Now Bimmers are One Thing...

stuart in mn wrote: If your main concern is how cool you look, I'd suggest motorcycling is not your thing.

Who said that?

In reply to bravenrace:

Anti-stance wrote: May not look as cool all geared up but having your skin ripped off is way less cool looking.

I think it was I. But not saying that I try to look cool, but I was referring to coolness. (Did that make any sense? )

In reply to Anti-stance:

I don't think you or I or anyone said that looking cool was our main concern. Not at all, in my case, but if I can drive a car or ride a motorcycle that looks good while doing what I need it to, why would I pick one that doesn't?

In reply to bravenrace:

Because riding all slouched over vs. the sit-up-and-beg kills your back and ability to actually cover miles. Or go around corners. Or deal with gravel. Etc etc. You kind of started a thread where you asked why people like functional devices. And the glaringly obvious answer is "because they're functional".

pres589 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Because riding all slouched over vs. the sit-up-and-beg kills your back and ability to actually cover miles. Or go around corners. Or deal with gravel. Etc etc. You kind of started a thread where you asked why people like functional devices. And the glaringly obvious answer is "because they're functional".

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You seem really hung up on the Harley thing. I have no plans to ever own a Harley. It just happened to be the bike I saw that drew the contrasting view, so how about we slowly take our hands off the bomb, okay?
What I asked was what the appeal was of a BMW motorcycle. I didn't argue that it had appeal, I just asked. You seem to want to turn a simple question into an argument, which it is not, so give it a rest, okay?
You also ignored the part of my statement about meeting all my needs in you last post, among other things.

pres589 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Because riding all slouched over vs. the sit-up-and-beg kills your back and ability to actually cover miles. Or go around corners. Or deal with gravel. Etc etc. You kind of started a thread where you asked why people like functional devices. And the glaringly obvious answer is "because they're functional".

huh? sorry but I just don't buy this at all. I road my k1200s from TX to TN in one day and it has a pretty aggressive riding position. My ass was sore as hell because of the garbage factory seat and my throttle hand had a blister, but other than that I was good.

All of my bikes have different riding positions and I still somehow manage to cover miles, go around corners, and even handle road hazzards. Just because you take exception to what Bravenrace says doesn't mean you have to talk nonsense.

My MSF instructor last summer rode a BMW. I asked her about it, and she was very passionate, and chewed my ear off. Paraphrasing here...

Virtually any dedicated machine is better than a multipurpose one. A good pair of pliers will always be better than the pliers in a Leatherman, for example.

Motorcycles can do essentially four tasks:

Commuting/in-town riding

Touring

Mild off-roading (gravel, two-track, etc)

Hard-core off-roading (motocross)

You'll never get a bike that can do all four, because they are essentially at cross purposes.

Your common Japanese dual-sport is just okay in town, and just okay at mild off-roading.

However, the BMW can do 3 of the 4 (you'll not fare well motocrossing on one!) pretty gosh darn well, and with reliability and durability.

According to her, the BMW was expensive, but not when you consider that it is essentially three bikes in one.

bravenrace, I will attempt to answer your question to the best of my experience as a bike guy.

People seem to like BMWs because they are one of the few bikes that can do hundreds of thousands of miles without SERIOUS maintenance. In the heyday of the R-series (the older kind you are talking about) virtually any other bike would have either broken something major or needed a full engine teardown to break 50k, for example my '73 Honda that threw its cam chain at 36k despite proper maintenance. The BMW was a rugged design, with a military contract in its DNA, and perhaps their reputation precedes them as the most absolute utilitarian of motorcycles (well, maybe Ural beats them there). The build quality is excellent compared to virtually any other motorcycle year for year (up until the great equalization of the 90's, anyways) and they seem like pretty much the only way to own a cool old Euro cycle without getting in bed with the Italians. Dudes ride them day-in, day-out 365 days a year. They are just like British roadster purists, those older guys with hats in MGBs that are meticulous about originality and all of that. Sure, a Miata is a better car than an MGB, but it's an experience thing. Reliability-wise, BMW seems to be the diesel Mercedes of motorcycles. That is actually a pretty good analogy in general. BMWs are like the diesel Mercedes of motorcycles. They are not for everybody but there is a certain type of person that is just PERFECT for them.

You also seem to be making the assumption that all old BMW bikes are inherently lame looking. Not only that, but your "I don't think one I saw looks cool so BMWs are universally ugly bikes" argument is ridiculously empty.

bravenrace wrote: . No, this is the guy you've all see on the older style touring bike (sorry, no up on the model designations) with the flat engine. He sits bolt upright on the bike, has the hard case saddle bags, and is wearing a day-glo jacket for safety. Now, there's nothing wrong with any of this, but I just don't get the appeal. Paleez Esplane!

