Can a bike be too good?

[Rols]

This might be a stupid thought, but recently I have been wondering if a bike can be too competent, too good. I wonder if we need a few little foibles in our bikes in order to love them.

Here is an example...

Last year I bought a BMWR1200RT LC. A stunningly competent bike. Everything works exactly as it should (even the fuel gauge accurately reads the level of fuel in the tank), it handles and steers properly, its very easy to ride (anyone could do it), loads of ground clearance, is completely reliable, has power everywhere and is comfy. Not a single thing needs improvement. Plus heated everything, sat nav etc make everything effortless.

And its boring as hell.

I've had some pretty sketchy bikes in my time, and there would always be a moment when I was out somewhere, having a coffee, checking out some lovely view or whatever and I'd return to my old nail and be struck with pride that the thing had managed to get me there and would get me back. I'd feel pride. But when I clap eyes of the BMW, its sheer competence is somehow be distancing "yes we are up a mountain 100 miles from the nearest town, but this is all within my operational parameters..." it seems to say.

Do we need our bikes to be a bit crap to love them?

Me, I think I've lost my way. So its going, and the new bike will not have a sat nav and i will ramp back (a bit) on uber competence in search of character.

[definitelyinc...]

I see what you mean, but I've only owned 2.5 bikes, so I'm not sure if my opinion is valid.

I guess when a bike is sketchy and requires more work it's a bit more 'you', you did this, you did that, rather than some perfect bike that doesn't need touching.

Not that I know since I've only had 2.5 bikes.

[BTTD]

I had a Ford Focus like that. Utterly competent, easy to drive, comfortable enough, cheap enough to run, very reliable. Uninspiring.

I'd suggest that what you're looking for isn't a bike that's worse in some way, but a bike that is great in some key identifiable area rather than just blandly good / okay across the board.

[faffergotgunz]

Totally agree! One thing that stops me upgrading at the minute. The 3 bikes I've had, have all had character, simply because they are old or 'not the best tool for the job'.

Apart from commuting, my favourite riding is on single track hill/mountain roads. After a nice ride with a pillion, previously on a 535 virago, now on a fzr600 genesis, I look at them with pride. That they're not what I should have but they do it all just fine.
____________________
Sent from Samsmums mobile using Tapanarse

[chrisdubya]

I think so, yeah. My experience was my K4 GSXR 750, I changed from the 600 previous to it because I wanted a bit more torque & power. It was so well in between a 600 & 1000cc that it was a bit boring/characterless.

The 600 needed nailed at times to get it moving, the 1000's I've had since have been, at times, scary and far too much for the road, but it makes them fun in their own way too. The 750 was just too good!

[Suntan Sid]

Swings and roundabouts!

On the one hand it is nice to have a perfectly predictable, competent, efficient bike, that will go and perform as it should?

On the other hand, if you enjoy tinkering and fettling, keeping an old nail or underpowered bike up and running is fun in itself.

My 1000cc bike is great and is fun to ride, but it has more talent than me!
My 125 needs to have its neck wrung, on the road, to get anywhere, it requires forethought and lots of input from me which ups the fun factor!
My 125 can and does go off road, so beats the 1000cc in that discipline!
____________________
"Everybody needs money, that's why they call it money!"

[chickenstrip]

Depends on what you want it to do I suppose. I spent a fair few bucks getting my Fazer how I want it, so it does everything well to the point I can't fault anything on it now, but I never tire of riding it.

I got tired of riding the Striple pretty quickly. Now and again it's still a hoot if I want a noisy hooligan tool - it does that well, and still puts a grin on my face when I'm in that mood - seems to me it's best kept for those days when I just fancy something different, a change. But much of the time that isn't what I want. The Fazer I can enjoy whatever mood I'm in. Part of it I think is that I know I don't have the money to chop and change my bikes regularly anymore, so I want something that I can get on with whatever my mood, for a long while.

I think after having various mad 2Ts, and they were great to experience, but I don't want that kind of thing every time I go out on a bike. There are times I want a bike to be a bit bland, so I can just get from A to B with minimum fuss. But the Fazer still has plenty of power, and delivers a good strong kick at 7 grand too; by then you're at speeds that'll keep you entertained anyway

Although I enjoy trying different bikes when the opportunity arises, litre IL4s, I have come to the conclusion, are just right for me if I want something I can live with for a long time. But to me, the ideal is one bike that you can always rely on, and that one needs to be competent at most things, and a second bike that you trade for something different every year or so, to keep things interesting.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!

[Rols]

[chickenstrip]

[mudcow007]

Might be boring, but you know its going to get you to wherever you are going.

My bike on the other hand, decided at "40mph" on a dual carriageway this morning to start to misfire an run like a bag of spanners - it was that bad at one point i was going to roll onto the central reservation

I'd like boring at this point

swaps?

[chickenstrip]

[Jayy]

Depends what you're looking for in a bike...

I'd say I want what you have in a bike, I want to know it's going to get me from A to B and back again. Been there and done that with bikes unreliable and pretty likely to fuck you over and it's not fun.

