What creates a vehicle's 'soul' or 'character'?

[Rockburner]

Just an idle musing on a blurry mid-week morning: What do you think creates a car or bike's character: that element or elements that, when combined, mean that the thing has more meaning to you than the previous or next one?

Is it a combination of good characteristics mixed with the occasional flaw that you can live with? Is it the memories that you have created involving that car/bike?

What works for you?

I think for me the main things that make me think a bike has character are the way it rides, even though it may not be perfect - the good elements outweighing the bad, and the bad elements providing something to gain satisfaction from working around. Visually I like to see the engineering, the cleverer it is, the better.

[Horse]

Is it a combination of good characteristics mixed with the occasional flaw that you can live with?

I think for me the main things that make me think a bike has character are the way it rides, even though it may not be perfect - the good elements outweighing the bad, and the bad elements providing something to gain satisfaction from working around. Visually I like to see the engineering, the cleverer it is, the better.

Contrast your (& The Priest's) mega-bonkers K bike with an MZ TS250. Both have character in spades, both are a hoot to ride, but clever engineering? Only one winner there!

I'm probably not best-placed for this thread After smaller bikes, CX500, Guzzi, then seven BMWs However, along the way I was able to get loans, from minutes to months, of umpteen bikes from Wing to Z1300, MZ125 & 250, CBR, VFR & 916. And that showed me that 'character' is both a virtue and a challenge - there are often times when 'bland' is a bonus.

[weeksy]

Hmmmm there's a question. For me these days it comes down to it being better than the sum of it's parts. The character of it is from the performance and ability to be more of a bike than it should, hence me liking the XT660s and KTM 690s.... and now of course the MT07. All of them should be getting destroyed on every ride, but for me, they're still bikes you can thrash, throttle stop and pin everywhere... Even though you'll still break speed limits, you won't completely destroy the limits.
I've made a lot of awesome memories with some bikes, but for some reason, none have stayed a long time. Part of this is down to me more than them, I don't really do emotional attachment with 'things' but part of me would really like to.

[Hairybiker84]

Very difficult to define - I've had 2 MZ's both had lots of character and very efficient, commuted on both and pretty much just had to put petrol in. I've also had 2 Hayabusa's so efficient and effortless but very different in character. And as for a CBR1000F I rode, the most bland characterless thing ever!
Most bikes do what they are supposed to, I don't like something overly complicated just for the sake of it (like most of the BMW's I've owned/ridden) - especially when it ultimately causes issues. For me a bike has to be 'engaging', quite what that is however, who knows?

[KungFooBob]

My Enfield B5 has the most character of any bike I've owned.

If by character you mean...

It's very very loud
It's looks different to most bikes
It has interesting handling and the brakes hardly work
It's got an odd occasional mis-fire
You don't know which bit is going to vibrate loose next
You can't ride it anywhere without people staring at you

It's the best bike in the world.

Unless you want to get somewhere fast.

Gratuitous pic whore that I am...

[Count Steer]

Limited experience really but the most characterful bikes I've had were a Panther 650 and my R1150GS. Preferred the 1150 engine to the 1200 although by most measures the 1200 was better. Loved the K1200 engine but, while it had power and smooth delivery I'd still have my GS back rather than the K12. It was a big, slightly dim, not too handsome but willing chum that you could rely on in any situation, could do things that a lump that size shouldn't. Being bright yellow was nice too. I called it Rommel, 'cos it rolled across Europe quite freely. (Still rolling according to DVLA records, 50k miles). *sniffle*

[Numnut]

I think my most characterful bike was a 2001 FireBlade - I'm not completely sure why though - It was my first sportsbike and I did a couple of trackdays on it, and about 30k miles in 3 years going to Scotland, France and the Lakes. Maybe it's the memories. I didn't find it bland or boring to ride, it felt pretty raw to me, certainly compared to newer bikes I've had since anyway. The 5vy R1 was the same. I guess quite noisy, not particularly refined and fun.

[Horse]

For me a bike has to be 'engaging', quite what that is however, who knows?

Facilitate, not obstruct.

I've enjoyed riding almost every bike that I've been on (dishonourable mention for my sister's Honda 50 as an exception).

They might all have limitations - comfort, performance, handling - but the enjoyment decreases, or ends, when simply riding them becomes a challenge, difficult. I've never ridden a very old bike (was promised a loan for the Pioneer run, but it never quite happened), and I guess the 'challenge' of different control requirements there is part of the experience. In the same way that, in 20 years time, many riders will ask "Gears? Really, how odd".

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Isn't "character" another way of saying "a bit shit"?

[Rockburner]

Is it a combination of good characteristics mixed with the occasional flaw that you can live with?

I think for me the main things that make me think a bike has character are the way it rides, even though it may not be perfect - the good elements outweighing the bad, and the bad elements providing something to gain satisfaction from working around. Visually I like to see the engineering, the cleverer it is, the better.

Contrast your (& The Priest's) mega-bonkers K bike with an MZ TS250. Both have character in spades, both are a hoot to ride, but clever engineering? Only one winner there!

