Start the Week topic

[guest7]

After spending the weekend at a showground full of perfectly restored old motorbikes, I'm left feeling that Bruce's Norton is actually the best classic bike you could look at:


It carries its history on its skin, but it is also identifiable as a standard model. A bike like Bruce's is ten times more rewarding to look at than any number of pristine restored Norton singles.

At the show was a nice little Indian that had originally come into the UK with the US forces in WWII. It was very shiny, but incredibly tacky and it left me wondering what had been lost during its restoration.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating, the classic movement is ruining large nuumbers of decent classic bikes.

GC

[guest27]

Is this the Aristotlian Vs Platonic argument.  Is the essence of the bike in its journey to the point where you see it, or is it in the perfection of the unjournied bike?

Is there beauty in an older woman (or man) or is beauty confined to the nubile with perfect skin?

A well used bike like Bruce's can be a wonderous thing, loaded with history, fixes and miles and miles of just being.  A fully restored - or over restored - bike can be a real lump of eye candy.  A well engineered special can be the source of hours of perusal and contemplation.

History is not the starting point, it is the journey and the wisdom accrued - if a bike can accrue wisdom.

R

[KirriePete]

Now that's my kind of bike, mechanically sound, cosmetically "challenged" - showing it's history in every scrape and ding, lovely!

Don't necessarily agree about the "classic movement" ruining things - it seems to me that there are moronic willy-wavers who spend an inordinate amount of money on their latest "investment", regardless of whether it's classic bikes, cars, toys (in their original boxes, never played with...), you name it - they move in on a fresh field, find out it won't make them millionaires overnight then move on, like locusts.

The real classic movement (or should that be RealClassic?)* will always exist just under the surface, hopefully gathering in the over-restored trailer queens once the investors have moved on (1950's cereal packets look like a sound investment chaps) and bringing them back into the fold of proper bikes again.  We can only hope!

*Did you spot the subtle linkage?

[guest7]

But, the classic bike 'world' of shows and magazines has mostly rewarded the pristine resoration over the ridden classic.

I think my problem lays with people who buy decent original classics, but then strip them down to every last piece and re-paint, re-chrome and refurbish every part. Then, to add to my black mood, they don't bloody ride the thing. If the bike was a rusty wreck to start with then fine, but if it still carries its original paintwork and chrome, leave it alone.

Lately though, I've come around to the custom way of doing things, where you can build a visually stunning bike and it's acceptable that it may not get ridden to work every day. In the custom scene's case though, these bikes are interesting because they are the owner's creation, not yet another perfect recreation of a 1963 C15 (as if we needed any more of those). I think specials and customs are interesting to look at when they feature astounding engineering and cosmetic work.

GC

[guest27]

I think specials and customs are interesting to look at when they feature astounding engineering and cosmetic work.

GC

Unless made by me......

R

[Steffan]

Is this the Aristotlian Vs Platonic argument. 

I hate to seem pedantic but I rather fancy you have have somewhat misunderstood these arguments. The essence of a thing for Plato is found in the degree to which it participates in the form of the thing itself. Thus a motorcycle is a good motorcycle to the degree to which it conforms to the form (idea) of a motorcycle. All movement/change in the universe is understood as movement towards the good, towards form. Therefore everything is in movement and is not truly real but is becoming what it most perfectly is.

For Aristotle, this tendency to hypostasise the essence of a thing in what is commonly known as the realm of the forms was unacceptable. Aristotle was concerned with the way things commonly are - he therefore saw the essence of a thing being embodied in the thing itself.

As for Bruce's Norton, I only wish my enfields were as reliable

Steffan 

[tj63]

This can be interpreted as good news for me - my SRX can only improve as it (re)gains a pattina of age.

It is currently one of those "strip them down to every last piece and re-paint, re-chrome and refurbish every part."  But at least it was a bit of a basket case to start with, and I ride it.  It's slowly gathering those dings and nicks that set it apart from many of the "show" bikes.   The number of trailers and vans on the camping site at Uttoxeter had to be seen to be believed.

As has been said many times (and was heard within earshot of this weekend's "best in show" owner), there's no point having a bike if you're not going to ride it.  That winning bike to my mind should never have won the top award - it's only got 1 mile on the clock so has never ever been ridden.  It's not a bike, it's a bloody ornament!

Or am I just bitter because I didn't win anything? 

I get where Graham is coming from with this - Bruce's bike is a superb example of what a real old bike should look like.  This debate will no doubt go on for years, as it already has...


Trevor

[Andy M]

I got lost after "I hate to seem...."  

Isn't the idea of a motorcycle the bit that's going to vary?

We ride 'em, the custom crowd paint 'em, the classic guys play top trumps with the shiney bits. At which point this ceases to be motorcycling has to be up each person IMHO. How they can call it a bike event when they take the crank and pistons out so they can get three in a trailer is beyond me, but anyone from outside looking at one would say "that's a classic bike" rather than "nice bike shaped sculpture".

