Do you ever think about...

[RocketDaryl]

...how large motorcycles have become over the years. We're now to the point where a 1500-1600 cc bike is considered "mid-size". At what point did cars and motorcycles cross paths while traveling in opposite directions. Cars have gotten smaller over the years. I remember my first street bike. It was a Honda CB 750 and I remember thinking what a beast it was. That big old 4 laid off in there was a menacing sight. It sounded great and was a pretty good screamer at the time. The Kawasaki KZ 900 was another wicked beast, more so than the CB.

Now days Triumph has the Bonny, a 900 cc (865, to be exact) bike that's essentially the same size as those old classics mentioned above and yet folks, including myself, will refer to them as "nice little bikes". And frankly, that's how they feel. Hopping off a modern cruiser and onto something like the Bonny makes you feel like you just got on a toy. That's certainly not the case, but just how it feels, at least that's how I am.

That said, I'm a firm believer that while it's fine to like and own larger bikes (I'm guilty), a simple bike like the Bonny is all the motorcycle anyone *needs*. I've often listened or read curiously the answers given to a newby's questions about what kind/size of bike they should get, etc... The style of bike should certainly be taken into consideration, but some of the answers I hear with regards to size is just nonsense. I wish I had a nickel for everytime someone says "Oh, I wouldn't get anything less than 1500 cc. The 750s, etc... aren't good for trips". I don't know, maybe I'm different, but I wouldn't hesitate to strap a bag on a Bonny and take off somewhere.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting/owning larger bikes (I do, and obviously everyone in this forum does). I think I have to take exception with someone saying a larger bike is a "requirement", however. I'm just not going to drink that Kool-Aid.

 

[Bobby K]

I agree! Before I got my Rocket, I was happy on my TBird for 13 years. The 900 Tbird is a whole lot more fun to ride around town, or the country roads. 300 pounds lighter, much more flickable, and sings a beautiful song from the D&D 3 into 3 pipes. But out on the highway, 4200 RPMs at 60 MPH is a little on the busy side.
That said, I'm addicted to the power and comfort of my Rocket....

 

[snuffcityrider]

I remember when an Uncle of mine got a 1200 Harley sometime in the early 70's I think it was. Man what a "big" bike that was. He took it to Colorado from Texas several times with not much more than a sleeping bag tied to the handle bars. When my dad got a Honda 350 Street Scrambler in 69 "it" was a "big" bike. Come to think of it, I have just as much fun on my 600cc Triumph as I do the Rocket. I just wouldn't want to ride it to Wyoming like I did the Roc last summer.

 

[Wetrudgeon]

We agree that it is evident that perspectives have changed.

Snuffy, we remember our first ride on a Honda CL 350. It seemed a big powerful bike. And we vividly remember our first encounter with a Honda CB750. The thing was making 80 hp! Awesome. We had a friend who rode all over the western US on a Suzuki 380 triple. That two stroke motor had a whine that was very appealing. And when Honda trotted out the first Gold Wing, it seemed that we had reached the zenith of big, cross country motorcycles.

In that era, it was not preferable to own any automobile equipped with a lowly V-6 motor. Not enough power. The first Nissan (they were "Datson's" then) and Toyota pick up trucks with their little "sowing machine" motors seemed like toys. The first Honda Civic was was powered by a 1100cc "motor" and was approximately the same length overall as the hood of a 1970 Cadillac El Dorado.

But that was then; and times have changed. Bless us, we now think of a Sportster as a "little" motorbike; and cars with V-6 motors displacing 2.5 liters or more are "big." There are three cars and a motorcycle on our place; and the Beast has the 2nd largest displacement of the four vehicles.

In once sense, we agree with Daryl that a 500-750 bike is all most riders "need." However, in another we must observe that displacement "cc's" in motorcycles are like $100 bills: One simply cannot have too many of them!!

We trudge on (adequately displaced).

 

[Ugarte]

If it wasn't for cross winds and truck turbulence I probably wouldn't even own a cruiser, the KLR 650 would be fine for just about everything. Plus you sit up high and can see more. You can also go up and down curbs and off road, and its about a simple as a bike gets.

But, I hate fighting cross winds and on a KLR there is a lot of fighting to do. One of the great joys of the Rocket is to blast past other riders holding on for dear life in crosswinds or headwinds. The way I see it, if I have to have the weight I want a lot of power to go with it. Currently the Rocket best fits that job.

 

[TxRIIIRider]

I too like the weight of the Rocket on trips and in cross winds. I also have a lot of time on a Triumph Trophy 1200. That bike is great for touring except for one thing. It's got the body work of a kite.. and it weighs about the same as one as well. It's always a fight taking that thing into cross winds.. The Rocket just trudges on through.. My head might be blown around a bit, but the bike just tracks right on through as if there were no cross wind..


and yes, I remember the CB 750 being a huge bike.. the Suzuki Water Buffalo and the Kawasaki widow maker 750s! The freakin' power those things had!!!!! 1000cc Sportsters.. 1200cc big twins.. 1200cc!!!! Honda CBX.. 6 cylinders!! Kawasaki KZ 1300.. 6 cylinders AND 1300CC!!..

 

[RocketDaryl]

My Tiger does OK in crosswinds, but I'm with you in terms of the heavier bikes cutting through them better. My Thunderbird is heavy enough (730 lbs) that crosswinds don't phase it. Like Ugarte, however, I love traveling on my Tiger. It's comfortable, it sits high (can see over most cars), it has great ergos and has ample storage.

 

[Jamie]

My '67 650cc BSA Spitfire (a BIG bike in the sixties) weighed 172 kilos and produced 52 BHP.

My "naked" Dec. '09 1700cc Triumph T'Bird weighs twice as much (and has less than twice the power).

Go figure!

Granted, such amenities as electric starters, turn signals, radiators , catalysts (?), etc. have contributed to the extra bulk.

But, apart from them, aren't our "cruisers" just getting a BIT TOO FAT ?

Jamie

 

[RocketDaryl]

My '67 650cc BSA Spitfire (a BIG bike in the sixties) weighed 172 kilos and produced 52 BHP.

My "naked" Dec. '09 1700cc Triumph T'Bird weighs twice as much (and has less than twice the power).

Go figure!

Granted, such amenities as electric starters, turn signals, radiators , catalysts (?), etc. have contributed to the extra bulk.

But, apart from them, aren't our "cruisers" just getting a BIT TOO FAT ?

Jamie

Yes, cruisers in particular aren't just getting larger displacement engines. The mere size of the bikes themselves is getting pretty porky. Take your T-Bird (I have one too) and set it next to a Bonny. It's massive in comparison.

 

[britman]

Size Doesn't Matter

My Rocket will gone for a couple of days for a new dyno tune for the PCIII, which is another story. In the mean time I am on the Scrambler. With only 865 cc and the 270 degree crank there is no comparison to the FBG as far as speed, but the fun to ride factor is equal to the Rocket any day. The bike is light, sits high, and you can wind it forever and it just begs for more. I even had out and on a few back trails this past weekend and that brought back a few memories of the Honda Scramblers I had in my youth. This bike would have been king of the mountain back in the early 60's and you guys are right, now it is considered small. Next time you are around a dealership, take a test ride. You may be surprised.