Genre

[Skub]

Have labels,or subdivisions harmed motorcycling,or is it just a case of having more choice?

When I started riding,nothing was pigeonholed into 'sportsbike','adventure' and so on. Punters just bought a bike and used it for whatever they wanted. I toured and commuted on my Z1,others taped up the lights and proddy raced them. An 'all rounder' was any old bike within reason.

Perhaps it's just me being old and jaded,but everything is so good in it's own niche now it feels like something vital has been lost. For me,the lust for new bikes used to be ever present and the stuff of dreams. Although bikes are better than ever,my interest trajectory is running the opposite direction. It would seem contrary to complain about improved build quality,reliability and performance and yet is it all a case of 'be careful what you wish for?

Maybe a machine doesn't need to be the best thing ever to tap into pleasure,perhaps the opposite is true? All in the head?

Musings. Indulge me.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Before 1984 bikes were road bikes or trail bikes

[MrLongbeard]

A bikes a bike is a bike, makes no odds to me, I'll chat to the youth on their peds and the old gimmers smelling of wee leafing thought the touratech catalog whilst waiting for their brew to be delivered.

Likewise when it comes to picking a bike, I couldn't give a fanny what sub genre it sits in, if it looks good and performs how I expect it'll get due consideration.

[Buckaroo]

Maybe looking through the rose tinted mist of the past, I did used to enjoy the constant tweaking and general spannering to keep the old bikes at their best.

That said, all my early bikes saw daily use; commuting and weekend trips. They were used for just about any duty. I could have cared less about what style they were.

These days I have a bike because I can't imagine life without one, get pleasure looking at it with a cuppa in hand moping around in the garage and riding when I feel like it.

And that's the thing, as I've aged, some bikes and styles I find I truly dislike, others I see as things to marvel at and lust after.

So, to answer your musing question; I have become a slave to the 'genre ' bug and am influenced by it.

Never really gave it much thought before.

[Supermofo]

The whole Genre thing is marketing depts I'm sure.

[Yorick]

It's all bollox. They call a bike with a fairing, sports bike or sports tourer.
Why not just say common sense bike?

A quick bike without a fairing is like a car without a windscreen. Waste of time.

[Cousin Jack]

Bikes are bikes. I have and will tour on a naked bike, I have even gone off road on a sports tourer.

The best bike to do stuff is the one you've got.

[Tricky]

Have labels,or subdivisions harmed motorcycling,or is it just a case of having more choice?

When I started riding,nothing was pigeonholed into 'sportsbike','adventure' and so on. Punters just bought a bike and used it for whatever they wanted. I toured and commuted on my Z1,others taped up the lights and proddy raced them. An 'all rounder' was any old bike within reason.

Perhaps it's just me being old and jaded,but everything is so good in it's own niche now it feels like something vital has been lost. For me,the lust for new bikes used to be ever present and the stuff of dreams. Although bikes are better than ever,my interest trajectory is running the opposite direction. It would seem contrary to complain about improved build quality,reliability and performance and yet is it all a case of 'be careful what you wish for?

Maybe a machine doesn't need to be the best thing ever to tap into pleasure,perhaps the opposite is true? All in the head?

Musings. Indulge me.

I think it's mainly just manufacturing has got more sophisticated, marketing departments have grown and everyything gets over-sold and sold to death.
I think there are still all-rounders, but most of us probably just don't call them that

It's all bollox. They call a bike with a fairing, sports bike or sports tourer.
Why not just say common sense bike?

A quick bike without a fairing is like a car without a windscreen. Waste of time.

Yeah, just like that eh, waste of time (says the man with massive experience of those sort of bikes )

How about quickshifters - what do you think of those?

[wull]

Have labels,or subdivisions harmed motorcycling,or is it just a case of having more choice?

When I started riding,nothing was pigeonholed into 'sportsbike','adventure' and so on. Punters just bought a bike and used it for whatever they wanted. I toured and commuted on my Z1,others taped up the lights and proddy raced them. An 'all rounder' was any old bike within reason.

