The Kneeslider

Doers Builders and Positive People

They Don’t Build Motorcycles Like They Used To

By

1933 Harley Davidson

Do the best current motorcycles live up to the standards of old? Is a Honda or Harley in the dealer today, anything like those from years past?

20 years ago, the Edge Foundation gathered a group of thinkers and doers from a great many fields and each year asks a question of the assembled minds. The most recent question was “What have you changed your mind about?” As I scanned the answers, I came across Stewart Brand, who, you might recall, was the man behind the Whole Earth Catalog. The title of his answer was “Good Old Stuff Sucks.” From such a champion of preservation and remembering old ways, it wasn’t exactly what you would expect.

His answer recounts his experience with beautiful old wooden sailboats compared with new fiberglass models and he compares the old sash windows in a farmhouse he was remodeling with the factory built Anderson windows installed in their place. There’s a lot of romance and great memories in the old stuff but compared side by side, there’s no comparison at all, or as he puts it, the old stuff sucks. He goes on:

The message finally got through. Good old stuff sucks. Sticking with the fine old whatevers is like wearing 100% cotton in the mountains; it’s just stupid.

Give me 100% not-cotton clothing, genetically modified food (from a farmers’ market, preferably), this-year’s laptop, cutting-edge dentistry and drugs.

The Precautionary Principle tells me I should worry about everything new because it might have hidden dangers. The handwringers should worry more about the old stuff. It’s mostly crap.

(New stuff is mostly crap too, of course. But the best new stuff is invariably better than the best old stuff.)

When you see some of the junk we have come to expect as we walk the aisles of a WalMart, you might take issue with his conclusion but he was referring to the best products in any category not the low end, though you might be surprised there, too.

Which brings us back to motorcycles, how do the new bikes in your dealer today compare to the fine vintage bikes from years past? You might take issue with some modern designs, I know I do, but it’s hard to fault the quality. Like today’s cars, normal maintenance is something that comes around a lot less frequently, no need to de-coke the cylinder head before your Sunday ride, fuel injection is doing away with most carburetor issues and modern tires, paint, brakes and suspension are in a different league. When stock engines begin to approach 200 horsepower and handling, even on lower end bikes, runs rings around the best of the old, it’s hard not to appreciate how far we’ve come.

There is certainly a great deal of visual beauty and mechanical charm in the old machines, few bikes today compare well on that level (opinions, of course, vary), but technically, you seldom have to wonder if your ride will get you home.

So what do you think? How do the old motorcycles compare with the current crop? This should be interesting …

Link: The Edge Foundation – Stewart Brand
Photograph courtesy of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Archives – copyright Harley Davidson

Comments

  1. I doubt anyobe would argue the technical merits of new motorcycles being worse than old stuff. Engines, brakes, electrics are superior. But older machinery is pleasing to the eye in most cases. Nostalgia is a powerful thing!

  2. Great topic. In regards Vintage motorcycles, I would agree with Stewart on the technical merits of today’s motorcycles vs those of the past generations. From my own personal experience, restoring British and Euro brand motorcycles from the 60’s and 70’s, charm alone is not enough today to compete with the extrodinary capabilities of what is readily available to us as conusmers. It runs the gamet in every segment, Sport Bikes, Standard Roadster types, Full on Touring Bikes, Adventure Bikes, Dirt Bikes, Racing Bikes of every category.

    I did beleive at one time that I could build a Norton Commando (VR880) into a modern motorcycle. What I came to learn over the course of that experience was just how antiquated the original Commando platform really was. The further I pushed the envelope in HP,handling, braking and modern
    convience, the more I saw the absolute need for an entirely new Norton motorcycle, if this brand were to be competitive with today’s market offerings.

    There is a lot to be said for a Triumph Bonneville priced at 8k, or a Ducati Sport Classic at 10k, you still get a fair dose of the charm with a lot less headache.

    My 2 cents worth,

    Kenny

  3. Great article and thought piece. Among my many rides over the years there is and has been a Harley. My other two bikes are Japanese, and are excellent machines for their respective purposes.

    Based on what you wrote it is no wonder Harley has managed to retain such a loyal following, despite their outrageous price compared to lower-priced (and better performing) copycats. Harley’s quality and reliability is light years ahead of where it was just 20-30 years ago. And their brand and styling come from a heritage with over 100 years of unbroken continuity.

    If you’re into two-wheeled transport *and* the whole nostalgia thing, what’s not to like? Perhaps your article will provide a useful perspective for the many sport bikers and other non-HD folks who scoff and deride the HD crowd.

  4. Check back in 20 years…will they have this conversation about the current modern sportbikes, Sport Classics, modern Bonnevilles, etc. ?

