The inset column on p.10 of the 12/2010 ON, titled "All Good Things," was a piece written by a self-confessed Geezer (like a lot of us,
Ich auch) who had just sold his beloved R1200RT (photo included) because of its increasingly high leg-kick requirement and ordered the recently-introduced Honda NT700V twin
. From his comments, he apparently is grieving over his lost Beemer, but still has very nice things to say about the rice mill's handling.
He seems tp be a nice guy, and I'd hate to add to his angst, but I'd like to mention to him politely in a PM on the MOA Forum that an R65 in good condition likely would have both solved his problem and preserved his commitment to the brand. I've gotta spend some time thinking how to draft this thought in a positive manner.
At the same time, I'm tempted by what the insurance companies call "moral hazard," and lawyers call a "statement against interest:" If I laud the merits of the R65, I risk revealing our secret, that we have a great ride at a bargain price. (In fact, there was a recent message string praising the R65's handling qualities on the MOA's Airhead Forum, causing a member to post a plea (in jest?) for the forum czar to remove the string, lest the R65 secret be made public and cause upward pressure on R65 prices.)
Confession time: In 2007 when I was in the market for a bike meeting my physical requirements and having good handling characteristics, I would have been sorely tempted by the writer's description of the Honda. (I sat on a 750 Honda at the time and didn't like the feel of it, not to mention being very aware of the local dealer's unsavory reputation.)
I recommend the article. Substitute "R65" in the writer's description of the Honda, and the text would be equally descriptive.
