MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

New Engine and Chassis for Royal Enfield’s 2022 Classic 350

Royal Enfield has been around since 1901, so the company is entitled to use the word “classic” as much as anyone. A 350 single has featured in the Royal Enfield line-up for decades, but for 2022 we have a redesigned 349cc single in the new Classic 350.

This new air/oil cooled 350 has a balance shaft (hurray!) and fuel injection, and has already found itself in another RE model, the Meteor 350. As you might expect from a single-cylinder of this displacement, which relies on air cooling, output is modest at a claimed 20 horsepower and 19 foot/pounds of torque.

With the 3.4 gallon fuel tank topped off, and ready to ride, RE says the bike weighs 430 pounds. The new chassis is a twin-downtube, steel spine affair, holding a 41mm non-adjustable fork with 5.1″ of travel and twin shock absorbers out back adjustable for spring preload. Braking is handled by a two-piston floating front caliper gripping a 300mm disc, and a single piston in the rear with a 270mm disc. ABS is standard.

The wheel and tire sizes befit the “Classic” description, being a 19″ front and 18″ rear carrying narrow rubber (100mm wide in front, and 120mm in the rear). The models available with classic spokes have tubed tires, while the models with alloy wheels have tubeless tires.

RE has a simple, attractive machine here with beginner-friendly power and a seat height (31.7″) that will allow most riders to place both feet firmly on the ground. RE has already sponsored custom builders to modify this model, including MS Customs which has designed the cool bike featured in the video below. The U.S. MSRP begins at $4,499 and ranges up to $4,699, depending on the model chosen. Take a look at Royal Enfield’s website for additional details.

71 Comments

  1. MarkyMark says:

    As a Royal Enfield Meteor 350 owner since 9/20/2021, I have to weigh in here, especially since the Classic 350 shares the engine, frame, and brakes with my Meteor. The Classic uses a bigger rear wheel, which changes the trail a bit. Also, the ECU is programmed a bit differently, so as to give the Classic its own character.

    One, the Meteor is my 12th bike I’ve owned; this isn’t my first bike. Two, RE’s quality has markedly increased in recent years. Three, the bike is super easy to work on; you can do most maintenance yourself. Four, if you want a lighter weight, easier to manage bike, the Meteor and Classic are great! At 60 years old, I don’t want to move a two wheeled tank around. Five, the bike is SUPER economical! Even doing spirited riding or riding in the hills, I never get worse than 67 mpg; I normally get 75-80 mpg on it. That means, even using premium gas, I can have fun all day for about $10.

    Many posters have knocked the top speed of the bike. The Meteor, and its mechanical sibling, the Classic, aren’t speed demons; that’s not what these bikes are built for. If you want speed, get something else. That said, though not optimised for the freeway, it can hop on for a brief stint. Do you need to bypass a traffic jam on your chosen route? Do you need to bypass a bad area? The Meteor or Classic can do that on the freeway for a few miles. You might have to ride in the right lane, but you can ride there; you won’t become someone’s hood ornament.

    Others have knocked the weight of the bike. Is it the lightest bike out there? No, but it’s not a pig, either. The weight these bikes have is down low, so, underway, they don’t feel that heavy at all; low speed maneuvers are easy on these bikes. Where the weight is appreciated is on a gusty day or when passing a big truck; unlike a lighter bike, you don’t feel like you’ll be blown on your side as you would with a lighter machine. For me, the bike isn’t too heavy; it isn’t too light; it’s like Goldilocks-just right!

    Some have knocked RE’s quality. I don’t know what it was like in years past, but modern Royal Enfields’ quality will surprise you! Seriously, have any of you-gasp-LOOKED at these bikes? Have you seen them in person? Have you ridden one? Look at the tank weld; it’s smooth and uniform. Look at the switchgear; it feels good to use. As another poster said, RE’s quality surpasses that of Big Four bikes from the 1960s and 1970s.

    For the kind of riding I do these days, these bikes can’t be beat! I ride my local back roads; I ride along the river; I cruise around in our local city; and I take the occasional day trip on it. For what I use a bike for, the Meteor 350 is more than enough; any bigger would be overkill.

    The RE Meteor and Classic 350 aren’t about speed. They’re about enjoying the perks of the vintage bike experience with none of the downfalls. You get the look and handling of a vintage bike without the temperamental nature of the real thing; you certainly don’t get the vibration! These bikes are about enjoying the ride. Isn’t that why we got in to motorcycling in the first place?