I ride a 1299 Panigale and to be perfectly honest, even with all the fancy electronics, it's a very capable bike and also quite un nerving to ride, which I like a lot. It's got all this raw power available to you at the flick of the throttle and if your fancy gizmos are not turned on, it's going to scare the life out of you

[JonnyFoxtrot]

Just sold my VFR750 for exactly this reason.

Everyone told me before I got it that it would be brilliant but boring and it was exactly that.

It did everything really well, but nothing great. Nothing stood out. It was neither tourer nor sports bike nor classic nor new. Just kind of a bit of everything that did what I asked it to and because of that I never wanted to go out and ride it outside of needing to ride it. Shame because it was a lovely bike.

Fazer 1000 for me next to try!
____________________
'89 Honda NS125F (SOLD) -> '92 Suzuki GS500E (SOLD) -> '03 Kawasaki ZX6R B1H (SOLD) -> '96 VFR 750 RC36 (SOLD) -> '02 Honda CBR1100XX Blackbird

[Azoth]

Isn't this the same as asking, can a bike be a VFR750? Or my favourite 600 from the 80s or 90s?

I think it's absolutely possible for a bike to be too good, for the following reasons:

1) An ultra-predictable, consistent and reliable bike gets hammered by all the reviewers, who call it boring because it doesn't scare, and it has an even response under acceleration, braking and cornering.
2) A really good bike will keep going for well over 100K miles with no problems if kept serviced. This means, the manufacturer loses out, as there's no incentive for the rider to upgrade or renew his bike, and dealers make less money.
3) A really good bike gets used and left outside, even in the salt and the rain of winter. A poor but exciting bike gets left unused in poor conditions and is kept sheltered in the garage. This means, after n years, the good bike looks a lot shabbier than the poor bike, and the manufacturer gets an ill-deserved bad reputation for building rust buckets, while the poor bike's manufacturer gets an ill-deserved reputation for building quality bikes.
4) A bike that's too good gets copied for whatever's good about it, and copiers try to capture market share by cutting costs, thereby reducing the quality of the spares and the value of the original.
5) A really good bike is widely sold and becomes a mass-market, commonplace commodity. The owners then either get rid of them because they're too common, or keep them a few years longer than others after modifying and ruining their own bikes to make them original.
6) A bike that's too good can't be considered a classic, for a long, long time, by bike snobs, for 2 reasons: 1) it's too prolific; 2) it doesn't take much knowhow to keep it working. For example, you can't really break a C90. Not easily, anyway. It will be a long time before you'll be able to get £10K+ for one.
7) A really good bike can't be a really desirable bike, because looks do matter in the world of bikes. We all prefer good-looking bikes, either because of how we or others look at our bikes. A Nissan Micra might be the best car you can get for the money, but it isn't pretty. A 1930s Indian is extremely beautiful, but it's impractical, slow, etc. A really good bike must have 2 comfortable seats, somewhere to attach a topbox or luggage, a tall screen that actually works against the elements, or a fitment place for a tall screen, easily available and effective tyres (which tend to be narrower than the most aesthetic ones), etc.
____________________
Safety in numbers

[chickenstrip]

[G]

One of the reasons I chose a GSXR1000 for commuting was that it was far too good at everything - great power and range of power, great handling, acceptable brakes etc.

Made it a bit boring as the bike does a lot for you.

I find even modern 600s are a bit too 'good' - they don't have the stepped power delivery or handling that bit back of something like an early R6.

[Tdibs]

Exact feeling after test riding a Tiger800, too refined and competent for me
____________________
Previous : 09 Vanvan 125| 02' Sv650s || Current: 1999 Xj600n | 1992 DR650 RSE | 2005 Fazer 1000

[lingeringstin...]

Back when I was a courier based out of London in the 1990's I sat arse on all the usual stuff like GT550, CX500, CG125, BMW airheads, Honda Bros, and an assortment of others including a fecking horrible MZ250 before getting a quite knackered CBR600.

It terrified the shit out of me because it was just so NORMAL. It did everything right. It would go like stink, stop on a sixpence, handled very well and never failed to start and run all day long in every weather.

The problem was that after hours of courier hacking you could almost fall asleep on it. You could blatt down the motorway with one eye open slumped in the saddle, two fingers on the throttle, and pass every car on the road. It was comfy, dependable and quick. I was sure it was going to kill me. You could ride it in your sleep. There was nothing about it to keep you awake through the bodily annoyances or the sheer handling terrors of everything else I'd ever been on. It just WENT, and it went fast and if you weren't payimng attention you were going to fall asleep and die.

I eventually sold it and kept the MZ.

[TheSmiler]

My R1100RS was like that for the few months I had it, it would do everything however yikes it could make me fall asleep with how boring it was. The k100 was different it had the perks so did the XJ600. So yeah I agree everything working 100% perfectly is quite boring; for me anyway you need the perks to have some excitement.
____________________
CB125>CG125>GN125>ER5>K100RS>R1100RS>K100RS
A2 completed 23/07/15 Ready for the Golden Crisp Packet

[chickenstrip]

[TheSmiler]

[M.C]

[JonnyFoxtrot]

[trevor saxe-coburg-gotha]

[TheSmiler]