Here's what I want

A Turbine powered bike. C'mon all you XJ nerds lets get into the 21st century.

heheh

 

A classic example of having more money than brains (or taste,for that matter).

 

Throttle response on a turbine sucks.

Not much fun in the twisties.

 

FUGLY!!!!!

 

Talk to Jay Leno.

 

Not much in the way of ground clearance either. Is that the air inlet (squirrel vacuum?) right behind the front wheel?

 

wow looks like you would bottom out the forks riding over a tic tac. Motorcycles are made to be ridden, if you want something to look at and do nothing with get a sculpture.

 

Oh my............

http://www.flylyf.com/ferrari-v4-motorcycle-concept/

 

Or a trophy wife!!! :twisted:

 

i wouldnt mint taking that out on the salt flats to see what it can do.

 

no kidding! i'm game as long as nobody see's me riding it around town!

 

What do a moped and a fat chick have in common?
Both fun to ride until someone see's you.
:arrow:

 

LOL

 

Gentlemen; the first bike posted is a joke. THIS ONE, however, may very well be the motorcycle our kids are riding 20 years from now. Take a CLOSE look at it; unlike the first obomination, this could be VERY rideable. Just like a lot of concept cars it would probably shed some of its gee-gaw gadgetry before reaching the showroom but the overall concept appears sound. This is simply the logical evolution of todays tupperware rockets. Besides, I liked Tron...

chacal's posted link is a bit slow, I found more pics:

 

I just noticed the BRAKE ROTORS in the cutaway, with their covers removed. It also looks like you could power it with, say, an XJ1300 motor or even a big Ducati?

 

Fitz, I'm looking at your "Ferrari", and I'm thinking that it would be a bitch to work on! I'm also totally unable to work out how those front forks function. Thatls more likely to be a reflection on me rather than the bike, but I went on to think a bit about history.

The motorcycle was really invented in the 1920s. (To me, just about everything before that looks like a motorised bicycle, even if sometimes ludicrously overpowered.) The basic layout-diamond frame, aircooled engine mounted low in mid-frame, either girder or telescopic forks, tank straddling top frame tube, was established then, and stayed the standard for about sixty years. Sure, there were lots of additions-probably the most important was rear suspension, but the basic layout stayed pretty standard. It must have had something going for it!

My thought is: What terrible defect did earlier bikes (Including XJs) possess, that we have to go to such extraordinary lengths to eliminate? Exactly what can a modern bike do that an Egli Vincent couldn't? Sure, we've got some extra miles per hour, but where precisely can you let a Hayabusa really rip? Perhaps some better handling, but how much better? Aren't we in danger of losing sight of what motorcycling is all about, as we chase unuseable performance at the expense of simplicity and economy?

 

I like my maxim just the way it is. Get lots of compliments for the way it looks and runs. And if anything breaks down on it, I would replace it with original parts. So far it is all original.
If we change and chop them, soon we will not be able to tell our kids how we were having fun. That's why there are antique car shows and those cars worth more than some new ones.
Also there are not much improvements that we can make. For that little bit, why not just keep it the way they were made.
Now, if the previous owner chopped it up, it is ok to play with it and modify it.
But keep the originals ORIGINAL !!

 

Ross; I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I ride a "brand new" 27 year old bike. My point is that with the way bikes have been evolving, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to go from where we are today to the Ferrari-tron. I din't say I AGREE with it, just that it's probably going to happen. As for the forks, I assume they move up and down inside the vertical pieces.

Galamb; I COMPLETELY agree. Two of my three bikes are as stock as can be; the other is a "restification" being restored yet personalized, modernized and mildly customized without losing the look and feel of the original, kinda like a street rod. This discussion is more about evolution than modification.

 

Quite true indeed Fitz! Thing is, are bikes following the path of "natural selection" or "unnatural selection"? Are we getting better, more useable bikes, or are we being conned into buying monsters (and I don't just mean in size) by advertising and other forms of hype? I sometimes dribble over things like the VMax, but is it a practical means of transport?
I said elsewhere, "Where are the sensible bikes in the 250-500cc range?" Nobody wants one, because the "entry level" bike nowadays is a full litre. Back when I started riding (the early sixties) anything over 650cc was a "freak". In the early seventies, I remember some kids taking a look at my 750 Ducati and asking "Is it electric start?". When I said no, they started to sneer! I was going to say "Mike Hailwood doesn't have electric start, then I realised they would have no idea who he was.

I still think manufacturers are losing the point through their greed, and will one day kill the proverbial goose!