    Another thing is that RE bikes offer value. They’re inexpensive, but not cheap. They offer good looking, well built, basic motorcycles that-gasp-LOOK like motorcycles! If you ask someone to picture a motorcycle, their mind’s eye will see something like a Royal Enfield Interceptor 650. They have everything you need, and nothing you don’t; they come with EFI and ABS, but no rider modes. That is to say that they do the things the Big Four did when they took the US and Europe by storm 50-60 years ago.

    One final word is that you don’t ride the spec sheet. If you just look at the spec sheet, then sure, Royal Enfield’s bikes will come up short. However, if you ride their bikes, you’ll have a SMILE on your face; I guarantee it! I’ve never had more smiles per mile than I do now! It’s been said that it’s more fun to ride a slow bike fast than it is to ride a fast bike slow, and it’s true. The beauty of these bikes is that you can work the throttle, clutch, and gearshift with vigor, all while doing so at legal speeds; you won’t go to jail for having fun on these bikes!

    I’ll close with this: don’t knock Royal Enfield till you TRY them! They’ve come a long way… 🙂

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      I looked at the RE classic close up yesterday and came away satisfied with the look and apparent quality. The paint colors were much nicer than any of the pics on the internet ( shiny colors only ) and the over all size was OK for a 6’2″ tall, 34″ inseam rider mostly. Hand levers really need an adjustable feature.
      For a 400 pound class bike, it did feel heavy on the show room floor. There is a lot of weight change possible with some part substitution and a Dremel tool.
      My only wish would be for a 3 valve head, which would work wonders for a free performance up tick.

    • Gary says:

      “For the kind of riding I do these days, these bikes can’t be beat!” Brother, I’ve owned a lot of bikes too, and regardless of what type of riding you do, there are way better bikes. Even better Royal Enfields. But the one wild card the 350 has is classic good looks. If that is enough for you to overlook glacial acceleration, then follow your bliss, child. I’m 64, and I need bikes with more poop.

    • Bob says:

      Your Stockholm Syndrome is showing…

  2. Mr.Mike says:

    If it is true that riding a slow vehicle fast is more enjoyable than a riding a fast vehicle slow, this in theory should be the ideal tool for track day ecstasy.

  3. Gary says:

    Nice looking bike, but a 350 single is not for me. Not enuf poop.

  4. newtonmetres says:

    The horse will probably beat it over quarter-mile….

  5. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    When I look at a vintage motorcycle in good condition, I feel good again. Even a 60s bike is beautiful in a purely mechanical way, that is long gone now, with the plastic, non fin, black painted engine and case modernity. One could see thru a bike side to side and spend hours admiring the complex curves and reflections, of an air cooled engine in a shiny black frame ment to be on its way down the road.
    If the nostalgia inspires me to lust for another bike of that time, I’m snapped back to reality remembering all the wonderful times exploring the misterys of bad points wear, leaky cases, broken oil tank brackets from vibration, bulb filaments mounted horizontally to resonate with vibration, rust everywhere, brakes and tires that lasted 5k miles, and finned exhaust retaining hardware with 3 full threads engagement on the head.
    So – – suppose a vintage looking and running motorcycle was available new, without the old design QA issues, that could replicate the old feeling motoring along just to get there, while being a part of the living mechanical machine ? Here you go – – the Royal Enfield and a few others will give back a more pleasant time in the saddle for the simple fun of it. No racer boys need apply.

    • Jeremy says:

      “without the old design QA issues”

      Fail.

      • Reginald Van Blunt says:

        Do tell Jeremy – – – what ‘old design QA issues’ have you had on your current Royal Enfield. I am very curious if the latest versions are as bad as the first imported here, quite a few years ago.

        • Jeremy says:

          I really just meant that as a joke, not a legitimate criticism, which I know doesn’t come off all the time on a forum post.

          A guy I ride mountain bikes with had the 650. He didn’t keep it long, but not for any quality/reliability reasons. It was just a little too wheezy at altitude for his liking. I took a quick spin on it once and thought it was nice enough. The bike looked a little rough from a build quality perspective IMO, and especially so after the first year, but that wouldn’t be a deal breaker if that were the bike I really wanted. Even though I’m the type of person that buys all my bikes new, I personally would have a difficult time not buying a used Triumph if this were the type of bike I was after. But that’s just me.