    Here’s to even greater leaps of advancement in material science & harnessing energy through a drivetrain on 2 wheels than the last 20, 30, 50,…years of advancements.

    We do need to work on style. The Sport Classics, HD’s vintage look, Bonnevilles, are great, but they are re-do’s. We haven’t tapped out on styling originality have we?

  5. HDs can be extremely reliable, they have been in my experience. But, I would not call the company very forward looking or innovative at this point, they seem mostly content selling their brand.

    I love riding vintage bikes, but I like being able to stop even more (depending on the day)

  6. To quote the old adage: ‘Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be’. As hoyt said, this just keeps coming around every generation. Of course the newer bikes are better in every way – I’d even argue that the styling is much, much better. The manufacturers have learned to listen to the consumer and more and more hoses, wires etc have been hidden and aerodynamics are certainly better.

    And the looks? You can buy something right of the racetrack – and even if you can’t afford that you can still have the looks of a racer. For cruiser/HD fans you can have a reliable bike and customize it like never before – make it look just like the old crap you always dreamed of but without the headaches.

    Let’s never go back to the old days.

  7. i knew someone would bring up harley before i had a chance! hah..
    this nostalgia thing, i agree, is VERY powerful. remembering things from your childhood, things that were really important to you back then, seeing them now is like, wow. my dad used to race a yam XS650 and i saw an almost identical one just a few weeks ago..so i bought it to restore for him. BUT..i will be adding some more modern parts..better carbs, brakes, electricals..
    harleys frustrate me. or..the newer buyers frustrate me. its an old bike, an old design..something from grandad’s childhood. i can see the attraction, they can be handsome bikes, and they do sound pretty awesome! but it IS old technology..the v-rod was only JUST beginning to catch up and then it still had the traditional harley downfalls (poor handling, braking)..
    i’ve gone off topic. new bikes are great but older bikes are great too..nostalgia is a poweful thing. but so is fuel injection and radial six-pot calipers..

  8. Wait a minute Kenny, you’re not giving up are you? If Harley thinks a modern xr1200 will sell (maybe not in US) then there must be room for a modern Norton, right? What would it take to make Norton a player now?

    Yes, the current Bonneville is impressive for the money, but they’ve been at it for 20 years since the restructuring and have scale economies from 40,000 bikes a year now. When I glance over the current Triumph line up at the local dealership, I see an old nostalgic British brand that has successfully bridged the gap into modern offerings. I was just checking out the Sprint ST, and it looks like a pretty darn good sport-tourer for the money as well.

    But when the new Triumph brand relaunched some 20 years ago, I believe they had to go retro initially or they never would have made it to modern. If they came out with something modern back then, with no tie-ins to the old brand, would anybody have bought one?

  9. That’s funny, the XS650 is a good example, and I have some how managed to acquire 3 of them now. I bought my first one in the mid 90’s. It was a ’79 in milk crates, and I rebuilt it while working at a Yamaha shop. Then I found an ’81 years later for $100, to use as parts. After a quick carb rebuild (which happened to be a brand new set of mikunis) it ended up running better than the bike I restored.

    Then, this past week I flew home to pick up the one bike that got me into bikes in the first place, my dad’s ’81 XS650 Special. He bought it new in ’81 and immediately swapped out the stock exhaust for a set of Bub’s. At the age of 5, this was the first motorcycle my dad let me sit on.

    And now it’s finally mine. Although my first ride back in Alabama last weekend was filled with emotions of nostalgia, I must say the ol’ XS was not quite like I remember. Talk about a bike needing some modern improvements!! I definitely recommend Bub’s (if you can find ’em), a fork brace, swing arm brace, and dual front rotors. The good thing is there’s plenty of XS forums.

    Here’s a quick gallery of the bike:
    http://picasaweb.google.com/casemoto/81XS650

  10. I’m not sure you can make the generalizations that Stewart Brand does with a straight face, unless you also have his income and live in the midst of a densely populated, “modern” community.

    Dealing with houses and bikes, I prefer to break the argument down into pieces:

    1) Ease of maintenance in your environment
    2) Cost of maintenance in your environment
    3) How well the platform meets your use needs
    4) How well the platform addresses your spiritual needs

    I live in a drafty 118 year old house with windows built in 1891, in Montana. It gets cold here. And modern windows are a nice convenience, but they aren’t always worth the price. When my boys played baseball in the house over the holidays, I had to fix one of their windows after a particularly forceful line drive down the hallway and into their room. But it wasn’t a big deal: went downtown, got a pane of glass; heated/removed the glazing (probably there for 40+ years), did some repairs to the sash, replaced the sash weights and cords, re-assembled, repainted (tightend the fit a little), and the window works as well as it did in 1891. Had I had a Pella double-paned, custom tinted, xenon-gas filled window, I would: a) have waited until my custom window company opened after the holiday; b) have waited for 6 weeks for it to come in, c) would have to replace much of the window hardware, and d) would have had to endure those weeks with a piece of plywood in the window in the meantime. (On the other hand, they boys could have continued to play ball during those 6 weeks with plywood in the window).

