More on Brit twins

More on Brit twins

Looking for more insight on old Brit twins I found
the following opinion piece. I found it technically
interesting, but it somehow leaves out the "fun factor".

Maybe I will take Flagman's advice* and look for
a 72 Tiger 650.

Sean_Q_

-----------------------------------------------------------------
...why did the CB 750, and its many offspring, survive whereas
the Commando (and the British industry) died?

One can only guess an answer. The Commando design-concept had its
roots in the 1938 Triumph Speed Twin. This concept was, with much
development and little creativity, flogged to death in the following
35-40 years. Just about everything had been wrung out of it – and it
had nowhere else to go. It had become overtaxed and over-developed.
It was not very reliable and it needed constant tweaking to keep it
in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used –
under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?
Won’t it?" question. The rider just pressed the electric start button
and headed for the horizon without leaving a pool of oil behind him.

One can probably assign the same virtue to that BMW 90S as to the CB
750. Even though this Beemer was the sportiest machine that BMW had
produced up to that time, the specification provides decent power
without busting a gusset to squeeze every last bit out of it. The
flat twin and BMW survived. If it is survival we are talking about,
then the Gold Wing must receive all the prizes. The four-cylinders
stayed in production for 12 years, with only few changes of design
principles of the motor. The 6-cylinder in the 1500 form lasted also
relatively unchanged in the engine room for 13 years – and now comes
a 6-cylinder as an 1800.

This is saying to me that Honda’s policy of conservative engine
tuning has more than paid off over its long history. On the other
hand, I would be willing to bet that another 20 or 30 horsepower
could be pulled out of this engine. That would mean putting in a much
more aggressive camshaft and feeding the beast with a wholly new
carburettor system. It would be fun to do – but not very sensible to
my way of thinking. First, for the money such modifications cost you
could buy yourself a really hot sports bike. Secondly, as suggested,
that Honda reliability and long life comes from lack of stress. Push
up the ante, and that crankshaft, gearbox and valve train might throw
in the towel sooner than you expect.

* w w w .classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------

*
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
From: "flagman" <gamblinrod...@netscape . net >
Date: 12 Nov 2005 13:20:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Hardley progress.

Sean wrote:
> I'm more interested in the riding experience than in collector
> value (meaning that I'd even consider a Japanese version such as
> the Kawasaki W650 [ * w w w .ianchadwick . com /motorcycles/w650/
> and * w w w .chuckhawks . com /good_first_motorcycles.htm ]
> or the Yamaha model which I can't recall at the moment.)

> What I really should have asked is, did the change to 750cc
> and other "improvements" actually detract from the design
> that made the original Bonnie a classic?

No, it did not.

However, if all you're interested in is a lightweight vertical twin,
the W650 is a FAR better bike. The Yamaha XS650 from 73 to 77 (before
the "Special" versions) is an option, but they are much older that the
W650, and MUCH heavier than the Triumph or the Kawasaki.

The Hinckley Triumph Bonneville is another option, but far more
expensive, and like the the Yamaha, very heavy.

If you want BRITISH and you want inexpensive, and you want a SWEET
riding experience, and you don't want to lose a LOT of money, look for
a clean, original, late 1971 or 1972 Triumph Tiger 650. You won't have
to rebuild the brakes, you won't have to pay a "collectable" premium,
the bike WILL appreciate, it weighs only 410 pounds and feels lighter
than that, it will kickstart on the first or second kick, will idle
smoothly, will never require synchronizing the carbs, and you can get
any part for it that you will ever need online and cheap. Find one
that already has a Boyer Brandsen electronic ignition and a MityMax
regulator/rectifier installed and you won't have to worry about the
Lucas electronics at all, unless you choose to retain the original turn
signals.

