Why are Practical Bikes Unpopular?

[blues2cruise]

I think he should just buy a big backpack for his groceries and take the bus. No gas, no insurance needed. No chains to clean and lube and no maintenance worries.

[dieziege]

While we are throwing out non-sequiturs, I think he should just buy an airplane. No traffic jams to worry about, no real speed limits, no alleys for anyone to pop out of unexpectedly, most of them will hold at least a bag of groceries, and anyway groceries aren't much of a concern because you can't park them at your local Kroger market anyway....

OK, it isn't much of a suggestion but it beats "take the bus".

[BikerBeagle]

Park a practical bike on the showroom floor and I'll knock that beotch over on my way to something with some fun engineered into it.

+1

[Locopez]

I am kinda confused about this thread... any cruiser/standard with a smaller cc engine <1000cc with some saddle bags (hard or soft) would be plenty practical... no?

Well, it's true that any bike can be pressed into service as a commuter but most bikes weren't designed as such. In particular, standard bikes are almost extinct today (which absolutely baffles me) and cruisers, while plentiful are not exactly ideal. They tend to weight an awful lot, are not as manueverable, and are built primarily for form rather than function. On top of that, most of the bags that either come with bikes or added after market are tiny. If a person wanted to do their family's weekly grocery shopping it'd take 5 or even 10 trips to get it all home. It also looks like the cruisers with the smaller engines are often cam'ed for high rev'ing performance without low-end torque and have surprisingly disappointing gas mileage.

If I came across a cruiser in good shape for a really good price, I'd go ahead and use it, but they don't tend (at least around where I live) to be found at good prices. I'd sure like to find, though, an inexpensive, reliable, easy to maintain bike that can carry enough cargo as to be useful. I'm mostly baffled by the apparent fact that there aren't many others that share the desire -- that bike buyers are almost exclusively entertainment oriented rather than toward practical transportation.

Cruiser...just like every other kind of bike are manueverable...like anything else...don't knock till you try them...of course for what you are looking for in price range etc...they are not practical. Big cruisers do not get the respect they deserve. Maybe lack of common knowledge...

[dr_bar]

Okay, I think I've finally found the bike...








Very practical...







If you can't get a weeks worth of groceries in that thing...

[scan]

i told you... get a goldwing.

look at what it can do.

http://www.wimp.com/retriever/



if it can do that, im sure it'll haul all your groceries and other stuff just fine.

Sorry for the hijack, but that was very cool - towing a car with a bike. I love that. That looks like a cool gadget, but I wondered about going in reverse. The Goldwing uses its starter motor for reverse. I bet that starter is not rated to push a car. Other than that, this looks like a great solution for towing in a city.

[runsilent]

There are three reasons why real Americans don't buy practical bikes:

1-image
2-image
3-image

So many here just buy bikes to be seen on and to be part of the scene.

With the demise of the Nighthawk 750 and the naked GS500 there isn't much of anything available in standards from Japan in the USA. I'd consider the Sportster, new Bonnie, and R1100R to be standards. I don't consider the new group of nakeds from Japan to be standards, they are just stripped down sportbikes. Bikes without centerstands and with shim under valve adjustment are not standards regardless of ergos.

My GS500 has a gross vehicle wgt of 843# and a wet weight of 420# leaving a load capacity of over 400#. More than many of the large cruisers. I can carry a weeks clothes and whatever else I need and keep up with most in the mountains and I'm about 240#. Most of the of the old standards had similar load ratings.

Thru the 60's and 70's the old Bonnie 650's were considered standard go anywhere bikes. Never were insulted with the biginner bike thing bantered about by todays image conscience riders. Well into my 8th decade now, I prefer a 400# standard bike and they are almost extinct except for the sport/race bikes. Guess I'll be finishing up on the used bike market.

As far as lasting, I had a CM400 that I gave to a friend with 98K miles on it and it now has over 100k miles. My 97 GS500 had 80k miles on it before it was totalled and it still runs good. Replaced it with the last of the naked GS's, an 02.

The GS is the 50-60's Bonnie I always wanted, almost identical in specs. The new Bonnie is getting kinda fat, but doesn't leak oil.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/ ... onnies.jpg