I'd disagree (and I've owned a TS250 in the past), the 2-stroke exhaust tuning that Walter Kaaden developed for MZ was incredibly clever for the day. (and used on the TS)

I'm probably not best-placed for this thread After smaller bikes, CX500, Guzzi, then seven BMWs However, along the way I was able to get loans, from minutes to months, of umpteen bikes from Wing to Z1300, MZ125 & 250, CBR, VFR & 916. And that showed me that 'character' is both a virtue and a challenge - there are often times when 'bland' is a bonus.

Possibly, but even bland can be a type of character.

[Rockburner]

For me a bike has to be 'engaging', quite what that is however, who knows?

I'd imagine that what makes a bike 'engaging' is different for each person, but is a large part of what makes a bike characterful for them, and not for someone else?

[Rockburner]

Isn't "character" another way of saying "a bit shit"?

For some people, yes, but for others the satisfaction of riding around a bikes "less than desirable" traits is what makes a ride or a bike fun and engaging and characterful.

Having had the superior power/handling/performance etc of the K1200R, I actually far prefer riding the slower/lumpier Rockster simply because I'm more engaged in the ride at every second, it's more of an experience to have to concentrate on keeping up the momentum, get the gear changes right, turn in with more accuracy; than it was on the K: on which if you cock up a corner and come out slower than usual, you can just lazily roll on the torque and get back up to cruising speed. Riding the Rockster compared to the K means I have to ride 'better' to make the same progress, and that's satisfying to get right.

[MrLongbeard]

Potato, potato

[Trinity765]

I've never had those feelings for a vehicle and I've not only had Triumphs!

[Dickyboy]

Really miss my Guzzi Centauro, it was a very striking looking bike that stood out from the crowd, had some decent kit on it and when it was running right taking it to the albeit low red line gave me a buzz, problem was there was so much that could go wrong with it that eventually riding it when it frequently wasn't running right became a chore.

[Horse]

Visually I like to see the engineering, the cleverer it is, the better.

Contrast your (& The Priest's) mega-bonkers K bike with an MZ TS250. Both have character in spades, both are a hoot to ride, but clever engineering? Only one winner there!

the 2-stroke exhaust tuning that Walter Kaaden developed for MZ was incredibly clever for the day.

Can't really see it though

Didn't some of the bloc engineers get snaffled by the Japanese companies?

even bland can be a type of character.

I'm nicking that for my sig

[Skub]

Isn't "character" another way of saying "a bit shit"?

It can be,but then to further muddy the waters,character and soul are two separate things.

A bike with character could be one which is a joy to ride when it goes,but prone to being temperamental. Depending on individual experience,there is a tipping point when the reliability issues outweigh the 'joy to ride' part. Then the bike goes from being a character to being a POS. With passing years,nostalgia can often change this around again,back to being a character and a joy to ride.

Soul is very much an individual opinion. It's often heard opined that big twins configurations such as Ducati,Guzzi etc have soul,while (whilst,for CS) in line fours are soul free sewing machines. On this basis,soul is impossible to accurately define,though there are some bikes widely agreed upon by all sides. For me,a lot of big Kawasakis possess this elusive quality,be it the airbox howl,or a performance thing,I don't know,but quite often they hit the mark of 'soul'.

Weeksy maybe summed it up well,by saying it's a bike that is greater than the sum of it's parts,nothing special in the configuration of those parts,just a magic recipe. How often have we seen this in the music world,where a collection of folk create wonderful music,yet individually none of them are better than ordinary.

One thing is certain,when you happen upon a bike with either character or soul,you'll know.

[Count Steer]

Isn't "character" another way of saying "a bit shit"?

Soul is very much an individual opinion. It's often heard opined that big twins configurations such as Ducati,Guzzi etc have soul,while (whilst,for CS) in line fours are soul free sewing machines.....

Weeksy maybe summed it up well,by saying it's a bike that is greater than the sum of it's parts,nothing special in the configuration of those parts,just a magic recipe....

Wot? Eh? Who, me? I never said that. I loved the (new) K12 engine (had the old 'brick' version too and didn't think much of that one). I just preferred the GS as it was, as you say, 'just a magic recipe' and there may be another one on the menu. Whether it will be as magic as the old one could be interesting as the whole experience will be rather different.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It will not surprise you to know there are whole teams of people who engineer in "the soul" of a vehicle. In fact I bet there are corporate definitions written down which quantify the "Ducatiness" of a motorcycle. And if that doesn't strike you as a soulless irony I dunno what would

[Skub]

Isn't "character" another way of saying "a bit shit"?

Soul is very much an individual opinion. It's often heard opined that big twins configurations such as Ducati,Guzzi etc have soul,while (whilst,for CS) in line fours are soul free sewing machines.....

Weeksy maybe summed it up well,by saying it's a bike that is greater than the sum of it's parts,nothing special in the configuration of those parts,just a magic recipe....

Wot? Eh? Who, me? I never said that. I loved the (new) K12 engine (had the old 'brick' version too and didn't think much of that one). I just preferred the GS as it was, as you say, 'just a magic recipe' and there may be another one on the menu. Whether it will be as magic as the old one could be interesting as the whole experience will be rather different.

Does 'whilst' no longer annoy.