Letters
LETTERS
THE CYCLE WORLD INFLUENCE
Dear CW:
After reading the past three issues of CYCLE WORLD I went out and bought my first cycle, a Honda Super Sports 50. Thanks for an informative magazine; I will be looking forward to a test on the 50.
J. E. WEYENBERG Santa Ana, Calif.
INTROSPECTIVE APPRECIATION
Dear CW:
I have become a subscriber, and I would like to express my appreciation for the work you are doing. First, you grasp the idea that a journalist is a middleman, not a manufacturer, of news. Like a good theatre impressario, he views all performers and presents to the public those of most interest. For the good journalist, the byline is sufficient. His name is known everywhere for what he is. It seems that when a journalist becomes preoccupied with being news himself, he becomes insensitive to other news, and is no longer effective as a newsman.
Second. Your technical graphs and engineering articles are most worthy. One would normally expect the “road test” department to be geared to the advertising department, even if a bit loosely. I am not the one to scream “integrity” over this, since caveat emptor is still the most reliable guide through the sales room. But actual measurements and graphs come right to the point. Bravo!
Third. Your coverage of the latest in tools and accessories is good and sharp.
Four. Your product appears on time. One of your competitors puts forth herculean efforts to add prestige to motorcycling and then neutralizes it with erratic publishing times, three weeks late more than once.
Five. Your photography is excellent, as is your full color cover. The variety of it is also good.
Six. Too much space devoted to routine activities of motorcycle club folk, though they are certainly worthy people, is hardly of interest on a national basis. Such state or regional interest items could be best left to more local types of publications, if there are such. Your own coverage of club activities is sharp and very appropriate, i.e., presentation of club activities that are new, or different, or in some way of truly national interest. As long as you keep it so well balanced, I am your subscriber. I like CYCLE WORLD as is — it is the best in the field.
DEAN SHANKLAND Warsaw, Indiana
EDITOR: Our humble thanks, not
only for your fully appreciated kind words, but for your rare insight into the problems of publishing, and your alert interpretation of some of the rules by which we live in trying to serve our readers best.
CUSTOM FANS
Dear CW:
Concerning your article “Bikes at the Auto Show” in May ’62 issue — “hooray for the nuts.” I guess you have heard the saying, the factory spends a million dollars designing a car or motorcycle and some nut comes along and thinks he can do better. Well, this is why we have custom shows — to see if he can. If you want to see an average car or motorcycle, you .go to your local authorized dealer.
You can’t go far on a quart of gas? You can’t control it? I say these custom bikes show the owner’s tastes and ideas. With some custom cars you can drive and watch TV, or mix drinks in the back seat. The wheel wells look good tuck and rolled, but who would drive them on the street?
Custom bikes may look like weird, uncontrollable gymnasiums (dropped in a chrome bath) to some, but I know from experience it takes as much hard work, money, and thought as the guys with the cars.
By the way, I have a windshield and bags on my machine, with low bars, and have ridden for 12 years.
Carl McClanahan St. Louis 18, Mo.
Dear CW:
This letter may come as a shock to you. You may not even publish it. More than likely you’ll circle file it. However, I will speak my piece.
I’m a fanatic for motorcycles. I own three Triumphs, a ’62 T120, a ’58 TR6 which I use in the dirt and a ’57 T110 that I’m selling. In your May issue I read an article that caused me to take the time to write. I do not consider “ape hangers” and small gas tanks “the poorest taste imaginable” and, since you’re making these off the wall statements, I take it you’re against megaphones on street machines, in which case you should take a closer look at those two machines you consider in such good taste.
It is quite obvious that “ape hangers’ wouldn’t be suited for dirt use and that their use on street machines isn’t as safe as low bars, but I have found that with practice they are just as easy to control as low bars in practically every situation encountered on the road with the exception of cutting brodies and figure eights and if the writer of that article can get by with these stunts in town I’d like to know where.
I think you have a fine magazine and there are bound to be articles that fail to please everybody. I am a charter subscriber and will stick with this magazine as long as I am a rider. It has more to offer than the others I’ve read.
Donald S. Harris, AOI USN NAAS Kingsville, Texas P.S. I’m no hood, either. If you don’t believe it, ask my mother. EDITOR: Both of you gentlemen
either didn’t read or misunderstood our statement. Tasteful customs comprise a highly interesting facet of motorcycling, and we are all in favor of them. “Ape hangers” have no place on a motorcycle. They are dangerous because they limit control of the bike, something the rider should be in command of all of the time, not just in “practically every situation.” Machines built just for “show,” and not to ride, completely baffle us. The two bikes in the photo with megaphones were racing machines, the only type of bike megaphones belong on.
CW GOES TO COLLEGE
Dear CW:
The enthusiasm given your magazine here at Harvard is quite high. The many zealous motorcycle buffs share my views that you deserve a bravo, not only for your excellent presentation of road tests and sundry other articles, but for your seeming determination to make motorcycling more popular than it ever has been before.
R. D. Priest Class of ’63 Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.
TWO-WHEEL ENTHUSIASTS
Dear CW:
I have just finished the April issue of CW and enjoyed it very much, just as I did the March issue, and I am glad to see a magazine that is not afraid to mention the bad points, as well as the good ones.
Michael Steene Heavy Attack Sqdn. 13 Whidby Island, Wash.
Dear CW:
After riding motorcycles for about 12 years and owning 11 different ones (give or take a few) I would like to contribute to the confusion of big machines versus small ones by saying “I like them both!”
I presently own a 1961 BMW R-69S; this is the best touring machine I have ever ridden (I took second place in an Observed Trials for road machines with it), especially at high speeds (70-90 mph). I also own a 200cc Zundapp Enduro. The ease of handling this machine in snow, sand or dirt is wonderful. My comment is, “there is room for both, even the mini-bike, if that is your cup of tea.”
Regarding speedometer error I agree with Mr. Jennings of your Technical Dept., “don’t believe all you read,” as my 1958 H-D Sportster always indicated 80 mph at an actual 55 mph and occasionally I was sure I would break the sound barrier.
Congratulations on an excellent magazine — keep it as it is, but more of it!
Allan N. Goldin Glen Rock, N.J.
