From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Dealer won't budge on '91 ST1100
Originator: crawford@boole.mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:10:55 GMT


In article <1993Jan11.172631.24019@osf.org>, jsm@rosencrantz.osf.org (John S. Morris) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.150155.24990@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
> [much detail about the K1 deleted]
> 
> You seem to be arguing about the K1's abilities. No argument that the K1 
> missed the boat (and had terrible graphics ta boot!). My point was in 
> response to:
> 
> >> >Harley, BMW and Ducati have developed styles of their own over the years.
> >> >Now they are enslaved to them.  None can (or would) adapt to the technical
> 
> pointing out that BMW is by no means "enslaved" to their past. They leverage
> their past. 

As does every manufacturer.  Otherwise each must reinvent the wheel. 

>
> If you stop by the BMW museum you'll see all the BMW technology
> "firsts", like ABS, the cat, etc. Innovative engineering and style is high 
> on the BMW agenda. They just don't change things for change's sake. Even the 
> Bimmers adhere to that philosophy. They might not be tops in HP (and in fact 
> the Lexus' do have more HP), but they're damn fun to drive and now they're
> recylcable!

I have no inherent ill feelings toward BMWs.  But I don't believe anyone buys
them for their advanced technology (aside from ABS perhaps).  It's my opinion
that BMW has made numerous design decisions in recent years which placed form
before function -- style over performance.  If any of the R100RS/K100RS/K1
bikes really generates 100 HP, I'd be surprised.  I see Beemers as the
trappings of conservative riders whose priorities are not in performance or
in the latest technology.  I see that as a personal emphasis of style/character.

I think there has been a conscious decision by BMW, Harley, Ducati, Moto Guzzi, 
and others to design more for style than do the japanese manufacturers.  Not
in all cases are the makers bound to tradition, but many could not sell radically
redesigned models because their marketplace wouldn't hear of it.

The same is untrue of the japanese.  They produce bikes for all niches of the
cycle market, and could adopt a new fashion or design at the drop of a hat.
However, the one thing they could not do is underdesign for performance or
reliability, the way that other more stylized makes have done for years.
The marketplace does not regard Kawasakis/Hondas/Suzukis/Yamahas as having
a distinctive style of their own.  Therefore the machines must compensate
by offering other goodies -- lower prices, greater performance, high reliability.
Distinctly un-character, un-personality building traits.

It's this difference between the japanese and other marques that personifies
the original point I tried to make, that some bikes definitely have character.
 
> 
> >:-)  `Piddling 58 hp' isn't a great way to convince _this_ reader of BMW's
> >conviction to keep up with the Joneses.  And that's just what it takes.
>
> You missed the sarcasm and the point. The point was you don't *need* lots
> of horsepower to have fun. Unless you're a bench-rider. The ZX-11 (here
> come the flames!) is designed to maximize power and speed. And I understand
> from reading a service bulletin that the frist two years' tranny has a 
> difficult time handling the power (second gear alignment problems). The 
> Beemer's are conservatively built such that they should never suffer a 
> serious engine failure from stress. And my point about the Luft turbo -
> people add turbo's to K bikes producing incredible hp (why people do this I
> don't know) without any internal mods but the clutch. How many other engines
> can take such stress? My bottom line - BMW "keeps up" on a different level.

It wasn't my intent to denigrate BMWs because they lack HP.  However, you're
the first person I ever met who was _happy_ his bike had only 58 HP.
(Oh NO!!!  They've upped the power this year!!!  DAMN.)

I'm aware that HP doesn't guarantee a good time on the road or the trail.
But why would anyone prefer to spend $9000 and get less HP (and torque)
than could be available?  The very fact that BMW riders talk of adding 
expensive (and usually peaky) turbos to their already very expensive
machines says little for the comparative advantage of buying less bike
than you really want, but spending more for it.  That doesn't sound
entirely logical to me.  It sounds very much like a matter of taste.

> 
> >Why would anyone prefer less power or poorer handling or less reliability
> >(not a BMW issue) when more is available?  Why spend those hard earned bucks
>
> There's very little competition for the GS or PD in the States. There used to 
> be the Transalp and now there's the TDM and the Guzzi. 

Not really true.  Both Kawasaki and Honda currently have fielded 650s which 
are direct competitors to the GS.  (I'll bet they're both _much_ less expensive
and at least as fast/fun/capable as the GS. :-) ) 

> The K100 has lots of
> competition in the Concours, the ST1100 and now the GTS1000, however the
> Beemer adheres to the 100HP limit because it's primary market is Germany
> and most K100RS riders are not clamoring for more HP - they just want
> that buzz to be fixed. 8-) I've never met a K rider who says, "yup it's
> a real nice bike, but I wish it would go 17 MPH faster to 157MPH like that 
> ZX11!" 

Then all that talk about turbos earlier was related to something else?
Lawnmowers?

> or "I wish I could lop a second or two off my 1/4 mile times for
> those trips to the bank". So why do people buy the Kawi's or Honda's? Either 
> because they're cheaper or faster. If it's the faster reason - I suspect it's 
> because people lean more towards sport riding that the target BMW touring 
> audience. Check out the Iron Butt riders - they're on BMW's or Wings.

With my 900 Ninja having cost $2500 (used) and a comparable used R100RS 
costing 2-3 times as much, I'd say a _lot_ of people buy the japanese bikes 
because of cost.  I'd love to have a R100RS or a FXRS-Sp.  Also.

> 
> >and then place your life in the hands of a bike which will (relatively
> >speaking) bore you or fail to protect your arse to the best of modern 
> >technology's ability?  That isn't logical. So it must be emotional.
>
> I've never heard someone describe the GS as boring - either on the net
> or in the press. In fact Cycle World and Motorcyclist have both said the 
> GS may be the best all-round bike anyone makes. (And that's with the 
> "piddling" hp!) However there's no argument that my buying a GS was emotional.
> I just can't buy that it can't have logic for some folk.

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the Beemers are but one example
of bikes with character or personality, and that choosing to spend several
times the bucks on a bike whose performance is seldom superior to its
japanese competitors shows that people often choose bikes because they
recognize that character and are willing to spend a lot of money on it.

> 
> >It's that trade-off between logic and emotion (and income) that dictates 
> >the bike each of us rides.  Because the Beemers are not the lightning-fast, 
> >great handling, inexpensive rides they could be, many of us will not buy them.
> >Those who do must do so because they place greater value on other measures.
> >It's my contention that those other measures are style or character.
>
> This is true when you discard ill-founded rationales, sentimentality and 
> hyperbole.

I think that's exactly what style is -- illogical.  But who rides motorcycles
for rational, unsentimental, pragmatic reasons?  I sure don't.
-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles