Beauty in the eyes

This is for the discussion of Motorcycling. The art, the science, the theory of all things related to our favorite sport... riding motorcycles.
User avatar
DucatiPete
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:10 am

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by DucatiPete »

Since I've been posting a few pics today and this question of beauty came up - esp. in relation to the BEAUTIFUL BMW R75/5 - I thought I'd better post a pic of one (ie my Black Beauty).

Narry a granna cycicle be laid an eye upon...
Black Beauty
Black Beauty
1973 R755.jpg (51.13 KiB) Viewed 1578 times
Sorry if the pic might be a little blurry - it was taken while the bike was idling.
User avatar
Zombie Master
Posts: 8828
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by Zombie Master »

Wayne J in MA wrote:The 1970 R75/5 didn't come with side covers, didn't have the black on the engine emblems and had silver intake tubes but I have seen many that people changed afterwards. It's like the toaster tanks. I saw an ad recently for a 1971 "all original" that had a toaster tank and side covers. I guess the owners interpretation of "all original" is different than mine.

Don't get me wrong, I think people can change their bike to anything they want. Some of these bikes evolve over the years and will do more as parts become harder to source. My '78 sure isn't completely stock.
I made no claims that this was an completely original machine. What point are you trying to make? I do know that this bike is a 1970 R75/5.
Any and all disclaimers may apply
Deleted User 287

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by Deleted User 287 »

Wayne J in MA wrote:The 1970 R75/5 didn't come with side covers, didn't have the black on the engine emblems and had silver intake tubes but I have seen many that people changed afterwards. It's like the toaster tanks. I saw an ad recently for a 1971 "all original" that had a toaster tank and side covers. I guess the owners interpretation of "all original" is different than mine.

Don't get me wrong, I think people can change their bike to anything they want. Some of these bikes evolve over the years and will do more as parts become harder to source. My '78 sure isn't completely stock.
"Completely Stock" - I gave up that concept 2 engines and 1 gearbox ago... :roll:
User avatar
Zombie Master
Posts: 8828
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by Zombie Master »

[quote="DucatiPete"]Since I've been posting a few pics today and this question of beauty came up - esp. in relation to the BEAUTIFUL BMW R75/5 - I thought I'd better post a pic of one (ie my Black Beauty).

Handsome machine!

So Ducati Pete: do you agree with my attitude toward the 916?
Any and all disclaimers may apply
Wayne J in MA
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by Wayne J in MA »

Zombie Master wrote:I made no claims that this was an completely original machine. What point are you trying to make? I do know that this bike is a 1970 R75/5.
Sorry that it came across that way. I should have just left it without the extra comments.

My point was supposed to be that I loved the bike and how much it was like my bike other than a few differences. Mine was made in 9/70 which is a 1971 model year bike same color scheme.
Wayne

1978 R100S Motorsport
1971 R75/5 SWB
1962 R69S
30yearoldjunk
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by 30yearoldjunk »

I helped a friend with an '88 Suzuki and I sure thought the plastic covering helped the looks of that thing.
User avatar
DucatiPete
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:10 am

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by DucatiPete »

Zombie Master wrote:I read so often about what are considered to be beautiful motorcycles. For example Ducati's 916 comes to mind as a modern classic. Yet for me, any machine that is covered in plastic, has no mechanical presence. I need to see some evidence of engine casings, header pipes, triple clamps, ect, to be moved by the visual presence of a machine. Am I alone here?

Image
I agree that the 916 IS a modern classic, despite it not displaying much in the way of "engine casings, header pipes, triple clamps, ect,". But I reckon the PROFILE and DESIGN that it has will stand the test of time for it to be regarded as a BEAUTIFUL motorcycle (in the eyes of the perceptive beholder 8-) ).

However, I'm a bevel man and I like to see 'em out there in the open for all to see - along with chrome headers, contis, clip-ons, and rear-sets. My 1973 Sport is a bastard to ride - hard and uncompromising - but boy is it BEAUTIFUL to behold! (to me :D )

Well that's what i reckon anyhow.
pete
User avatar
SteveD
Posts: 5036
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Oz.

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by SteveD »

The Sport is a luverley bike to behold, but it's a bit like the orange Lav750 of the same era. Arse breaker seat and hip stiffener positioning.

The GT750, on the other hand, is just as gorgoeus, and in it's day reasonably affordable.

I had one just like this, but a plain red tank.


Image
Cheers, Steve
Victoria, S.E.Oz.


1982 R100RSR100RS supergallery. https://boxerboy81.smugmug.com/R100RS
2006 K1200R.
1994 R1100GS.
User avatar
vanzen
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:29 pm
Location: Hidin' in the Hills

right in the eye

Post by vanzen »

Image
Image
Image
User avatar
SteveD
Posts: 5036
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Oz.

Re: Beauty in the eyes

Post by SteveD »

My scrotum and its contents are aching just looking at that one! :lol: The engine looks great, but seems a bit too tidied up when compared to the early Duke.
Cheers, Steve
Victoria, S.E.Oz.


1982 R100RSR100RS supergallery. https://boxerboy81.smugmug.com/R100RS
2006 K1200R.
1994 R1100GS.
Post Reply