When did we stop appreciating...

[Thanantos]

Originally Posted by 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.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by Thanantos

Neither of those would fall into the UJM class to me, to even use standard is a stretch. It's what passes as a std today, but for me they are naked sport bikes.

[Thanantos]

Originally Posted by perterra

Neither of those would fall into the UJM class to me, to even use standard is a stretch. It's what passes as a std today, but for me they are naked sport bikes.

True, I guess assumed a standard motorcycle was what you meant not specifically a UJM. I don't see what is so desirable about that specific format.

I owned a 1972 CB500 for a while. Nice bike, fun and got a lot of looks. I'd prefer one of the BMW's I posted though.

[Wuwei]

I don't see what is so desirable about that specific format.

Comfortable, long, flat seat allows a single rider to slide about on longer trips, significantly improving comfort. Very comfortable upright riding position with leg room, decent seat height, and again all-day comfort. Easy to sling saddlebags over the seat, and the shocks help to keep things out of the wheel without a lot of fancy mounting gear. Passengers aren't perched way up high and in an awkward position, and they have a nice strap to hold onto. Much more secure and comfortable for a passenger. Decent sized gas tank for longer rides. Lack of plastic shrouding on engine makes servicing easier, bikes look better. I'd rather look at the engine than plastic and graphics. Less stuff to bust up if you drop the bike too. Fenders that actually work to keep water and crap off you and the motorcycle--important if you ride in all weather and long distance. Lower exhaust keeps them away from you and passenger and your saddle bags. Can add a windscreen if you want more protection or go naked if you don't--isn't predetermined by the manufacturer like on a lot of bikes. There are lots of little things that make the "standard" a great format.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by Thanantos

True, I guess assumed a standard motorcycle was what you meant not specifically a UJM. I don't see what is so desirable about that specific format.

I owned a 1972 CB500 for a while. Nice bike, fun and got a lot of looks. I'd prefer one of the BMW's I posted though.

I wouldnt argue that the BMW's are far advanced over a CB, but there is a huge price difference too. I think the first oil head R's were closer to a std, the last airhead R's were true stds in my opinion. New seats put you in a pocket, and after a couple hours I get tired of it, no way to move around.

[rivercreep]

What's desireable about a UJM (like a TU250 for example) is the ability the rider has to mold it into the bike they want it to be.
As an example, mine is set up with a windshield and bags for commuting/touring and general practicality. Others have turned them into cafe racers with drop style bars etc. They can also be set up like a scrambler for light D.S. duty.

On the other hand...WHAT is so desireable about bikes today that are purpose built that CAN'T be tailored by individual riders (at least not inexpensively) to suit their individual needs.

Who wants just another cookie cuter bike?
A UJM (or old type standard without swoopy body work or headlights) has the appeal of being able to be customized with more than tackie neon lights, decals and gaudy colored windshields.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by perterra

Neither of those would fall into the UJM class to me, to even use standard is a stretch. It's what passes as a std today, but for me they are naked sport bikes.

I would hope not since they are not from Japan.


"Standard" denotes the riding position of the bike NOT the "look"

Standard simply means it has a standard riding position with bars that come up (similar to a dirt bike bar/Not clip-ons) and the rider foot pegs are under the riders ass (not mids (90 degree knee bend), Not Forward (slouch on couch), and not Rear Sets (up and back for turning clearance)

There are old standards and new standards. To say a long flat seat is more comfortable is a little silly IMO. I just rode one on Saturday and while I had fun it was anything but "comfortable".

[Wraith Rider]

What's desireable about this kind of bike or that kind of bike... Well, do you customize your bike so you can say you customized it or do you customize it so it fits your wishes best? If you can buy a bike that nearly perfectly fits your wishes, why buy a bike you have to put a large amount of time and money into to achieve the same goal?

Originally Posted by icebox

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.

For me my modern bike has AT LEAST as much soul as any old one, if not more. For me, "soul" isn't the same as "flaw". However, what the hell is it about that... "soul"? Do you guys think old bikes go to heaven when they die? Me thinks this "soul" thingy is mere nostalgia because it's something many of you know from their youth.

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.

Just because someone doesn't care doesn't mean it's not improved. HP/liter is a good way to measure engineering proficiency and hell, I wouldn't ever again want 120HP or even less as a main motorcycle.

