Letters
LETTERS
Higher standards
Editor’s Note: What follows are excerpts from some of the more than 250 letters Cycle World received in response to May’s “Up Front’’ editorial asking for opinions on standard-style motorcycles. As promised, all responses have been photo-copied and sent on to the appropriate people at each of the Japanese Big Four manufacturers.
A biker’s wave for Cycle World's efforts towards improving the sport. The generic and stifling conservatism gripping our biking choices is indicative of a worldwide mega-corporate mamby-pambyness that has completely neglected the sigma for the average. Thanks for shaking things up.
In this era of Tupperware-clad sportbikes and chrome-and-Gucci cruisers, a fast, powerful and modern unfaired bike that handles is anything but standard.
I recently surveyed the best that the manufacturers had to offer at several international bike shows held in Canada. I was left disappointed, with a pocket full of cash and posing a question for the manufacturers: What’s wrong with offering a relatively simple and lightweight bike that handles, is unfaired or partially faired, has true ’90s power and suspension, and displays tasteful styling that points towards the future? Dave Dal Farra Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
In response to David Edwards’ request for “Higher Standards:”
Engine-four-cylinder, dohc, eight valves, air/oil-cooled.
Transmission-five-speed.
Final drive-shaft.
Frame-straight-line box-steel.
Suspension-BMW Telelever-type front, adjustable; single-shock rear, adjustable.
Fenders-painted steel.
Bodywork-frame-mounted fairing, low enough to see over, wide enough to protect hands, low enough to keep legs and feet dry.
Fuel tank-at least 6 gallons.
Seat-wide, flat, minimum rise for passenger.
Exhaust-4-into-2-into-1.
Electronics-keep to a minimum.
Fuggage-solid, lockable, no ugly mounting brackets.
Cost-under $6500
Overall-keep it simple, easy maintenance, no unnecessary bodywork, covers or gadgets. Jim Murn
North Woodstock, New Hampshire
Note to all motorcycle manufacturers: This spring I was looking for another motorcycle. I wanted a real motorcycle, the kind that does anything and everything. I set a price limit of $8000, negotiable. I searched and searched and finally found the bike I wanted. Big bore for power. Bulletproof engine and drivetrain. Slightly sporty. And cheap. I bought a 1983 Yamaha Seca 900.
Until you make another bike like this, my wallet is closed. R. Sarro Hamden, Connecticut
What is a modern standard? To me, it’s not a retrobike. It should incorporate available technology. Certainly new frame designs would be in order, as well as modern suspension components, wheels, tires and, of course, the engine/powertrain. No extremes in handlebars or footpeg placement; the ergonomics should focus on general, all-around comfort, as should the seat design, both for the rider and the occasional passenger. The strippeddown, hot-rod look has always been popular in the U.S., especially when the look is accompanied by huge gobs of power and good handling. A fairing, windshield or saddlebags should be add-on options. Walter R. Denaci
Knoxville, Iowa
Standards are not sportbikes sans plastic, they are not “retro” bikes. They are value.
Over the past few years, my interest in motorcycling has declined. Why? Hardware Burnout. Motorcycles come from the factory built to the limits of the design and with a price tag to match. The most remembered standard I used to own was a 1982 Seca 550. A completely unremarkable machine. But cheap. It also had another good point: It was very “upgradable.”
If I had a mind for touring, with a few changes, it was good to go. If I wanted a racer, a few parts and some garage time, and presto.
That is what is missing from today’s standard. A solid, basic and adaptable motorcycle. That is a standard.
Perry Tuggle Shoreview, Minnesota >
Reader Information
Editorial offices are located at 1499 Monrovia Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92663. Editorial contributions are welcomed, but must be guaranteed exclusive to Cycle World.
We are not responsible for the return of unsolicited material unless accompanied with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Letters cannot all be answered, nor can all Service inquiries be answered. We appreciate correspondence sent to the editorial offices and will use the most interesting and appropriate letters in the magazine.
Subscriptions in the U.S. and territories are: one year, $19.94; two years, $35.94; three years, $49.94. Canadian subscribers, please add $7.00 per year. All other countries add $8.00 per year. (Please remit by money order or draft on a U.S. bank, payable in U.S. funds.) Single copy $2.95; $3.75 in Canada.