          • Reginald Van Blunt says:

            No sweat. I’ve casually looked at the RE thumpers for about 12 years, and they were crap for a lot of reasons then. Now I have a dealer about 70 miles from me, and RE has improved enough to do a look see again. First in my book is always weld quality, then we’ll see. To thump again or not to thump. ? ? ?

    • Mick says:

      Isn’t it odd that the street bike market fails to please so many people. For many here all it would take is something that looks a lot like this bike from a major manufacturer with a decent amout of power. It doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for. But they are alway missing the mark. At least they do make an effort once in a while.

      On my part, I want to benefit from technology. Give me something that make a nice 80 or 90 horsepower and weighs in the low 300s ready to ride on a real scale. Not gonna happen. Bike are actually getting heavier. The industry wants to sell you a spec sheet queen with a zillion horsepower and and NSA building full of electronic garbage. The spec sheet will be sure to list the bike’s weight inaccurately, and even that figure will be ridiculously high. And that is supposed to be OK because this is America and we are all supposed to be fixated on big numbers.

      Unlike bikes for the retro crowd. They are making no effort at all. The very same companies that make sub 250 pound dirt bikes that can be launched though the air and land on rocks all day are making dirt bike looking street bike things that weigh twice as much at the very least and would likely break something the first day they were actually pounded like a real dirt bike. But look! It makes a million horsepower and has an electronic package that can deorbit satellites onto your unwitting foes. Spare me. I’m not impressed.

      • Reginald Van Blunt says:

        By George, you’ve hit a nail on the barrel. Indeed, there is a difference tween dirt design and street that explains all the illogical, arbitrary and stupid design decisions we are burdened with on a street bikes.
        A dirt sled has to be absolutely functional, where as a street only needs to roll on down the road. Dirt function dismisses all unnecessary gadgets and weight to appeal to a guy that wants to get back to camp. Street elevates unneccesary tech to enable every dude to pretend he is a secret racer or severely well off gadgeteer. That is a weighty illusion, which is directly proportional to cost. Of course the use of ultra light dirt bike unobtainum can cost even more than Michigan Miracle Metal, but what do the manufactures sell most – – – street, therefore a larger profit.
        I have long thought that products go out the door with deliberate defects in practical design to allow the next iteration a ‘newer, longer, lower’ sales pitch. Manufactures could not all be so uncaring or incompetent in common sense functionality all the time. Almost every street bike I have seen has several obvious design defects, and I am not talking inconsiquencial subjective preferences. Many are just ergonomics, that hurt everybody sooner or later. Some are mechanical interface issues that require special procedures for normal maintaince.
        Beginning design concepts such as headlight reflectors size and shape dictated by styling. Oew – scary eyes ! ! ! ! How about foot peg position interference with frame parts, or unadjustable controls.
        Many farkles are sold to make up for these anomalies, but why should the buyer have too.
        Good simple designs are more reliable and less expensive and lighter.
        Have a nice day any way.

  6. Bryan says:

    I like the appearance of the bike. I like the way it is fitted and in fact I am looking for something very much like this. I want to sell my RF900R and my racing TL1000S and get a 350/400 cc around town bike. This is priced perfectly. However, I remember my 1971 HD Sprint SS back in high school (1968 – 1973) It was rated for about 25 HP and weighed 321 pounds. 430 pounds is a lot for a small 350 engine to push around.
    Having said that it is a cool looking bike. I don’t care about the HP rating as long as I can ride on the freeway for short periods. But one of the reasons I want a smaller bike is to have less weight to push around and balance. 430 pounds, yikes.
    But I like the bike.

  7. todd says:

    I’m surprised I’m the first to mention this but Royal Enfield has only been around since 1955. If you re-worded this to something like, “The name, ’Royal Enfield’, has been around, off and on, sine 1901…” than we could accept the argument.

    I understand this bike. Among my other bikes, I have some low-powered classics that are entertaining to ride around on. Sometimes I take them on the freeway and buzz along at 75, just. Much of the time in the Bay Area you’re just riding between slow cars. I’ve even taken 90cc bikes through traffic like this. Heck, I even rode a 90cc bike from the Bay Area up to the Sierras. It took me ALL DAY but it was a blast. I’ve done the same ride in a couple hours on a touring bike but have a hard time remembering any details from those trips. I wouldn’t have one of these as my only bike but, if I didn’t want to bother with restoring a vintage bike, I could see why someone would want to pick one of these up. I’d probably get a SR400 though.

