2010. Their opinion was that except at the top pro levels, it was just as good.

To quote Lance Armstrong... "It's not about the bike".

[JimVonBaden]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

When I finish my '72 Combat Commando with the Boyer ignition, Mikuni carb, new shocks and fork kit, brake upgrade, Barnett clutch, etc, it will be plenty fast, stop plenty quick, I will be in it less than 8 grand, and it's only going up in value.

Please tell me how new Hondas and BMW's are "better" than the older ones, different sure, but "better"? I'm right here and all ears.

Wait, you are adding a slew of modern performance parts to an old bike, then saying the bike is just as good as a new bike?

Seriously, no one will convince you, but I have had lots of old and new bikes. I will take new every time. I don't want to HAVE to work on an old bike, adding a ton of performance upgrades just to get it sort of OK in the power, handling and braking departments.

No 30 year old bike can touch a modern bike in performance, handling and braking without a lot of work. Exceptions exist though, the modern retro Triumphs, Guzzies and KLRs pretty much are not significantly better then 20+ year old versions of themselves.

Like I said, no point in bringing it to a discussion, you have your mind set.

Jim

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

Dude... what part of very few didn't you understand?

all modern dirt bikes are much, much better than all late 70s dirt bikes. not even remotely close.

although i'm not familiar enough with them to really know, i gotta believe the same is true of performance-oriented street bikes. putt around bikes are likely different. it's hard to make a bike better at putting around since it demands so little of the bike.

To quote Lance Armstrong... "It's not about the bike".

to quote reality...if the rider is held constant, he will be able to ride much faster, much longer, over much more difficult terrain, while getting much less tired on a modern dirt bike.

"it's the rider, not the bike" is only partially true. yes, a very good rider will outride a crappy rider even if the good rider is on a piece of crap and the bad rider is on the latest, greatest thing.

but the real comparison is the same rider on both bikes. in that case, that rider will be significantly better on an XR400 than on anything made in the 70s (or even 80s)...and he won't have to work on it as much.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

My 1976 Honda 750F was fast, smooth, fairly easy to work on, (and if I still had it) would get much more attention at bike night than a new RT.

My '77/7 is still fast enough to get you killed, pretty easy to work on and gets lots of attention at bike night.

I can't see much functional difference between my '98 Guzzi V1100 and a 2012 California Vintage or any of the comparable cruisers that CW group tested a couple of years ago.

When I finish my '72 Combat Commando with the Boyer ignition, Mikuni carb, new shocks and fork kit, brake upgrade, Barnett clutch, etc, it will be plenty fast, stop plenty quick, I will be in it less than 8 grand, and it's only going up in value.

Please tell me how new Hondas and BMW's are "better" than the older ones, different sure, but "better"? I'm right here and all ears.


Edit; I thought the '78 K10 was a much better bike than the 79 DOHC. If I could get a '78 with a set of late model forks and brakes... that would be just tits!

I completely agree, but the SOHC Honda's were pretty darn reliable and well mannered. Only when you start pushing the envelope do new bikes really show their stuff. My last CB750 had a small slip streamer and an upgraded hella light. It was really a good bike, more of an everyday bike than the KZ I replaced it with. The KZ braked as hard as most new bikes, had more speed than the CB but would give you a little head shake when you pushed it hard into high speed corners, but I could have lived the rest of my life with a CB or the KZ and not felt too deprived. Difference was I didnt have all the internet experts telling me I shouldnt be happy with what I was riding.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

My '77/7 is still fast enough to get you killed

Of course. On these bad old bikes, it's much easier to get yourself killed.

Originally Posted by lemieuxmc

Please tell me how new Hondas and BMW's are "better" than the older ones, different sure, but "better"? I'm right here and all ears.

Engine, suspension, frame, brakes, aerodynamics, ergonomics, reliability, assistance systems - in short: Everything is better.