Posted by Blazing Laser on February 6, 2007, 2:58 am
Ridiculous. The Gold Wing is already way too big. (Flame away!)
Legend has it that BMW worked on a water-cooled flat for for several
years to replace the beloved and long-lived airhead, but dumped the
project when Honda beat them to market with the Gold Wing because they
didn't want people to think Honda thought of it first. Any truth to
that?
Posted by B. Peg on February 6, 2007, 2:03 pm
< Blazing Laser> wrote:
> Ridiculous. The Gold Wing is already way too big. (Flame away!)
> Legend has it that BMW worked on a water-cooled flat for for several
> years to replace the beloved and long-lived airhead, but dumped the
> project when Honda beat them to market with the Gold Wing because they
> didn't want people to think Honda thought of it first. Any truth to
> that?
Don't know, but it's interesting BMW added the automatic transmission to
this design before Honda.
I'm not a fan of the Wing either (too much bloat), but I doubt this BMW will
have that big of a following beyond BMW's First Gen "Must Have" groupies.
When bikes get this big, they need to consider tip-overs done by old coots
and minimize the bike's damage (i.e. an air bag for the bike). BMW costs
$$$ when they fall down and go Boom.
B~
Posted by Timberwoof on February 6, 2007, 11:01 am
In article
> < Blazing Laser> wrote:
> > Ridiculous. The Gold Wing is already way too big. (Flame away!)
> >
> > Legend has it that BMW worked on a water-cooled flat for for several
> > years to replace the beloved and long-lived airhead, but dumped the
> > project when Honda beat them to market with the Gold Wing because they
> > didn't want people to think Honda thought of it first. Any truth to
> > that?
Never heard that rumor, but then I wasn't paying attention at the time.
> Don't know, but it's interesting BMW added the automatic transmission to
> this design before Honda.
>
> I'm not a fan of the Wing either (too much bloat), but I doubt this BMW will
> have that big of a following beyond BMW's First Gen "Must Have" groupies.
>
> When bikes get this big, they need to consider tip-overs done by old coots
> and minimize the bike's damage (i.e. an air bag for the bike). BMW costs
> $$$ when they fall down and go Boom.
It depends on the particular BMW. Indeed, the big K-LTs have rubber baby
buggy bumpers that make them lean up a bit and be easier to pick up.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
Posted by Blazing Laser on February 6, 2007, 7:26 pm
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:01:51 -0800, Timberwoof
>It depends on the particular BMW. Indeed, the big K-LTs have rubber baby
>buggy bumpers that make them lean up a bit and be easier to pick up.
My ST1100 has these and they have saved me a lot of money! I think
GWs have them too. But it's sad to see that the arms race in bikes
these days seems to be to make the biggest, not the fastest. This is
the same philosophy that brings you1800cc V-twin cruisers, and that
3-cylinder beast from Triumph.
You know what else? The GW has this bucket seat in the back, it looks
like a Lazy-boy, and it ruins the look of the bike. I have always had
the theory that this is deliberately put there to make it easier to
sell to the Mrs. "Look," Mr. Gotta-Have-It says to Mrs.
Not-Quite-Sure, "Look at that comfortable seat back there where you
get to ride! It's got arm-rests, it's own stereo speakers, seatbelts,
why you could fall asleep back there!" The Beemer has that same
feature, a little throne on the back.
Posted by Michael R. Kesti on February 6, 2007, 6:24 pm
Blazing, Laser wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:01:51 -0800, Timberwoof
>>It depends on the particular BMW. Indeed, the big K-LTs have rubber baby
>>buggy bumpers that make them lean up a bit and be easier to pick up.
>My ST1100 has these and they have saved me a lot of money! I think
>GWs have them too. But it's sad to see that the arms race in bikes
>these days seems to be to make the biggest, not the fastest. This is
>the same philosophy that brings you1800cc V-twin cruisers, and that
>3-cylinder beast from Triumph.
>You know what else? The GW has this bucket seat in the back, it looks
>like a Lazy-boy, and it ruins the look of the bike. I have always had
>the theory that this is deliberately put there to make it easier to
>sell to the Mrs. "Look," Mr. Gotta-Have-It says to Mrs.
>Not-Quite-Sure, "Look at that comfortable seat back there where you
>get to ride! It's got arm-rests, it's own stereo speakers, seatbelts,
>why you could fall asleep back there!" The Beemer has that same
>feature, a little throne on the back.
Why the fuck does any of this matter to you? There are markets for these
bikes and the manufacturers in those markets are providing what their
customers want, but nobody is forcing you to buy those bikes. Does
your head so closely resemble a pin that you believe that fastest can
be the only motorcycling goal? Does it in any way chafe your ass that
comfortable seats make riding comfortable for wives and couples can
therefore enjoy M/C touring? Or are you just another stupid prick?
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
XML Sitemap
> Legend has it that BMW worked on a water-cooled flat for for several
> years to replace the beloved and long-lived airhead, but dumped the
> project when Honda beat them to market with the Gold Wing because they
> didn't want people to think Honda thought of it first. Any truth to
> that?