Motorcycles: You Shouldn't Ride.
Nobody rides because they have to.
There is no law, no ordanance insisting the nations citizens ride. There is no reason for anything as utterly psychotic as the Aprilia Tuono to exist. Or the 300 km/h (and then some) Hayabusa. After all, is there any practical advantage a fully dressed Harley Road King has over any one of dozens of SUVs or minivans? Of course not. Well, parking, maybe: but unless you've got a reverse gear even that can be more awkward with a bike.
Some of the "logical" arguements in favour of bikes:
1) They're cheaper to buy.
Sure, as transport for one, occasionally two, individuals. And that's it. Going shopping? Camping? Any kind of construction? ANY four wheeled vehicle is more convient than ANY bike for workhorse duty. So if you need to use your bike for damn near anything, you'll end up needing a second vehicle anyways. Plus you've got equipment to buy. Okay, you don't have to buy gear, but you really should, and that costs.
2) They're good on fuel.
Hmm, my bike gets about 240 km every 15 litres or so, which is about 40 miles to the gallon. There are a few cars that beat that all to hell.
3) That's about it.
So why the Sam Hill would anyone bother to ride? Because of how good it feels, baby!
I will tell you that this is as close as you will ever get to flying. The freedom implied in the act is awe inspiring: power and control without being in a box that even the best of sports cars forces you into. When you ride, your awareness is at an all-time high, and for good reason: make a mistake, you can die. Someone else makes a mistake, you can die. Then there's the weather...
Bikes are never, ever a logical purchase; but purely a visceral one. Anyone who tells you otherwise is outright lying to feed his or her disgusting habit.
Presenting my next (eventually) bike...
There is no law, no ordanance insisting the nations citizens ride. There is no reason for anything as utterly psychotic as the Aprilia Tuono to exist. Or the 300 km/h (and then some) Hayabusa. After all, is there any practical advantage a fully dressed Harley Road King has over any one of dozens of SUVs or minivans? Of course not. Well, parking, maybe: but unless you've got a reverse gear even that can be more awkward with a bike.
Some of the "logical" arguements in favour of bikes:
1) They're cheaper to buy.
Sure, as transport for one, occasionally two, individuals. And that's it. Going shopping? Camping? Any kind of construction? ANY four wheeled vehicle is more convient than ANY bike for workhorse duty. So if you need to use your bike for damn near anything, you'll end up needing a second vehicle anyways. Plus you've got equipment to buy. Okay, you don't have to buy gear, but you really should, and that costs.
2) They're good on fuel.
Hmm, my bike gets about 240 km every 15 litres or so, which is about 40 miles to the gallon. There are a few cars that beat that all to hell.
3) That's about it.
So why the Sam Hill would anyone bother to ride? Because of how good it feels, baby!
I will tell you that this is as close as you will ever get to flying. The freedom implied in the act is awe inspiring: power and control without being in a box that even the best of sports cars forces you into. When you ride, your awareness is at an all-time high, and for good reason: make a mistake, you can die. Someone else makes a mistake, you can die. Then there's the weather...
Bikes are never, ever a logical purchase; but purely a visceral one. Anyone who tells you otherwise is outright lying to feed his or her disgusting habit.
Presenting my next (eventually) bike...
Labels: Motorcycles
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home