    Is the old window drafty? More so than a modern window, but it’s not terrible. Does it work well enough? Yes. Especially with the 100-yr old storm window installed outside it. But the real value of the window is that it was crafted, mostly by hand, more than a hundred years ago, and it still performs as intended.

    The same thing goes with modern bikes, they work, but there is a trade-off in soul. And, in some enviroments, lower tech works better. I can’t imagine replacing the fork seals on my current bike with the ease I replaced the seals on my 83 Interceptor after I blew them going over a pothole in far eastern Canada, drenching me in fork oil. All I needed were the parts (luckily the roadhouse near where it happened had a phone and FedEx existed), fork oil, a cinderblock, and the factory toolkit to do that job (located under the saddle). There’s not even a place on my current bike to put a toolkit. And I wouldn’t take the chance of messing with the front-wheel alignment on my current bike, the steering is way too sensitive

    Would I ride any of my old bikes everyday anymore? No. Is my current (newish) bike more reliable? You betcha. But do I feel as comfortable working on my current bike as I did on my old air-cooled, analog electronic systems? No way. Are the old bikes cheaper to repair? Absolutely. Do they provide the ultimate riding experience? No. Does it matter? No.

    Sometimes being able to do major roadside repairs is pretty handy, particularly at the edges of the world. Increased reliability is a by-product of increased precision. However, the cost of having that reliability is that the precision is required. Having a bike that still operates when it’s substantially beat up is a Good Thing. May not be necessary in Northern California, but when you’re broke down 300 miles outside of Wibaux, or 500 miles from Nairobi, you pretty much want something that you can fix yourself, with what you got on hand. You may be fixing it more often, but at least you can ride it in between. With most of the latest and greatest bikes I’m not sure I’d want to out of cell phone range from a dealer if something broke. (On the other hand, I remember at least 3 times stopping to help 1970s-era Hardly Ableson riders dry out their points during downpours, building small fires by the side of the highway and building little tents over the bikes and fanning the heat towards their engines. I had to laugh the one time I found a guy who actually carried spare, dry, points in plastic bags for just this reason 🙂

    The value of the effort expended to keep the bike contributes to the “soul” of the platform (ref. Robert Persig — though he seemed to working on his bike an awful lot, even then). Nothing has ever sounded better to me than the mid-70’s Ducatis, with their noisy valves and all. Would I ever ride one in Wibaux? No way. Would I ride one in Northern California? You betcha. I used to have an 80’s Moto Guzzi. Loved to listen to it. Looked amazing. Rode long sweepers like it was on a rail, but in the twisties it turned like a pig, and my wrist always felt sprained at the end of a long day. There is nothing made today that sounds like that, or feels like that, on the market today. My current bike always starts. There’s none of that, “will I have to take the ignition apart again?” or “It was cold last night. Will the dinky little battery crank the thing?” feeling when I turn the key. On the other hand, I’ve always loved a) kickstarting an engine, b) being able to take off a rear wheel without putting a bike on a special stand, and c) feeling ok about laying a bike down on its side without worrying about whether a fairing is going to get scratched, or piece of plastic broken.

    Efficiency and precision are great, up to a point. I wouldn’t replace my CBR with that 78 Ducati 900 that showed up here last week, but I’d certainly ride that Ducati around town more often.

  11. Wow, CaptBob really put it well. New stuff is generally better, no doubt. What I like about the old stuff is simplicity and light weight. I like my stuff to be simple even if I don’t have to fix it. I have old VW’s and old bikes. I’ve never really had to fix anything even after 20 or so years of daily use and abuse.
    On the other hand, I bought my wife a 9-3 Saab so she could feel a little more respectable around work (teacher) than in a ’63 bug. It’s never had any problems since new in 2001 (knock on wood…) but it’s just so dang complicated – and heavy. Everything about the car is better, except fuel mileage. It’s just hard to feel comfortable about all those electronics and other expensive stuff.

    If Moto Guzzi builds the new V7 I’ll be all over it. To me, the Ducati’s are nice but they’re too complicated and I think the Bonneville just isn’t quite right. Harleys have never appealed to me. To heavy I guess.

