Ducati Monster Forum

Kitchen Sink => No Moto Content => Topic started by: GAAN on July 27, 2009, 11:58:45 PM

Title: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: GAAN on July 27, 2009, 11:58:45 PM
What is important to you?
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Big Troubled Bear on July 28, 2009, 12:36:45 AM
My 696 appearance, my track only R1 performance [thumbsup]

And I hope you meant bikes and not woman ;)
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: psycledelic on July 28, 2009, 12:38:57 AM
I am gonna go with appearance.  Mostly because my S2R800 isn't really a screamin ball of fire.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Oldfisti on July 28, 2009, 02:57:02 AM
Form follows function.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: superjohn on July 28, 2009, 03:22:26 AM
About 50/50 on each with a distinct emphasis on the environment for which it's intended to be used. I have no use for an ugly bike that goes 200 mph when I only ride on the street. If I went to a track or drag strip, I'd have no use or a beautiful, but heavy and low power ride.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Pakhan on July 28, 2009, 04:34:30 AM
Performance, my car is a sleeper
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: mitt on July 28, 2009, 05:15:11 AM
80 performance / 20 form


Usually, if it performs good, the form is a given and good.

If it looks like a turd from the start, it probably won't work.

Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 05:22:07 AM
Interesting you post this as I sort of started thinking hard this weekend about the bikes I currently own.

I was up at Mid-Ohio for vintage days and you see a shit down of bikes. My friend Mike just bought a Guzzi california so he can do road trips and touring with his wife. The Monster is not good for that.

I'd love to get into more road tripping, but let's face it........the monster sucks for touring.

I currently own a 2004 S4r and 1999 750 with fcr's.

Thinking about selling the S4r and keeping the 750, as that was my first monster and I dearly love it and will never sell it.

I am thinking about looking at Triumph Tigers or a V-Strom.


Seems so much more functional for what I want out of it.

Yeah, they both aren't the best looking bikes, but the functionality out weighs that.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Grampa on July 28, 2009, 06:14:02 AM
are we talking about the opposite sex?
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Big Troubled Bear on July 28, 2009, 06:16:06 AM
Quote from: bobspapa on July 28, 2009, 06:14:02 AM
are we talking about the opposite sex?

I am still hoping ;D
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: causeofkaos on July 28, 2009, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: mitt on July 28, 2009, 05:15:11 AM
80 performance / 20 form


+1
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: dropstharockalot on July 28, 2009, 06:45:59 AM
Form for toys, function for necessities.


Prolly why my GF is way hotter than my wife.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: teddy037.2 on July 28, 2009, 08:24:12 AM
Quote from: dropstharockalot on July 28, 2009, 06:45:59 AM
Form for toys, function for necessities.


Prolly why my GF is way hotter than my wife.

[laugh]

if we're talking machinery, well... I have the chick bike, so obviously I have a duc because it's pretty

if we're talking wimmenz... i'm single. wtf do I know?
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on July 28, 2009, 10:17:32 AM
Performance first. Looks second.



Nothing worse than a hot girl who's a bad lay.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Performance, then form...but the form has to be there at least a little. I did buy a Multi though.  ;)

Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 05:22:07 AM

I am thinking about looking at Triumph Tigers or a V-Strom.

Seems so much more functional for what I want out of it.

Yeah, they both aren't the best looking bikes, but the functionality out weighs that.

You should go ride a GS. You'll probably be surprised..I was. I thought it would be a pig, but figured what the hell. You also don't have to be 6'-3" to ride them...they have low seat options. I'm 5'-8" and do fine.

I like Tigers too, but I just can't get behind a V-Strom...gotta have some form.   [puke] The GS may not be the prettiest, but it does look purposeful and tough.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Performance, then form...but the form has to be there at least a little. I did buy a Multi though.  ;)

You should go ride a GS. You'll probably be surprised..I was. I thought it would be a pig, but figured what the hell. You also don't have to be 6'-3" to ride them...they have low seat options. I'm 5'-8" and do fine.

I like Tigers too, but I just can't get behind a V-Strom...gotta have some form.   [puke] The GS may not be the prettiest, but it does look purposeful and tough.

BMW GS1200?


Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 10:50:33 AM
BMW GS1200?




Ya...I rode the F800GS, then the R1200GS. No way I'd get an 800 after riding the 1200. Keep in mind...I'm maybe 90% on the road...and the other 10% on dirt roads...nothing too hairy. I just like to explore dirt roads on occasion, and the GS is good for that...forgiving of a drop. My Multi did well on dirt roads, but I was terrified of dropping it and all the damage that would occur.

You can get used 1200GSs pretty cheap.

Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 10:55:39 AM
You can get used 1200GSs pretty cheap.