--
Flagman

Re: More on Brit twins

On Apr 6, 1:14 pm, Sean <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> Looking for more insight on old Brit twins I found
> the following opinion piece. I found it technically
> interesting, but it somehow leaves out the "fun factor".
>
> Maybe I will take Flagman's advice* and look for
> a 72 Tiger 650.
>
> Sean_Q_
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ...why did the CB 750, and its many offspring, survive whereas
> the Commando (and the British industry) died?
>
> One can only guess an answer. The Commando design-concept had its
> roots in the 1938 Triumph Speed Twin. This concept was, with much
> development and little creativity, flogged to death in the following
> 35-40 years. Just about everything had been wrung out of it - and it
> had nowhere else to go. It had become overtaxed and over-developed.
> It was not very reliable and it needed constant tweaking to keep it
> in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used -
> under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
> reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
> the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?
> Won't it?" question. The rider just pressed the electric start button
> and headed for the horizon without leaving a pool of oil behind him.
>
> One can probably assign the same virtue to that BMW 90S as to the CB
> 750. Even though this Beemer was the sportiest machine that BMW had
> produced up to that time, the specification provides decent power
> without busting a gusset to squeeze every last bit out of it. The
> flat twin and BMW survived. If it is survival we are talking about,
> then the Gold Wing must receive all the prizes. The four-cylinders
> stayed in production for 12 years, with only few changes of design
> principles of the motor. The 6-cylinder in the 1500 form lasted also
> relatively unchanged in the engine room for 13 years - and now comes
> a 6-cylinder as an 1800.
>
> This is saying to me that Honda's policy of conservative engine
> tuning has more than paid off over its long history. On the other
> hand, I would be willing to bet that another 20 or 30 horsepower
> could be pulled out of this engine. That would mean putting in a much
> more aggressive camshaft and feeding the beast with a wholly new
> carburettor system. It would be fun to do - but not very sensible to
> my way of thinking. First, for the money such modifications cost you
> could buy yourself a really hot sports bike. Secondly, as suggested,
> that Honda reliability and long life comes from lack of stress. Push
> up the ante, and that crankshaft, gearbox and valve train might throw
> in the towel sooner than you expect.
>
> * w w w .classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> From: "flagman" <gamblinrod...@netscape . net >
> Date: 12 Nov 2005 13:20:53 -0800
> Subject: Re: Hardley progress.
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> > I'm more interested in the riding experience than in collector
> > value (meaning that I'd even consider a Japanese version such as
> > the Kawasaki W650 [ * w w w .ianchadwick . com /motorcycles/w650/
> > and * w w w .chuckhawks . com /good_first_motorcycles.htm]
> > or the Yamaha model which I can't recall at the moment.)
>
> > What I really should have asked is, did the change to 750cc
> > and other "improvements" actually detract from the design
> > that made the original Bonnie a classic?
>
> No, it did not.
>
> However, if all you're interested in is a lightweight vertical twin,
> the W650 is a FAR better bike. The Yamaha XS650 from 73 to 77 (before
> the "Special" versions) is an option, but they are much older that the
> W650, and MUCH heavier than the Triumph or the Kawasaki.
>
> The Hinckley Triumph Bonneville is another option, but far more
> expensive, and like the the Yamaha, very heavy.
>
> If you want BRITISH and you want inexpensive, and you want a SWEET
> riding experience, and you don't want to lose a LOT of money, look for
> a clean, original, late 1971 or 1972 Triumph Tiger 650. You won't have
> to rebuild the brakes, you won't have to pay a "collectable" premium,
> the bike WILL appreciate, it weighs only 410 pounds and feels lighter
> than that, it will kickstart on the first or second kick, will idle
> smoothly, will never require synchronizing the carbs, and you can get
> any part for it that you will ever need online and cheap. Find one
> that already has a Boyer Brandsen electronic ignition and a MityMax
> regulator/rectifier installed and you won't have to worry about the
> Lucas electronics at all, unless you choose to retain the original turn
> signals.
>
> --
> Flagman

Good ol' Flagman. Wonder whatever happened to him? That guy not
only gave great advice, he was funny as hell, too.

Re: More on Brit twins

It was definitely reliability. Also probably build quality.

On my old BSA, every time I turned a bolt the bolt head went round.
Every time I changed the oil I needed a new drainplug--and had to be
careful not to overtorque it. The metal was like chewing-gum. The
design had the cases joined horizontally so when the gaskets began to
age they'd leak like a sieve. And you couldn't tighten the bolts 'cos
they'd just strip right out. My dad and I spent an evening putting
heli-coils and hex-head bolts in it, and that helped some but not a
lot. And, as everyone points out, even in the 60s the design was 30
years old.

During the US occupation of Japan, we sent experts over there to show
them how to do things right. Mind you, WE didn't take that advice.
We Americans had written the book about quality and reliability but
didn't actually use what we learned. But the Japanese did! In just a
decade or so, 'Made in Japan' went from 'Junk' to 'Good stuff for the
money'. In another couple of decades it was 'The best you can get'.