    -todd

  12. Ahhh the eternal question, often asked in the same context as the chicken or the egg, it really depends on where you sit. I personally sit in the saddle too much to even think the older bikes were something “better”, they ARE however, our first glimpse into this world of two wheels, and THAT is what makes them BETTER. My first bike, a 67 kawasaki smoker, was by far no practical bike, oil injection worked, but be careful, it may stop and youll kill the motor so put a 50:1 ratio in the tank anyway, just in case.
    Enviromentally unfriendly by todays standards, low fuel economy (again by today’s standards) poor breaking and handling, tires that made you wonder if you really SHOULD test the speedometer, and lighting was so poor that you were better off with a flashlight were the pinnacle of technology of the day, and we thought back then itll never get better.
    Todays bikes are better all around, even todays Harleys out perform the old Hondas as far as reliability goes. Does that make them better or does that make us spoiled? The less we work on our machines, the less we know about them, does that make us less of a biker? Sometimes I think so. In the old days, a biker was defined by the grease under the nails and the shirt with oil stains, he earned those badges of honor to be considered a biker, becuase only a biker worked on his bike. Now a “biker” could barely change his oil, or change a tire in the dark on the side of the road. A biker is less in tune with his motorcycle and is less aware of the motorcycle because the shop fixes everything. This new biker wouldn’t look twice at the perfect condition 74 Honda 750 sitting at the cafe, because it was a barbaric ride that was too attention hungry. Us old timers will look wistfully at it and recall many a road trip with repairs done for the cost of bubblegum and chicken wire. We appreciate the new for what it is, and we remember the old for what it was, and the “good” and “better” is really just a matter of the rides you’ve shared, the times you’ve spent, and the feeling of the wind on your face.

  13. The old vs. new topic can be extended to not only houses & bikes, but to music. We need a “Nirvana” to stir things up, stylistically within the moto realm. Until then, the old bikes have the upperhand in styling.

    We need something original. I’m not saying the Road King or the R1 should be replaced, but there hasn’t been anything substantially original for some time. Sure, there’s been a new fairing design here and there (even those have been copied repeatedly), but nothing strikingly original has gone to production.

    Will it take a cool-looking alt. front-end to introduce an original-looking bike that represents the modern world?

  14. Hi Guys/Gals
    greetings from Dublin Ireland
    reading the comments on the old bikes raised a mighty laugh.
    I have a collection of old bikes from the thirties to the sixties plus a few modern one’s as well. so i think i can comment on these machines with out bias. The oldies are great fun for a days pottering around and also great for tinkering with, and yes they need constant care.
    You can with care make them reliable to a point. But the bottom line is Great to look at but not great for serious riding in todays world.

    I like touring around Europe a lot and i did try the old brit bikes. But having to adjust and lube the chain everyday, having to attend to brakes and several other items on a daily basis?
    Plus they were not up to modern traffic conditions speed and braking wise. NO NO they were not just up to it and in some instances a danger to ones self.

    I saw the light 15 years ago and went JAP. The result is, i can throw my leg over the bike, press the button and GO,STOP and ride a bike that HANDLES the Swiss Alps or the German Autobanns (no speed limits) 🙂 at will. The holidays are more enjoyable, safer and there is far less time spent on daily maintaince.

    Thats my Two Cents worth Folks.

    Fergus Finn.

  15. I appreciate my modern Bonneville, but I still want my kick-starter. Lawyers are one thing that have NOT improved.

  16. You can trace Nirvana’s influences, but they brought a change to the masses (during a critical time when music became flat)

  17. CaptBob’s comment is quite interesting. On a daily basis I like riding scooters to work and around town. I’m at the point where I’m ready to jump ship from my modern one and get something older. The old ones are easier to work on, and are bound to be at least as reliable as the one I bought new in 2003 that has given me all kinds of trouble. I figure that at least the old one will have parts available whenever I need them, and repairs will be far simpler.

  18. Had an epiphany the other night(before reading this column.)

    In bikes and classic cars oftentimes”character’ is just a euphemism
    for “has mechanical issues.” Own modern & “classic’ myself and
    certainly know “which one gets you home!”

  19. Capt Bob made some worthwhile points and I’d like to be able to agree with him on all of them. On the one hand, I love the panelled doors, grooved skirting boards and ceiling roses in my late 19th century house. On the other, my ’78 XS650 handled like a pig and I was forever having to play around with points, etc. One day the electrics gave up, and that was it. I’ve got ten thumbs, mechanically – I can lube parts, change oil, but that’s about it. I love riding a motorcycle and 21stC technology has made it far more enjoyable. My K2 SV650S hasn’t missed a beat in the years I’ve owned it.

    I wouldn’t say good old stuff sucks, it looks great! But it requires a lot more effort to keep it going, and as for braking and handling… Mmm, that new Sprint ST does look and feel damn tasty!

