Friday, March 15, 2024

Why you want a Royal Enfield, explained

Three Royal Enfields, new and old.
You want a Royal Enfield because you recognize it. 

 You should read Aayush Rathod's TopSpeed article about Royal Enfield and the popularity of motorcycles that look old-fashioned but function as well as modern motorcycles. 

It's entitled Retro Revival: How Retro-Styling Is Taking Over The Industry

I'm not so sure about the headline. The article provides no hard statistics to show that Royal Enfields or any retro-styled brand is outpacing other looks. As a former newspaper copyeditor, I know that the author of the article and the writer of the headline are often two separate people. 

But that doesn't mean the headline is necessarily wrong: we know that Royal Enfield is going Great Guns, and competitors are moving fast to muscle into the retro market worldwide. In the United States, Harley-Davidson and Indian are long on retro, and they are everywhere on our streets. 

"Everyone and their grandmas are eyeing such motorcycles," the author writes, and his explanation for why this is so strikes me as right on.

Read the article, which is well reasoned, nuanced, and amusingly written. But allow me to repeat and briefly expand on some of the points he makes:

Really old motorcycles were unreliable, leaking, vibrating contraptions. But they established the definition of "motorcycle."

Naked, with parts that you could see and recognize. Rugged (even if unreliable).

Simple (if crude by modern standards). Broken, they could be fixed without calling in a specialist.

Tight-fisted customers who needed to ride to work (not just to play) liked what they knew and bought it. Rathod compares the motorcycles of the day to denim pants. Never fully in style. Never really out of it.

Time created tremendous brand familiarity. Harley, Indian, Triumph, BSA, Norton. Even, in India at least, Royal Enfield.

The old motorcycles weren't just the thing of the moment. They were, to use Rathod's word, "timeless."

And modern motorcycles (always on the cutting edge) are not timeless. Simple as that.

But so what? Who values timelessness?

Rathod supplies the answer: effectively, everybody human.

Here's the proof: roll your retro out of the garage and see the number of times people signal their admiration, ask how old it is, and whether you "restored it yourself."

No, I don't mean that you're looking to be admired and, frankly, it's hard to have to admit that you didn't restore it; you just paid for it at a dealership!

My point is that the onlooker is the one experiencing the pleasant thoughts, perhaps of days gone by. Even a child will recognize an old-fashioned looking motorcycle as the storybook symbol of freedom, fun, and adventure.

This is natural but it's also not left to chance. Brands are selling this to you. Rathod observes that modern marketing of any product is more about telling stories than comparing statistics.

The formula is to establish a human connection and then make the sale. Nostalgia is a powerful emotion. So is the hunger for the "joy of riding" conveyed by the iconic image of the simple motorcycle.

A retro-style motorcycles likely will not win any war of statistics with a high-tech superbike (except on price). But it is far ahead on emotion.

Crudely put, the subhead on Rathod's article tells us to "Expect more retro sports bikes, retro ADVs, and retro cruisers in the near future because they're all the hype."

Hype? Well, OK.

But sales actually depend on more than hype. Money changes hands when customers see real value in a product. Retro delivers.


Friday, March 8, 2024

Royal Enfields are "retro," not "classic"

1999 Royal Enfield Bullet.
I rode my Royal Enfield Bullet to the Dania Beach Vintage Motorcycle Show, but it entered the parking lot, not the show. 

 I like to say  that my 1999 Royal Enfield Bullet "lives in the real world." 

It gets ridden a lot more often than it gets washed. If my homemade bodge fixes some minor issue or other (a loose turn signal, for instance) I don't sweat trying to make the repair look factory original. 

My Bullet is old fashioned, and it looks it. Kickstart only. Drum brakes. Wire wheels. Carburetor. Points. It shares many of these obsolete features with true classic motorcycles that would cost many times more. 

Yet it is decidedly not classic, regardless of what Royal Enfield calls its new "Classic 350." Those new motorcycles are classic only in appearance and certain specifications. They are what Landon Hall of Motorcycle Classics magazine calls "Retro Rides." 

Someone once defined a valuable antique as something that is:

1. Expensive originally.

2. Rare.

3. Still in superb condition.

My Bullet fails on all three counts. It was originally inexpensive. It has been produced in thousands (one source says 4.5 million since 1932) and is still in production. Finally, of course, it's no longer in perfect condition.

To that list of qualities I would have to add that any valuable antique probably also should be old.

At, now, 25 years of age, my Bullet is oldish.

But, wait. It's still WAY younger than I am. It's not old, compared to me, and I don't feel old. (I just am.) 

Besides, how can a Royal Enfield Bullet be truly old when I could go to a dealership and buy one factory new?

Effectively, Retro Rides provide the pleasure of vintage riding without the heartache of maintaining a museum piece.

Landon Hall wrote, in praise of Retro Rides: "A retro can be easy to own and maintain, and frankly, easy to replace if it’s damaged or stolen. I have bikes I hate to leave out overnight when traveling, and I bet you do too," he wrote.

That's feels a bit harsh. I sure would miss my Bullet if it was damaged or stolen.

But he's correct about not feeling guilty when I don't wipe it down after a ride. That feels liberating. I'll take "retro" over "classic" any day as something easy to live with.

But "Classic 350" is a prettier model name than "Retro 350."

Follow royalenfields on Twitter