standard bikes

[Nalian]

If they'd bring the new model over it would be on my list of ones to look at.

[Sev]

If they'd bring the new model over it would be on my list of ones to look at.

The new ones are a crime against humanity.

[celt]

To me "standard" means more than just riding position alone.

Please explain.


I'm not trying to be a prick, but i fail to see the huge difference between my XL 1200R and a new T-100.

I've always been under the impression that Nortons, Bonnies, BSAs, and Sporties would be considered 'standards'.

In your opinion, I am incorrect, but please explain why.

[Nalian]

If they'd bring the new model over it would be on my list of ones to look at.

The new ones are a crime against humanity.

Pffft.

[Ian522]

To me "standard" means more than just riding position alone.

Please explain.


I'm not trying to be a prick, but i fail to see the huge difference between my XL 1200R and a new T-100.

I've always been under the impression that Nortons, Bonnies, BSAs, and Sporties would be considered 'standards'.

In your opinion, I am incorrect, but please explain why.

Im not saying you are incorrect, as you are just as entitled to your own opinion. But to me a standard bike should be a throwback to the UJM of the 80's...not concerned with being flashy, decent power yet good fuel economy, nimble, easy to maintain, affordable, good for commuting, etc. In my opinion the sportster is aesthetically similar to every other harley cruiser (lots of chrome, big v-twin, etc.) with the exception that the pegs are mounted more toward the middle position. Not that im saying anything bad about it, personally I like sportsters and wouldnt mind owning one someday. But id place them in the "crusier" class before id consider them standards.

Dont take it the wrong way, its just my lousy opinion.

[celt]

um, they look pretty darn similar to me!

[Ian522]

fair enough...lets just agree to disagree.

[Sev]

I think we're almost at the point where you can say there's three different types of standards. One could make the argument that there is the:

cruiser-standard
standard
sporty-standard

A true standard (to me) would have a centerstand, have tons of storage potential and allow comfortable acomodations both one or two up on short trips. I'd make the argument that a GS500 (naked) falls into this class

A cruiser-standard has cruiser styling (a la the sportster) with the more upright seating position of a standard. However it's amazingly common to fit forward controls on the bike effectively negating its standard status.

Finally you've got the sporty-standards, which lack the centerstand and borrow heavily from traditional sport bike styling and ergonomics (shameless plug for my bike the 599 here).

All in all they're all standards, but there still seems to be the North American lean towards either side of the cruiser/sportbike "argument."

[celt]

fair enough...lets just agree to disagree.

Aww, cmon, let's discuss this . That's what forums are for.

I'm not "taking it the wrong way". To be honest, I don't care whether somebody likes, love, or hates Harleys, I am just trying to get to the meat of the issue:

What makes a bike a 'standard' bike a 'standard' bike.

Let's discuss what you've said and what you think what is and what is not a standard.


The thing is, I see a sportster closer in design and function to a t-100 than to a Dyna or a Road King.

And I see a t-100 as more like the sportster and less like the 599.

And as far as affordability goes, I think you have to take into account region.

For instance, finding parts for my sporty is a LOT easier than for my Honda, and I guarantee it's a lot easier and cheaper to get parts and do mods on a sporty than a Triumph here in the USA...so in fact, it's easier and cheaper to maintain, mod, and repair than it is a Triumph, simply due to part availability and the sporty staying fairly constant throughout the years (well, before 2004, that is... )

For instance: when a lady backed over my Honda, the shop told me that one of the parts is pretty rarely changed here, so they had to order it from Japan and it would take over a week to get here.

If that would've been a sportster, all the parts would've been available.
Also, aftermarket products are usually cheaper for HD here in the US. I paid more for pipes for my Honda than I did for the sporty. And when I was talking to the dealer about upgrading pipes for the t-100, he told me around $500!?!?!


Mileage:

(from motorcyclecruiser.com road tests)

2001 T-100 42.2 mpg (averages)
2004 Speedmaster 42.9 mpg
2004 883 51.4 mpg
2004 1200R 39.4 mpg

The 883 is cheaper to buy, maintain, fix and gas than any Triumph, but is slower.

The 1200R is a little bit more expensive than a t-100, but is faster, will be cheaper in the long run and has better resale value than the t-100.

So the only thing that I can't argue is 'nimble'. I haven't ridden too many bikes, but the t-100 defines the word nimble to me. It was SO fun to ride...it felt so light and nimble that I felt like I was back on one of the MSF bikes. And it's pretty darn quick!

I think the key problem with the sportster is the weight issue. If it was 100 lbs lighter, it would be a lot more 'nimble' and have better gas mileage, although the 883 gets great mileage and the 3 MPG difference between the 1200R and the t-100 isn't a huge difference IMHO.

I think Sev is really onto something with the '3 types of standards' statement.

[celt]

Back to the original topic:

I am also quite sad that they no longer make the W650, as it's more of a true standard AND probably better than any bonnie or sporty!