Isn't it funny?

[Bonez]

How a bike that was as common as muck 28 years ago starts being called a "classic". I have a wee giggle when folks call the CB550 that. Hell it's not even a brit. :devil2:

[Bob]

We had a bit of a discussion on this subject recently (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=5316) - but what interests me is your "Hell it's not even a brit" comment.

Why is it that so many people will automatically assume a 'classic' should be, or is, an old British bike?

What about Morini? Or Motobi? Just a couple of examples that spring to mind. Or if you want a different slant, Indian (but not the 1950's Indians - by that time they were really nothing to do with the company, being little more than re-badged British parallel twins)?

I'll happily say that once upon a time Brit bikes were good - but it is a long, long time ago. But towards the end, they were useless, badly engineered and finished junk.

Friend of mine recently found an old magazine that was covering race-oriented bikes towards the end... you could see from the writing the journo wanted desperately to support the British bikes, but just couldn't.

There is a big difference between 'classic' and just 'old'.

[Pwalo]

We had a bit of a discussion on this subject recently (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=5316) - but what interests me is your "Hell it's not even a brit" comment.

Why is it that so many people will automatically assume a 'classic' should be, or is, an old British bike?

There is a big difference between 'classic' and just 'old'.

I agree with you there Bob. I think that there is some confusion caused by classic racing here. Classics are (I'm pretty sure) defined purely by age.

I don't like older Hondas very much but I can't see how they, or any other Jap bike are any less classic than Brit or Euro bikes of the same era. Probably better machines as well.

For that matter some newer bikes are surely 'instant classics' if you like. You know the sort of thing, Britten V1000, Honda NR. Now that's going to start the bun fight.

[Dodgyiti]

To be a classic it had to have captured the hearts of people, or was radical for it's day, or even outragous,and now they look at it fondly :spudwhat: .
Them poxy old Hondas gave many people at the time a thrill, transport, or carrying away their first root. They don't do anything for me though, no soul or class :mellow:

[James Deuce]

To be a classic it had to have captured the hearts of people, or was radical for it's day, or even outragous,and now they look at it fondly :spudwhat: .
Them poxy old Hondas gave many people at the time a thrill, transport, or carrying away their first root. They don't do anything for me though, no soul or class :mellow:

A '70s CB400/4 is a very cool, very soulful machine. I would love to get hold of one for my "classic" summer fun toy.

[Blakamin]

A '70s CB400/4 is a very cool, very soulful machine. I would love to get hold of one for my "classic" summer fun toy.
had 2 of those.
a red supersport and a blue one... the red one went well... the blue one became a parts special after the sidestand sunk at idle when my brother rode it to a mates place. it lay on its side running until it stopped... couldnt restart it so I bought it off him for parts
also bought a cb360 off a friend of mums for $80 because she said it was seized.. pulled off the kickstart and found the spring was fouling everything.


ahhh.... memories of the late 80's

[PZR]

As far as I am aware it is age related. A classic is anything over a certain age (and by all means correct me if I am wrong) but I think a classic is over 20 (?) years old and a vintage is over say 50 years old. Don't all scream at me as I am not certain of those time spans but you get the idea. Its not what the machine is but its age. A fondly remembered machine to one person is a piece of common mass produced crap to another. Its all a matter of personal prespective and taste. As long as it appeals to the individual thats all that counts. Heck I bought a 4 door 1957 Chev for $600.00 at a time when nobody wanted them and they are worth over $25000.00 now. Look how collectible early 2 strokes are now (RDs Kwakas etc). It does not make them a better bike though, just more desireable. Early British bikes are very desirable but the originals sure did not get any better with age. Its all about nostaglia, which is why Harleys sell so well. I have no problem with that but personally I prefer modern engineering, comforts, and reliability any day. I have had my days of chasing wiring problems in the rain, setting points, and trying to stop oil leaks. And do not get me started on kick starts when combined with the first two items.:2guns:

[Motu]

To me it's an engineering thing - how the bike was designed and built,the Japanese bikes were sure not designed and built with passion...or humour as I kinda look at things.With British,European and American design we can see the actual designers themselves in the bike - Edward Turner redesigned the Val Page Triumphs,and you can see Mr Turner in everything Triumph (or BSA,Aerial or even Damiler) he touched.Val Page designed the Triumph 350 single (I had one,the factory was destroyed by bombs and the patterns lost) then he went to BSA and developed the B series singles - the B31 looks identical to the Triumph single and even has the same bore and stroke.Paul could strip my Moto Guzzi Stornello 160 down and know exactly what he's doing - the Stornello was designed by the same guy who designed the V twins,and it's obvious if you work on both.What I call classic bikes show some individuality in design and construction,even if it means going cheap - that's classic Edward Turner,a part with more than one function,the guy was a tightwad.