[Thanantos]

Originally Posted by rivercreep

What's desireable about a UJM (like a TU250 for example) is the ability the rider has to mold it into the bike they want it to be.
As an example, mine is set up with a windshield and bags for commuting/touring and general practicality. Others have turned them into cafe racers with drop style bars etc. They can also be set up like a scrambler for light D.S. duty.

On the other hand...WHAT is so desireable about bikes today that are purpose built that CAN'T be tailored by individual riders (at least not inexpensively) to suit their individual needs.

Who wants just another cookie cuter bike?
A UJM (or old type standard without swoopy body work or headlights) has the appeal of being able to be customized with more than tackie neon lights, decals and gaudy colored windshields.

So you want a KLR?

[perterra]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

I would hope not since they are not from Japan.


"Standard" denotes the riding position of the bike NOT the "look"

Standard simply means it has a standard riding position with bars that come up (similar to a dirt bike bar/Not clip-ons) and the rider foot pegs are under the riders ass (not mids (90 degree knee bend), Not Forward (slouch on couch), and not Rear Sets (up and back for turning clearance)

There are old standards and new standards. To say a long flat seat is more comfortable is a little silly IMO. I just rode one on Saturday and while I had fun it was anything but "comfortable".

In the style of UJM was what I was intending.



I prefer a flatter seat, or at least one that doesnt lock me in. When my knees start throbbing, I like to slide back, pretty hard to do locked in.

[perterra]

Originally Posted by Wraith Rider

Just because someone doesn't care doesn't mean it's not improved. HP/liter is a good way to measure engineering proficiency and hell, I wouldn't ever again want 120HP or even less as a main motorcycle.

So is RPM, but it means little to me, or most any of the millions of V twin riders. If you like it, cool, I find lower rpm torque to be more useful.

[Thanantos]

Originally Posted by rivercreep

Who wants just another cookie cuter bike?
A UJM (or old type standard without swoopy body work or headlights) has the appeal of being able to be customized with more than tackie neon lights, decals and gaudy colored windshields.

You are talking about the Universal Japanese Motorcycle right.....kind of the definition of cookie cutter.

There thousands upon thousands of bolt on parts for bikes like the KLR and DR. Far more than were available in the late 70's for UJM's.

[Wuwei]

Pretty good definition of "standard" in Wikipedia:

Standards are versatile, general purpose street motorcycles.[1] They are recognized primarily by their upright riding position, partway between the reclining posture of the cruisers and the forward leaning sport bikes.[3] Foot pegs are below the rider and handlebars are high enough to not force the rider to reach far forward, placing the shoulders above the hips in a natural position.[2] Standards are often recommended to beginning motorcyclists due to their flexibility, relatively low cost, and moderate engines.[1]
Standards usually do not come with fairings or windscreens, or if they have them, they are relatively small.[1] Standard is often a synonym for naked bike, a term that became popular in the 1990s in response to the proliferation of fully faired sport bikes. The standard seemed to have disappeared, fueling nostalgia for the return of the Universal Japanese motorcycle (UJM),[1] which were admired for their simplicity, quality, and versatility.[3][4][6]

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by perterra

So is RPM, but it means little to me, or most any of the millions of V twin riders. If you like it, cool, I find lower rpm torque to be more useful.

That's completely fine, but a V twin with the red line over 12,000rpm is still a better engine than a V twin with the red line at what... 6,000rpm? You can not say the machine hasn't any advantages just because you don't use them.

[lemieuxmc]

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...........

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

1. Track day? If I wanted to ride on a track I would ride a race bike, I suspect that Rossi's race bike would make a pretty sucky street bike for 99.9% of riders.

2. I seem to recall mentioning that a 1978 CB750 K10 with new forks and brakes would be just tits. Eddie Lawson's bike in 1982 had really good brakes, my Guzzi has really good brakes (I doubt that I will ever use them to their potential) and they are the same as the ones that were available since the 80's. I don't think they have improved much (for normal people) over the good stuff then in the last 20 years.

3. I said that "very few" bikes represent much of an improvement, that means for a regular rider on the street. That R1200r is today's standard and is a nice bike, but Joe Regular is never going to come near the bike's capabilities and the last time I checked that bike wasn't exactly cheap. By the way, is that final drive unit a big improvement over the one in the /7?