Subscription service: P.O. form 3579 and all subscription correspondence should be addressed to Cycle World, P.O. Box 51222, Boulder, CO 80321-1222. Please allow six to eight weeks for a change of address to become effective. Include both
your old and new address, and if possible, a mailing label from a recent issue. For faster service, call 303/447-9330.
Back issues from 1988 to current year are available on a prepaid basis for $4.40 each from Cycle World, Back Issues, P.O. Box 7085, Brick, NJ 08723.
Advertising: See SRDS. Circulation auditing by Audit Bureau of Circulation.
Ducati has a modern standard in its showrooms right now. It’s a bike the Big Four’s development computers would say is outdated, a bike their product planners would say doesn’t parallel with their opinion polls. Yet, here it is, the bare-bones street fighter, a two-wheel hot-rod par excellence.
Yep, I’m talkin’ about the M900 Monster, and nothing else even comes close. Tell Japan, if they want to sell motorcycles, they should start by designing with their hearts and not their hi-tech computer software.
Until then, you know what’s already sittin’ in my garage! Ciao, baby.
Andrew Shaw Mesa, Arizona
Ask the Big Four to start with the 1994 Honda Magna 750 then enlarge the engine to 1200cc, with power characteristics similar to the V-Max’s. Also, put my name on the first red one off the assembly line.
Jack R Albert
Twin Lakes, Wisconsin
Among the bikes I’ve owned have been a new 1987 Honda Hurricane 600 and an ’85 Honda Nighthawk 700S. I want a bike with the speed, handling and brakes of today’s CBRs, and the all-around ability of the Nighthawk.
I would really like to purchase a new bike in the next six months, but I will probably buy a used bike until a modern standard is built.
How about a 900cc Honda Hawk GT or a Suzuki Bandit 750?
Jamie Casello Centreville, Virginia
I’m ready to replace my 1985 Honda 650 Nighthawk. I mean, I have the urge to get something new, my boss just gave me a bonus check and, heck, I even have my wife’s permission. What am I missing? The foggiest idea of what I can replace this venerable standard with.
Maybe the manufacturers just don’t understand that the desire for the standard motorcycle is not a desire to go backwards. Why does a retrobike like the current Nighthawk make my decade-old 650 Nighthawk seem like a technological wonder?
Yamaha’s excellent Seca II and Kawasaski’s long-running EX500 come close, but where are their big brothers? Why, when I go to the Honda dealership, can I get a beautiful V-Four motor in the expensive VFR750 sportbike or in the Magna 750 cruiser, but not in a Universal Japanese Motorcycle. Take that wonderful engine, add up-to-date suspension pieces and better-than-ever brakes, and put them in a standard configuration.
Stuart R. Naber
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Just like CW, I don’t believe “standard” and “retro” are synonymous. What was great about the motorcycles I rode 15 years ago was that they were current, cutting-edge technology, and they provided a great platform for each owner to do what he wanted to do. In my case, it was a lower handlebar and other sporting modifications, but others turned their KZs and GSs into touring bikes or cruisers. For me, it would be hard to resist a new ZR or CB750 with a single shock, upside-down fork, and a great frame and motor in between.
My current ride? A Hawk GT with lower handlebars, etc. Tom Monroe Mission Viejo, California
Of all the oxymorons floating around, the term “modern standard” is one of the best. Ed Fitzwater
Avon Lake, Ohio
I manage the sales department for one of the top five motorcycle dealers in the state of Washington. The brand and dealership will remain nameless.
When people walk into my store, they either want a sportbike (must have lots of plastic), a cruiser (must be a V-Twin) or a touring bike (read Winnebego). Where are all these people that are foaming at the mouth for a standard bike? I certainly don’t see them.
I’m not saying that super-standards aren’t wonderful bikes, I’m just saying that the demand isn’t large enough in the USA. The Big Four will continue to give us what we want (which is what sells).
In his editorial, Editor Edwards said that Americans love big-inch motored, fat-tired, standard-style, un-aerodynamic hot-rods. Well, somebody makes one. It’s called the V-Max. Perhaps an order to your local dealer would be the strongest statement towards “Higher Standards” that anyone could make. Christopher Clovis Tacoma, Washington □