 

They're turning them into freaking CARS. Motorcycles don't NEED bodywork, except maybe a fairing. Even the supposedly "entry level" Suzuki 500 twin comes swaddled in rooty-zooty bodywork which just makes it more difficult to work on, I see no advantage except plastic is cheaper than having to finish engine parts to an attractive appearance level. I too remember Mike Hailwood and the days when BIG BIKES were 650's. <sigh>

 

I'd rather have one of either of these:

 

i for some reason really like the bikes that where built in the 80s the lok feel and the price and extra parts on them. bone stock and take off some of the extra crome

 

i will start by saying i totally understand what you are saying, and to a certain extent agree wholeheartedly.

BUT....

i think you are overlooking one important point, that the "things that go" industry has always been making advances as new technologies come out, and the desire to be "top dog" will continue to drive machine makers to push the envelope. settling for what you have now is giving up as a manufacturer.

think about why the motorcycle came to be? the need for faster and more effective means of transportation. (efficiency was not a HUGE concern back then). since your "first motorcycle" in 1920, there has been nothing but advances in power, suspension, tires.....as the bikes handled better there was room for more power and speed, with more power and speed there was a need for better tires, suspension, brakes. it wont stop.

its the same with cars, trucks, and all sorts of heavy machinery. quite often the "more speed and power" is a side effect of legislation changes, demanding that engines run more efficiently, tires can withstand certain g forces or speeds, things like that quite often will make the industry surge ahead with newer technology that lends itself to make a really nice crotch rocket. a perfect example is the use of a variable geometry turbo on diesel engines. it was put on for emmisions purposes, but it makes for one kick ass powerband out of a turbo diesel.

i think some day, bikes will be powered electricity, made by gas turbine generators......and things like the ferrari bike or the jet bike that started this thread, will be things of the past.....and people will be saying "why cant they make practical bikes like those old hayabusa's anymore?"

 

TRUE. However, what you are describing is LOGICAL technological evolution which will of course occur. That was my point about the Ferrari concept, that whether we like it or not, might indeed be the most accurate vision we have of the future of motorcyles. But what of the "illogical" evolution? The drive to bigger, faster, more complex, without a corresponding gain in FUNCTION? This aspect of "evolution" ISN'T---it's marketing gone astray; it's the reason we have a whole AISLE of toilet paper to choose from in the supermarket. It's not EVOLUTION for bikes to sprout bodywork that makes them less practical and more difficult to maintain, it's marketing. I'm all for evolution, of form following function, NOT for form following marketing trends and demographics research. Especially when IMHO they gots it wrong.

 

As long ago as 1908, the architect Adolf Loos wrote: ".... ornamentation can have the effect of causing objects to go out of style and thus become obsolete." Loos considered it "immoral" and "degenerate" to waste resources on pointless decoration which only contributed to what would later be called "planned obsolescence".

We constantly fall for the three card trick of marketing. I'm not immune. Just the other day I put new blinkers on one of my 900s, not because they were more reliable than the old ones, or more functional, or showed my intention of turning better, but because stylists have convinced me that big square blinker lenses are "old-fashioned".

If the money and effort put into styling and marketing were directed to engineering, we would have better, longer lasting and more economical bikes, rather than the Tupperware clad barges or hyper-speed rider death traps that litter the roads today (Heavily disguised as a way of getting from point A to Point B).

 

Oh, but they are--I did the same thing.

The thing that really gives it away on the rockets is the SEAT. The manufacturer cannot possibly have intended a bike with a 3/4" thick pad to be ridden more than a few miles at a time. You're sure not going cross-country touring on an FZR, at least not with the stock seat.

 

Fitz, at the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration society, you are so right.
I had a model 18 AJS (rigid) with the old tractor style seat. (In those days there was a guy in Adelaide who made really professional covers for them.) It had virtually no padding (it was sprung) but the shape meant that you could ride it for a long time without getting a scarlet donkey (or red ass)
Back in those days I was a cigarette user, and it used to work out really well. By the time I was getting a bit uncomfortable, I was hanging out for a smoke, so a ten minute stop was welcome.
I can ride the XJ from petrol stop to petrol stop without any discomfort, and a 40 minute trip every morning, and another one every afternoon places no strain on my ancient butt.
I was having a look at a XT660X the other day. Looked like an excellent compromise in many ways, and the riding position was good, but the seat made me feel like a toddler visiting Michael Jackson's Neverland!
It can be done right. My Gold Wing was more comfortable to sit on than any of the armchairs in my house (I mean that-and I have some great armchairs!). However, the plastic bits made it totally useless in the Australian summer. I nearly cooked behind that huge fairing!
Are the Japanese going the way of the English-turning their factories over to the control of accountants and marketing executives"?

I wonder if the global economic downturn will lead to a revival of the truly practical motorcycle?

 

on this topic, i would like to say that i have half convinced my sister to make her zookie GS500 a naked. the front fairing is such an afterthought, and looks stoo-pid.

 

Apparently.

We can always hope...