My 100th Post and pointless thought!

This is my 100 th post and I had a different thing in my mind. But something that I read about (rather) forced me put down these pointless thoughts in my blog.

Today I stumbled on an online forum where people were writing reviews about their dear bikes. I was more than shocked to find out that Indian men still do not know to differentiate between a Sports Model and a Tourer/Cruiser. The bikes about which they were talking so loud were the Yamaha FZ 16, Hero Honda Karizma and Bajaj Pulsar (150/180/220cc). And they were fighting over which of these is the best Tourer Bike in the country. Now, before going into any further discussion on this topic, let me show you the pics. of these bikes:

Yamaha FZ (150cc)

Karizma (220cc)

Pulsar 180cc

Pulsar 220cc

Need I say more? Tourers? Cruisers? These bikes? Oh, come on! Give me a break. What do you think you're arguing about and that too in public forums? Just look at the design of those bikes! Do they look anything remotely designed for long rides? Well, you can use them for long rides if you want. I me-self do use such stupid machines for my biking expeditions. But never had I had the audacity to call them tourers/cruisers! They are meant to be urban street machines and nothing more. I wonder whether these men has ever set their eyes on a real tourer/cruiser bike. FYI, it looks like this:

Harley Davidson


Yes! That's how a tourer/cruiser is supposed to look like and in India we have only the Royal Enfield who makes tourers/cruisers. Besides, a tourer/cruiser needs to have a powerful engine. Something above 250cc and that delivers a power of at the least 20bhp 'coz long rides are meant to be loooong rides and if your bike is not powerful enough you're going to have stiff backs, ankles, wrists and a bike which is going to break down after a while. And no bike manufacturers in India, except perhaps the Royal Enfield, makes a bike of that capacity as of now.

Royal Enfield 350cc Classic

Royal Enfield Thunderbird (350cc)

Some of the features that makes a tourer bike a Tourer Bike are:

  1. Low raise seat for better seating position so that you do not strain your back on long rides.
  2. Wide handles so that you do not strain your shoulders or wrists.
  3. Wide tyres for better road grip.
  4. Heavy body so that the aerodynamics is taken cared of when you're cruising along highways through open land.
  5. Good ground clearance to conquer any kind of terrains.
  6. Comfortable pillion seats (if you have a pillion, that is!)
  7. Powerful engine.
Now, tell me, which of the Yamahas, Pulsars or the Hero Hondas are designed so? Can't you see that these are meant to be urban race bikes? What makes anyone call a Pulsar 220 a perfect tourer bike? Well, as I said before, you can use it for longer rides. But that doesn't make it a tourer bike, does it?

And, there was someone comparing the speeds of these supposed to be Cruisers! I mean... Look at the name - Cruiser. And a cruiser is supposed to be used to cruise along the long and rough terrains on a long ride, I suppose! Why should the top speed of a cruiser matter? Besides the bikes compared differ in their top speed not in any significant degrees (Pulsar 220 - 135km/hr, Yamaha FZ - 130 km/hr, Pulsar 180 - 128 km/hr, Karizma - 126 km/hr and Pulsar 150 - 115km/hr). Now, do I know anyone who 'cruises' at a speed more than 70km/hr or 80 km/hr? I mean, what's the whole point? Why do you want to race all the other bikes on the road if cruising is what you have in your mind? ...

Ah! What's the point of arguing? Not that I can put any sense in anyones head with this post. But I'm letting a bit of steam... I mean, why should men argue like kids in school? And that too, when they so totally miss out on the real point of argument!

Popular posts from this blog

Giant Dogs!!!

If I ever made 'Kurukshetra' into a movie

Am I weird or just obnoxiously logical?