So the guy cares about having a good bike that's great to ride distances on, and is reliable, and has every feature you could possibly want. And he wants to not die.

As opposed to the "harley rider" mentioned, who probably fixes his bike as much as he rides it, probably has straight pipes to sound extra cool, probably is sore after riding for 4 hours, probably wears a leather vest even though he's not in any kind of "biker club," and is probably like every midlife-crisis guy here in the suburbs who has a Harley just to prove that they're still "young" or "cool" or "badass." That and most harleys are heavy, fuel-guzzling, not terribly fast (for a bike), etc.

I personally have never "gotten" the Harley appeal. Most guys I see on them are just well-off suburban posers who drive an Audi A8 to work, and ride the Harley on the weekend.

(granted, that is a generalization based on this area, not on ALL Harley riders).

One other note: a buddy of mine rides a Ducati Monster. Most people when they see the bike parked think it's a lean-over crotch rocket where the rider is bent way forward. Nope. The Monster is more of a sit-upright rider. It looks a bit "dorky" when you're riding it, but is a really cool bike to ride.

Very unreliable though, lol.

irish44j wrote: One other note: a buddy of mine rides a Ducati Monster. Most people when they see the bike parked think it's a lean-over crotch rocket where the rider is bent way forward. Nope. The Monster is more of a sit-upright rider. It looks a bit "dorky" when you're riding it, but is a really cool bike to ride. Very unreliable though, lol.

I'd love a Monster, but Ducati's unreliability is legendary. I touched on this a bit above: you pretty much end up with a BMW if you want an older Euro bike you can actually ride. Otherwise, you're on something Italian or British, which...well...I don't even have to say it.

EvanR wrote: My MSF instructor last summer rode a BMW. I asked her about it, and she was very passionate, and chewed my ear off. Paraphrasing here... Virtually any dedicated machine is better than a multipurpose one. A good pair of pliers will always be better than the pliers in a Leatherman, for example. Motorcycles can do essentially four tasks: Commuting/in-town riding Touring Mild off-roading (gravel, two-track, etc) Hard-core off-roading (motocross) You'll never get a bike that can do all four, because they are essentially at cross purposes. Your common Japanese dual-sport is just okay in town, and just okay at mild off-roading. However, the BMW can do 3 of the 4 (you'll not fare well motocrossing on one!) pretty gosh darn well, and with reliability and durability. According to her, the BMW was expensive, but not when you consider that it is essentially three bikes in one.

I would state that modern dual sport bikes easily do 3 of these things probably much more effectively than any BMW does 3 of these things. The only thing a modern dual sport does not do that well is cruise at 70+ mph on the highway for extended periods mainly due to wind protection. I still put 16,000 miles on my WR250R in a couple years with a 60mile highway commute. A modern dual sport sits high so is much better at squeezing through traffic and giving the rider the ability to see what is going on around them. It doesnt have much that will break if you drop it. The single cylinder engines tend to have a lot of grunt at low RPMs and it will go offroad places you would never attempt to take a GS. They just won't carry lots of gear and lots of fuel for going long distances comfortably

SlickDizzy wrote: bravenrace, I will attempt to answer your question to the best of my experience as a bike guy. People seem to like BMWs because they are one of the few bikes that can do hundreds of thousands of miles without SERIOUS maintenance. In the heyday of the R-series (the older kind you are talking about) virtually any other bike would have either broken something major or needed a full engine teardown to break 50k, for example my '73 Honda that threw its cam chain at 36k despite proper maintenance. The BMW was a rugged design, with a military contract in its DNA, and perhaps their reputation precedes them as the most absolute utilitarian of motorcycles (well, maybe Ural beats them there). The build quality is excellent compared to virtually any other motorcycle year for year (up until the great equalization of the 90's, anyways) and they seem like pretty much the only way to own a cool old Euro cycle without getting in bed with the Italians. Dudes ride them day-in, day-out 365 days a year. They are just like British roadster purists, those older guys with hats in MGBs that are meticulous about originality and all of that. Sure, a Miata is a better car than an MGB, but it's an experience thing. Reliability-wise, BMW seems to be the diesel Mercedes of motorcycles. That is actually a pretty good analogy in general. BMWs are like the diesel Mercedes of motorcycles. They are not for everybody but there is a certain type of person that is just PERFECT for them. You also seem to be making the assumption that all old BMW bikes are inherently lame looking. Not only that, but your "I don't think one I saw looks cool so BMWs are universally ugly bikes" argument is ridiculously empty.

