Does a 1994 sports bike look really old to you?

[gareth_r]

I originally started this post with "When I was 16", but then I thought about the current motorcycling demographic and decided to change it to...

When I was 21, this was the cutting edge high-performance bike




and this was an equivalent from 20 years earlier

.

Much as I like(d) old British bikes, the Triumph looked prehistoric.



Forty years later, this is a cutting edge high-performance bike from 20 years ago (which looks up-to-date to me )




I was watching Cafe Racers yesterday, and it started me wondering...

In 2014, does a 1994 Fireblade look as ancient to you young 'uns as the Tiger 110 looked to the 21 year old me?

[keebz91]

Even though that's one of the bikes which has aged most gracefully, yes it still does look rather ancient to me. Ironically, some of the older stuff appears newer as there seems to have been a resurgence with retro style bikes.

[Rawwr]

Fat arse, exhaust like a howitzer and headlights bigger than the moon. Those are the aged features.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

No, but neither does a 2004 blade. I like old cars, they look great. New ones not so much. I'm the opposite with bikes. Old holds no charm for me. 2014 SP please!

[Baryonyx]

It still shares that sports bike DNA that started with the new wave of sports bikes in the 80's, when the shape we're all familiar with now started. Yes, the long exhaust and chunky tail section age it, as does the bulk of the body, but it's still a fking great looking bike, unlike the older one in your post which looks prehistoric!

[moanthebairns]

Looks ok in pictures, and quite good in the flesh.

Sit on it, see and feel the components up close. That's when you noticed its 20 years old.

[Tall_Paul]

It's the 90's styling that is obviously 90's styling that makes it look dated. There aren't many bikes over 10-15 years old that look 'modern'

[Deranged Granny]

gareth_r said:

In 2014, does a 1994 Fireblade look as ancient to you young 'uns as the Tiger 110 looked to the 21 year old me?

Almost. The main thing that dates bikes from the last 20 years (especially from the 90s) is colour scheme - the actual overall profile changed much less than it did from 60s>80s. Bikes have just got physically smaller and lighter since the 90s, whilst retaining broadly similar design features.

To me, anything before ~2003 looks dated, but then I only got into bikes ~2005.

Edited by Deranged Granny on Wednesday 15th October 16:30

[podman]

The 916 came out out 1994..that hasnt age much at all eh.

The biggest difference in bike design/asthetics in my mind was the jump from the late 70's/early 80s to the mid 80s, with the likes of the first GSXRs and the RC30 a few years after, just a huge leap ahead in just a few years, for example, the modern litre bike doesnt look that much different to the ones of a decade or so ago.
1981



1984





1987




My Gamma looks a decade or more newer than my LC but the LC is only 2 years older..

[Hugo a Gogo]

a 1997 R1 was a great forward leap in styling (and weight and power) and already made the blade (which in 1993/4/5 journos were saying was too much for the road!) look like a sports tourer

[moanthebairns]

certain bikes have aged really badly, the SRAD springs instantly to mind. The front is fine but the rear looks really dated now.

[sc0tt]

Extremley biased but for me the only 10 year old bike that looks up to date in my eyes is an 04 r1.

Wouldn't buy anything old now because i think bikes age badly.

[SpudLink]

Hugo a Gogo said:

a 1997 R1 was a great forward leap in styling (and weight and power) and already made the blade (which in 1993/4/5 journos were saying was too much for the road!) look like a sports tourer

I would agree with that. Mid-90s sports bikes do look dated. They actually look as though they are designed for high speed stability, but then the R1 set a trend that made sports bikes look like they were designed for the track.

[gareth_r]

Interesting...

In 1974, a 1954 bike really looked like something from a different era. I was actually being quite generous in picking 1954. A 1953 Triumph or BSA wouldn't even have swinging arm suspension. Engines, brakes, oil tightness, electrics, reliability (or the effort required to maintain reliability), quality standards, durability had all developed so much. The Japanese had really changed our expectations.

If I look back from today, there doesn't seem to be that huge difference between a 1994 bike and a 2014 bike, so I was just wondering how that 20-year difference looked from a rather younger perspective.

[disco!!!!]

1994-2003-2006

[Tall_Paul]

You can see the progression from rounded bulbous shapes to pointy skinny shapes.

[srob]

This is what I ride so no, 90s bikes don't look old to me

[xstian]

SpudLink said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

a 1997 R1 was a great forward leap in styling (and weight and power) and already made the blade (which in 1993/4/5 journos were saying was too much for the road!) look like a sports tourer

I would agree with that. Mid-90s sports bikes do look dated. They actually look as though they are designed for high speed stability, but then the R1 set a trend that made sports bikes look like they were designed for the track.

I'm not sure the R1 can really be credited for making sports bikes look like they where made for the track. I would probably say 250 2T have that one. I'm not even sure if r1's have dated that well, not that I'm saying they are ugly or rubbish.

I think, like anything, as time goes on, styles change and everything looks dated in the end. Some bikes do age better an others though, even to the point where some bikes look better now, than they did when they were new.

[Mastodon2]

The thing that strikes me most about the 90s/00s progression is how much skinnier the bikes became, the fairings around the midriff of the bike were narrowed and the tails styled to be smaller. The frontal areas became a lot smaller too, and the ram air tubes (where present) moved from the sides of the nose, ala the ZX7R and the SRAD, moved to underneath the headlights.

The exhausts are tell-tale too, long cans on 90s sports bikes just look right, then underseats became popular, and now tiny cans poking out of the bellypans are the thing.

I love all sports bikes, particularly anything from the early 90s onwards. While I love how small and sleek bikes have gotten these days, the bikes of the 90s have a nostalgic visual presence. If there is one thing I really miss, it's the loud colour schemes. Sadly it seems to be very conservative with regard to colours these days, I love the lairy designs of the 90s.

[moto_traxport]

Tall_Paul said:

You can see the progression from rounded bulbous shapes to pointy skinny shapes.

+1. Bodywork wise everything still going from boxy to bulky then to pointy and onwards to pointy & short. Side bodywork getting more revealing as well.

Other stuff is mainly headlights and exhaust.

In retrospect underseat exhausts were a cul-de-sac starting with the NR750 and probably ending with the current 14B R1 with everything now belly pan colostomy bag type thing with 45' exit end can.

Headlights were still endurance style twin round lamps in the early 90's, morphing into fox eye stuff mid / late 90's, then getting more random in the noughties before we settle on LED minimalism we're starting to get now.

Edited by moto_traxport on Wednesday 15th October 19:10