This argument seems to follow any vaguely historical subject. When I bought the sun compass I was offered a second one at a slightly reduced price. The seller thought I'd be able to trade if for other stuff "for my collection". When I said I intended to learn how to use the thing the guy thought I was weird, couldn't get over the idea that I wasn't playing top trumps/football card swapsies for adults with old military kit. (It may not have helped when I then asked him what a Bren gun he had on display would cost  ).

Each to their own eh.

Andy

[guest18]

Hmm, general agreement, less the Aristotle / Plato thing at least  (is it just me who had a flashback to reading Zen and the art while digesting Steffan's reply?  well put though mate, even I understood it  )

I have to admit I walked past the Goldstar owners tent and it looked really, really boring*, literally a long row of Identikit Goldstars in better than new condition, obviously trailered there and obviously not one of them used for anything more than a quick blat in perfect conditions (and most of them probably not even that  )
They might as well save some cash and built 1/32 scale models, would be a lot easier to transport as well....

The diesel lowrider grabbed me because it is unlike anything I'd seen before, was beautifully put together and reflected ingenuity and imagination on the part of the designer/builder. As an art object it stands up to scrutiny, or you could ride it.

I think the other comments mostly cover my thoughts on working bikes 

* a sad reflection when that comment is made by a motorcycle enthusiast who normally likes looking at them and loves to watch them race/display!

[guest27]

Is this the Aristotlian Vs Platonic argument. 

I hate to seem pedantic but I rather fancy you have have somewhat misunderstood these arguments. The essence of a thing for Plato is found in the degree to which it participates in the form of the thing itself. Thus a motorcycle is a good motorcycle to the degree to which it conforms to the form (idea) of a motorcycle. All movement/change in the universe is understood as movement towards the good, towards form. Therefore everything is in movement and is not truly real but is becoming what it most perfectly is.

For Aristotle, this tendency to hypostasise the essence of a thing in what is commonly known as the realm of the forms was unacceptable. Aristotle was concerned with the way things commonly are - he therefore saw the essence of a thing being embodied in the thing itself.

As for Bruce's Norton, I only wish my enfields were as reliable

Steffan 

Misunderstood - probably not, misused probably  

Plato - movement towards good form, the essence of horse is in the whole and its engagement in the system of which it is part.  Bruce's bike has tended towards a good bike because that is what it has become, if it were a bad bike it owuld be on the scrap heap by now.  The journey is more than the destination.  A nut and bolt restoration follows more Aristotle, and more to the point Cartesian thought that the goodness of the whole is in the goodness of the parts.  A good classic is made from polishing up all the good parts and adding them together, a reductionist, post-cartesian approach typified by 'Western thinking'.  If we consider the systemic idea that the whole is greater than the parts and that the outcome is only that for which the system was perfectly suited, then what makes a great bike is not a reductionist approach, but something that could be opposite, and may be from a different continiuum - typified by 'Eastern thought'.  The spit and polish but never ridden 'classic' wins because it supports the static quality of the legitimate system, whereas the evolved classic such as Bruce's could be a representation of the dynamic quality, shadow system and thus challenges the icons of the former.

I was questioning as to whether we could see the two different approaches as dynamic journey Vs static destination.

R

[Steffan]

I am abiding by the anti-intellectual wishes of my friends and saying nothing further 


 

Steffan

[guest18]

I am abiding by the anti-intellectual wishes of my friends and saying nothing further 


 

Steffan

Shame, I was enjoying that(!) 

[Mark]

I am abiding by the anti-intellectual wishes of my friends and saying nothing further 


 

Steffan

Shame, I was enjoying that(!) 

And I was getting lost...I do like the real bike though Bruce.

[squirrelciv]

Totally lost in the brainy stuff but I think I get the jist of the thread.
Never went to Uttoxeter to drewl over the classics as I have very little interest in them. Those that like them can carry on without me and I hope they have a happy time of it too. I'm sure trawling through the tinterweb for an original rear reflector for a 1964 BSA A10 can fill an otherwise meaningless existance with a sense of purpose and joy, and that's great. One less miserable person can only be a good thing in my book. The problem is of course that as a result of all this prices of spares to those who actually wish to use and ride their bikes go through the roof!

For me though, if the engine doesn't work and the bike cannot be ridden then it is mearly a statue, an impression of a bike no better than if it were made of plaster and paint. A motorcycle is a machine to perform a function first and foremost. If it should be beautiful to look at and listen too or be quick and handle well so all who use it will praise it, then that is a bonus. There are many motorbikes out there that are butt ugly and ride like the frames made of paper, but they are still motorbikes.

If the classic crowd want to polish chrome and paint, carry on, but don't call it a motorcycle if it doesn't work. (IMHO).

While I also love Bruces old Norton, I love Furry Johns Bikes too. Lovely bikes, beautifully built and well maintained classics that are used.

Oh and yes, custom bikes are a real joy to me too. Best bit of Uttoxeter for me was the 'Streetfighter' club stand. There was some outstanding engineering on display there.

[Richard]

Aristotle.............wasn't he the one who was a "bugger for the bottle" ?

I find my own approach drawn heavily from the Cartesian.

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed."