Posted by Sean on April 6, 2007, 2:14 pm
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.
http://www.classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
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 [ http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/
> and http://www.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
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on April 6, 2007, 2:25 pm
> 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.
> http://www.classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> 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 [http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/
> > andhttp://www.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.
Posted by Thumper on April 7, 2007, 9:42 am
> 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.
> http://www.classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> 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 [ http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/
> > and http://www.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
Posted by Thumper on April 7, 2007, 9:45 am
> 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.
> http://www.classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> 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 [ http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/
> > and http://www.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
Posted by Thumper on April 7, 2007, 9:49 am
<Blazing Laser> wrote in message
> 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
XML Sitemap
> 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.
> http://www.classicwingclub.org/gallery/white/gwsimulation/5.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
> 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 [http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/
> > andhttp://www.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