School me on what a cruiser is.

[donn]

The problem with cruiser bikes is beginning in the 1990's frames were lowered along with seat height because they look cooler.

The California II was before the cruiser craze, right?  It's a standard, like the T3 etc.  You think they lowered the California III because it looks cooler?  Do think it entered anyone's thoughts that only a fraction of the adult male population is tall enough to comfortably ride a California II?

As for posture ... I spent some time poring over online photos of motorcycle police, a few days back when the subject was "bolt upright" posture.  Several kinds of motorcycles showed up - Harley, BMW, Kawasaki, I wasn't really keeping score, but if the posture was any different, it sure wasn't radically different.  If those Harleys weren't cruisers, I don't know what is, but those guys don't ride them with their toes pointing up.

[JJ]

How do ya like the way that whale handles?

I love messing with sport bikes on my '13 Cross Country Tour!

It handles "exceptionally well" (long wheelbase) for a 871 pound sled.  It's hard to convince anyone otherwise unless they own or have ridden one. 

I use my Vision mostly for two up riding. If I want to play Mr. Sport Bike, I ride this: 

[Chuck in Indiana]

Nice picture..  and yeah I imagine that the big C could hold it's own against a

871 pound sled.

 

[JJ]

Nice picture..  and yeah I imagine that the big C could hold it's own against a   

Hi Chuck! - - and greetings from Vortex Land!

Yes, I have to get all the necessary upgrades (timing gear, oil pump, new belts, Will Creedon chip, etc., etc.) completed within the next month on the ol "Yellow Horse!"  

It's a BLAST to ride...95 HP, and it weighs 300+ pounds LESS than Moby Dick!! :1:

[wymple]

"The California II was before the cruiser craze, right?  It's a standard, like the T3 etc.  You think they lowered the California III because it looks cooler?  Do think it entered anyone's thoughts that only a fraction of the adult male population is tall enough to comfortably ride a California II?"

I am 5'8" on a good day, there is nothing tall about my Cal II.

[ITSec]

The California II was before the cruiser craze, right?  It's a standard, like the T3 etc.  You think they lowered the California III because it looks cooler?  Do think it entered anyone's thoughts that only a fraction of the adult male population is tall enough to comfortably ride a California II?

If the Cali (in any version, I, II, III, 1400) has ever caused a fraction greater than 1/8th of the population to have height trouble, then what about the Norge, Breva 1x00, Stelvio, Quota, LeMans, or....? The Cali may have been taller than some cruisers, but it was never in any form as tall as even the most classic of standards such as the Honda CB750 / CB1000, the Brit bike standards, and all the others that definitely fall within that category.

I am 6 feet tall with a 32 inch inseam. By modern standards that's pretty much average, maybe a bit on the tall size for those in my age group (approaching 60). I can flat-foot my Norge even with a seat made 1.5 inches taller. I can easily handle a Stelvio or other adventure touring bike. Cruisers, in general, I find cramped and uncomfortable - as I do many Hondas, including Gold Wings and ST1300s. To me, a cruiser is rather like a NASCAR spec vehicle. I can't see how those guys can drive with their wrists so close to their shoulders - no other form of racing has you chewing the steering wheel!

[Kev m]

If the Cali (in any version, I, II, III, 1400) has ever caused a fraction greater than 1/8th of the population to have height trouble, then what about the Norge, Breva 1x00, Stelvio, Quota, LeMans, or....? The Cali may have been taller than some cruisers, but it was never in any form as tall as even the most classic of standards such as the Honda CB750 / CB1000, the Brit bike standards, and all the others that definitely fall within that category.

I am 6 feet tall with a 32 inch inseam. By modern standards that's pretty much average, maybe a bit on the tall size for those in my age group (approaching 60). I can flat-foot my Norge even with a seat made 1.5 inches taller. I can easily handle a Stelvio or other adventure touring bike. Cruisers, in general, I find cramped and uncomfortable - as I do many Hondas, including Gold Wings and ST1300s. To me, a cruiser is rather like a NASCAR spec vehicle. I can't see how those guys can drive with their wrists so close to their shoulders - no other form of racing has you chewing the steering wheel!

Jane you ignorant slut.... damn I miss classic SNL.

So here's my counter point.

It's not just about saddle height, it's also about saddle WIDTH.

I'm 5' 10" with about a 32" inseam, I'm also young enough and in shape enough that I've never found a bike i had a problem fitting. Actually I kinda feel like I'm textbook average for most cycle ergos.

But I know riders who range from 4'10" to 6' 6" and they all obviously fit bikes differently from me as they approach those extremes.

Ergonomic needs vary greatly, and even a given machine can be made to fit a lot of different needs. But people will still have their own preferences which is cool.

[bad Chad]

There is too much bigotry among motorcyclist.  I realize much of it here is just in good fun, and most of us could care less what another finds full filling, as long as it still fall under a certain umbrella, that's mostly well adjusted humanity.

It seems clear, there is no accepted definition for terms we use, but don't agree on. 

What as weird species we are.

[Kev m]

There is too much bigotry among motorcyclist.  I realize much of it here is just in good fun, and most of us could care less what another finds full filling, as long as it still fall under a certain umbrella, that's mostly well adjusted humanity.

It seems clear, there is no accepted definition for terms we use, but don't agree on. 