The complexity of Japanese motorcycle engines grew from their mastery
of reliability. Just imagine in Triumph or BSA had decided in the
'60s to produce a 4-cylinder overhead cam engine. They did make a
triple, and just as you might expect it had 50% more problems. A 4
would probably have broken down on your way home from the dealer!

Re: More on Brit twins


<Blazing Laser> wrote in message
news:6hcd13htvkhfg79l9fl41qpbtie06pn6bk@4ax . com ...
> It was definitely reliability. Also probably build quality.
>
> On my old BSA, every time I turned a bolt the bolt head went round.
> Every time I changed the oil I needed a new drainplug--and had to be
> careful not to overtorque it. The metal was like chewing-gum. The
> design had the cases joined horizontally so when the gaskets began to
> age they'd leak like a sieve. And you couldn't tighten the bolts 'cos
> they'd just strip right out. My dad and I spent an evening putting
> heli-coils and hex-head bolts in it, and that helped some but not a
> lot. And, as everyone points out, even in the 60s the design was 30
> years old.
>
> During the US occupation of Japan, we sent experts over there to show
> them how to do things right. Mind you, WE didn't take that advice.
> We Americans had written the book about quality and reliability but
> didn't actually use what we learned. But the Japanese did! In just a
> decade or so, 'Made in Japan' went from 'Junk' to 'Good stuff for the
> money'. In another couple of decades it was 'The best you can get'.
>
> The complexity of Japanese motorcycle engines grew from their mastery
> of reliability. Just imagine in Triumph or BSA had decided in the
> '60s to produce a 4-cylinder overhead cam engine. They did make a
> triple, and just as you might expect it had 50% more problems. A 4
> would probably have broken down on your way home from the dealer!

Well, it's taken many years buy n 2007, I believe Harley has certainly
caught up with the Japanese as far as quality is concerned.

I got hard bags for my Uly, yesterday. They are amazingly well constructed
and sturdy, better than the BMW GT and RT hard bags, in fact. The Buell
seems every bit as good as a Japanese version of a dual sport, as well..

Thumper

Re: More on Brit twins

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:49:21 GMT, "Thumper"
<roadapple@unclewebster . com > wrote:

>
>Well, it's taken many years buy n 2007, I believe Harley has certainly
>caught up with the Japanese as far as quality is concerned.

Yes but (a) much less complexity and (b) much higher price.

>I got hard bags for my Uly, yesterday. They are amazingly well constructed
>and sturdy, better than the BMW GT and RT hard bags, in fact. The Buell
>seems every bit as good as a Japanese version of a dual sport, as well..

Buell seems to have inspired a cult. 8^) In fact I don't understand
the popularity of dualsports in general, I don't understand their
popularity. Old BMW GSs from the 80s are going for $4k these days.
Buell PLUS dualsport has to be a winning combination.

Bonneville + magic = W650?

From * w w w .realclassic.co.uk/kawa030213.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if you will this unlikely scenario.

You own a '65 Bonneville, your favourite bike. One day the Bike Fairy
appears. With one stroke of his wand he puts a spell on your pride
and joy. In a flash he eliminates the rather harsh ride you get from
the old suspension. As he walks around the bike, a careless tap
chromes the mudguards, and a bit of magical blow-by ricochets onto
that dodgy front drum, turning it into a subtle but fade-free disk.
He zaps the motor so it is now safe to 7800rpm every time, grunting
a guarantee that no matter how hard you ride it, it won't break,
leak, or otherwise let you down.

The Bike Fairy passes a heavily tattooed arm over the electrics so
you now have a brilliant halogen headlamp, indicators, a bright brake
lamp, and a discreet clock next to your oil pressure light. He lifts
his eye patch briefly and a baleful glare forms an electric motor and
press-button out of pure photon energy to complement the kick-start.
He links the efficient, maintenance-free twin carbs so they don't go
out of synch, fits a powerful electronic ignition -- and hands you
the ignition key (which now also fits the steering lock, seat lock
and helmet lock), before disappearing in a fragrant cloud of Castrol
R.

