[CagedArt]

While reading through the archives, I've come to realize that my only basis for liking a motorcycle is how it looks... This obviously isn't as it should be. I'm learning that you guys factor in many variables when deciding whether a bike is to your taste. So... For the sake of learning purposes... I was hoping you guys could tell me:
1) what is your favorite modern bike ( made in the last 10-15 years)
2) what is your favorite older/vintage bike
3) why? Power? Speed? Looks? Sentimentality?

thanks

 

[Witworth]

1: SV650's, because they are very good sports bikes, for the price. Also, KLR650's, 2009+ers, for a daily dirty driver and workhorse.

2: SR500E. Because they are so enjoyable to ride on the road at near legal speeds.

3: Dunno, I just like honest bikes that make me feel good riding them.

Danger, is my business."

 

[jaguar]

1-2004/5 ZX10R
Epic performance. Last analog superbikes.

2-CB450 maybe CB400F
Just the right size

 

[Lpst]

1. Triumph -they have been my favorite road bike for some time now.

2. 1973/4 Ducati 350 Desmo -fell in love with the one I restored for a client in san luis Obispo

3. I like a bike that is fun to ride, performs well, and is worth tuning and upgrading. I don't really "modify" anything I just upgrade parts and tune as needed for usability and performance. why modify so many years of R&D that went into a bike if it isn't needed?

 

[o1marc]

1) 2015 Kawasaki H2R, why? 300hp, need I say more?
2) I'm partial to late 60's-early70's Triumph 650&500, classic, vintage, just love the looks and sounds of them. Hoping to have another in my stable soon.

Caged, right now with little to no experience riding, all you have to fall back on is looks. That's perfectly fine for now as long as you have a bike that is more than just looks. You have that. As you gain experience and knowledge on everything motorcycles, that I feel you are actively seeking, unlike most girls, you will know what bikes fit what you want to do with it.

 

[o1marc]

1. Triumph -they have been my favorite road bike for some time now.

2. 1973/4 Ducati 350 Desmo -fell in love with the one I restored for a client in san luis Obispo

3. I like a bike that is fun to ride, performs well, and is worth tuning and upgrading. I don't really "modify" anything I just upgrade parts and tune as needed for usability and performance. why modify so many years of R&D that went into a bike if it isn't needed?

Sometimes more than what the factory offered is needed. The factory built them for the masses, not the individuals.

 

[Buckets]

!) ducati 848

2) airheads R75 to R100

3) when you are owning old bikes reliability and ease of maintenance is important.

 

[Witworth]

OP, it might sound corny, but bikes from before about nineteen eighty, allow you to have a relationship with them. Some later models just eat tires and gas, and have all the soul of a freezer. You get involved with old motorcycles.

Danger, is my business."

 

[Joep7]

OP, it might sound corny, but bikes from before about nineteen eighty, allow you to have a relationship with them. Some later models just eat tires and gas, and have all the soul of a freezer. You get involved with old motorcycles.

Danger, is my business."

I might agree with this on several brands...I can say I get the same "relationship" feel from my 2007 guzzi that have ever had with an old bike.


To play along...rode a 2015 1100 MG Griso and didn't want the ride to ever end

old bike...any of the 250 to 400 Yamaha 2 strokes.

just a blast to work on and ride. Simple yet tune able.

 

[jimbo184]

The main thing is to avoid cruisers; They are the Schwinn Sting Ray of motorcycles. SV 650's are great from beginner to track day. In vintage I like RD350's… they are simple, light, quick and easy to find parts for.

Jim B

 

[TCed]

Ossa Six day
900F
Both old.

 

[Witworth]

Most Guzzi's feel like 1978, even if you bought it last week.

Danger, is my business."

 

[Joep7]

Most Guzzi's feel like 1978, even if you bought it last week.

Danger, is my business."

Exactly

 

[Lpst]

Sometimes more than what the factory offered is needed. The factory built them for the masses, not the individuals.