  20. I ride a 1950 Nimbus (750 cc straight four), while my ‘modern’ bikes – a GS 425, SR500 and an XS650 – tend to collect dust. Occasionally I get to ride friends’ very modern bikes for 2-3 weeks at a time, so no way I’d argue that a bike as old as myself is better in terms of build quality, handling etc.

    Still the old stuff is better in one important respect: More grins per mile, both mine and whoever sees me ride by (www.nimbustripinjapan.blogspot.com)

  21. Engineering improves but I can’t say the same about aesthetics. Too wrapped up with fashion. Trend seekers flock to the latest designs, driven by the unseen hand of the industry. Next year it’s old and out. As nostalgia kicks in (seems to take 15-20 years) some designs come back. Old guys nearing retirement finally have the scratch to buy that Pontiac GTO or Triumph Bonneville they couldn’t afford in 1968. When they die off, only the best of the era will hold its value (how many 1930s cars do you see pimped by Barrett Jackson?).

    I’m into old stuff (midcentury Eames-era furnishings, fountain pen collection, vintage bikes, 1973 Jeep pickup) but there’s no question the technology in my Triumph Sprint far exceeds that in my remarkably reliable ’72 Bonneville. The Bonnie in turn is leagues ahead of my ’32 Harley flathead. The Sprint gets ridden more, but the Harley gets more looks. De gustibus.

  22. new vs. old is something i’ve thought alot about…as a BMW guy who has both, i think i have a unique perspective…BMW’s newer machines are functionally far superior, but their reliability issues and maintenance costs have left me feeling betrayed as much of the time as i’ve been feeling joy at how well they work. i’m still trying to find someone that will remanufacture BMW ABS units at a rate that doesn’t require repurchaing the bike. =8-o

    as much as i may love my k1200lt when i have to be 600 miles away when the sun goes down, on a sunny day at my home office when i just want to go for a ride, i’ve decided that the vintage machinery speaks to me in a way that modern equipment just cannot.

    – comment abbreviated by The Kneeslider –

  23. I can’t help but notice that the “old” bikes being discussed here have 2 things in common:

    1) they are typically the more refined examples of the era, and usually large displacement/high output models. “it’s not about performance” says the bonneville guy to his cbr riding buddies… but how much would it take to get him to trade it in for a 3TA, tiger cub or T100?

    2) they are new enough that modern conveniences are present. “vintage character” is oil leaks, relatively weak brakes, vibration…very few people seem to wax nostalgic about acetylene lighting, cutting the engine every time you wish to stop, or manually controlling the spark advance and oil circulation.

    regarding today’s bikes becoming coveted future collectibles… I doubt it for one reason – restoring one would be a nightmare, if not impossible. today, you need an out of production part you can get it made and all that’s needed is a milling machine or lathe…. maybe a skilled metal shaper if you need a sheet metal bit. try getting another traction control processor, engine management module, or integrated instrument console. a mint R1 or 916 will be worth big money, sure – but take a look around… I’m already starting to see more British twins on the roads than 80’s Japanese superbikes.
    the few slabside gixxers out there are in rough shape, with few original examples available. yet there are dozens of mint commandos, bonnies, and the like available for purchase.

    (If anyone needs me, I’ll be stocking up on ‘busa headlamp shells and 1098 electrics!)

    aaron

  24. if you want to tool around town, any bike will do provided it stops well. i ride a 73 commando and i took it to deals gap with no front brake and a girl on the back and smoked us 129 with nary a problem. of course i wasn’t on a crotch rocket so i couldn’t average a speed of eighty mph, but i was still passing people with ease. my point is, get a newer cruiser if you want to ride cross country. when and if it breaks, parts are more redily available than for a thirty year old bike. if you want to go from bar to bar, or to and from work, a nice old bike looks good and is fun to ride. it’s alot cheaper too.

