Friday, November 20, 2009

Motorcycling: The Elements of Cruiser Style

Every now and then a question is asked that sounds simple, yet the answer really needs some thought, which leads to enlightenment.

From a new rider "I am enjoying my V Star 650 Custom, but I am already thinking about my next bike. I am wondering if there is a "cruiser" that doesn't look like a traditional cruiser?"

To answer this, the first step is to break down what a cruiser is, and what a cruiser looks like. And what is the difference between the "is" and the "looks like". Frankly I never thought about it like that before, as I assumed that if it looked like a cruiser it was a cruiser.

One of the turning points in the history of the cruiser was the 1978 Honda CX500, Honda's first V-twin motorcycle. It was first made as a standard, which was normal for the day. In 1983, Honda created a version called the CX500C for the American market. The CX500 continued as the standard model, the CX500C was the cruiser model, and they were both on sale at the same time. The CX500C outsold the CX500 ten to one. It clearly showed that if you make a cruiser, people will buy it. And quite possibly the days of the standard bike were over.

Honda dropped the CX500C and CX500 the next year, deciding to go with their Shadow line of motorcycles, which took the cruiser style even further and were also introduced in 1983.

All this took place around the time that the Harley Davidson boom started. While Honda was trying to make bikes look more like Harleys, Harley Davidson disassembled some CX500 engines in order to study how to make bikes work as well as the Japanese bikes.

What were the differences between the CX500 and the 500C? A smaller diameter, fatter rear tire seemed to be a key element, which in turn helped lower the seat height. Then there were some buckhorn handlebars to help the rider sit back with their arms raised in a classic "cruiser" riding position often seen in Hells Angels movies. And another styling touch, was a smaller teardrop shaped gas tank, tapered at the rear. This seemed to be the shape that everyone in America wanted. It didn't really make sense, as a "fat" looking tank will hold more gas, but what was selling was the tapered look. Another popular trend at the time was longer forks, but that trend has since gone away and is no longer an essential part of the cruiser style.

So the key element to me, of a cruiser is the low seat height. The low seat height forces a cascade of other changes. First, to lower the seat, you have a smaller diameter rear tire. A longer chassis also helps you to make space for a low seat. But the low seat forces you to place the footpegs further forward to prevent knee cramping. To move the footpegs further forward, you need a long narrow engine, (rather than short and wide) meaning the preferred engine becomes a v-twin mounted transversely. With the narrower but longer engine, you need longer handlebars because the seat has been pushed back. And if the seat is set back and low, you can move the instruments to the top of the gas tank instead of over the headlight.

Once you put together all those elements, you have a cruiser. But now what to do if you want something a little different, but still a cruiser? I guess you need to decide what element you would like to change. Cruisers have been built with parallel twins, six cylinder engines, even v-8's. They have been built with non-teardrop gas tanks. You can change almost any element except the low seat. As soon as you make that seat high, I think you have to stop calling it a cruiser, at least in the modern sense.

If you want a cruiser that doesn't look like a cruiser, how about the Suzuki Burgman 400? Low seat, feet forward, but looks nothing like a cruiser.

3 comments:

  1. My partner, former equestrienne that she is, attributes this to cultural influences.

    Her contention is that the American 'cruiser' motorcycle style harks back to the 'Western' saddle, whereas the 'standard' (largely originally British) owes its original to the 'English' saddle.

    The 'western' riding style places most of the rider's weight on the butt, whereas the 'English' style involves the legs more.

    She even takes it one step further and draws parallels between the 'racing' saddle (with its high stirrups, lack of padding) and the riding position in racing motorcycles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi there! Are you an often online user or you prefer face to face communication?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not aware that those were opposites, I would have to think about it.

      Delete