Kailas Shastry R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was discussing this with Gliff on IM. >
And you still didn't get it. :P > > I dont get this at all. You are saying, had the Pulsar not been there, you > would have bought a Caliber but not the CBZ? or Fiero? Or ZMA? > > What is *so* wrong with these bikes that you are actually willing to > downgrade your segment itself in terms of power, handling, fun? > First of all, who says small bikes are not fun? Now I know why Classic owner swear by their bikes "flickability". I have as much fun riding the (relatively) tiny wave as riding my 180 DTS-i. Buying a bike (or anything else for that matter) is not all about power, performance, price, mileage, size. It is the appeal that product makes to the customer. It is the whole package. And that can differ from person to person. People who know me close, consider my buying habits queer. I normally don't go for the mainstream. The Pulsar has been the only exxception here. When I was in Bombay, I didn't need one. Although I would have loved to own one, it would be impractical. I would have to spend more time maintaining and taking care of it, than I would actually ride it. Simply because the public transport was so good and I was re-imbursed to use all forms of it. Plus my work pattern, wouldn't suit me riding a two-wheeler long distances. Bikes and cars would be for weekends only and something I didn't consider worth investing at that time. Then I moved to Bangalore! Was shocked to see the state of public transport here. And I was draining my bank balance on the ricks. So I decided to get a bike. Meanwhile my friend loaned me his Dad's old Chetak because he had recently upgraded to a Fiero. Now which bikes do I consider? I "knew" Bajaj bikes well, the entire product family. The Fiero was nice, but I didn't fancy the looks too much. The CBZ, way above my consideration set. The Victor... supposedly a great package, but I hated the very utilitarian looks. >From my point of view, Bajaj bikes were the best looking. Why? From the Caliber to the Pulsar to even the BYK. They maintained a neat flow from handlebar to the tail lamp. The Victor was very disorganised in that terms. Plus I had this strange facination for the rear suspension/shock-absorber mounting point under the seat. Those which had it hiding (CBZ, Fiero) seemed rather "covering up" type to me. On a parallel note. I had attended a session by Glynn Kerr way back in campus. Yes the same world famous bike designer. He was on his way to a project in Bajaj then. Anyway. He had explained the basics of bike design and how bike designed got refined over the years. Back to my choice. I had considered 3 bikes. The Bajaj Saffire. I always considered it the best designed scooter available then and even now (still better than the Wave). The Bajaj Byk (Loved its concept. Simple and easy to ride. bare bone basics and that it looked pretty decent and well balanced too (lines that could be followed from the fairing to the tail lamp). And the Pulsar (180 ofcourse), besides the commute would also support my long ride outta town dreams :) So while you may find it strange, that WAS my consideration set. The first two were good for a commute. The first looked real good. The last everything. Now just 11 months since I graduated, I didn't have enough "savings" to go in for a Pulsar with a single cheque. So I was considering the first two options. Test rode them. Actually managed a wheelie on the Byk during the test ride :). Dad also thought I was mad. He thought a Byk or the Saffire were too low end. His ideas were either the Boxer or Caliber or Chetak 4S. Yes :) And suggested I take a loan and BAFL was pretty competitive. He didn't understand why I "needed" a P180, when a 150 was MORE than enough. Ofcourse he had his share of rallying and touring in his hey day. The advantage I had was I lived alone in BLR and managed to pick up the 180. Or book it. Then I got to hear of the DTS-i. So stalled my booking and waited 4 months till I got my bike. > > > Call me brand un-loving if you want, but if the F2 was not there, I would > not have taken the Victor! > I'd have chosen the Pul or if I could stretch the budget, the CBZ. > That is for you. > > How could you even consider a Cailber when you wanted something 150+ cc? we > are talking entirely different segments. > Who ever said I wanted 150+cc? I just wanted a bike that I could commute on. Something that would save me from the mercy of these rick drivers and me ending up in a BAD mood every day :) That was the first priority. Touring and all were add-ons. I got self upgraded to the 180 within the BAL product line. Never had the CBZ or Fiero in my consideration set at all. And if all I wanted power and torque, the Bull was always there. But never considered it, tho' I admired the T-Bird. > > Yours and Gliff's mail makes it sound like non BAL bikes are untouchables. > Of course, if you really feel so, it's your feeling and you have a right to > it. :) > Nopes! It is not like that. I really liked the looks of the GF125 and later the 170. But as I said, I "knew" Bajaj bikes. I have seen the first batch of Calibers being built and how production was ramped up to meet demand. I have done a detailed study on 4S gearbox components. So as they say, a known Devil is better than an unknown Angel. So I went for something familiar. Today if I were to look for a bike, my requirements would be different. But at the same time... I have queer priorities. I take some stuff into consideration that others wouldn't even think of, and overlook some things that others consider important. Cheers, Glifford.
