www.boxertrix.com

fontana wrote:

milleplod wrote: Go on then.....what are bikes 'about'?

Pete

If I have to explain it, then you just wouldn't understand.

Your conceit knows no bounds.

Pete

Herb wrote:Fontana, you seem to be thinking we should all be in it for the same thing as you, and if we are not, then we are wrong!.

I don't think that at all,
I just have a problem with a small sector of the market, just as some here don't like Harley riders.
As I said, we all have out prejudices, be it in motorcycling, or another passion we may have.
I don't think we're in it for different reasons at all.
I believe (from what I have seen), we all have a passion for motorcycling, and the fact that we happen to have great bikes, is secondary to the pleasure we get from riding them.
That's what it's all about.
RIDING THE FRICKING THINGS,
It was said on another thread, that motorcycles are no longer made to last.
I'm not surprised.
If you owned a restaurant, and noticed that despite your customers enjoying the food, 99% of the plates were coming back half full, you'd quite rightly think that you were serving too much, and cut the portions, and the cost.
This is what's happened in biking.
Because so many people hardly ride the things, and when they do it's only on Sunny Sundays over a short distance, we all pay the price as manufacturers cut quality, knowing full well that by the time any problems do emerge, it'll no longer be their problem.
The days of quality engineering are gone, and it's because bikes have become little more than road going jet ski's for the well heeled.

That's modern biking for many! They are expensive toys. Neither particularly cheap or practical as everyday transport for most. The exception being if you have to commute into a city! For a long time I never owned a car, my bike being my only transport. Now I am am more than happy to have my bike as a toy!

when I started in the car industry we were designing for 150k miles / 15 years. If a test suggested failure at 150,001 miles then job done. I suspect there is a similar (lower) standard in the bike industry. They will be built to just last long enough. For the core components (mainly engine and chassis components) that will be life of vehicle, but as bikers, we might be more accepting of replacing consumables (shocks, chains etc) more frequently than we would the same parts on our car.

It pains me to say it, but there might be some truth in your comments Fontana. (Your analogy is rubbish though, if plates are coming back half eaten, you're not serving too much, you're serving crap).

I'd disagree that we don't have quality engineering. We may sometimes have lesser quality control but the engineering design and the technology available nowadays provides levels of performance and handling that would not have been dreamt of years ago.

HP figures are huge now compared to say the 70's when a 1000cc would be putting out 90 hp or so.

As for earlier, people are very guilty of rose coloured specs. The reason the British motorcycle industry died was we were producing old unreliable tat which gave the Japanese an easy market for their much more reliable higher performance level machines.

Move a few years on and BMW were at a junction, making good workhorse bikes with little glamour and poor performance, the flat four K's were the start of the change, with the later oil cooled boxers capitalising and growing the brand. Then when the S1000RR came it out it gave the Japanese a bloody nose right in their own back yard. To the point that due to similar apathy to the British bike industry it's taken them a long time to catch up to the RR.

For the record Fontana I don't dislike HD riders, I don't dislike any group. Sure like any "family" sometimes we'll p*ss each other off sometimes, or we can jibe at the various factions but most motorcyclist I've met I've liked.

I've often said of all the bikes I've ridden I've only disliked 2 (a HD and an original Bonneville) .... and I'm fairly sure I'd not like a Gold Wing but I'd try and keep an open mind. The important thing is there's a wide choice for a wide selection of fellow motorcyclists.

slparry wrote:I'd disagree that we don't have quality engineering. We may sometimes have lesser quality control but the engineering design and the technology available nowadays provides levels of performance and handling that would not have been dreamt of years ago.

HP figures are huge now compared to say the 70's when a 1000cc would be putting out 90 hp or so.
.

Yes but you're talking about improvements in performance,
I'm referring to build quality.
Longevity.
Two different things.
Some of the finest performing motorcycles and cars ever made have fallen to bits at the first whiff of road salt.

Herb wrote:Your analogy is rubbish though, if plates are coming back half eaten, you're not serving too much, you're serving crap).

Clearly you did not read my post properly.
I've underlined the words you overlooked.

fontana wrote:If you owned a restaurant, and noticed that despite your customers enjoying the food, 99% of the plates were coming back half full, you'd quite rightly think that you were serving too much, and cut the portions, and the cost.

fontana wrote:

Herb wrote:Your analogy is rubbish though, if plates are coming back half eaten, you're not serving too much, you're serving crap).

Clearly you did not read my post properly.
I've underlined the words you overlooked.

fontana wrote:If you owned a restaurant, and noticed that despite your customers enjoying the food, 99% of the plates were coming back half full, you'd quite rightly think that you were serving too much, and cut the portions, and the cost.

Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways! Have you been speaking with my wife? she also enjoys pointing out the things I have overlooked!

Herb wrote: Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways! Have you been speaking with my wife? she also enjoys pointing out the things I have overlooked!

Just reciprocating, as you obviously wanted to be picky about my post.

fontana wrote:

Herb wrote: Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways! Have you been speaking with my wife? she also enjoys pointing out the things I have overlooked!

Just reciprocating, as you obviously wanted to be picky about my post.

Not really. I was agreeing with you.

Herb wrote:On the original post, I don't get what Ducati are thinking. I could be wrong but I suspect this model will bomb. I don't understand who this bike is aimed at?

It's not great looking. It's not cheap. It's not particularly powerful or light.

I could think of lots if better ways to spend £11k or nearly £13k for the S. you could buy a 959 for 13k. Or a second hand 1198.

What I'd like to see from Ducati is a new super Light! Say 125hp. 175kg, stripped back, light, fun.

I agree with your thoughts about Ducati although the last sentiment will not happen.

Had a 125 Ducati in the 60s, bevel gear driven ohc. It was many years before I had a bike that handle as well as it. I paid around £60 for it

This is my only experience of a Ducati, and it ranks as one of the most fun bikes I have ever ridden.
I understand the same engine lives on in the new scrambler

fontana wrote:This is my only experience of a Ducati, and it ranks as one of the most fun bikes I have ever ridden.
I understand the same engine lives on in the new scrambler

A very pleasing photograph of a nice looking bike. I've never ridden a Ducati, so that has just added another item to my ever-growing to-do list.

Grip Fast wrote: A very pleasing photograph of a nice looking bike.

I should point out that this is a photo I found on the internet, and not one that I owned.
The one I rode some 20 odd years ago, was a dealer demo bike.

fontana wrote:This is my only experience of a Ducati, and it ranks as one of the most fun bikes I have ever ridden.
I understand the same engine lives on in the new scrambler

Untitled by campag_herbie, on Flickr

Herb wrote:Untitled by campag_herbie, on Flickr

Barsteward