    • Alvin says:

      The motorcycle division of Yamaha was founded in 1955, being incorporated on 1 July 1955 in Japan, and was headed by Genichi Kawakami. – Wikipedia

      Let it go, todd. Just. Let. It. Go.

  8. J Bryan says:

    Had a great time riding a Desert Sand 350 Classic at Motozilla in Warren Ohio courtesy of the Demo Tour. What a fun bike! Probably not the best choice for high speed mountain work but plenty quick and fast enough for urban/suburban jaunts, recreational riding and occasional solo trips. I was pleasantly surprised at both how much I liked the military replica paint in person and at the level of fit and finish. The seat, riding position and suspension were all spot on for me – other than the angle of the handlebars, hopefully all it would take is a bit of fore or aft adjustment, but if not different bars are cheap and plentiful. It did get a little buzzy and breathless during our quick bursts above 55MPH but not so much that it felt like it was a road hazard or anything. Other than adding some accessories like bags and maybe a small shield, taking off the passenger seat and (maybe) a slip on replacement muffler the bike is great as is and is just what it appears to be – a modern bike in an awesome classic wrapper. I really like it and after the other colors come out here in the US so I can compare them will probably put one in my garage.

    • joe b says:

      I agree. so many types of mc being sold today. I worked dealer level for 30 years, and there are all types. Not everyone wants the same thing. I sometimes say, “These are not the droids you are looking for”, when someone bashes a bike they would never buy. As much as I hate to say it, I’m getting old. I still have my big fast sport bike, couple of them, recently bought a Honda Grom for my wife, and riding that around slowly (compared to bigger faster bikes) it has its own fun. I can see this Classic 350 for what it is. A modern production of a classic bike, with a reasonable price. A bike for just putting around. I know some dont see it, this is not the bike for them. Not everyone wants a big fast bike, or the latest 14,000 RPM model. Just wish I could find a Navi from a dealer that wanst twice its original price because of dealer markup.

  9. Toad says:

    Hope this offering stalls less frequently than my Himalayan.

  10. Dan German says:

    Wow. Whole lotta people b*tthurt about a bike they’re never gonna buy, anyway. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. I’m not buying it, either, but I like it. Any time on two wheels is good. As for RE build quality, I will paraphrase the person who said someone oughta tell Itchy Boots they’re no good before she sets off around the world on one…

    • Mick says:

      There is more than a little vitriol over this thing. What I really got a kick out of was the guys saying your need tons of power in urban areas. Yeah cha! While I do hate cities with ever fiber of my being, I did live in Paris for three LONG years and was just in Portland Maine for a couple of days. Why anyone thinks they need a bunch of power to hang with brain dead city dwellers is beyond me. My bike might have a fair bit more than 20hp, but I probably used a bit less than that moping around with the urban bovine. It might be nice to have a bit of power to to finally enjoy the freedom of being able to use it once you escape the urban gravity well. But inside those festering sewers you can get around as fast or faster on a bicycle because you can be less polite on one.

      All this MotoGP ‘bage is making people delusional. Isn’t Q winning the championship on a slow Yamaha? The rest of those guys must all be city boys. Mmmmmooooooooo!

  11. Neil says:

    No one is riding these days. Anything to get young people off their screens and out onto the road. I had a TU250 and it had plenty of power for my 20 mile one way rides in and out of the city. Cars and gas are now $$$$$$$. Biden is selling out to foreign imports of oil. So as gas goes to 6 a gallon we need simple sippers to ride. Drill. Refine. Get SUVs off the road. Build high speed rail. China passed us three corners back.

    • Anonymous says:

      Imagine being this lost to Koch Brothers’ bu***hit…

      Listen, you boomer shill: kids aren’t buying bikes because they don’t want to. They aren’t buying bikes because they CAN’T. Young folks are making less money in a more expensive world. They don’t have medical coverage. They can’t build capital.

      Meanwhile, boomer as****es like yourself are blaming them for the burdens you heaped on them.

      As they say these days… “go touch grass”

  12. Doc Sarvis says:

    The man bun and tattoo and Doc Martin crowd will love these.

  13. viktor92 says:

    Can’t believe somebody could buy this thing in 21 century…

    • TP says:

      I agree. This thing’s too slow to drive on the freeway, and who needs that?
      This is just very dated technology. Maybe that works in places like India, I guess, though Indian manufacturers certainly have the ability to create and manufacture much better machines. Retro doesn’t have to mean reactionary.

      • foster says:

        75 MPH not fast enough for your freeways? I had to roll off the throttle the other day to slow for the traffic in the passing lane on my 350 Meteor.

