Are motorcycles the better classic cars?
06/23/2015
A motorcycle actually has a lot going for it, especially as a classic car. It takes up relatively little space, is (usually) technically straightforward and (usually) costs significantly less than a car in the same performance and exclusivity class.
The fact that people prefer to use their motorcycle only when the weather is nice and warm does not really distinguish it from the classic car they have grown to love.
So there seems to be a lot to be said for the motorcycle as a classic car. What's more, even early motorcycles had enough power to easily keep up with the traffic. A Honda 750 Four, for example, delivered an easy 67 hp as early as 1969 and was therefore good for a top speed of around 200 km/h.
Even the fact that reliability decreases with increasing mileage is not really a problem. Even vintage cars are known to be driven a few hundred or perhaps 2000 kilometers a year at most, which does not push a motorcycle to the limit.
So the safety consideration remains. Of course, a motorcycle is much less safe than a car. However, the difference between an old and a new motorcycle is much smaller than that between a car from the 1950s and a modern car, even if a modern motorcycle has ABS and various other electronic aids. The natural enemy of motorcyclists is primarily cars and commercial vehicles that overlook them. And in this respect, an old "Töff" with its poorer lights and probably less conspicuous paintwork is certainly somewhat worse off than its modern descendant. And the fact that a style-conscious owner with dark leather gear and a nostalgic jet helmet is sitting on it doesn't increase safety either.
So there are many arguments for and against the motorcycle as a classic car. Utility arguments are hardly the deciding factor, even if a motorcycle cannot carry more than two people and a small amount of luggage. Most vintage cars are just as two-seater and they don't offer a generous trunk either.
To each his own, is probably the Solomonic summary ...
