Motorcycle aesthetics

[chickenstrip]

How important is the look of a bike to you?
Do(es) the bike(s) in your garage/under the cover need to inspire you every time you see it/them? Or are handling and performance the only things that matter to you? Maybe it's just having a certain character that you find most important? But that can be affected by aesthetics too? Do you just take the look of your bike for granted, pretty or otherwise, because of such other considerations? Maybe you still feel youthful, and want what you think will snap that knicker elastic at 100 paces?

Looks are certainly usually the first thing that grab my attention, but if reports are that it is a bit of a damp squib to ride, I'll quickly lose interest. If it's ugly or just nondescript in the looks department, I might just pass it by, and possibly miss out on something that is really worth having.

Other bikes I'll find to be a hoot to ride, and the looks will grow on me over time. But I'd certainly prefer to own something when I go out to it that brings a smile before I've even thrown a leg over it.

My own bike is one that I thought looked ok when I first saw them, but I can't say the look blew me away. But it has certainly grown on me, and I'm happy enough with how it looks now, though I haven't changed it substantially in that department. I suppose I'm just very fond of the complete package as it stands now.
____________________
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!

[recman]

There was something about the twin round lights on mine that beckoned me to try it out. The rest is history.
The only slight niggle was the end can size but it certainly wasn't a deal breaker.
After the test ride I don't think even a Harley badge would have put me off.

[Musketeer]

It's very important to me. When I want to buy a bike I usually shortlist them by their looks, take my budget and bike reviews into account too... then I test ride them.

I pretty much only like sport, naked, and modern retro (i.e. Norton) bikes.

Enduro, cruiser, tourer types are not my thing.

I love my bike.
____________________
Current Bike: Yamaha XSR900 Previous bikes: Honda CBR1000RR Fireblade, Kawasaki ZX-6R Ninja, Aprilia RS125 2-stroke

[Polarbear]

Aesthetics are an important part of my choice.

The thing is though what I regard as a beautiful bike is not what most people do...

I think gen 1 busas are gorgeous.

I love the look of Goldwings.

I think the Ducati Paso is the best looking Ducati ever.

I'm a bit weird
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition

[Courier265]

Considering what I do for a living, when buying a bike it has to be clean and tidy, well maintained and practical. I need bikes that don't have spoke wheels and can handle a rack and topbox. However the top box MUST be over the tail section and not PAST the tail section. I need to be able to have a 47 litre top box to cope with most of the stuff I have to carry.

[RhynoCZ]

Looks are important, just like with women, but many times when you aproach the pretty one, you get disapointed.

When it comes to what people do to their motorcycles, all I want is a stock machine, no changes whatsoever. Every single time I bought a motorcycle/car, I always took off all the bits the previous owners put on it (sold it) and then put the machine back to stock. I especially hate the tinted windshields and cut down original exhaust silencers. With cars, I do hate aftermarket wheels that are just completely wrong for the car in questions. I also do not enjoy mini turn signals with tiny LEDs that not only look wrong, but also have very limited function = making the motorcycle more dangerous. Oh, and some people even tint the headlights and taillights. Why the feck would you want that?

Anyway, looks are important, but not as important as getting something interesting. Also, I do like stock machines.
____________________
'87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor

[waffles]

Yes, I think that aesthetics are very important (to me) when choosing a bike. This is something fun and bikes aren’t my only form of transport plus I have a fair amount of disposable income to splash on them to make them look the way I want. I don’t need to buy a fixer-upper or ratbike just to keep me on the road.

I bought my gixer because that was the bike I lusted after when I was going for my tests. I love riding it and I love the look of it, even catching a casual glimpse of my shadow on the road makes me smile. I realise that sounds quite conceited or weird but I genuinely don’t care! I think the grom looks quite mean until you see how small it is. Its like a yorkshire terrior that thinks its harder than it actually is!

Im not knocking people who ride rats by the way. They just aren’t my cup of tea
____________________
Theory test - 19/8/09, CBT - 11/10/09, MOD 1 - 16/8/10, MOD 2 - 27/10/10
Past rides Yamaha XT125X, Triumph TT600, Honda XR250
Current rides Suzuki GSXR 600, Honda MSX125

[BenR]

[stevo as b4]

It depends on other stuff too like budget/brand/spares availability etc.

But I think for me on certain bikes looks are important, more so over performance and especially years after the bikes were current.

For example if your interested in a 750cc sports bike today, then getting the lightest/fastest and most powerful one does not matter seeing as you wouldn't buy an obsolete 750 specifically for thee reasons.

An MV 750F1 is a prettier bike than a GSXR 750 SRAD. That it's slower and less capable on a track really wouldn't bother me in 2018. But then again older bikes get prettier with age and nostalgia.

The ZX7R isn't just a pretty sports bike of its time it's a stunning design. The pink/white YZF750's are far cooler to me now than they would have been 15years ago.

Maybe the reason why people obsess over electronics, gadgets and features on new bikes is that because there are no real good looking bikes available now, so they have to decide using other criteria?

[MarJay]

It's an element in my decision, but I don't exactly have a bunch of traditionally beautiful bikes, so it's not that important to me. It's probably last in the mix over power, handling and comfort. The ride comes first, but I probably wouldn't want an old ratter.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[chickenstrip]

[stevo as b4]

I like parts bin specials and when a manufacturer comes up with a new design or style of bike using mechanical bits they already had laying around, especially when it's older generation sports bike parts re-purposed for a new life.

