Total Motorcycle Community Forums

@Grey Thumper,

It's an interesting point you make, and though it may sound like splitting hairs I'd be glad to elaborate.

I think the notion that cruisers 'recall the motorcycles of a bygone era' is a misnomer. I hear this description given to the cruiser class all the time, and it's always rang false in my ears. Here's why.

I'll agree that the cruiser style of bike was popularized in an earlier era. That look of low-slung, fat tires, wide bars, chrome and steel with glittery paint and leather. And though the cruiser style has more or less stayed true to that overall impression through the decades, the bikes themselves have steady evolved and modernized. When metric bikes started coming to America, it didn't take long for the Asian manufacturers to imitate the cruiser look (and improve the cruiser overall, to my way of thinking), but the cruiser style was still current at the time. When Yamaha first introducted the Virago in 1981, it wasn't styled to look like a bike from the 50s, but H-Ds being sold right then. And those H-Ds didn't look like their 1940s and 1950s counterparts -- but you could certainly see the family resemblance.

So while I'll agree that my 2001 Vulcan Classic is a modern (or, at least, a decade olds worth of modern) interpretation of a style first popularized 70 or 80 years ago, nobody's going to confuse it with a 1939 Knucklehead at 50 paces. Or even with a 1991 Vulcan. But if you lined up a 1940 Enfield Bullet, and a 1950, and a 1960, 70, 80...you get the idea...right up to this 2013 edition, and asked someone a stone's throw away to identify them by year, I doubt if even the most seasoned motorcycle enthusiast or journalist could get more than half of them right. And as you said, I certainly don't hold it against anyone that they should go in for that sort of thing -- it just doesn't make sense to me why. A brief search on Google yielded a 2008 Enfield Bullet with 800 miles on the odo going for $4,300 out of Ohio -- what's 800 miles of new worth? $1,700?

I gotcha. I like the look of retro bikes myself, but given a choice, I'd also prefer something that has actually developed and evolved, and (looks wise) is just a homage to a classic model (like say, the Ducati GT1000, current Triumph Bonneville, Honda CB1100, or even Mike's Moto Guzzi V7), not a direct reproduction/continuation. But those bikes are in a completely different class (price and engineering-wise) from the Enfield. I guess making essentially the same bike since the 40s has some advantage when it comes to MSRP.

Voted Cool simply because it looks great, and gives you an old bike but new with less chance of going wrong and better power because of EFI. But... that price makes it silly to actually buy one and a toy when I can buy a modern (read faster, fuel efficient, better suspended, better handling) standard slightly used with low miles for the same price. The nostalgia is nice, but $6k rules it out as a serious choice for me. Take a similar old bike like an Ironhead H-D. In good working order and reliable, you'll pay $3-4k, and it comes with a 1000cc and a host of knowledgeable mechanics and parts availability, or maybe a newer used Triumph Bonneville if you're going for that European style.

I like the style of a Royal Enfield. I do not like the price as much. A RE is $1k-$2k more than some ¼-liter motorcycles from the big 4 (Hon Kaw Suz Yam) but based on the specs it does not appear (to me) to deserve the extra premium.

The problem is that we have no state-side factories building these things. They're all pure import. If we were paying for these bikes with a straight Indian rupee-to-USD conversion... well: 124,000 rps. = $2,274.40.

Darn shame, that.

I voted: Uncool.

Even though I own and ride a modern retro* I had to go with uncool. For me, the look of the Enfield Bullet 500 B5 (pick a year) isn't my cup of tea, it's from an era I just don't familiarize myself with what a motorcycle looks like (if that makes any sense) and it is basically a 1955 bike still and not a 2013 bike made to look like a 1955 one.

For whatever reason (maybe age as I'm about to turn 42 on May 15th) it may have something to do with the fact that I drool over late 70's to mid 80's naked bikes, but anything earlier than the 70's it's fewer and farther in between. This also goes for modern retro's that copy pre-70's era's as well. Now the Royal Enfield isn't a modern retro, well, it does have Fuel Injection and an electric start, but in the true sense of the word (as Enfield says) it really is a bike from the 1949/1955 just made with modern manufacturing techniques. I know how my 1982 Yamaha Seca 650R handled vs a modern bike and while I haven't rode a Royal Enfield I'm sure it can't handle like a modern bike either.

But all that being said I can see a place for any by-gone era of style, there are riders out there than a certain looks "just does it" for them. And there are purists that would be tickled pink in owning a true "non-replica" new motorcycle like the Bullet 500 B5... and in India, the Bullet 500 is an icon of a bike, like a rock itself, that is unchanging and unyielding to time. Take it like that and it is pretty darn cool then.

But alas for me, I have to give it an uncool. It still should be cheaper as the R&D isn't there, it should have been "modernized" (mechanics wise so as not to change the exterior appearance) and Royal Enfield needs to diverse and bring in some new blood and new styles in their lineup but keep it's heritage. Harley-Davidson is trying to do this (as it is stuck in the same rut, just smaller vs RE) and is slowly doing so while still driving sales forward.

Royal Enfield, your future is calling, it's time to answer the phone.

Mike

* Even though my 2013 Moto Guzzi V7 is based on the looks and style of the original 1969 Moto Guzzi V7, I wouldn't want mine to still have the same 1969 features and technology.

JackoftheGreen wrote:But if you lined up a 1940 Enfield Bullet, and a 1950, and a 1960, 70, 80...you get the idea...right up to this 2013 edition, and asked someone a stone's throw away to identify them by year, I doubt if even the most seasoned motorcycle enthusiast or journalist could get more than half of them right.

Anyone guess what year this one is? Highlight text to see answer: --> It's the 58 year old this year, 1955 one! <--

I wonder in 1955 if it was "futuristic or modern" looking back then?

Mike

A great discussion this week on this classic motorcycle! Is it retro? Is it outdated? Is it Cool? Should be it updated? Should it remain unchanged for another 50 years? If you haven't added your 2 cents in the discussion, what are you waiting for? :2cents:


Your Coolness Factor of the 2013 Royal Enfield Bullet 500 B5 EFI is..

Awesome (3 points) 34% 34% [ 11 ]
Cool (2 points) 44% 44% [ 14 ]
Uncool (1 point) 16% 16% [ 5 ]
Fail (0 point) 6% 6% [ 2 ]

Total votes : 32

Average points per vote: 66/32 = 2.06
Standardized to a maximum of 3 points: 1.92/3 x 100 = 68.8
...Therefore, this bike ranks a Coolwall Factor of 68.8%

Remember! EVERY VOTE counts, not just the majority. So ALWAYS vote how you feel, even if you are the only one voting for that catagory.

There are several things about the styling of the new Royal Enfields that don't look right to me, especially the huge muffler. The recently-announced 2014 cafe racer looks good, though:

If the seat, tank shape and logo were different, this would be amazing. Preferences. That typed, it's nice.

On a related note, I don't get how easily people dish out the dislike. Also, do some due diligence before coming to a conclusion about a bike (or anything). Like most of you, I love a lot of bikes... but nothing puts a smile on my face quite like my Enfield. It's just fun to ride - and as a glance at a spec sheet should tell you, it's not a '55 bike. It does have the great Brit looks (and, to a degree, feel), though. It's also easy to work on.

Again, to each their own, but if there were a selection of vintage looking bikes available (and thankfully, there are more than there were - come to the states, W800), that would be great. I'd love to see cars with more style, too. For the most part, modern days vehicles lack the style of those from bygone days. Retro looks with modern technology? Sold.