    old bikes rule, new bikes drool

  25. This is a tricky topic i must say cause you can’t just lump old and new bikes into their seperate niches and say thats that. You have to take into account a whole range of different factors such as the machine in question, the application it’s been put to, the skill level and mental state of the rider etc.
    For example a motorcycle like a 1910 Indian i once saw chugging around Kerry should be confined to museums never to see tarmac again. No clutch(just a decompressor), advance/retard, throttle, wooden bicycle-style brakes, belt(i mean a leather belt) final drive!Something like that has no place in modern transportation no matter how much nostalgia it inspires.
    But at the same time you take an old NSU Fox whose modern day equivilant is a Honda CG125 or the yamaha clone(we’ll ignore the indian and chinese models for the purpose of this argument) And to be perfectly honest i cant see where the 50 odd years of development has gone. Both of them are small bore single cylinder four strokes but the jap’s are slightly flimsy incomparison to the german seeming stereotypical solidness. And i will readily admit the fox is a much nicer looking bike with it’s unusual frame and fork design. Granted the build quality is refected in the comparison of list prices but it fits the “they don’t build them like they used to” argument like a glove.
    Then we get onto the application of the bike for instance driving a motorcycle in the wet/on bad roads is generaly hazardous but advances in modern tyre tech have made it much more acceptable. Unfortunatley a lot of old motorcycles run unusual rubber so that eliminates that benifit in comparison to new machines forceing a slower pace and if your unlucky results in some impatient car driver forcing you off the road(nearly happened to me and some fellow riders when some fool with a horsebox thought he had enough room to overtake three of us with cars oncoming). In application modern bikes win hands down apart from the few exceptions that prove the rule.
    As for the rider himself. It is unfair to underestimate a machine just because of it’s age. I wouldn’t doubt that there’s some people who could utilse an old machine to it’s full potential and disapear over the horizon while the rest of us ordinary schmuks try and find first. Lots of people enjoy these machines for their inferior performance not in spite of it. For lack of a better phrase, fighting with the machine until it does what you want instead of meekly obeying your every input like many new bikes, thus confering character upon the bike(rock hard kawasaki rear ends anyone?). Also if the notion takes you to just pootle around taking your time taking in the sights it’s kinda hard to better say a BMW R60/R50 or a Vincent or a bonneville. And you’ll rarely attract as much attention as you will when you pull up elegantley on an classic.
    I could go on but I wont. Suffice to say that this subject isn’t black and white. There are many shades of grey.

  26. CAPTBOB really has it together, huh! i agree with the whole soul thing. my first ‘big’ bike (at the time it was a grunty-as-f*** monster) was an ’89 vfr400r nc24. i loved that bike, it was so fun to ride, it really took the cake..fast forward through the years, and after a vtr1000f firestorm, a cbr250rr and i’m back to a vfr400r, but a year and a model later..tweaked to all hell to make sure the flexi-frame and poor (read: super fun; almost highsided myself at least 5 times learning to get my knee down) handling, but it really sucked the soul out of the bike..sure, it does a 1/4 mile in under 12 secs (it’s tuned to the hilt, aftermarket go-fast bits etc) and i can do consistent knee-down action, but the soul (what i like to refer to as the ‘fear’ – am i gonna highside? am i gonna have to lay her down? is she gonna bloody start this morning?) just isn’t there. which is why (once i’m free of the xs650) i’m getting a big dirty old slabby gsxr1100 for my next project..and then install more modern forks and rear swingarm! haha.:-D

  27. Wait, so are you saying you DON’T want exposed valve gear spitting oil all over your trousers, or total loss electrical systems (intentional or otherwise)?

  28. I have been thinking a lot about this post the last few days. I seem to like older things for some reason, my daily driver car is 35 now, and even my bike, which for me is moving into the modern era, is now 11 years old; hardly the bleeding edge. While I still love the lines of the older bikes, and the history that comes with them, my knees certainly appreciate an electric start; nifty invention that.

    God speed the summer.

  29. My $0.02 : modern bikes are more reliable, faster, safer. Well, safer … ? Nah, they are not really safer, of course they have outrageous braking power and sometimes ABS, they handle better, tires really stick to the road and don’t blow at high speed, and so on. But to get the same fun on the roads with a 2002 VTR Firestorm I have to drive twice faster than with a 77 KZ650, and when sometimes the going got tough I was waaayyy too fast and really jeopardizing my humble life.
    Modern bikes are a lot more reliable, just put some gas and go. Well, that’s what I expect from my car, but not from my bike. Of course I want to ride for long trips with buddies without having to stop for repair in a remote location, but I love spending some time in my garage doing the maintenance, that’s part of the fun to be a rider, isn’t it ? Now, when you have $3,000 worth of plastic covers that need half an hour to take off before getting the access to the oil filter or fuse box, isn’t it frustrating ?
    Then, if I need to show up at work in a fancy professional attire, I drive my car. But some days I prefer the smell of my leather jacket, wearing a blue jean, and sometimes the satisfaction of having some chicks looking at me 😉 (this includes my wife), and in this case I ride my motorcycle. I know it’s cheesy, definitely cheesy, but still, I’m sure you all like that, guys ! 😉
    Now I tried to compromise, I have a supermoto type donkey, quick and funny but kind of slow, and I love not to be on a R1 when a 3 tons SUV, driven by a brat paying more attention to her cellphone than to the road, cuts my way. This as a modern bike (reliable, gas an go), but still accessible to self-maintainance, and grease monkey-friendly 😉
    I guess there is some room for every kind of bikes and bikers …

  30. I can only speak to BMWs, like Greg above. I’ll clarify something he said: modern BMWs may be more reliable, but they are far less repairable. When modern Beemers break down, it seems they break down catastrophically.