I see your point about the tail unit on the Fazer 1000, but the appeal of that bike to me is that it's a parts bin bike with good bits taken from other models. The 600 is better still IMO for that reason. Talking of rear ends and tail units, I've always liked the Hornet 600 for its rear end. I think that flying saucer profile and the big single high level exhaust is a cracking bit of design and makes the Hornet a very original and successful bike, with otherwise unremarkable parts like an old CBR engine etc.

[chickenstrip]

[The Shaggy D.A.]

Ergonomics, aesthetics, performance, running costs. Order of which changes depending on wind direction, whim, finances and moon phase.
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5

[Old Git Racing]

Aesthetics matter to me, but probably not the most important thing. I prefer a minimalist purposeful look where you can see how and why they work.
I detest most modern naked bikes as they look like the bloke who invented transformers designed them, in this case my hate for the look would overide the bikes performance.
The Laverda Chickenstrip had in his thread is my idea of a good looking bike. Ducati have also made some lookers in their time.
Form over function seems to be the way nowadays in most things (said the grumpy old man).

OGR.
____________________
2022 Tiger Sport 660 2019 Street Twin 2003 K3 gixxer 1000 1998 Srad 600 track hack

[chickenstrip]

I think a major part of the problem for purposeful-looking bikes started when frames got that top rail from head stock to s/arm pivot. It meant some lines (bottom of fuel tank in particular) had to go in the opposite direction to what would give a raked, 'fast' look. Such bikes are probably better with full fairings. Nakeds are ruined by it.
____________________
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!

[ThatDippyTwat]

I know what I like, but in terms of actually influencing a decision, aesthetics are pretty much at the bottom of the list. I didn't buy a VFR for looks, thought they're meh rather than hideous, despite what SophR so Good thinks .

If I was buying on Aesthetics, Then it would be a Brutale 800 or 'Motard KX500 that would make me look back at it and grin like a daft bastard. Neither are suitable for being cheap, reliable, or munching miles.
____________________
'98 VFR800 (touring) - '12 VFR800 Crosrunner (Commuting) - '01 KDX220 (Big Green Antisocial Machine)

[pepperami]

First things first = function ie can it do what is supposed to do.
For example I expect my sports bike to be light, agile, and quick.
I expect my commuter bike to be frugal and comfortable.

Secondly = I need to be able to do at least some of the regular maintenance on it.

Thirdly = looks, this modern fashion for bikes to look like something from a Transformers movie puts me right off
I’ll bet there is many a good bike out there that I won’t even look at because of how it looks.
I suppose that’s the age group I come from?
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!

[grr666]

Apart from the numberplate holder, I really like the look of the spacker vs the standard MT09's of MY2015.
Speaking of which, mine's days are numbered as I now have a nice tail tidy waiting to go on.
Whilst I realise the Sport Tracker is just a dealer special edition and a way to use up older stock, it's still amazing
how a few bolt on parts can transform a bike if it's done tastefully. The Sport Tracker MT09 variant had a black frame
and an exclusive matte gunmetal coloured tank, Gilles Handlebar brace, a (real) carbon fibre front mudguard, the brushed
aluminium numberboards and headlight cowl, rubber tank grips and a different coloured & different shape/angle seat all
serve to make it look pretty different from the standard MT09.

I haven't added that much to make my bike look much different from how it was sold to me. Kept the carbon
theme going with a Carbon Akrapovic exhaust system and a real carbon fibre rear hugger extender. I had Yamaha heated
grips fitted by the dealer before I took the bike away, I fitted Yamaha LED indicators and garmin powered sat-nav mount.
Then adjustable shorty levers and circular bar end mirrors both in black alloy, a couple of silver inlay pieces for the (faux)
air intakes which are normally black, just to compliment the brushed aluminium parts, a radiator cover because MT09
rads are very, very DEAR. Ask me how I know... I whacked a nightbreaker into the headlight and outed the w5w
bulbs for LEDs to match the new whiteness of the headlight. Finally a grab rail which has a great many uses which include
keeping the passengers arse on the bike and giving me a firm point to grab when I'm dragging it out of ditches.

Ok, so I have done a fair bit then. But I think it's normal to want to make your bike your own, isn't it?
When hell does occasionally freeze over and I get out on the thing, it always turns heads, so it can't look too bad.
I imagine the next spend on mine will be tyres tbh.
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off.

[chickenstrip]

[struan80]

I have to like the look of a bike, but then my idea of what looks good changes with time/age. I'm into cruisers at the moment

[chickenstrip]

[stevo as b4]

To Grrr, I agree with it being very normal for people that arnt relying on their bike as an A-B taxi or a tool to put food on the table to want to make their bikes look different and personalised to various extents.

I do look back and cringe now though at our 1990's crimes like carbon tack on covers, daft coloured bolts and rainbow coloured screens etc. We did some daft things in that decade that seemed fine then, but are incomprehendable now.

Anyway at least you haven't been told to sell your bikes for spending money on them and not using them a massive amount like me.

[grr666]

[struan80]

Who mentioned pole dance? I would like to hit them with an axe for their teasing. Most importantly I do not frequent pole dancing bars anymore since I found the vibrating vagina.