Old Bike Love

[Paul in NZ]

Hey - no doubt about it - the Trophy (1970 TR6C) is one pretty bike but most importantly - god its a peach to ride...

No doubt about it - I'm a miserable old goat - I've usually got more dogs than I have friends....

So - this week, with Vickis emergency OP and all has been - um - traumatic and today she felt a bit better so I mowed the lawns (we have a LOT of lawn) and then - it being sooo nice in Kapiti it was - wadda we gunna do tonight (apparently my first suggestion was anatomically impossible and very insensitive considering her condition) so it was back to 'I know I'll cook dinner and get in a chick flick 'cos you need a laugh' (well she IS still sicker than sick and needs a giggle)

But with child #3 due home from work any minute and - it being such a wonderfully still night why not ride the C to get a movie and a Lotto ticket.

So - out she comes and a leg glides though the kicker and second prod - we are away down the drive. 1st call is the ATM and guy #1 wants to chat re the C... Hes nice and loves the bike - first prod and off to the DVD place, the guys at the liqour store love the C and tip me the wink - 'so shes still going eh?' YUP and its off to the local shop for beer and a lotto ticket - chat to the dude on the pavement who had a 66 bonnie once and it's time for home....

This bike is hungry for the throttle and shes alive like nothing made in modern times, you feel the engine, the bearings and the tappets and you only have to think 'corner' and shes on her ear saying 'yes boss'..... Fuck me - this bloody bike was made for me.. a classic? Maybe - or maybe it's just a bloody GREAT bike... Perfect for a warm Kapiti evening - the bloody thing has more friends than I do....

[toycollector10]

Nice post Paul.

You've got the sickness.

When it came to Brit Iron V's Spaghetti-framed Japanese rubbish ....I made my choice.

[Motu]

When the choice was between power and handling,I went for handling everytime.

I was going to be grumpy and say Triumph's never won me any friends - but actually they gave me the only true friends I've ever had,and a wife.I was seeing one of my old friends from those days today,it's good to have friendships that go so deep....and all because of a Triumph.In his case a '53 T'Bird,the first to have an alternator,in the outer primary case.

Triumph's didn't handle that well - but oh boy,they were flickable,and the engines eager for a thrashing.

[Unit]

Bloody good Post Paul n NZ. Takes me back to my first bike, Norton Commando, and do I miss it bigtime. Yep your right about the bike probably having more friends. No offence but people come talk when your on something so special. Dont you ever sell it, or I'll come have a jolly good talking to you.....

[Paul in NZ]

Triumph's didn't handle that well - but oh boy,they were flickable,and the engines eager for a thrashing.


Dunno - late 60's after Hele did his magic? they handled as good as anything.... The lack of rubber on the pegs indicates it can lay down OK...

Anyway - its more than that - its the bike on the right day in the right place - its a summer bike, chrome flashes under early street lights and sparkles on polished rims - hearts sigh for dreams unforfilled, dreams unrealised - it's fuckin gorgeous and I'm one lucky son of a bitch on a summer night, warm nights and rattley tappets - bliss....

[Paul in NZ]

Nice post Paul.

You've got the sickness.

When it came to Brit Iron V's Spaghetti-framed Japanese rubbish ....I made my choice.


Yeah - we all make choices....

;-)

[Bren]

Yeah - we all make choices....

;-)

What a nice looking old girl Paul...

[Bonez]

Good to see you are back Paul.

[The Baron]

Very nice bike. No wonder it has more friends than you. Thanks for a good read.

[Voltaire]

great posts guys...real Classic Bike Forum stuff.

Riding those old Triumphs sure is fun, I have a T110 I restored on my OE in a conservatory in London in the early 80's. While my flatmates were watching TV I was toiling away, even going to night school to make parts for it.
When it was finished I rode it up to the Isle of Man for TT week and my friend rode my r75/5.
Great ride and everytime I stopped someone would come over and start chatting.
As for handling, with those looks and that sound I was not too bothered.
alas it has sat along with the r75/5 in bits awaiting for the flame of enthusiasm to reignite....
the poll is gathereing momentum...

[Motu]

Dunno - late 60's after Hele did his magic? they handled as good as anything.... The lack of rubber on the pegs indicates it can lay down OK...


They didn't handle better,but they had more character.The OIF was boring...it handled so well it was like riding a Featherbed,no excitement.The pre unit frames had a nice whip that could set you up nicely exiting a corner....but by the late '60's they had honed it down to a fine art.The Norton's,BSA's and AMC's were better handling,but felt heavy and ponderous compared to a Triumph.I think the difference was that the others had better high speed handling,the Triumph had better low speed handling - and flicking through a set of twisties a Triumph was the far better bike.

Of course I've never owned a Triumph,but that doesn't stop us internet experts having opinions....