    My old ’82 airhead was a model of simplicity. BMW worked hard to make the bike easy to repair, and they expected the rider to have some mechanical know-how, at least for the basics. The bike came with a pretty good tool kit. The owner’s manual showed you how to adjust the timing, adjust the valves, etc., in addition to telling you how to change the tires. It showed you how to pop off the tank to get at the electric components underneath. It had a chart with torque specifications. The manual even had a complete, fold-out wiring diagram. I may not be the world’s best mechanic, but if I broke down, I felt I had a reasonable chance of trouble-shooting minor problems.

    Fast forward to my current ’99 oilhead. The owner’s manual shows you how to operate all the switches, how to take off the tupperware to change the battery and the air cleaner, and how to plug a flat tire, and how to keep it clean. And that’s it. It doesn’t even tell you where the oil filter is. Just bring the bike to the dealer and leave your credit card. I’ve been reading several BMW discussion boards and the consensus is, the bikes are fantastic to ride, but when they break, it’s often catastrophic, like rear drive failures or transmission failures, or something exotic with the electronics. Call a tow truck. Oh, did I mention that BMW dealers are very few and very far between? There’s only one in my state, and he’s several hours away.

    Also, modern tech comes with a hefty price. I recall paying out a couple hundred bucks for new shocks on my airhead, but upwards of $1200 for the single front and rear shocks on my oilhead? YGTBSM!

    While I appreciate the power and comfort of my oilhead, I miss the simplicity and maintainability of my airhead. For that reason, I’m seriously thinking about getting a Ural with a sidecar. You can actually work on a Ural. It appears to be what BMW was 20-30 years ago (heck, it is a stolen BMW design!). Urals have come a long way recently in quality.

  31. You can keep this high tech disposable society. Me… I long for the old day machinery. Overbuilt and underpowered, I don’t care. So…go home and polish your plastic fenders, start your car from the living room and grease yourself down with 50 sunblock. I hope when I leave this rock and float up to the heavens I’ll catch a few whiffs of left over leaded gas.
    P.S Lexan does crack!!!

  32. They all have their right place and owner, me being a old grumpy diesel mechanic who has ridden all my licence years, I ride, wrench and enjoy all the quirks of my bevel drive duke..had all kinds of jappanese bikes and loved em too

  33. I feel a tad odd, commenting on this debate while only being 17, but I’ve got a couple things to add. The first is that deviously difficult to nail down quality of “soul”. What is soul? Is it having a bike that has three hinges in the frame? Is it having a bike that seems to beg to be thrashed? Is it having a bike that takes whatever you throw at it, however you throw it, and keep on going?

    My old man had a Guzzi Le Mans MkII. Now those things had soul. Legendary Italian insulated spaghetti, an engine that would try twist the bike over to one side if you cracked it open hard, and the love-’em-or-hate-’em linked brakes. It was a motorcycle that demanded a sympathetic rider to get the best from. A Street Triple, a Sprint ST, a Bonneville (Heck, I work for a Triumph dealership, may as well go with what I know) has no soul, in my honest opinion. Each one starts when you ask it, handle everything you throw at it, and none of them are in any way difficult to ride. So soul is a difficult ride that rewards a dedicated rider with a fantastic ride.

    So, since the Guzzi retro isn’t available yet, let’s compare the new Bonneville to the old. The old Bonnie requires a definite level of closeness with the machine. You need to feel when something is about to vibrate loose, to know when to stomp on the gear lever, to gently push the pistons into the right orientation before jumping on the kickstart. It’s a difficult beast to master, but once you have it’s a wonderful ride. The new Bonneville is blessed with electric start, a supple, torquey engine and good roadholding. When judged as a vehicle, it is superior to the old Bonnie.

    But as we all know, four wheels move the body, but two wheels move the soul. Riding a motorcycle is a spiritual thing for a lot of motorcyclists, whether it is recognised as such or not. As a motorcycle, a vehicle for the soul, the old Bonnie is superior to the new. It’s the difference between ordering a pizza, and making one. The soul, or the body. You commute on an ’07, you ride on a ’67.

    So no, they don’t build motorcycles like they used to. They build much better motorcycles. The soul will come in time, when laser range-finders activate ABS brakes to avoid hitting the vehicle in front, when FLIR scans the ground for potholes and manoeuvre’s the bike around them, when 400kph top speed is standard on a thousand CC sportsbike. Then, they’ll look to the bikes of today as the classics. Your GSX-R1000 will be a laughable joke of a motorcycle, more suitable for getting from A to B on than real roadrunning. Classic events with CBR600RRs pitting their ageing engines against ZX6Rs, voluntary redlines of 12000 RPM to reduce engine wear on the rare and valuable engines.