Your Bonneville (already nicely run-in) now makes a healthy 45 rear
wheel bhp. It will take you the length and breadth of the British
Isles as easily as popping down the shops. You can now thrash it for
as long and as hard as you like and it won't care. It doesn't vibrate
at speed, and nothing falls off. Night riding is a joy, and you only
have to fiddle with it at weekends if you want to. The best bit
though, is that it still feels the same… <----------------------??

If you would love to have a Bonnie like that… tough. You can't. But
for a couple of grand you can get a clean, low mileage W650…

Your beautiful, original work of art can remain for high days and
holidays. Instead of devaluing it and wearing it out, you now have
an everyday bike that demands little from you, and offers
the spirited ride your much cherished classic may no longer be
able to afford to give you.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I also found the following interesting; from
* w w w .chuckhawks . com /w650.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
The W650 revealed no handling vices, unlike many older Japanese twins.
However, it did not give me the confidence a 1969 Bonneville used to
inspire. It will probably go through corners about as fast, but somehow
it didn't feel as eager to me. Other reviewers have expressed similar
opinions about the 2000 model W650, so for 2001 Kawasaki subtly
adjusted the rake and trail of the front end for improved feel.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sean_Q_

Re: Bonneville + magic = W650?

Back in the 70s there was a big fad in the US for 'replicars',
kit-built replicas of famous old cars. Like an MGTC with a Volkswagen
engine concealed inside the 'gas tank' in the rear, or a 3/4 size
Auburn Speedster with (gasp!) a Pinto drivetrain. Usually they were
built from kits, but in Los Angeles, where phoney carries a premium,
there were actually showrooms where you could buy these cars. There
was an old joke that the MGB had been made for so long it had become
its own replicar.

The W650 is a repli-bike. It -looks- like a Triumph Bonneville but
it's not really like it otherwise. Same goes for the new Triumph. It
might be even better than the original, depending on your criteria,
but it's not the same.

Re: Bonneville + magic = W650?


"Sean" <no.spam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:eHzRh.36849$DE1.32140@pd7urf2no...
> From * w w w .realclassic.co.uk/kawa030213.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine if you will this unlikely scenario.
>
> You own a '65 Bonneville, your favourite bike. One day the Bike Fairy
> appears. With one stroke of his wand he puts a spell on your pride
> and joy. In a flash he eliminates the rather harsh ride you get from
> the old suspension. As he walks around the bike, a careless tap
> chromes the mudguards, and a bit of magical blow-by ricochets onto
> that dodgy front drum, turning it into a subtle but fade-free disk.
> He zaps the motor so it is now safe to 7800rpm every time, grunting
> a guarantee that no matter how hard you ride it, it won't break,
> leak, or otherwise let you down.
>
> The Bike Fairy passes a heavily tattooed arm over the electrics so
> you now have a brilliant halogen headlamp, indicators, a bright brake
> lamp, and a discreet clock next to your oil pressure light. He lifts
> his eye patch briefly and a baleful glare forms an electric motor and
> press-button out of pure photon energy to complement the kick-start.
> He links the efficient, maintenance-free twin carbs so they don't go
> out of synch, fits a powerful electronic ignition -- and hands you
> the ignition key (which now also fits the steering lock, seat lock
> and helmet lock), before disappearing in a fragrant cloud of Castrol
> R.
>
> Your Bonneville (already nicely run-in) now makes a healthy 45 rear
> wheel bhp. It will take you the length and breadth of the British
> Isles as easily as popping down the shops. You can now thrash it for
> as long and as hard as you like and it won't care. It doesn't vibrate
> at speed, and nothing falls off. Night riding is a joy, and you only
> have to fiddle with it at weekends if you want to. The best bit
> though, is that it still feels the same… <----------------------??
>
> If you would love to have a Bonnie like that… tough. You can't. But
> for a couple of grand you can get a clean, low mileage W650…
>
> Your beautiful, original work of art can remain for high days and
> holidays. Instead of devaluing it and wearing it out, you now have
> an everyday bike that demands little from you, and offers
> the spirited ride your much cherished classic may no longer be
> able to afford to give you.
>

Owner of Kawasaki W650 = poser


--


By it's very nature, my sig. makes this posting 100% on topic.

"Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I posted this."

