Joined: 9/14/2009
Posts: 1
|
Just read Vol.5 No. 1....and must file a protest. ...too many retro bikes. ..and retro bikes are not classics. If anything, they are dummed down copies of classics... certainly not instant classics. In fact one could argue that there can be no such thing as an "instant classic". What is a classic? ....while there is no fixed definition I think we all know that the term refers to older vehicles that embody some sort of generally agreed upon enduring principle of design that has withstood the test of time. By definition, no new bike is a classic. It demeans the term to use it to refer to the current spate of "retro" vehicles. "Instant classic" is just a marketing term without any basis in reality. The 2009 Moto Guzzi Cafe? The new Norton 961? and worst of all..the new 2009 Harley XR1200. What is classic about these bikes? Is it the way that they sort of look like other bikes? In the case of all three their general (but not specific) designs refer back to other actual classics...the Norton to the original Commando, the Harley to the XR750 and the Guzzi to the original V7 Sport)..surely its not the plastic gas tank on the Harley that grants it instant "classic" status. By the way, I've ridden the XR1200 and I know it for the crude, heavy, underpowered (90HP?..I seriously doubt it...I wonder what it really makes at the rear wheel) beast that it is. Its no XR750 and no amount of H-D propoganda/press is going to convince me that its anything but another dumb cruiser. It may handle, but thats a bit relative. Yes, it handles good for a Harley. But that is another way of saying that it handles good for a tractor. If you want to go in this direction, fine..but first rename the mag Retro Bike and then you can feature endless articles about retro cruisers.
|
Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 32
|
Ya' know robinpeck, I'm in aggreement with you about what is a classic and not. It kinda reminds me of a guy I know who bought one of those PT crusiers when they first came out. Slapped on a woody kit and a set of baby moons and tried to hang around with the local rod club guys. You can guess how well that went over. As to how much retro bike coverage shound or shouldn't be given in this publication well, for me there's two sides to it. Yes, Motorcycle Classics magizine is bluring the line in a strick sense but on the other hand they seem to be about ALL things related to the enthusiast of older motorcycles. IMO, think the retro style motorcycles that you mentioned do have a place in this magazine if only for the reason that it encourges people who are interested in the true classic bikes to get out and enjoy actually putting serious miles riding bikes that a least resemble our beloved old ones. I don't like the term "instant classic" either but, I think in this case it is just a speculative term. Thats coming from a guy who owns a '79 T-140E yet, loves the "new" bonnivilles (no, I don't have one), a bunch of other projects and, once put a 47-49 mixed Indian Chief with tons of reproduction parts back on the road. Heck, you talk about being rightously pi**ed don't even talk to me about the Gilroy manufactured Indians. We all remember what our gear was like when these bikes were new (bubble face shields? I want one!) and the general consensus is modern safety stuff is ok so...why not retro-coverage. Any way some dosen't bug me as long as like you say it dosen't become RetroMotorcycle Classics.
|
Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 1
|
Bubble face shields...forgot about those...mine was yellow (with a blue helmet)...used it when I rode on my new 1966 Honda CB-160 (my second bike)..first was a white (!!) Honda 55 Sport (thats the one with the upswept pipe and the motorcycle styling..gas tank where its suppsoed to be, etc.) ...you are right on with the PT cruiser story....thats excactly what I meant.
|