        • Jeremy says:

          75mph isn’t fast enough for freeways where I have lived unless there is another 10 – 15 mph on tap that can be accessed in a hurry.

          And I don’t mean that as a slight to RE’s 350cc line of bikes. That simply isn’t part of the bike’s mission statement. That would be like complaining about the lack of touring comfort from a KTM EXC.

    • newtonmetres says:

      Agreed!

  14. Pat says:

    I dig these! What a beautiful little bike!

  15. dp says:

    Waste of time, labor and material. If you take RE and a tad less “classic” like Triumph Street Twin you have two similar English creations to choose from. But you are no way in position to compare the too prize-wise. So, it comes to this PSO or over-prized basic bike; what works better for you? I know my pick – it was Honda.

  16. Bob says:

    RE makes shit, and is the first exception to the idea “that you can’t buy bad bikes these days.”

    Polishing a turd means you are just buying a shiny turd.

    • Grover says:

      Agreed. People are cheap and think “this will be as reliable as a Honda at a great savings”. Nothing could be further from the truth. RE has a bad reputation and the low HP produced by this bike should be a hint that their engineering talent sucks. There are many bikes to choose from these days, why burden yourself with a RE that you know is a POS and will break down and leave you stranded. To save a few bucks? Bad idea. 450# and 20 hp won’t even cut it as a city bike.

    • Alvin says:

      Royal Enfield’s quality is increasing to the point that it is well past that of the much hallowed Hondas, Yamahas, Kawasakis and Suzukis of the 60s and 70s, and we all know how those are worshiped these days.

      The first Goldwings (all the way up to some of the 1500s if memory serves) had some idiot putting the stater and water pump deep within the bowls of the bike’s motor. Sheer genius that one, eh? And you can bet one or both of those would fail (and they did) and regardless of which one it was the owner had better replace both of them while the mechanic was in there.

      If Honda in their wisdom refuses to provide fun motorcycles like the RE 350 Classics (e.g., the CB350 H’Ness) then piss off HoMoCo because that is what a great many people with memories of better times (when the nicest people rode a Honda) will buy Royal Enfields.

      Speaking of polishing turds, each of so-called Big Four of Japan have produced their share of motorized poop. Except when they do so, folks like you seem to think of them as Baby Ruths, you know…”It’s no big deal”.

      The majority of you must be weaklings as all you care about are weight and horsepower. Go to the gym and take your piss-poor riding skills to a track instead of being an ass on public roads.

      Enjoy your Baby Ruth.

      Alvin

      • Dirck Edge says:

        Folks like me?

        • Alvin says:

          No. People like some of your readers. There are times they appear to be the biggest bunch of whiners on the planet. Nothing is light enough, fast enough, uncomfortable enough, ad infinitum.

          And more than a few of your readers are weaklings. It’s as if they will be forced to carry the bike instead of riding the bike. Pussies.

      • Jeremy says:

        I’m typically a “to each his own” kind of person, but to say that Royal Enfield has surpassed the Japanese Big 4 in terms of quality is delusional. Even people who don’t have experience with motorcycles can probably tell that just by your referencing the “first Goldwings,” which debuted almost half a century ago, to make your case.

        I haven’t checked out a Royal Enfield bike in several years now, and while I’m sure they have improved, I doubt that enough time has elapsed for them to make the strides necessary to catch up to Honda. They were barely at the level of 1960s British bikes not that long ago.

        • Alvin says:

          Jeremy, read my words again.

          “Royal Enfield’s quality is increasing to the point that it is well past that of the much hallowed Hondas, Yamahas, Kawasakis and Suzukis of the 60s and 70s, and we all know how those are worshiped these days.”

      • Foster says:

        Unlike others here, Alvin must have been following the major improvements RE has made at their production facilities in the past few years. These aren’t the Royal Enfields of the 20th century.

        As a 350 Meteor owner since last summer, I can vouch for this little engine’s capabilities – even with only 20 horses. It impresses me every time I ride it and, coming off a Honda ST1100 that I owned for 27 years, that is saying something!

        Honda made nothing that appealed to me in the small displacement category, unless I wanted to look like a character out of a Mad Max movie.

        No problem keeping up with “normal urban traffic”, whatever that comment from Harry means. 75 MPH on the freeway just the other day and I had to roll off the throttle for the slowing traffic in the passing lane.

        It isn’t meant for the multi day, long distance touring that I did for years on the ST, but for the market it is intended for, it works very well.