Thumper

"I don't want a pickle..."
* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws

2007 H-D FXSTD Deuce
2006 Buell Ulysses
2006 BMW K1200GT
2004 H-D Road King Classic
1978 Triumph T140V Bonneville
1975 Triumph T160 Trident
1974 Norton Commando Interstate
1969 BSA R75 Red Rocket III
1962 Triumph T20 Tiger Cub
1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK
1954 Velocette MAC

Re: Bonneville + magic = W650?

in days of yore, when i worked at a triumph/bsa/kawa/yamaha,etc, we
usually saw a triumph about 3 work days after delivery.
the yamaha XS1 had come out about that time.
they would disappear into the dust, to return a couple of years
later with 25,000 or so miles on them.
seems tires and chains were about the only things that wore out on them.
that's what killed the english bikes.
i understand the new triumphs are doing well. good for them.
you can't stand still in that business.



"Sean" <no.spam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:eHzRh.36849$DE1.32140@pd7urf2no...
> From * w w w .realclassic.co.uk/kawa030213.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine if you will this unlikely scenario.
>
> You own a '65 Bonneville, your favourite bike. One day the Bike Fairy
> appears. With one stroke of his wand he puts a spell on your pride
> and joy. In a flash he eliminates the rather harsh ride you get from
> the old suspension. As he walks around the bike, a careless tap
> chromes the mudguards, and a bit of magical blow-by ricochets onto
> that dodgy front drum, turning it into a subtle but fade-free disk.
> He zaps the motor so it is now safe to 7800rpm every time, grunting
> a guarantee that no matter how hard you ride it, it won't break,
> leak, or otherwise let you down.
>
> The Bike Fairy passes a heavily tattooed arm over the electrics so
> you now have a brilliant halogen headlamp, indicators, a bright brake
> lamp, and a discreet clock next to your oil pressure light. He lifts
> his eye patch briefly and a baleful glare forms an electric motor and
> press-button out of pure photon energy to complement the kick-start.
> He links the efficient, maintenance-free twin carbs so they don't go
> out of synch, fits a powerful electronic ignition -- and hands you
> the ignition key (which now also fits the steering lock, seat lock
> and helmet lock), before disappearing in a fragrant cloud of Castrol
> R.
>
> Your Bonneville (already nicely run-in) now makes a healthy 45 rear
> wheel bhp. It will take you the length and breadth of the British
> Isles as easily as popping down the shops. You can now thrash it for
> as long and as hard as you like and it won't care. It doesn't vibrate
> at speed, and nothing falls off. Night riding is a joy, and you only
> have to fiddle with it at weekends if you want to. The best bit
> though, is that it still feels the same… <----------------------??
>
> If you would love to have a Bonnie like that… tough. You can't. But
> for a couple of grand you can get a clean, low mileage W650…
>
> Your beautiful, original work of art can remain for high days and
> holidays. Instead of devaluing it and wearing it out, you now have
> an everyday bike that demands little from you, and offers
> the spirited ride your much cherished classic may no longer be
> able to afford to give you.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I also found the following interesting; from
> * w w w .chuckhawks . com /w650.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> The W650 revealed no handling vices, unlike many older Japanese twins.
> However, it did not give me the confidence a 1969 Bonneville used to
> inspire. It will probably go through corners about as fast, but somehow it
> didn't feel as eager to me. Other reviewers have expressed similar
> opinions about the 2000 model W650, so for 2001 Kawasaki subtly
> adjusted the rake and trail of the front end for improved feel.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sean_Q_
>

Re: More on Brit twins


"Sean" <no.spam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:A6wRh.36534$DE1.29119@pd7urf2no...
> Looking for more insight on old Brit twins I found
> the following opinion piece. I found it technically
> interesting, but it somehow leaves out the "fun factor".
>
> Maybe I will take Flagman's advice* and look for
> a 72 Tiger 650.
>
> Sean_Q_

Nice bike. I have been trying to buy a 1964 Triumph TR6 from my cousin, for
almost 30 years! It just sits in his sister's garage and rots. He will not
sell it to me.