Japanese motorcycles show no such character to me,the designs are perfect for whatever time period we are talking about,no continuity in other bikes of the range,let alone someone elses ideas appearing in another brand.(early stuff not included of course,these were pure copies,and classic...the humour I was talking about)The exceptions are the Yamaha XS650 and TT/SR 500,these motors show some real personality,the construction is different from nearly any other engine to come from Japan - it's no coinsidence they are considered classic and have a big loyal following.

[Pwalo]

To me it's an engineering thing - how the bike was designed and built,the Japanese bikes were sure not designed and built with passion...or humour as I kinda look at things.With British,European and American design we can see the actual designers themselves in the bike - Edward Turner redesigned the Val Page Triumphs,and you can see Mr Turner in everything Triumph (or BSA,Aerial or even Damiler) he touched.Val Page designed the Triumph 350 single (I had one,the factory was destroyed by bombs and the patterns lost) then he went to BSA and developed the B series singles - the B31 looks identical to the Triumph single and even has the same bore and stroke.Paul could strip my Moto Guzzi Stornello 160 down and know exactly what he's doing - the Stornello was designed by the same guy who designed the V twins,and it's obvious if you work on both.What I call classic bikes show some individuality in design and construction,even if it means going cheap - that's classic Edward Turner,a part with more than one function,the guy was a tightwad.

Japanese motorcycles show no such character to me,the designs are perfect for whatever time period we are talking about,no continuity in other bikes of the range,let alone someone elses ideas appearing in another brand.(early stuff not included of course,these were pure copies,and classic...the humour I was talking about)The exceptions are the Yamaha XS650 and TT/SR 500,these motors show some real personality,the construction is different from nearly any other engine to come from Japan - it's no coinsidence they are considered classic and have a big loyal following.

I presume you're taking the michael somewhat Motu. I don't see anything passionless or unoriginal in the GSXR, or the Honda VFR series for instance.

I do think that the Triumph T100s and T120s are probably the best looking bikes ever made, but I enjoy engineering precision and functionality as well. Perhaps if the Brit bikes could have matched the specs of the Jappers they would still be here. I realise that there were other issues involved in the decline of their m/cycle industries, but in the end character etc mean f*^& all to the person who is paying. Image definitely, but why buy things that are poorly made?

Not sure if originality/copying is an issue because there's bugger all that's original in the motoring world anyway. Frame, two wheels, motor, it's a motorcycle. Everything after the first is a copy.

Anyway who cares. Motorcycles are all great. My Dad is busy getting his old Royal Enfield back together, and I still remember my first ride behind him on one of his mate's BSA Spitfire. I was five at the time, and it was just like flying.

[Yokai]

Image definitely, but why buy things that are poorly made?

What browser do you use to read this forum? *coff splutter* :bleh:

Classics really are things that are of their time, and stand the vagaries of fashion. Really obviously, you can look at the Morris Minor, the VW Beetle and the Citroen 2CV (all substantially similar) and realise that they are all classics. Look at a Bike, and you think Hmmm - does a K100RS make it to "classic" status? What about BSA Bantam? How about Norton F1?

Now look at other things around us - things that we like to look at and recognise the classic designs in? Chippendale chairs, Frank Lloyd Wright buildings etc... What we see is a level of expertise in the craftsmanship. That's what makes things classic. When we then move into the world of Mass Production, we see the first of a type or model as the classic. The model that is copied is the classic. Look at a Porsche 911 - classic, Porsche 356 - classic, Porsche 944 - NOT a classic.

I'm sure the same can be applied in the bike world - Look at the lines of the bike - if they are reminiscent of something else that went before and is STILL regarded as a good bike - probably the original was a classic. I would probably get shot, but I think that the original CBR racing thing would be accorded classic status, but the following things designated CBR are not.

Yo
:banana:

[Motu]

Too right yokai - no one in their right mind would call the Morris Minor a nice,well built car,it was ahead of it's time when first built,well beyond it's used by date when finished,but it's a classic,originality in design and set a standard for others to copy.People bought them because it was available,not because they were a good car.A GSXR or VFR is a non bike to me - funny us people eh?