That was exactly the answer I was looking for, right up to the last paragraph. If I said I thought all BMW motorcycles were ugly, I didn't intend to. I don't think I even said that the one I saw this morning was ugly. Honestly, the guy on it didn't look comfortable at all, and that, along with the saddle bags that looked like they had a lift kit of their own, I just found myself wondering what the appeal was, and you and a couple others here that didn't obsess on the Harley comparison answered that question. Thanks. BTW, a funny little side note - I thought this would be a fun, light hearted thread. Boy did I blow it!

Have you ridden a motorcycle?

In my experience, an upright riding position like the BMW is much more comfortable than the position on a cruiser.

bravenrace wrote: That was exactly the answer I was looking for, right up to the last paragraph. If I said I thought all BMW motorcycles were ugly, I didn't intend to. I don't think I even said that the one I saw this morning was ugly. Honestly, the guy on it didn't look comfortable at all, and that, along with the saddle bags that looked like they had a lift kit of their own, I just found myself wondering what the appeal was, and you and a couple others here that didn't obsess on the Harley comparison answered that question. Thanks. BTW, a funny little side note - I thought this would be a fun, light hearted thread. Boy did I blow it!

No prob - the general flow of your comments seemed to indicate that you found the BMW unpleasant visually in some way, my apologies for making that assumption.

SlickDizzy wrote:

irish44j wrote: One other note: a buddy of mine rides a Ducati Monster. Most people when they see the bike parked think it's a lean-over crotch rocket where the rider is bent way forward. Nope. The Monster is more of a sit-upright rider. It looks a bit "dorky" when you're riding it, but is a really cool bike to ride. Very unreliable though, lol.

I'd love a Monster, but Ducati's unreliability is legendary. I touched on this a bit above: you pretty much end up with a BMW if you want an older Euro bike you can actually ride. Otherwise, you're on something Italian or British, which...well...I don't even have to say it.

He commutes on the Monster (from Arlington into Washington DC), but sitting in his garage is a low-mileage 1990-something Accord in mint condition, which he uses periodically when the Ducati is broken, or when its snowing...ol.

In reply to EvanB:

Yes, many. It wasn't that he was upright, he just didn't look comfortable. He may have actually been very comfortable, but to me he didn't look it.

My actual biggest reservation about the standard Harley riding position is I feel like you would be at a disadvantage in regards to bike control in a bad situation. You can't really move your weight around much with your feet out in front of you. But I started out by riding dirt and being used to the bike moving around a lot

EvanR wrote: My MSF instructor last summer rode a BMW. I asked her about it, and she was very passionate, and chewed my ear off. Paraphrasing here... Virtually any dedicated machine is better than a multipurpose one. A good pair of pliers will always be better than the pliers in a Leatherman, for example. Motorcycles can do essentially four tasks: Commuting/in-town riding Touring Mild off-roading (gravel, two-track, etc) Hard-core off-roading (motocross) You'll never get a bike that can do all four, because they are essentially at cross purposes. Your common Japanese dual-sport is just okay in town, and just okay at mild off-roading. However, the BMW can do 3 of the 4 (you'll not fare well motocrossing on one!) pretty gosh darn well, and with reliability and durability. According to her, the BMW was expensive, but not when you consider that it is essentially three bikes in one.

You left out a very important category. It involves going racing.

rotard wrote:

EvanR wrote: My MSF instructor last summer rode a BMW. I asked her about it, and she was very passionate, and chewed my ear off. Paraphrasing here... Virtually any dedicated machine is better than a multipurpose one. A good pair of pliers will always be better than the pliers in a Leatherman, for example. Motorcycles can do essentially four tasks: Commuting/in-town riding Touring Mild off-roading (gravel, two-track, etc) Hard-core off-roading (motocross) You'll never get a bike that can do all four, because they are essentially at cross purposes. Your common Japanese dual-sport is just okay in town, and just okay at mild off-roading. However, the BMW can do 3 of the 4 (you'll not fare well motocrossing on one!) pretty gosh darn well, and with reliability and durability. According to her, the BMW was expensive, but not when you consider that it is essentially three bikes in one.

You left out a very important category. It involves going racing.

BMW can do that.

Some people forget that BMW has sport bikes and cruisers.

I was wondering why it wasn't mentioned, since it's what motivates a ton of sales and BMW happens to make one of the fastest production bikes around.

Anti-stance wrote: Some people forget that BMW has sport bikes and cruisers.

some minds might be blown when they see the r1200c

bravenrace wrote: I just noticed that the guy on the Harley looked cool

You noticed wrong

In reply to Cotton:

I'm trying to say that this guy;

He's going to have a lot better time spending days on the road, dodging traffic and bad weather and poor road quality and all that, compard to this guy;