Thumper
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ...why did the CB 750, and its many offspring, survive whereas
> the Commando (and the British industry) died?
>
> One can only guess an answer. The Commando design-concept had its
> roots in the 1938 Triumph Speed Twin. This concept was, with much
> development and little creativity, flogged to death in the following
> 35-40 years. Just about everything had been wrung out of it – and it
> had nowhere else to go. It had become overtaxed and over-developed.
> It was not very reliable and it needed constant tweaking to keep it
> in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used –
> under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
> reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
> the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?
> Won’t it?" question. The rider just pressed the electric start button
> and headed for the horizon without leaving a pool of oil behind him.
>
> One can probably assign the same virtue to that BMW 90S as to the CB
> 750. Even though this Beemer was the sportiest machine that BMW had
> produced up to that time, the specification provides decent power
> without busting a gusset to squeeze every last bit out of it. The
> flat twin and BMW survived. If it is survival we are talking about,
> then the Gold Wing must receive all the prizes. The four-cylinders
> stayed in production for 12 years, with only few changes of design
> principles of the motor. The 6-cylinder in the 1500 form lasted also
> relatively unchanged in the engine room for 13 years – and now comes
> a 6-cylinder as an 1800.
>
> This is saying to me that Honda’s policy of conservative engine
> tuning has more than paid off over its long history. On the other
> hand, I would be willing to bet that another 20 or 30 horsepower
> could be pulled out of this engine. That would mean putting in a much
> more aggressive camshaft and feeding the beast with a wholly new
> carburettor system. It would be fun to do – but not very sensible to
> my way of thinking. First, for the money such modifications cost you
> could buy yourself a really hot sports bike. Secondly, as suggested,
> that Honda reliability and long life comes from lack of stress. Push
> up the ante, and that crankshaft, gearbox and valve train might throw
> in the towel sooner than you expect.
>
> * w w w .classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> From: "flagman" <gamblinrod...@netscape . net >
> Date: 12 Nov 2005 13:20:53 -0800
> Subject: Re: Hardley progress.
>
> Sean wrote:
> > I'm more interested in the riding experience than in collector
> > value (meaning that I'd even consider a Japanese version such as
> > the Kawasaki W650 [ * w w w .ianchadwick . com /motorcycles/w650/
> > and * w w w .chuckhawks . com /good_first_motorcycles.htm ]
> > or the Yamaha model which I can't recall at the moment.)
>
> > What I really should have asked is, did the change to 750cc
> > and other "improvements" actually detract from the design
> > that made the original Bonnie a classic?
>
> No, it did not.
>
> However, if all you're interested in is a lightweight vertical twin,
> the W650 is a FAR better bike. The Yamaha XS650 from 73 to 77 (before
> the "Special" versions) is an option, but they are much older that the
> W650, and MUCH heavier than the Triumph or the Kawasaki.
>
> The Hinckley Triumph Bonneville is another option, but far more
> expensive, and like the the Yamaha, very heavy.
>
> If you want BRITISH and you want inexpensive, and you want a SWEET
> riding experience, and you don't want to lose a LOT of money, look for
> a clean, original, late 1971 or 1972 Triumph Tiger 650. You won't have
> to rebuild the brakes, you won't have to pay a "collectable" premium,
> the bike WILL appreciate, it weighs only 410 pounds and feels lighter
> than that, it will kickstart on the first or second kick, will idle
> smoothly, will never require synchronizing the carbs, and you can get
> any part for it that you will ever need online and cheap. Find one
> that already has a Boyer Brandsen electronic ignition and a MityMax
> regulator/rectifier installed and you won't have to worry about the
> Lucas electronics at all, unless you choose to retain the original turn
> signals.
>
> --
> Flagman