What as weird species we are.

Yup, we're tribal in nature, even those who claim to be coyotes (lone dogs) who seek out other coyotes.

[Cool Runnings]

They are called HOGS for a reason. 

[Moto]

There is too much bigotry among motorcyclist.  I realize much of it here is just in good fun, and most of us could care less what another finds full filling, as long as it still fall under a certain umbrella, that's mostly well adjusted humanity.

It seems clear, there is no accepted definition for terms we use, but don't agree on. 

What as weird species we are.

Freud had something to say about just this sort of thing, I understand, calling it the narcissism of small differences. Check out the Wikipedia article on the topic, which says

[the narcissism of small differences] is the phenomenon that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and that are related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and are ridiculing each other because of sensitiveness to these details of differentiation.

And this:

In terms of postmodernity, consumer culture has been seen as predicated on the narcissism of small differences to achieve a superficial sense of one's own uniqueness, an ersatz sense of otherness which is only a mask for an underlying uniformity and sameness.[6]

Nothing better expresses the foundation of Harley hating and cruiser mocking (or the reverse sentiments) than this, I think.

Moto

[Murray]

If its massively over weight, with little power, bugger all ground clearance, uselessly short suspension travel and crap brakes preferably all four, where significant compromises have been made to get a look at all costs and the proportions slope towards the rear of the bike, you have a cruiser. The motorcycle industries answer to not wanting to actually engineer something.

[Sasquatch Jim]

If its massively over weight, with little power, bugger all ground clearance, uselessly short suspension travel and crap brakes preferably all four, where significant compromises have been made to get a look at all costs and the proportions slope towards the rear of the bike, you have a cruiser. The motorcycle industries answer to not having to actually engineer something.

Fixed it for ya.

[charlie b]

This is all funny.  A lot like the discussions over what a "sport touring' bike should be.  A sporty touring bike or a touring sport bike.

"........but there's something to be  said for sitting back with your legs unfolded from under you, yes, cruising down a long stretch of highway."

This is exactly what makes my back hurt in 10 minutes or less.  My feet have to be under me or even behind me and then I can go all day on the bike.  I hate highway pegs and floorboards.

Everyone has different seating positions that work for them.  Don't care if you call a bike a cruiser, sport, touring, standard, etc.  I am disappointed that Guzzi has chosen to go the "cruiser" route but if the sales increase then who am I to complain.  I won't buy one anyway.

[Darren Williams]

My basic definition of a standard is comparable to dirt bike ergos.  All others go from that base line.

[Testarossa]

My 2c: If you can stand on the footpegs to absorb terrain, it's a standard. If the pegs are too far forward for that, it's a cruiser.

On the Guzzi and the F650 the pegs are almost directly under my butt. On the TR6R they're just forward of the saddle nose, which means under my knees. The Scrambler version of the Triumph has the pegs in exactly the same place, but obviously you can get up and forward over the pegs in the dirt. I don't want the pegs further forward than that.

Looks like the V9 peg position is similar to the TR6. I'll allow it's a standard.

[Rox]

The V9 Roamer is NOT a cruiser...IMHO.  This...on the other hand...is an 871 pound cruiser!  :1:

Moby Dick - aka, The Great White Whale! (lol)

AGREED.

If you look at the controls they're not forward . They're under . Technically a Standard being marketed as a cruiser .
   The bobber one is growing on me .

[bad Chad]

I'm not too sure the average joe could stand up on the Roamer pegs?  Has anyone tried?

[Chuck in Indiana]

AGREED.

If you look at the controls they're not forward . They're under . Technically a Standard being marketed as a cruiser .
   The bobber one is growing on me .

I know how you ride, Rox..     Ride it first, you may change your mind.

[ITSec]

This is all funny.  A lot like the discussions over what a "sport touring' bike should be.  A sporty touring bike or a touring sport bike.

SPORT <--------Concours, FJR-----------RT, Norge----------------ST1300-----------> TOURING

ADVENTURE <----------KLR, DR/DRZ--------GS, Stelvio-----------V-Strom-----------------> TOURING

CRUISER <--------Fat Boy, Customs------Various HD, Vulcan, Star models------V9, some Japanese models-------CB and other replibikes, some Triumphs, etc -----> STANDARD

It's all a matter of degree...

[rboe]

The CB is your classic standard and frankly I'd like to see more standards to choose from in the market. They are such a classical swiss army knife of motorcycling.

[wildebube]

My basic definition of a standard is comparable to dirt bike ergos.  All others go from that base line.

I was about to agree with this and comment that, probably like a lot of people here, I started out on small dirt bikes and that kind of determined my definition of the standard riding position.  My first street-only bike was a '72 Honda CB350 - about as "standard" as you can get.  But when I think about it, it goes even further back.  Standard is really what used to be a normal bicycle riding position.  Oh, there were "English racers", and then they came out with the "Sting Ray" bicycles with banana seats and high bars, but the regular old bicycle was still the standard.  I guess, more or less, it still is.  Feet below my hips and handlebars that are neither high nor low.  When my feet get much forward of that position, it's a cruiser to me.  There are other styling characteristics that I associate with cruisers, but as I've thought about it and read what other people have said in this thread, I've realized that for me, it's mostly foot position that makes the difference.