01-07-2018, 07:36 AM
(01-06-2018, 06:01 PM)Guth_imp Wrote: Thanks pdedse! I'm glad that you're sticking around. Hopefully I can get a chance to check out the new Triumph some time — maybe let me know if you're planning another day ride over to Astoria this summer.
Will do.
(01-07-2018, 06:39 AM)CA200_imp Wrote: Guth I am also one of the early members and thank you very much for you starting this forum . However I am some what of a decenter on the
bikes looks.
Very early on I think I posted why I bought my 2013 . I had just retired and wanted a retirement bike after closing my motorcycle acc.
shop. My plan was to find a very used BMW sport touring bike. Sport touring bikes have always been my fav. . I had a PC800 ,a Wing , and about 2 or 3 bikes before I retired I bought a ST1100 which turned out
to be a bit much for me because of its weight.
I guess we all age at different rates. I know when I say this it will upset some people but is the way I feel. I am sure I have said on here on the
past when I was in the industry I used to make fun "retro" bikes.
I always said can't the Mfg. come up with something new?
I do like the way my bike looks but it was not the main reason I bought it. It was the right weight ,size and had the right ergos . and if
I sold a bike and a car I could afford to get it and retire and live on SS.
Don't get me wrong I do like UJMs , for sure I had many back in the 80s. Their looks never thrilled me.
I still like to ride my CB1100 and will remain my main ride till I have stop but its looks is not my main reason for owning it.
Sorry if this upsets any one.
That's funny! The MAIN reason I bought the CB1100 was for its looks. I don't think I even knew what an in-line 4 was--it's ergos weren't the best for me...but it just looked...right.
I hope the following isn't too pedantic, but it helps me understand preferences people have for things in general: I teach Spanish for a living. In grad school I first learned of a term called "markedness theory". This theory holds that when there is a contrast between two or more members of a category, one of the members is called "marked" if it has something extra or different than another member that is considered more basic, or "unmarked". This expains why in Spanish you start off learning regular verbs (unmarked: more of them, not too difficult in structure) before irregular verbs (marked: fewer of them, more difficult structure).
Consider a category such as "birds", for example. For me, growing up in the midwest U.S., if you asked me what the most common, basic bird would be, the first one to come to my mind at hearing the word "bird"...the answer would have been "robin", which would be "unmarked" for me--it has all the characterstics that a bird "should have": of a certain size and color, can fly, proportioned beak and tail, etc. But penguins are also birds: but they are black/white, can't fly, they swim great. So while I would agree that penguins do fit in the category of "birds", for me they would be "marked"--they have characteristics I don't normally associate with "birds".
So how does "markedness theory" apply to motorcycles? I'm 54 years old. In the early '70s I began to notice that motorcycles looked "cool" and wanted to ride them, own them even one day. The "look" that existed at that time made that look "normal, expected" for me. The brain begins to believe that motorcycles "should" look a certain way. The look that I speak of is either an enduro type bike...or something that existed back then...Honda CBs. Both these styles of bikes are what comes to mind when I hear "motorcycle". Honda CBs and enduro type bikes are the "unmarked" bikes of the category "motorcycle". A crotch-rocket bike has something extra, a sporty look, speed that's unnecessary for me, lots of plastic on it, engines covered up--my mind doesn't conjure up the image of "crotch-rocket bike" (or any of the futuristic, transformer look of many MCs) when I hear "motorcycle"--these bikes would be "marked" for me...but maybe "unmarked" for my son, who did grow seeing "transformer bikes".
So...the CB1100 fits my expectations of what a "true" mc should look like...going all the way back to my childhood; not that I ever owned one back then, but I was around them. Its look was burned into my brain. As an adult...I didn't care that the ergos on it were off for me being tall. I didn't care that an in-line 4 would feel different that a twin. It looked...right. So I bought one.
My other bike? A KLR650, another throw-back bike with that "enduro" type look that I grew up with. In fact, my first and only bike as a teenager was a Kawasaki KLE250. I didn't stray far with the KLR.
Fun to think about what shapes our tastes. If I were designing courses for those studying business-marketing, I would insist that students study "markedness theory". We might get some really clever advertising.