Perhaps it's just me being old and jaded,but everything is so good in it's own niche now it feels like something vital has been lost. For me,the lust for new bikes used to be ever present and the stuff of dreams. Although bikes are better than ever,my interest trajectory is running the opposite direction. It would seem contrary to complain about improved build quality,reliability and performance and yet is it all a case of 'be careful what you wish for?

Maybe a machine doesn't need to be the best thing ever to tap into pleasure,perhaps the opposite is true? All in the head?

Musings. Indulge me.

I think it's mainly just manufacturing has got more sophisticated, marketing departments have grown and everyything gets over-sold and sold to death.
I think there are still all-rounders, but most of us probably just don't call them that

It's all bollox. They call a bike with a fairing, sports bike or sports tourer.
Why not just say common sense bike?

A quick bike without a fairing is like a car without a windscreen. Waste of time.

Yeah, just like that eh, waste of time (says the man with massive experience of those sort of bikes )

How about quickshifters - what do you think of those?

[mangocrazy]

Genre is a useful piece of shorthand so people know what style or type of bike you're talking about, but I wouldn't say that I use it as a tool to select bikes I might be interested in.

It's a bit chicken and egg in the sense that I couldn't ever imagine owning an Adventure genre bike, not because I dislike the genre as such, but just about all the bikes of that type are (to my eyes) 1) ugly 2) too physically big and heavy 3) their universally wide handlebars mean I couldn't fit them down the alley way in our row of terraces. The only bike of that genre that I could be interested in would be the MV Turismo Veloce 800, but that would probably fail on point 3.

The styling on the majority of current Japanese bikes leaves me underwhelmed, the only exception being those of a more retro nature. I really like the look of the Guzzi Mandello, but doubt I could find the price of entry. I can honestly say I'd never have a cruiser styled bike, so anything of that genre is discounted automatically, but not because it belongs to the cruiser genre, just because I really don't 'get' them.

For me to be interested in a bike it has to meet certain usability criteria (not too heavy, not too wide, not too ugly), so it's whether the bike in question fits my pattern of usage and looks 'nice', not whether it's of a certain genre.

[dern]

I don’t really understand the question but I suspect the answers are… more targeted marketing and you’re getting older.

[Skub]

I don’t really understand the question but I suspect the answers are… more targeted marketing and you’re getting older.

I suppose it wasn't really a question,just a musing and an idle curiosity to read other people's thoughts.

Plus yeah,the age thing.

[Taipan]

Labelling them the way they are is just descriptive and makes perfect sense to me. If someone said they had a bike whose model name I didn't recognise, I'd probably ask what type of bike it was. Getting an answer of a naked/sports/Adventure/Sports tourer etc would solve the mystery for me. Can't see there's anything wrong with that?

[Wossname]

In Olden Times, you had a bike for one of 2 reasons - you couldn't afford a car. or you were a rufty-tufty rocker. Nowadays, they are mostly "luxury" items, you've already got a car, and you use your bike as an expensive hobby, which is a completely different world. The type of hobby dictates the genre of bike. Hence - genres.

Following on from this - what/when was the first properly "faired" and successful road bike (as opposed to race machinery)? I'd suggest my own late lamented Ariel Leader, but you can't really call it successful.... Same goes for the Vincents (Black Prince/Shadow) - lovely, but small in numbers sold.

[Yorick]

First faired bikes I remember were Z1R and GS1000S

[Pirahna]

First faired bikes I remember were Z1R and GS1000S

They only had handlebar fairings. MV Agusta 750s from around 1970ish had a full fairing. Vincent Black Prince 1954.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

The first properly faired common production bikes were probably BMW RS and RTs in the 70s, the first Japanese fully faired bike is possibly the CB1100R (but it was hardly common), first full scale production Japanese full faired bike is probably the RG250 Gamma in 1983.

[Bustaspoke]

The first one's I remember were the BMW's & Honda Goldwing's

[Buckaroo]

What about the Triumph bath tub? Reverse fairing perhaps! Great for going backwards at speed.

[Whysub]

The first one's I remember were the BMW's & Honda Goldwing's

My 1976 Goldwing had no fairing