Re: More on Brit twins


"Sean" <no.spam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:A6wRh.36534$DE1.29119@pd7urf2no...
> Looking for more insight on old Brit twins I found
> the following opinion piece. I found it technically
> interesting, but it somehow leaves out the "fun factor".
>
> Maybe I will take Flagman's advice* and look for
> a 72 Tiger 650.
>
> Sean_Q_
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ...why did the CB 750, and its many offspring, survive whereas
> the Commando (and the British industry) died?
>
> One can only guess an answer. The Commando design-concept had its
> roots in the 1938 Triumph Speed Twin. This concept was, with much
> development and little creativity, flogged to death in the following
> 35-40 years. Just about everything had been wrung out of it – and it
> had nowhere else to go. It had become overtaxed and over-developed.
> It was not very reliable and it needed constant tweaking to keep it
> in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used –
> under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
> reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
> the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?
> Won’t it?" question. The rider just pressed the electric start button
> and headed for the horizon without leaving a pool of oil behind him.
>
> One can probably assign the same virtue to that BMW 90S as to the CB
> 750. Even though this Beemer was the sportiest machine that BMW had
> produced up to that time, the specification provides decent power
> without busting a gusset to squeeze every last bit out of it. The
> flat twin and BMW survived. If it is survival we are talking about,
> then the Gold Wing must receive all the prizes. The four-cylinders
> stayed in production for 12 years, with only few changes of design
> principles of the motor. The 6-cylinder in the 1500 form lasted also
> relatively unchanged in the engine room for 13 years – and now comes
> a 6-cylinder as an 1800.
>
> This is saying to me that Honda’s policy of conservative engine
> tuning has more than paid off over its long history. On the other
> hand, I would be willing to bet that another 20 or 30 horsepower
> could be pulled out of this engine. That would mean putting in a much
> more aggressive camshaft and feeding the beast with a wholly new
> carburettor system. It would be fun to do – but not very sensible to
> my way of thinking. First, for the money such modifications cost you
> could buy yourself a really hot sports bike. Secondly, as suggested,
> that Honda reliability and long life comes from lack of stress. Push
> up the ante, and that crankshaft, gearbox and valve train might throw
> in the towel sooner than you expect.
>
> * w w w .classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> From: "flagman" <gamblinrod...@netscape . net >
> Date: 12 Nov 2005 13:20:53 -0800
> Subject: Re: Hardley progress.
>
> Sean wrote:
> > I'm more interested in the riding experience than in collector
> > value (meaning that I'd even consider a Japanese version such as
> > the Kawasaki W650 [ * w w w .ianchadwick . com /motorcycles/w650/
> > and * w w w .chuckhawks . com /good_first_motorcycles.htm ]
> > or the Yamaha model which I can't recall at the moment.)
>
> > What I really should have asked is, did the change to 750cc
> > and other "improvements" actually detract from the design
> > that made the original Bonnie a classic?
>
> No, it did not.
>
> However, if all you're interested in is a lightweight vertical twin,
> the W650 is a FAR better bike. The Yamaha XS650 from 73 to 77 (before
> the "Special" versions) is an option, but they are much older that the
> W650, and MUCH heavier than the Triumph or the Kawasaki.
>
> The Hinckley Triumph Bonneville is another option, but far more
> expensive, and like the the Yamaha, very heavy.
>
> If you want BRITISH and you want inexpensive, and you want a SWEET
> riding experience, and you don't want to lose a LOT of money, look for
> a clean, original, late 1971 or 1972 Triumph Tiger 650. You won't have
> to rebuild the brakes, you won't have to pay a "collectable" premium,
> the bike WILL appreciate, it weighs only 410 pounds and feels lighter
> than that, it will kickstart on the first or second kick, will idle
> smoothly, will never require synchronizing the carbs, and you can get
> any part for it that you will ever need online and cheap. Find one
> that already has a Boyer Brandsen electronic ignition and a MityMax
> regulator/rectifier installed and you won't have to worry about the
> Lucas electronics at all, unless you choose to retain the original turn
> signals.
>
> --
> Flagman

Ehhh, there's some truth to that. But you'll see a lot more of the Brits on
the road today than the old Hondas. just try to find parts for a 1977 CB750.
My 1974 850cc Norton's transmission is the same as the transmission from a
1956 500cc Matchless. In fact, the cases are interchangeable. My Rocket III
uses a clutch from an MG.

Thumper

Thumper

Re: More on Brit twins

On Apr 6, 11:14 am, Sean <no.s...@no.spam> quoted:

> in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used -
> under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
> reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
> the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?

In 1978 I bought a '76 model CB750 Four with 10,000 miles on it. It
had lots of intermittant electrical gremlins. It ran well, but I'm
real glad it had a kicker on it because 50% of the time the electric
starter wouldn't work. Whenever I went to fix it, the problems would
vanish like magic only to return later (Like whenever a crowd was
around. (The bigger the crowd, the more likely it was that it would
fail to start)).

I installed a headlight kill switch to aid in keeping the battery
charged because the alternator was real weak. Dealer said it was fine.
They blamed the DOT for "forcing" Honda to remove the light switch in
the first-place. ('77 models had an upgraded alternator).

One time I got a fix-it ticket for no tail-light. I went home to fix
it and it started working again as soon as I hooked up my VTVM, so I
got it signed off by a cop. Then it failed again on the way home from
the police station.

On top of the tank, and the upper parts of the plastic side covers
faded fast. The once beautiful red paint faded into an ugly pinkish
salmon-like color.

