hell if I know???

 

I guess the first half is part of the point, the other part being hiding all the stuff that makes it look really bad when you take your bags off.

What's the point to taking your bags off? It's for when you want to ride a "normal" motorcycle or wanted to go pushing it a little, canyon carving. I suppose it would depend on if you do a lot of city riding and whether your state allows lane splitting but where you do and it does, and the bags are vulnerable to being damaged or stolen, I can see a big point to them. Ditto, if I was out doing some spirited riding. Leave the bags at the motel and go crazy.

If I don't need my bags, I'd rather not have the extra $1,000 liability on the bike for some a*hole to knock over or reverse into. And cutting thru traffic is a bind with them on.

I think that's largely just a reaction to something new that you've not seen before, and don't know groupthink about it is. All to often what we see as 'attractive' is just what is 'familiar'.

There are a few good reasons to want a Convertible Tourer over a Convertible Dyna, especially if you are a big guy with a big passenger. Plus when you get holidays and want to go out of town, a Tourer's going win hands down on carrying capacity.

I think it's also a nod to the roots of the bike. Think 70s/early 80s Electra Glide.

I mean, look at the lines of this, they are all over the place, and yet, somehow, we'll pretty much all agree it looks good because it's familiar and we have all sort of positive connotations about it.



.......... Says the genre of rider who spend most of their time looking for, and riding with, a cool solo seat.

Yeah, as said, if I was doing mine that way, I'd go for dual staggered pipes or shorties and ditch all the muffler/bag hardware.

But you know, there's a lot of guys for who even swopping out their pipes is a job they'd take to a dealership. This is a compromise for them.

If you want a real, "what's the point?" I point it at the whole stretch bags and, especially big wheel look.

These are practical. They should come with a stock bike.

 

I hope this guy doesnt' mind that I post his bike whenever someone mentions removing RK bags - he even calls it a big boy FXR. Some details I'd do differently but the rear end treatment came out pretty well.

https://www.hdforums.com/forum/touri...g-boy-fxr.html

 

Note the size of the guy ....."Big Matt".

There's another why. "When you trash your saddlebags but can't afford to replace them" (because you're at college or prospecting for a club or both in his case!).

 

NOPE, it's just fugly!

 

They make the bike look like an Indian with those ugly big fenders. Trade the bike in on a softail and use removable bags

 

How do you know what 'good looking' is?

You might answer, "I just do" but that state, that judgement was artificially manufactured in some way.

How? By who? Why?

This is as true about motorcycles as it is about women, and it changes over time.

 

If you don't want bags, don't buy a bike that comes with bags. The bike was designed WITH bags. Taking them off just looks stupid....................problem solved

 

Pull the hard bags off and the only thing ugly are the stock piece of crap good for nothing air shocks.

Kill two birds with one stone. Add Pro-Action shocks. They look AWESOME and your bike will ride and handle AWESOME!

Problem solved.

 

Thank you. All I have to do to remind me of what an ugly sight that is would be strip mine off, step back and look at it. Don't care about no stinking kits and if I wanted a bike without bags I would not have bought a bagger....