[Trumpess]

Dunno - late 60's after Hele did his magic? they handled as good as anything.... The lack of rubber on the pegs indicates it can lay down OK...

Anyway - its more than that - its the bike on the right day in the right place - its a summer bike, chrome flashes under early street lights and sparkles on polished rims - hearts sigh for dreams unforfilled, dreams unrealised - it's fuckin gorgeous and I'm one lucky son of a bitch on a summer night, warm nights and rattley tappets - bliss....


Ohhh I hear ya Paul ... especially about the rattly tappets :lol:
I have encountered the same taking my girl out for a spin, sadly alot of people pay more attention to the bike rather than me :(
There is something so very special about old Brits. But its all little sacrafice to endure when riding her!
She leans so well into corners and is very flickable. I am out for maximum enjoyment when we ride.
Hubby has suggested we sell her to get me an updated version, but he has been put back in his place. :lol:
I wouldnt give her up for quids. My old girl will be a family heirloom as my 12 year old boy is hanging to ride and wants her.

[Paul in NZ]

Ohhh I hear ya Paul ... especially about the rattly tappets :lol:
I have encountered the same taking my girl out for a spin, sadly alot of people pay more attention to the bike rather than me :(
There is something so very special about old Brits. But its all little sacrafice to endure when riding her!
She leans so well into corners and is very flickable. I am out for maximum enjoyment when we ride.
Hubby has suggested we sell her to get me an updated version, but he has been put back in his place. :lol:
I wouldnt give her up for quids. My old girl will be a family heirloom as my 12 year old boy is hanging to ride and wants her.

That looks like a 71 with a later tank on it?

To be brutally honest - the market for 71 / 72's is very flat so you really wouldn't get huge $$ for it - damn shame but they got bad press from the 'experts' when they are very good bikes - a T120V is maybe my fave triumph of all - more so in the red and gold livery. Its just the oddity of the classic market that certain bikes seem to represent an era and others don't.

I'd keep it and enjoy it for what it is - find a 71 slimline tank or a breadbox and enjoy - wonderful things...

Oh - watch out for the bearings flogging out the conical rear hub - good ones are getting very hard to find so make sure its a good tight fit and inspect regularly.

Useful mods for these bikes apart form the usual boyer are oil coolers and longer brake arms from Muts Nuts - they make all the difference now we can't get proper brake shoes.

Ah - happy memories - front wheel lock up contests with andy coming down from the summit rd in chch... Him on the T120V and me on one of the 5T chops or the Atlas or the rickman or...

[Trumpess]

That looks like a 71 with a later tank on it?

To be brutally honest - the market for 71 / 72's is very flat so you really wouldn't get huge $$ for it - damn shame but they got bad press from the 'experts' when they are very good bikes - a T120V is maybe my fave triumph of all - more so in the red and gold livery. Its just the oddity of the classic market that certain bikes seem to represent an era and others don't.

I'd keep it and enjoy it for what it is - find a 71 slimline tank or a breadbox and enjoy - wonderful things...

Oh - watch out for the bearings flogging out the conical rear hub - good ones are getting very hard to find so make sure its a good tight fit and inspect regularly.

Useful mods for these bikes apart form the usual boyer are oil coolers and longer brake arms from Muts Nuts - they make all the difference now we can't get proper brake shoes.

Ah - happy memories - front wheel lock up contests with andy coming down from the summit rd in chch... Him on the T120V and me on one of the 5T chops or the Atlas or the rickman or...



Yep it is a 71 (TR6R)
It has an 81 Electra tank on her.
We have the original gold and white breadbox for her in the garage, the seams have split and havent gotten around to getting it fixed, if it is at all fixable.
I don't care about the $$'s. Wont sell it. Its been owned for 20 years by hubby.
Your quote - "Its just the oddity of the classic market that certain bikes seem to represent an era and others don't." - as far as Im concerned they all represent the era in which they were born. Flash or not. Its all history!

P.S ... thanks for the tip re: rear hub.

[Paul in NZ]

Yep it is a 71 (TR6R)
It has an 81 Electra tank on her.
We have the original gold and white breadbox for her in the garage, the seams have split and havent gotten around to getting it fixed, if it is at all fixable.
I don't care about the $$'s. Wont sell it. Its been owned for 20 years by hubby.
Your quote - "Its just the oddity of the classic market that certain bikes seem to represent an era and others don't." - as far as Im concerned they all represent the era in which they were born. Flash or not. Its all history!

P.S ... thanks for the tip re: rear hub.

Sorry - I was being confusing... Yes - they are all historybut relevant to the era. The 71's were late to market due to problems with the engine not fitting the new frame and triumph never regained the sales numbers - because they missed the vital spring season in the USA there were a lot of unsold 71's around in 72 fueling the 'unpopular' tag... Sadly, by 71 triumphs were old news in the press and the lads of the day wanted RD350's and Honda 4's so the early OIF frame bikes compete with those bikes in the classic market.

