 |
| Do motojournalists warn us about problems with motorcycles? |
Oh, sure, NOW they tell us.
A year ago, or so, the critics praised the new Royal Enfield Hunter 350. Maybe it had a drawback or two, but you should BUY one now anyway, they seemed to conclude.
And what do they say now? The recent YouTube review by AutoCar India welcomed improvements for 2025 models, improvements you might have wished you'd waited for.
The video introduces itself this way:
"The Hunter 350 has been a runaway success for Royal Enfield ever since it came out in 2022 but that's not to say it was a perfect machine. Recently, Royal Enfield updated the Hunter with changes that kept customer feedback in mind. So, are the Hunter’s drawbacks a thing of the past now? Dinshaw Magol has the answer."
I could not find a 2022 review of the Hunter by Dinshaw Magol but, to be fair, his AutoCar colleague Rishaad Mody was honest about the Hunter in his 2023 comparison of it with the Triumph Speed 400.
"The rear dual shocks are too firm for this bike’s own good," he wrote. "The result is a stiff and jittery ride on anything but smooth and well-made roads."
Dinshaw Magol was happy to report the good news for 2025: Royal Enfield has replaced the linear rear shock absorbers with progressive units and "the effect they've had on ride quality is landmark," he announces.
You're no longer getting "tossed out of the seat" over road imperfections, he enthuses.
And -- this really is good news -- he states that it is possible to retrofit the progressive shocks to earlier Hunters. That's the kind of reporting readers appreciate.
Dinshaw goes on to report other improvements: lighter clutch action, handlebars closer to the rider, more foam in the seat, and slightly more ground clearance.
As for the new LED headlamp, it looks good, he allows, but, frankly the old halogen bulb was actually better.
Oh well.
What he really applauds is the fact that Royal Enfield was willing to listen to user feedback, and improve the Hunter as needed.
Motojournalists like Dinshaw and Rishaad deserve thanks for pointing out problems, where they exist. Watch the video.
Let's guess that 25 individuals post tests of these bikes online. The person who tells his viewers that the clutch is hard to pull, the seat foam is too thin and the shocks too stiff will not get further bikes to test. Why should we believe anything these folks tell us? The Hunter was flawed. They all knew it. They raved about it nonetheless. Telling the truth is not their business. Getting clicks and more test bikes is.
ReplyDeleteI actually put Hunter shocks on my Meteor and they were much better (i.e. softer) than the original shocks on the Meteor, which were way too stiff. Really ruined an otherwise great bike for me. If there was one bike RE needed to improve, I would thinknit would be the Meteor!
ReplyDeleteI also find that Indian reviews of REs need to be seen in context, as riding conditions and motorcycling there is sooo different than that found in Europe or the US.
ReplyDeleteStiff suspension is often a criticism of RE models. I do find them to be a bit firm, but they also seem to soften a bit with some miles. I'm sure they can't be any worse than the stock shocks my 2008 Bonneville came with. Those were an embarrassment.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't the shocks or the foam in the seat that's at issue here. It's the failure of the online media to do their job, to tell us about the problems WE'LL have to solve after we've bought the bikes. Often they don't even mention the valve adjustment procedures. Do they take an hour? Or all day? Are those things pertinent? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThese things are certainly pertinent, especially if a knowledgeable writer could put them into the context of how these compare to competing motorcycles. However, I also suspect that buyers tend to discount or disregard information that contradicts the buying decisions their eyes already have made. Motorcycles, sports cars, other objects of our desires rather than our needs, are exempt to a large degree from concerns about practicalities. So, we read reviews to have our preferences confirmed. I admit I am personally guilty of this. Publishers know our weaknesses, and so cater to our enthusiasms.
Delete