How much is "cheap"?!?!
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: mitt on July 28, 2009, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 10:55:39 AM


You can get used 1200GSs pretty cheap.



Relatively speaking of course.  Most used 1200GS are still 8k or more.  The 1200gs's didn't come out until 2005 I think.  

A local rider bought a NEW tiger last fall for less than 9k OTD.

mitt
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: mitt on July 28, 2009, 11:07:40 AM
Relatively speaking of course.  Most used 1200GS are still 8k or more.  The 1200gs's didn't come out until 2005 I think.  

A local rider bought a NEW tiger last fall for less than 9k OTD.

mitt

That's kind of what I was inquiring about.


I would like to keep my cost <8,000$
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 28, 2009, 11:07:31 AM

How much is "cheap"?!?!

Like mitt said...I guess cheap is relative.

I paid $9K for my '05 with less than 17,000 miles on it. It also has Vario panniers (best panniers ever), ABS, a custom lowered seat, & heated grips. A new one would run about $17-18K out the door.


Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 11:27:15 AM
Quote from: mitt on July 28, 2009, 11:07:40 AM

A local rider bought a NEW tiger last fall for less than 9k OTD.


That's a great deal. Bikes seem to cost a bit more here than in other parts of the country (as does a lot of things  :P).
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: mitt on July 28, 2009, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: Triple J on July 28, 2009, 11:27:15 AM
That's a great deal. Bikes seem to cost a bit more here than in other parts of the country (as does a lot of things  :P).

Yea, I was amazed.  He said Triumph was having some killer deals pushing bikes late last year  ???

mitt
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Goat_Herder on July 28, 2009, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 28, 2009, 10:17:32 AM
Performance first. Looks second.



Nothing worse than a hot girl who's a bad lay.

Is an ugly girl, who is a dynamite in bed, any better?  I guess it's ok, as long as you keep her in the house and nobody knows about her.   [cheeky]
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on July 28, 2009, 03:20:14 PM
Quote from: Goat_Herder on July 28, 2009, 02:15:00 PM
Is an ugly girl, who is a dynamite in bed, any better?  I guess it's ok, as long as you keep her in the house and nobody knows about her.   [cheeky]

You wouldn't worry about anyone stealing her.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: mitt on July 28, 2009, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: Goat_Herder on July 28, 2009, 02:15:00 PM
Is an ugly girl, who is a dynamite in bed, any better?   [cheeky]

Yes by a long way  [evil]

mitt
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Cicero on July 28, 2009, 06:11:11 PM
whichever sets your soul alight more.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Howie on July 28, 2009, 06:24:33 PM
never make a pretty woman your wife-ugly women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svt06ZJHieo#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: GAAN on July 28, 2009, 09:02:14 PM
just to be enigmatic

this has nothing to do with Motorcycles

or

Women
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on July 28, 2009, 10:01:17 PM
Quote from: Eeyore on July 28, 2009, 09:02:14 PM
just to be enigmatic

this has nothing to do with Motorcycles

or

Women

Jesus, all that leaves is scotch and bacon.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: teddy037.2 on July 28, 2009, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 28, 2009, 10:01:17 PM
Jesus, all that leaves is scotch and bacon.

you're talkin like that's a bad thing  ;)
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on July 28, 2009, 10:11:29 PM
Quote from: teddy037.2 on July 28, 2009, 10:01:57 PM
you're talkin like that's a bad thing  ;)

No it's just confusing-I mean-who cares how the bacon looks-it's how it tastes. Same for scotch, so if he's not applying it to women or motos, there's not a whole lot left.



Or maybe he's just wondering if his Jeep is worth keeping because it's pretty-it's not like it performs  :P
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: slowpoke13 on July 29, 2009, 01:31:52 AM
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 28, 2009, 10:17:32 AM
Nothing worse than a hot girl who's a bad lay.

an ugly girl who's a terrible lay?
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: Popeye the Sailor on July 29, 2009, 07:56:01 AM
Quote from: slowpoke13 on July 29, 2009, 01:31:52 AM
an ugly girl who's a terrible lay?

No, see, that's just a like a boat with holes in it that sinks when you sail it. It's what you expect.
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: dropstharockalot on July 29, 2009, 08:10:31 AM
All this "ugly girl / good lay / pretty girl / bad lay" is is gonna spiral out of control into the quality vs. quantity argument.  Gotta pull that back before we're permanently o/t...
Title: Re: Appearance vs. performance
Post by: GAAN on July 29, 2009, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 28, 2009, 10:11:29 PM
No it's just confusing-I mean-who cares how the bacon looks-it's how it tastes. Same for scotch, so if he's not applying it to women or motos, there's not a whole lot left.



Or maybe he's just wondering if his Jeep is worth keeping because it's pretty-it's not like it performs  :P

Oh you wound me