does a 2001 indian enfield count as a classic?

just bought one, and wondered what folks opinion on this is...

richard
isle of wight

 

here's a definition for this NG

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...sg/8e828566eb231024?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rnum=1

I think it's mostly fans of Jap stuff here, but welcome anyway

Antony

BSA B44VS

 

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:00:51 +0100, Moi wrote:

Hello Richard,

you can get all your questions answered in these places:

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/royalenfield/
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bullet-Mania/
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bulletech/

Carsten

 

Err, in whose definition is this the case?

Every reason.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

Anton Gÿsen came up with the following;:

I wouldn't say a modern Triumph (Bonneville or otherwise) would count as a
classic in any real sense.

Have a look here ... http://www.unixconsult.co.uk/bike/ukrmcfaq.html#classic
which gives a pretty balanced view of what a 'classic' is.

Being a complete pile of shite doesn't automatically qualify a bike for
classic status, no matter what it's pedigree.

 

Moi came up with the following;:

IMHO, no, it is no way a classic. It may have been derived from an old,
revered but shite, motorcycle but nowadays it's just an old design that's
still shite.

 

=?windows-1252?Q?Anton_G=FFsen?= says...

Clasic usually means a good bike from days gone by. You hit the nail
square on the head when you said it was the same as the old one.

They make them even better over there than the Brits could, still does
them no favours though.

 

Thus spake Anton G?sen unto the assembled multitudes:

They do tend to hurt a bit when they pass through your body.

 

Anton Gÿsen came up with the following;:

errr .. isn't what I said above answer enough?

The bike, nowadays, is simply a 'new' version of an old, crap bike. How can
a new bike be a 'classic', especially when it's a crap one, even though it's
actually a lot better than the old one it derives from? It might 'look' the
part of being an 'almost a classic' from a distance on a dark night to
someone with a squint in one and grit in their other eye, but it's still a
new, utterly dire in every respect, crap, awful, fug ugly, bike that is no
way a classic.

Nope nothing to do with where it's made. Indeed it's made much better now
than it ever was in UK.

The reason I don't like it and don't see it as a classic, and you seem to
want me to labour the point I've made a few times already, is 'cos it was
crap originally and now, even though it's better, it is still a crap bike.
When put in comparison with contemporary bikes it's absolutely dire. When
put in context with similar bikes it's still fucking awful ... and it's
friggin' NEW fercrissakes ...

 

There you have it - they're crap and Paul doesn't like 'em. His well
reasoned arguments have me 110% convinced.

Antony

 

Well, the thing is, they certainly cannot be described as classic;
whatever definition you use age would have to be included.

As for crap - well sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true. Even the
masochists that own them don't generally pretend otherwise.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

says...

Well given that they've had about 45 years to get the design and build
right, but haven't managed it, what would you reckon?

 

came up with the following;:

Crap doesn't necessarily equal classic ... neither does old, but this is
only 4 years old and crap which is even less likely to be a classic.

You're not readin properly are you?

They're a 'new' but old bike and they simply are just not very good at all,
let alone good enough to be a classic.

Also, as I've said numerous times, how can a new bike be a classic, even if
it were good, which these demonstrably aren't?

 

Duh! It is, perhaps, a *classic* example of an old design (I do not
care one whit for your opinion of it, good or bad) being successfully
marketed to fetishists of nostalgia for that golden age that they have
been convinced they missed by accident of birth.

Quite apart from that it could anyway be considered a *classic* British
bike, even if it is made in India, for it is unreliable, uncomfortable,
slow, expensive and ugly, while being produced by a company using
outdated tools and techniques, thereby conforming to the archetype.

That is how.

 

An Enfield made in 2001 is undeniably new. But it qualifies as a
classic because it made to a design and tooling that is decades old.
And speaking about the practical consequences of this debate, someone
who owns one will have a lot in common with someone else here whose
bike was first registered decades ago. Even those of us with genuine
old bikes may well have a lot of newly made parts on them.

Whether a bike is 'crap' or 'good' - to borrow Paul's bipolar worldview
- is neither here or there.

 

veal came up with the following;:

See my sig ...

 

Here is a dictionary definition of the word classic here. It
would seem to demonstrate that whether something is "crap"
or "good" is certainly relevant...

classic (HIGH QUALITY)
adjective
having a high quality or standard against which other things
are judged:

Nick

 

Goood comeback.

 

And here's some more definitions from
http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/C0389900.html:
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Belonging to the highest rank or class. b. Serving as
the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial
architecture. c. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring. 2a.
Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a
classic piece of research. b. Of a well-known type; typical: a classic
mistake. 3. Of or characteristic of the literature, art, and culture of
ancient Greece and Rome; classical. 4a. Formal, refined, and restrained
in style. b. Simple and harmonious; elegant: the classic cut of a suit;
the classic lines of a clipper ship. 5. Having historical or literary
associations: classic battlefields of the Civil War.

Take your pick. 4a or 2b (hehe) might be closest to what we're after

 

I meant 4b