        • Harry says:

          Foster, good to know, thanks for the update. I’ve lived in both rural and urban places. From Denver to San Francisco to Chicago to Boise to . . . Urban traffic can be very aggressive and many times strong acceleration is called for. It’s not just freeway driving. My Ninja 400 has no problems in these situations. Glad the RE can meet this demand.

      • newtonmetres says:

        I had a much-hallowed Honda CB 500 Four and a 1975 CB 750 -rode the shit out of them: nothing ever failed or fell off…

        • Foster says:

          And your point is?

          • Grover says:

            The point is that Honda has always made good Motorcycles, RE not so much. I thrashed all my Japanese bikes and none of them have ever failed me. Also, I have lived enough to know that “friends don’t let friends buy RE’s).

  17. Tom F says:

    Test rode a Classic a couple of weeks back, while they look very nice, that 350cc is anemic – about what you’d expect from 20 hp. Love the looks, but I think I’ll pass for now…

  18. Harry says:

    Different strokes for different folks. However, one does not buy a motorcycle just for the looks. At 430 pounds and only 20 horsepower will this machine be able to keep up with normal urban traffic? My mowing tractor has almost the same power. I have my doubts. My Kawasaki Ninja 400 has 45 horsepower and weighs 362 pounds.

    • Dave says:

      The Ninja 400 is possibly the highest power/weight ratio in it’s displacement class, outside of a race MX bike. That said, the RE has about the same power/weight ratio as my compact sedan. It’ll keep up but only just.

    • Neil says:

      Ninja 400 looks hideous and is not comfortable at all. Five mins and you have to get off.

      • Harry says:

        Most things are relative. Now I rode a 2001 Suzuki SV650S before it was stolen in South Carolina. Then a 2003 Yamaha YZF-600R. Then a 2007 Suzuki GSX-R600 (with speeding ticket). Now a 2018 Kawasaki Ninja 400. If one is to rate how confortable is each bike to ride, this would be my decision from worst to best: GSX-R600 – SV650R – YZF-600R – Ninja 400.

        The Ninja riding position is more upright and the seat is pretty good compared to the others. The best wind protection was the YZF-600R. You can’t please everyone but I love riding my Ninja and can ride it for hours without any problem.

        • TP says:

          I bought an R3 instead of a 400 Ninja because I don’t care for the looks of the Ninja, but I had a 300 Ninja and it was a comfortable bike I rode for 34,000 happy miles.

  19. DR007 says:

    I was beginning to think Motorcycle Daily forgot about motorcycles. Enough of the racing. There are many bikes to write about. Loved this article and great to see a motorcycle that looks like a motorcycle and not an alien.

  20. Kurt says:

    Good comment!

  21. Nick says:

    Can anyone explain why the guy cut the side out of the fuel tank? Otherwise, I must admit the finished article did look a bit more sexy that the staid original.

    Nick

    • J Bryan says:

      That’s called “dishing” the tank – and it’s pretty much a typical custom builder thing. Strictly for appearance.

    • Mick says:

      I think they were going for a more Yamaha shape.

      I’m the last guy to understand the retro or custom market. I do have a motorcycle that has few original parts. But I like to think of it as altered or repurposed.

      If i were to go to the trouble of cutting up a perfectly good gas tank, I would lose the sseams. But those guys lost all their credibility with the bike they chose to sit in front of.

      cus·tom
      noun

      1. Taking a perfectly good motorcycle and ruining it.

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      Speed .

  22. Tank says:

    Why can’t Harley or Indian make something like this? I guess they wouldn’t be profitable enough. The best they could do was the Blast.

    • Mick says:

      I remember when I was complaining about Indian carrying on for years about how they were going to make a street version of their dirt track bike only to eventually release what is basically their Sportster. Some guy, who sounded like he was straight from the Indian sales department, chimed in on how wrong I was and that who would ever want something in a 750 category.

      Um, lemme see. Doesn’t just about every manufacturer that isn’t based in the United States sell something somewhere around 750cc and aren’t they all something like their top sellers?

      Yeah sure, everyone watching all that hype about a street version of a dirt track bike really wanted a 500 plus pound 1200 with just enough dirt track styling to fool almost no one. How could I possibly live my life every day being so wrong all the time?

      To this day, I have never seen one of those bikes in the wild. They are obviously not selling like free beer.

  23. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    Hurray hurray, this is it – – – a motorcycle article !