FROM THE FRONT

As you know, I have been pursuing my strange occupation for a very l ong time - since 1988, in fact. And that's only the full- time portion

- I worked on a club magazine for several years before that, slowly understanding how magazines work. This does help i f you i ntend to pursue that particular strange occupation

In the same way, a working knowledge of most things motorcycle is a tremendous boon, and although I genuinely have forgotten more about old bikes than most folk would ever want to know, I am rarely surprised much when I ride a bike with a view to writing about it. OK, I am often surprised by how good a particular machine is to ride - less often, there's the opposite surprise too, but you'll never read about those because I prefer optimism to the depressing level of grump and outrage which appears to be i ncreasingly prevalent.

An always entertaining aside is that whenever I reveal that I do in fact occasionally attempt to ride bikes which really are not as they should be, I get mail and comments from folk demanding that I ' tell i t like i t is; that I ' name and shame' - whatever that means. But why? Unless a chap is seriously considering buying the actual bike under debate, it's j ust yet another opportunity to be unpleasant. Which I try - and try hard - to avoid. It's not always easy.

Meanwhile, and as you may read about next time, I enjoyed a couple of entirely remarkable - and a l i ttle surprising - rides back- toback on the same day this week. 'This week' refers to the week I'm writing, not the week you're reading, of course. Both bikes were middleweight twins, more or less 350cc. Both were electric starters, and both sets of electric feet worked - mostly.

And that's the end of the similarities, pretty much. One of the bikes is decently modern, but of a design that must have been fairly antiquated when i t was first i ntroduced - and it's a two- stroke, too, which is always something of a rare delight. The other machine was the last attempt at a new range of machines, an attempt at adding modern self- starting technology to a design which was in fact pretty modern in its time. And both proved to be quite remarkable. As you should read in a l i ttle while, once I've got my thoughts in order.

Another feature shared by the two twins is that they both suffer from pretty terrible reputations out here in classicland. And at this point you may expect me to make excuses for them, because both machines are flawed. But ... almost all machines are flawed i n one way or another. I always delight i n P&M's description of their Panther range of characterful thumpers as ' the perfected motorcycle'. Yorkshire humour at its best, maybe.

Be that as i t may, in both cases the sheer nutcase charm of both models shone through. I thought I'd struggle with the stroker - and i ndeed I did in a couple of unexpected ways - but overcoming the oddities is all part of the entertainment, surely? The four- stroke, though? I expected i t to be as ordinary as the two- stroke was extraordinary, and in some ways i t was, but in other ways i t was fascinating.

I returned the not- very smoky stroker to its owner, parked up, did pleasantries and rode home on my own modern Triumph. When

I l anded I realised that my rambling bike thoughts along the familiar roads home were all about the stroker, the Triumph j ust did what i t does, entirely unremarkably, no thought required. The burbling stroker was so i nvolving that i t took my mind of all today's puzzles, woes and worries - and i sn't that why we ride them? No surprises there, then.

Ride safely