The chrome lasted about three years before it got a bunch of rust
pits.

The thin vinyl on the seat started splitting at about four years.
Then when it rained my pants would get soaked from the water saturated
foam.

The starter button fell apart so I replaced it with one from Radio
Shack because it was lots cheaper than a genuine Honda starter button
(that was prone to falling apart).

The head gasket started weeping oil heavily when it hit about 40,000
miles. Dealer said "They all do that."

It always made it home though, so it was "reliable" I guess. I can't
say it was a very well-built bike though.
--
Rayvan

Re: More on Brit twins


"Rayvan" <rvannuland@cachevision . com > wrote in message
news:1176004051.230312.83770@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 6, 11:14 am, Sean <no.s...@no.spam> quoted:
>
>> in trim. Perhaps the keyword about the CB 750 has already been used -
>> under-stressed! Already Honda had established a hallmark in
>> reliability. Yes, the CB still had to be maintained but every time
>> the rider reached for the keys, it was not accompanied by a "Will it?
>
> In 1978 I bought a '76 model CB750 Four with 10,000 miles on it. It
> had lots of intermittant electrical gremlins. It ran well, but I'm
> real glad it had a kicker on it because 50% of the time the electric
> starter wouldn't work. Whenever I went to fix it, the problems would
> vanish like magic only to return later (Like whenever a crowd was
> around. (The bigger the crowd, the more likely it was that it would
> fail to start)).
>
> I installed a headlight kill switch to aid in keeping the battery
> charged because the alternator was real weak. Dealer said it was fine.
> They blamed the DOT for "forcing" Honda to remove the light switch in
> the first-place. ('77 models had an upgraded alternator).
>
> One time I got a fix-it ticket for no tail-light. I went home to fix
> it and it started working again as soon as I hooked up my VTVM, so I
> got it signed off by a cop. Then it failed again on the way home from
> the police station.
>
> On top of the tank, and the upper parts of the plastic side covers
> faded fast. The once beautiful red paint faded into an ugly pinkish
> salmon-like color.
>
> The chrome lasted about three years before it got a bunch of rust
> pits.
>
> The thin vinyl on the seat started splitting at about four years.
> Then when it rained my pants would get soaked from the water saturated
> foam.
>
> The starter button fell apart so I replaced it with one from Radio
> Shack because it was lots cheaper than a genuine Honda starter button
> (that was prone to falling apart).
>
> The head gasket started weeping oil heavily when it hit about 40,000
> miles. Dealer said "They all do that."
>
> It always made it home though, so it was "reliable" I guess. I can't
> say it was a very well-built bike though.
> --
> Rayvan
>

I bought a Triumph Bonneville new, in 1978. I still own it. In fact, I rode
it yesterday.

It won Best Triumph in the last BSAOC People's Choice show.

* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse . com /triumphs/besttriumph.jpg

* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse . com /triumphs/bonneville1.jpg

I wonder how many Kawasaki W650 owners will be able to say that in 28 years?
In fact, I wonder how many Kawasaki W650's will still be on running?


--


By it's very nature, my sig. makes this posting 100% on topic.

"Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I posted this."

Thumper

"I don't want a pickle..."
* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws

2007 H-D FXSTD Deuce
2006 Buell Ulysees
2006 BMW K1200GT
2004 H-D Road King Classic
1978 Triumph T140V Bonneville
1975 Triumph T160 Trident
1974 Norton Commando Interstate
1969 BSA R75 Red Rocket III
1962 Triumph T20 Tiger Cub
1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK
1954 Velocette MAC

Re: More on Brit twins

Bad links, bad me.
Lets try that agin'.

* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws/triumphs/besttriumph.jpg

* w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws/triumphs/bonneville1.jpg

Thumper

Re: More on Brit twins

On Apr 8, 7:43 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster . com > wrote:
> Bad links, bad me.
> Lets try that agin'.
>
> * w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws/triumphs/besttriumph.jpg
>
> * w w w .thumpers-roadhouse.ws/triumphs/bonneville1.jpg
>
> Thumper

Wow!
Very nice. Very, very nice...
Remarkable how similar the frame was to the CB750 frame. Overall
assembly is much more clean and organized than most Japanese bikes
also. My VTR1000 was a mess. Z1000 is lots better, but still lots of
corner cutting...
--
Rayvan