Boxerworks.com

Steve in Golden wrote:

00weel wrote:Space for fun

Fun's outta here.

DON'T TEMPT FATE

I'm not built for riding cafe racers, nor mentally predispositioned to for that matter. But I find them to be lovely eye candy and I have lots of images saved in my computer for private enjoyment.

Having said that, the Gold Wing appeals to me and the /5 much less so. The /5 looks untidy to me with its dangling wiring and starter cover that needs to be restyled (or even left off) of a bike without the clamshell air filter. The exhaust system really needs more curved sections of pipe rather than straight pieces, or even the thermal wrap treatment that some people give their pipes. And finally the /5 needs to loose the toaster side covers. They are at odds with the strict functionality requirement I assign to cafe racers. And finally, I just don't like highly polished engine, transmission, and final drive parts. It's pure prejudice here, but it comes across as bling to me.

Still, the Gold Wing side covers are worse. To my eye they look gross, like a nice looking lady with a goiter. I'm wondering what lies under those covers, presumably not a gas tank since the bike has a real gas tank. I'm suspecting a lot of ugly electrical components and associated wiring.

When it comes to the actual riding the /5, it is a bit of a known entity even though the riding position is far different from any airhead I've ever ridden. My curiosity is not aroused so much. The Gold wing, on the other hand, makes me want to hear its exhaust system and discover if it feels porky (or svelte) in the curves.


Ken

I thought those old wings had the gas tank under the seat.

I myself would pick the Goldwing only because I want to bring it up to speed so I can hear all the tunes coming from its pipes. The Airhead is a been there done that type bike. So for that reason riding the BIG fat lady with a "Goiter" Like Ken says seems to be what is trippin my trigger.

Garnet wrote:I thought those old wings had the gas tank under the seat.

You are correct. The "gas tank" is only a shell that hold a lot of the electrics and the airbox. Since the wing is supercharged, I assume it still serves the same purpose and the side covers are covering the fuel tank.

side covers are covering the fuel tank.

They still could have blacked them out, like Honda did on their more attractive Gold wings.

justoneoftheguys wrote:They still could have blacked them out, like Honda did on their more attractive Gold wings.

I agree that black would have been better than the chrome. Having them painted to match the bike would also have been a good option.

I have a good book to read. The BMW rear wheel has a nonstock rim.

Both bikes look as if they are meant to be ridden with one's chin on the steering damper knob ...

Until you look at the height of the bars.

Fine for striking a racy pose, but a humongous embarrassment to be seen riding either, and there's already enough young bloods want to race me on the RS.

Efficient design is usually beautiful to the informed mind -- what sort of crap would I need in my head to salivate at these ugly buggers?

Are the designers of modern bikes correct in thinking most of us are impressed by the sort of crotch-rockets that schoolboys dream of ?
Are they safe in their obvious assumption that their target market has more money than sense ...?
That would explain a lot.

Sunbeem.

Sunbeem wrote:Both bikes look as if they are meant to be ridden with one's chin on the steering damper knob ...

Until you look at the height of the bars.

Fine for striking a racy pose, but a humongous embarrassment to be seen riding either, and there's already enough young bloods want to race me on the RS.

Efficient design is usually beautiful to the informed mind -- what sort of crap would I need in my head to salivate at these ugly buggers?

Are the designers of modern bikes correct in thinking most of us are impressed by the sort of crotch-rockets that schoolboys dream of ?
Are they safe in their obvious assumption that their target market has more money than sense ...?
That would explain a lot.

Sunbeem.

I dunno Sunbeem. It appears to me that we might need to simply define "beauty" as that which pleases the beholder. Taking myself as an example, I enjoy "crotch rocket" styling, with "cafe'd" airheads on top of my list. My predilection has no basis in anything absolute, practical, or realistic. Luckily I don't feel a need to justify it--which frees me to enjoy it.

Permit me to strike a parallel. Like most men, I'm sure, I enjoy the sight of a hard-bodied, twenty something, visually appealing lady. And like most men, I suppose, a quick fantasy flits through my mind. This does not mean I would actually be interested in attempting a relationship with her (setting aside the almost certain sting of rejection if I should try). Simply, women (and men) of that age are immature (using my definition of mature). The less charitable way of saying it would be to say that the great majority of them come with baggage that I wouldn't want to deal with.

Simplifying my point: Crotch rockets are like beautiful women, nice for me to look at but I wouldn't want to "own' one. I find pleasure in the notion of both beautiful women and crotch rockets. And since I see no good reason to deny that pleasure I'm freed to enjoy it.

I should perhaps add that "beauty" in motorcycles is, for me, subject to change. I used to really enjoy choppers. Now I don't very much. One reason is obvious to me: over exposure. No need to go into that. There's another reason that I find lodged in my head, and that would be the implicit connection between choppers and unsavory people who have no regard for the values which I hold dear. So far my image of cafe'd Airheads has them associated with the kinds of people who I might enjoy knowing better.


Ken