Older Bikes Vs Newer Models

This is a topic that has been hotly debated on the forum previously. I love the look and feel of older bikes, but my lack of spannering skill prevent me from owning an older machine. I therefore buy new, with all the benefits of the new advances in riding aids and knowledge that if goes wrong it is just a a phone call and trip to the dealers . Others will have their reasons for owning and riding their choice of bikes.

 

Older bikes benefit from simpler servicing, especially if you go back to the carburettor, pre-injection era. My ZZR is a 2012 model I bought new which does have ECU controlled fuel mapping etc but it has a "service" mode which you put it in and all the diagnostics are built in so no laptop and additional software is required. I love the Street Scrambler I bought last year and have just had to buy the Dealertool software for diy servicing so from that point of view it's more of a faff. Much as I love it I have no desire to own a vintage Triumph from the 70's or earlier. The Ducati 1198SP I bought and owned briefly in 2011 had locked down ECU's and the servicing costs were eye watering but I fell out with and sold it in less than 3000m so service costs never came up.

 

If only all dealers were 100% reliable. I've had bad experiemces in the past with poor dealer service, as have others on here no doubt, which is the main reason I go down the DIY servicing route. Oh and there's the cost of course.

 

I've got a 2002 trophy that I've had from new. So far in it's 20 years of ownership I can't remember any significant problems with it. I've been looking at adding a new/newer bike and my thoughts at the moment go something like this:
2 of the marques I like, BMW and triumph, are at the premium end of the spectrum but don't have the reputation of the reliability of the big 4 Japanese marques. What puts me off spending that much is having issues with the dealers trying to get them to take an interest and fix the problem. Triumph seems to have a bad reputation in regards to this and my experience with their dealers isn't great. I had problems with my new BMW R100RS in the 80's and some of that was with the dealer but BMW got involved and fixed them all, I just doubt Triumph would do that for me. So I look at triumph, I like some of their models but then the above doubts creep in. I hear about problems with the fancy dash costing big £'s to fix, squealing brakes, poor throttle response that needs things added to resolve, semi active suspension going awol and costing an arm and a leg to fix, batteries failing on new bikes stranding the owners because so much relies on electronics, rectifier/regulator issues, gear issues... and round and round it goes in my head. Then I ride my bike out to a dealer to have a look, enjoy the ride so much added to the dealer apathy and I've lost interest in a new bike.... Oh the problems of a first world economy.... Sometimes what you've got is best.....
Oh yeah and then I chat to the owners at the Triumph dealers only to find that the dealer has had their bike in for repairs for over a week (that happened this week) and the doubts creep in again... Not sure if this is on topic or if I should have just posted it in the rant thread....

 

Yes, that's a concern I share with new bikes and cars. The Street Scrambler does require software for diagnostics but is still at the relatively simple end of the bike spectrum. When you start adding rider aids with active this, interactive that, "intelligent" suspension, fancy TFT sreens and heaven knows what else, you'd better be sure you have a decent warranty and a dealer who not only knows what they're doing but actually shows an interest in fixing the problem. Otherwise you're in a world of financial hurt.

 

Older every time for me with the odd exception of my current 19plate R9T. There’s something about a bike with ‘patina’ for me.

 

Without wanting to sound like a whinging turd … money is the main deciding factor in my garage. As a family dude, I can only assign so much to the bike budget… second hand beasts all the way for me! And they’re great…

 

Depends on the bike. I don't really have much time(or the will) for wrenching so an older bike could cost me significantly more in mechanic's fees, unless it was in excellent cond'n. It would have to be one of my bucket list/love affair bikes like a Manx for me to get a fixer-upper.

There was just a pristine 2008 T100 for sale near me that I was figuring out a way to pull the trigger on(see photo). Thing was IMMACULATE and I know the seller personally, so I was very seriously considering it. Garage kept and only 10K on it. Something like that comes along it's hard to pass up. Fortunately someone else threw down first and saved me from myself.



As far as a Trident goes- If that bike sings to you, go new. They're one of the more affordable Triumphs… and you only live once. Scrape together a decent chunk of down payment and finance the rest. Go for it.