    Isn’t it nice to not have to manually retard the spark?

  34. Dear all,

    Yes it is all about soul. The feel of ridng a clasic is something yuo will never forget. At the age of 18 I imported my first bike form Italy. A lavera 100 3c jota with a 180 degree crank and a 3 into one racing exhaust. Beautiful. The sound. Like a modern motogp bike. Although lower reving. It handled like shit but I loved it. I crashed a few years later head on. Some fucker driving on the wrong side of the road.

    I still go for that feel. The rawness. Old bikes look much better and have the sound that goes with it. Terribly unreliable though. Does it matter. No, not really. You’ll have it for the sake of it. Will you ever bond with a modern bike the way I did with my laverda jota. I don’t think so. Love and hate . But I regret selling the wreck. I still want it back.

  35. I remember an old editorial addressing the cbr600 (F3, I think) and the accusations of a lack of character. the idea was that you could put “soul” into what was, at the time, a near perfect bike by removing the muffler and a piston, for the sound and feel of “a real machine”. now that it sounds and shakes like a laverda 180, you install dimmer bulbs, have someone butcher the electrics, and remove a brake disk….I think the pegs and bars were moved to a more painful location, too.

  36. In my experience [30 or so bikes] it just depends on how you feel about the whole thing,to me motorcycling is about my personality and I like 70’s and 80’s ‘wings,triumphs,bmw’s guzzis[havent had that one yet but will]and the like. It’s what works for you I don’t give a hoot what you ride, I’ll wave anyway,and to be honest when I’m way down the road on a Sunday night and just would like to get home it’s nice to know I’m on a well maintained bike thats purring along and is quite happy to get me there.It doesnt have to be new or look old but if it fits and I like it then it’s for me and guess what if what others ride makes them happy thats great, as for the whole old verses new,I asked an old gent by the name of Reg years ago what he thought of this exact topic he said riding on dirt roads with poor lights on hardtail motorcycles is no comparison with todays roads, bikes etc.Happy trails

  37. I went into the Harley shop in search of a 2008 crossbones. They had four. The one I really liked was the olive pearl. It made me think of the early WWII Harley’s in olive drab with the huge white star. I asked to sit on it & he complied but not until he moved it out in the aisle. I am not a fan of the mini ape-hangers(height) the idea of being painted was okay.The front half of the bike was okay but what happened to the retro look on the back fender? As I sat on the bike It seemed the floor boards were set too far forward & with the ape handlebars the rider position was awkward.I asked to ride the crossbones & was told its new we don’t demo. I explained,”No ride, No buy” My concerns of how it rode were dimissed with no ride. Am I suppose to sit down & buy a bike on the word of a salesman? Sorry, no thanks!

  38. In thinking “motorcycles”, yes, it’s all true, new designs of every category are better now than they ever were,period. Better metallurgy, centered, close tolerance CAD designs and mill work, more horsepower, better breaking and handling, and styling has become something only fanatics used to dream about. BUT! Pull your chair in a little closer, high technology, like everything else has a down side.

    Advances in technology are greatly responsible for
    the growth of so many specialized tools, products,
    talents and perceptions, where any argument over
    “which is better, old or new” is a trick question from the start. A better question would be “Now that motorcycle designs have become specialized, which of these (old and new) serves the most universal function?” In fact, along with replacing old ideas and methods, the bounty of having so many improvements in technology promotes specialization while it automatically lessens the attention placed on anything made to be more universal.

    When Pop used to blaze the asphalt on his 1960
    Triumph “Bonnie”, he understood the road was a
    cruel and unforgiving mistress full of hazardous
    surprises, YET, he “tuned in” to his bike in a way
    that made it an extension of himself and never
    had to questioned it’s ability to handle the worst of it. Life was good. Today, we have 200+ hp. road
    rockets that include the best technology known
    to man that are completely worthless the moment
    they hit a loose or coarse road surface, . . what’s the message here? Modern cafe bike designs
    have reinvented the terms “steering wash out”
    and “tank slapper”, . . guess it’s not so practical to place an overpowered track design on the knarley streets after all? Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with “bitchun”, but if you value your hide, you might consider why Classic (dual rear shock) street designs are still outselling the rest, . . they’re simply better and SAFER on public motorways.

    I see no point in reinventing the hammer. As long as you still need to beat a nail on the head, there’s really not that much you can do to improve on this ideal, time tested design. ONCE any design has reached it’s apogee of technology or limits in physical practicality, it’s time to step back and appreciate the beauty of something that is truly universal. Otherwise, it would be wise to at least acknowledge when you are using the wrong tool for the job!