[Pwalo]

What browser do you use to read this forum? *coff splutter* :bleh:

Classics really are things that are of their time, and stand the vagaries of fashion. Really obviously, you can look at the Morris Minor, the VW Beetle and the Citroen 2CV (all substantially similar) and realise that they are all classics. Look at a Bike, and you think Hmmm - does a K100RS make it to "classic" status? What about BSA Bantam? How about Norton F1?

Now look at other things around us - things that we like to look at and recognise the classic designs in? Chippendale chairs, Frank Lloyd Wright buildings etc... What we see is a level of expertise in the craftsmanship. That's what makes things classic. When we then move into the world of Mass Production, we see the first of a type or model as the classic. The model that is copied is the classic. Look at a Porsche 911 - classic, Porsche 356 - classic, Porsche 944 - NOT a classic.

I'm sure the same can be applied in the bike world - Look at the lines of the bike - if they are reminiscent of something else that went before and is STILL regarded as a good bike - probably the original was a classic. I would probably get shot, but I think that the original CBR racing thing would be accorded classic status, but the following things designated CBR are not.

Yo
:banana:

Cheers Yokai. Are we talking classic or iconic? Suspect that perceptions of the two can be confusing. Is an HD or Ducati an icon or a classic?

Can anything that's not original be a classic? Doesn't that preclude any bike built after the early 1900s? How does a CB750 rate?

[gav]

So whats the difference between "classic" and "vintage" then? For me, a classic now is a bike that I really lusted after as a youngster/teenager, so I look at things about 20-25 years old, bikes like RC30, 1100 Katana, RZ500/RG500, CB1100R, first VF750F, RZ350, Z1 (ok 30+ years old), CB750/900F etc.

[Motu]

Yeah,it's really subjective to the individual - the classic bikes are for baby boomers,it's what we grew up lusting after,when we could ride we usually rode something of that era because it's all we could afford,so to us old fullas they are classic.There are no real old buggers to remember the pre war vintage bikes - so who cares,let's forget about them.And that's why we have you younger guys bringing up modern bikes as classic - it's what you grew up seeing and lusting after,and maybe getting around to owning when you finally could.It's all about romance,lust,carnal knowledge,death wish and power,always power...

[Yokai]

There are no real old buggers to remember the pre war vintage bikes - so who cares,let's forget about them.

Ohh but I love the old Douglasses and things... I remember them and I'm only 33 :spudwhat: I'd love a classic Douglas - maybe an Endeavour or something....


Cheers Yokai. Are we talking classic or iconic? Suspect that perceptions of the two can be confusing. Is an HD or Ducati an icon or a classic?

Can anything that's not original be a classic? Doesn't that preclude any bike built after the early 1900s? How does a CB750 rate?

Yes - HD's can be classics in my book - specifically I'm thinking of the Heritage Softtail.. The original styling etc was good, instantly recognisable as different from, say an Indian, good lines - well designed, often copied. A Virago is not likely to become a classic though (too much of a copy).

Ducati 966 is a classic bike - looks the biz, designed very nicely, derivative only of itself and moves motorbike design forwards, but then I look at the Monster and I think that it is a superbly engineered bike, but doesn't fall into Classic category for me. :calm:
It is of its time, and engineering wise it stands the test of fashion, but it lacks some subtlety and overall aesthetic quality that would make it last through the next 20 years or so... I could of course be wrong, but I think that classic bike buyers in 10 years time are gonna still be buying Harleys and 966s but that Monsters are going to come off second best here.

As regards "Can a copy be a classic" .... Hmmmm - we can all say that whatever we ride is a copy of something else, but if it pushes the "artform" forwards, then yes I would say it could be a classic... Lets look at something that is probably not going to be a classic bike - Suzuki Bandit (copies the Monster in engineering and styling)... Now change the suspension, and tweak the gearing - classic? probably not. Adjust the engine somewhat and put a 3cylinder multivalve vtec type engine in there and you start some possibilities. Slim the bike down a little, and make some styling changes (lets change that railing to a monocoque for example) and you've got a sweet bike that were it produced would probably become a classic...

But then again - this is all opinion and frankly :whocares: what I have to say? Do you think your bike is a classic? It probably is... Do other people think it is a classic? then it pretty much certainly is... But? is it art! :killingme

Yo