 

I like a good mix of the old and the new myself but I do spend a lot of money owning, insuring and servicing 4 bikes.

For me the old bikes (20+ years) have the simplicity of easier maintenance, nostalgia and old school motorcycling. Whereas the modern bikes provide the reliability peace of mind for long journeys and touring, as well as being equipped with all the toys and safety features. Also, with more recent need for reading glasses I really appreciate a good TFT display these days.

 

Due to my lack of technical knowledge and lack of an "own" garage, I have to rely on my expert from Triumph (www.gesslbauer.at) with my bike. Compared to my former bikes, including Honda CB1100 EX and Yamaha SCR900, I have had no out-of-tour stops in the garage to date. A big advantage from my point of view is also the price situation with Triumph. With my "Japanese" the parts prices and also the service costs were "astronomical" compared to Triumph! I can therefore not complain and am very satisfied.

 

My newest bike is a 2005, to me it's modern. Properly maintained it just rides the same as 20k£ bikes.
So far it is still reliable, I do not feel the need to change, just like op with the VFR. Apart some electronic equipment like cruise control I can't see outstanding improvements ? Opened to ear all point of view about.

 

Horses for courses for me . I have a 2004 MV that I use locally. It’s been very good and I’ve done bigger mileages in the past on it, including foreign trips. I’ve owned that for 16 years now. But alongside it I have a 2018 Speed Triple RS that I now use for the bigger trips. The MV is a keeper and the RS is just brilliant. In time I may change the RS but for now I just love everything about it.. Both bikes were bought secondhand with low mileages on them.

 

this is an interesting philosophical question to me, one of those queries for which there is no single right answer. i own mostly old stuff- triumphs, BSAs, a norton. i have a 97 buell and a 2007 250 ninja that the kids race in LSR.

my newest triumph is the 1972 T120 i bought used 45 years ago. my other british stuff is older than that. as i see it, it all depends on what you want from the machine. the bonneville still goes 117 mph and with all the lucas and amal stuff long discarded is as reliable as a rubber door stop. doesnt take much attention, i just do plugs, valves, and carb adjustments every year or two, ignition timing every decade, maybe. i havent had the crankshaft out in 35 years.

i find the newer fuel injected and computer mapped machines to be technically interesting, but for me they dont answer any questions i have. wonderful speed and handling, but i ride on very tight hilly appalachian two-lanes, where a lightweight old machine is about as fast as a new one. for me, anyway.

i do all my own work except for actual machining because i have the space and make the time. not everybody is as lucky as i am there. this is a very important aspect, because for me working on a motorcycle is recreational, not a chore. over many years i've accumulated the tools and the specialized knowledge to make it something i do to clear my head. very zen. i pick up a wrench and my heart rate slows down.

one thing that i do miss is touring. i havent had a motorcycle more than a hundred miles from the house in a very long time. i wouldnt hesitate to take a newer machine cross country, but id be pushing the envelope these days to do that with something thats had fifty years of metal fatigue. but i don't have the time right now to do it anyway, even if i owned a more modern machine.

so for the moment, im sticking with the old stuff. might be in the market for a newer machine someday, but not in the foreseeable future. but its an interesting issue, which is why ive read what everybody else has posted in this thread.

 

I’ve had new and old at same time. My old carb tiger I’ve spannered on, just doing Vv check and shim changes. But I fu£&@d up carb rebuild so will cost me a bit. Bike was £1500 and I’ve probably spent another 500 in bits.

My speed triple RS cost me about 15k.
The tiger was a winter hack that I’ve ridden more and more. Second hand well maintained bikes are the way I’ll be going from now on I think.

Although must admit the new Suzuki sports tourer has caught my eye!

 

Old for me T100 Bonny. Simple carbs no fancy electronics to go wrong. Modern vehicles far to complicated and expensive to fix! And also takes away your riding ability making you rely on technology to keep you safe wrong! It de-skills you. Turn it all off and learn to ride properly. I spanner my bike and love it takes longer but saves £'s.