The Triumph and Guzzi, etc, are fine, and they are better suited to interstate highway use.
But, there's just something about the Royal Enfield that those other bikes can't match.
Here's my story, and I've told it here before.
Several years ago, I went to the Atlanta Bike Expo and helped Tait man the Royal Enfield booth. This was before I got my current Bullet. I had alot of the parts for my other Bullet build, but it wasn't put together yet, and it still isn't.
But, I was contemplating the idea of a Hinckley Bonneville or something like that. The V7 Guzzi hadn't been introduced yet, at that time, so I couldn't look at it.
This was an opportunity for me to really get a close look at the Bullet, and all the other bikes from every other maker, all at one place. I could compare them closely.
I found that almost all the bikes from the major makers looked very plastic. Alot of the bikes that I lusted after, like the MV Agusta, didn't look as good in person as they did in the magazine glamour shots. They were nice, but not as nice as I thought they would be.
Anyway, I really spent some time at the Triumph booth, and of course I spent most of my time at the Enfield booth. I sat on both these bikes, and looked them over real close.
And my conclusion was that the red Deluxe Bullet that was in the Enfield booth looked like it should cost twice what the Triumph cost, but actually cost several thousand dollars less. The direct comparison was no contest in my mind.
Virtually everything was plastic on the Triumph, and everything was metal on the Bullet. There was almost no chrome on the Triumph, and the Bullet had gleaming chrome all over it. The Bullet engine looked vintage, but the Triumph engine didn't. It looked "retro", but not vintage.
After that day, my decision was made. I actually made the statement to Tait that I thought that the Bullet was the best looking bike at the show. And I think it was.
Not long after that, I bought my used black 2000 Bullet DeLuxe that I ride now.
And every day I like it better and better. I don't get tired of it.
So, unless interstate touring is your thing, I'd say that it's damn hard to beat a Royal Enfield for the overall motorcycling experience. And they're still less expensive than those other bikes are.
Take the UCE, for example. Either the G5 or C5.
The C5 is one of a kind. There's nothing else that comes even close to that. Nobody is producing a 50s looking bike, except RE. Even if it is a "retro", it's a real good looking retro. And it has all those nice modern features like E-start and EFI and 5-speed and unit construction and improved handling to go with those unique antique looks.
The G5 has all the same advantages in a 60s looking package, and offers a kickstarter. I don't know, but it might be the last kickstart bike left that you can buy.
So when I look at these bikes in comparison to the market, I think about how the RE bikes are actually great bargaiins at lower prices than "the competition", and how I think they are more bike for the money than the other bikes are. And I know that I'm not the only one that feels that way. I think RE has a good set of new models here, and they are going to be a force in the retro market that they are in.