Motorcycle picture book

[1.21GW]

I was killing time at Barnes & Noble before a date and saw this book on the shelve.  It's called "Motorcycle: A Definitive Visual History".  I was so taken that I immediately decided to order it via Amazon (saved $14).  It basically goes through each decade since the 1920s and shows the main bikes of that era.  Interspersed throughout are excerpts on unique/seminal models (e.g. Triumph Bonneville, Honda CB750) as well as the story behind major brands.

Anyway, I thought I'd share with the group since I enjoyed it so much.  Great resource for relative newbies like me who like learning about motorcycle history.  A few examples below.

Much of the book shows bikes by decades, grouped into size, purpose, etc.  Scooters and dirt bikes included, too.





Excerpt on the 916:


Even some gorgeous pics of major engines:

[stopintime]

Thanks - more stuff to buy 

How did the date go?

[Grampa]

Me thinks IZ has some compitition.

[cyberswine]

Thanks for sharing, looks like a must buy.  Now I can't afford my next date.

[The Bearded Duc]

Me thinks IZ has some compitition.

[1.21GW]

How did the date go?

Meh.  Probably would have rather spend the two hours eating alone and flipping through the moto book.


Thing I noticed after flipping through 80+ years of bikes: the span from 50's to 70's was a Golden Age of style.  When I look at those bikes then jump to the 80s/90s, it looks like the opposite of progress (regress??).  There are a few exceptions (actually one, Ducati), but really the new bikes look so stiff and plastic-y.  And the new-new bikes all look like Transformers to me.  Thing with a bike is that you have a chance to show off the simple beauty of its engineering so easily, why would you cover everything with plastic?

Same affliction seems to affect car styling.  Nearly everyone praises the styling of Ferrari 250GTO, C2 Corvette, Mustang fastbacks, '69 Camaro, E-type, etc.  But with few exceptions cars haven't had the same beautiful styling since the 70s.  Has no one at GM or Honda ever seen a picture of a Shelby Daytona?

Or maybe it's just me. [/end rant]

[Armor]

Styling is a matter of taste.  I'm an old guy and I like the newest bikes and cars.  I think the newest Ferrari's are most beautiful.  I look at older cars and bikes and they look so cheap an clunky.  I remember how they actually drove.  Rattles, loose steering.  I like the new tech.

[Dry Martini]

Same affliction seems to affect car styling.  Nearly everyone praises the styling of Ferrari 250GTO, C2 Corvette, Mustang fastbacks, '69 Camaro, E-type, etc.  But with few exceptions cars haven't had the same beautiful styling since the 70s.  Has no one at GM or Honda ever seen a picture of a Shelby Daytona?

Or maybe it's just me. [/end rant]

Uh GM had six years of building ugly slow and fat corvettes in the 70s. Although the first four years were the start of the decline, from the vettes of the 60s. The newer vettes are much better looking and fully functional.

As for the Shelby Daytona, Ford was the company that produced the ugly Mach 1.

[SpikeC]

 I have a 1965 Triumph T100SC in my garage, and I think that it is beautiful! My 2009 monster 1100S is also very pretty, but needs to loose some of the plastic, IMHO!