This is very true although I tend not to purchase those bikes as I just don't have the time or funds to do extensive modifications to the frame, I'd rather buy a bike that doesn't need extreme modifications to fit me or my riding style (race bikes are completely excluded from this) this is absolutely "just my opinion" and it doesn't necessarily work for everyone

 

[o1marc]

This is very true although I tend not to purchase those bikes as I just don't have the time or funds to do extensive modifications to the frame, I'd rather buy a bike that doesn't need extreme modifications to fit me or my riding style (race bikes are completely excluded from this) this is absolutely "just my opinion" and it doesn't necessarily work for everyone

Doesn't the factory, after years of R&D modify that R&D and come out with newer, better models occasionally. We do the same basic thing, only modify it to what has been proven to be better. Sometimes the factory puts years of R&D into something that just plain sucks or doesn't work. Ferrari admits they don't sell slotted rotors on their cars because they are better, they put them on because customers want them, not knowing they really don't want them.

 

[parkwood60]

I wish I had good answers for this.

1)I don't like the retro Bonneville, and the like because I feel like they are dummed down, much like a cruiser. I do like the Ducati Scrambler, and the sport classics before them, and well as the Honda CB1100. The speed/cornering/braking limits of a modern sport bike are all so extreme that I a mere mortal can't ever touch them in the street. Sports cars got the same way which is why Mazda sells so many Miatas, the limits are just out of reach of the normal person on the street, but you can feel that you are approaching them. I would love to have a bike that didn't require work every few weeks though.

2)Old bikes are a different story and I like them all. I don't fetishize a certain make or model like a lot of people. I typically buy Hondas because I already know the wiring diagram colors and how they typically do things. I have my CB750, which was the 2nd bike I ever owned, and I have had it since 1994. When it isn't running it is just about worthless, which keeps me from selling it, and when it is running why would I want to sell it? On my radar of bikes I would like in the near future are a Honda XL350 from the mid 70s, maybe a XL500 from the early 80s, maybe an MT250 to replace my MT125, and an Evo era motocross bike, like a Honda CR480. But if my CB750 was somehow a total loss, like off a cliff into the ocean, I'd just go out and buy a 1990s Nighthawk 750, or CB1000, or Bandit 1200, or Kawasaki Zephyr 1100.

3) Not power or speed, just about everything has enough of both of those things. I used to ride a Honda C70 Passport from Van Nuys to Hollywood for work occasionally, that was the only thing I have ridden that did not have enough, but with 4 speed transmission I bet it would have. Yes the look has something to do with it. The answer a lot of people give, and I agree, is that you can see the motor. There is a certain honesty to naked bikes. I do like to cause a sensation, and make people think WTF? Which is why I built that Japanese style bike, and why I have raced unusual stuff off road, like the CL450

 

[Joep7]

Doesn't the factory, after years of R&D modify that R&D and come out with newer, better models occasionally. We do the same basic thing, only modify it to what has been proven to be better. Sometimes the factory puts years of R&D into something that just plain sucks or doesn't work. Ferrari admits they don't sell slotted rotors on their cars because they are better, they put them on because customers want them, not knowing they really don't want them.

not sure this thread deserved calling people out on what they like in a bike...just saying.

 

[o1marc]

not sure this thread deserved calling people out on what they like in a bike...just saying.

Sorry, was just answering his question.
Now back to our regular programming.

 

[hillsy]

The main thing is to avoid cruisers; They are the Schwinn Sting Ray of motorcycles.

Depends on what you want out of a bike. If you're going an a 2 week trip with 500+ miles every day then a big fat cruiser is hard to beat.

Now, to the OP question....I've got a shorter list of modern bikes I don't like, rather than do like.

I kinda like a lot of bikes

 

[Lpst]

Doesn't the factory, after years of R&D modify that R&D and come out with newer, better models occasionally. We do the same basic thing, only modify it to what has been proven to be better. Sometimes the factory puts years of R&D into something that just plain sucks or doesn't work. Ferrari admits they don't sell slotted rotors on their cars because they are better, they put them on because customers want them, not knowing they really don't want them.

Yes that is why you don't modify a cb350 to do the job of a cbr600, you just buy a cbr600.
IMHO why buy something that requires extensive modification to do the job you want it to do (aside from race bikes). Buy a bike that will do what you need it to do with out needing a welder or chop saw. To me any bolt on modification is considered a part upgrade not a serious modification. I consider a modification, a change in frame and/or suspension geometry in such a way that it changes the handling of the bike. Yes you could call bolting on a set of shocks a modification but it is what it is, a part upgrade. If my terminology is off then I guess I'm just a victim of the times...