The older bikes (pre 71) look and feel different and appeal to the 50s'60's louts - less bikes about and prices are higher at the moment.

My feeling is if you have owned it 20 years - keep it - you will regret selling it.

Of course the tank can be saved! If it's just a slight weep some POR15 will sort it or if it's a nasty one go see Andrew and Motorcycle Restorations in St Asaph st and he can probably braze it or advise accordingly.

[KiwiRat]

Some of my most enjoyable years were spent on British Iron. Blown head gaskets, flogged out rear hubs, shitty electrics, oil leaks were all part of the game.

Setting off to my parent's in Wanganui, wondering if I was going to make it. LOL

Loved 'em so much, I couldn't stay away from the new generation. A little porkier, but just as much fun.

[Trumpess]

Sorry - I was being confusing... Yes - they are all historybut relevant to the era. The 71's were late to market due to problems with the engine not fitting the new frame and triumph never regained the sales numbers - because they missed the vital spring season in the USA there were a lot of unsold 71's around in 72 fueling the 'unpopular' tag... Sadly, by 71 triumphs were old news in the press and the lads of the day wanted RD350's and Honda 4's so the early OIF frame bikes compete with those bikes in the classic market.

The older bikes (pre 71) look and feel different and appeal to the 50s'60's louts - less bikes about and prices are higher at the moment.

My feeling is if you have owned it 20 years - keep it - you will regret selling it.

Of course the tank can be saved! If it's just a slight weep some POR15 will sort it or if it's a nasty one go see Andrew and Motorcycle Restorations in St Asaph st and he can probably braze it or advise accordingly.


Thats cool ... thanks for info regarding that particular era. i had heard something along those lines.
I have only recently discovered the there was/is a huge market for Triumphs in America.
Though I dont like what they do to some of them. I find them rather odd, re photo attachments.

[Motu]

The problem with the '71 frame was the seat height...34inches or so I think.They must of beleived all the Hollywood movies and thought all Yanks were tall.It was rejected on that,and there was a mad panic to get the seat height down.My '71 frame has had the seat tubes narrowed,and with the teardrop tank and narrow single seat it will wasp wasted and easy to put a foot down.

[Voltaire]

The problem with the '71 frame was the seat height...34inches or so I think.They must of beleived all the Hollywood movies and thought all Yanks were tall.It was rejected on that,and there was a mad panic to get the seat height down.My '71 frame has had the seat tubes narrowed,and with the teardrop tank and narrow single seat it will wasp wasted and easy to put a foot down.

I had a 71 BSA Lightning, and I found out that at the time BSA has taken over Triumph and they wanted a common set of cycle parts.
BSA outsourced the design and they came up with the oil in frame...why.? a solution looking for a problem. Not a bad frame,but tall.
When it was given to Triumph they could not fit the motor in without a bit of a redesign.
By then it was all to late as the Japanese got the jump with the cb 750 and British bikes are not really suited to US conditions....running long and hard.
Norton had similar issues with the Combat engine..and then the Triumph strike of '73. Pretty much all over for Brit bike sales in the US then.
I think thats how the story went.

[Paul in NZ]

I had a 71 BSA Lightning, and I found out that at the time BSA has taken over Triumph and they wanted a common set of cycle parts.
BSA outsourced the design and they came up with the oil in frame...why.? a solution looking for a problem. Not a bad frame,but tall.
When it was given to Triumph they could not fit the motor in without a bit of a redesign.
By then it was all to late as the Japanese got the jump with the cb 750 and British bikes are not really suited to US conditions....running long and hard.
Norton had similar issues with the Combat engine..and then the Triumph strike of '73. Pretty much all over for Brit bike sales in the US then.
I think thats how the story went.

Close...

BSA had owned triumph since the 50's. Triumph / BSA was sold to Manganese Bronze Holdings, which also owned Norton, AJS, Matchless, Francis-Barnett, James-Velocette and Villiers. A new company called Norton Villiers Triumph (NVT) emerged

The frame (P38) was designed by the new group design centre at Umberslade Hall. It was a shocker - too tall and the triumph engine wouldnt fit... Handled well though!

What WAS outsourced was a lot of the design work for things like the Trident and Rocket 3 to Ogle Design - it was not popular and when the trident was shown to the US dealers they thought it was a humerous joke fake to wind them up. There were so many unsold 68 / 69 tridents they had to make a 'beauty kit' to move the bloody things... Dealers were wild - the looks of the triumphs had never been a problem - it was the limited performance...

The trident arrived about the same time as the CB750 - it just was not as good - it was better in many respects but it was not enough - people wanted change, they wanted Hondas.

The Combat saga was a different issue - too much compression and too wild a cams meant many many dead engines - the issue was solved by the superblend bearing but that was not really the issue - the problem was a 1940's engine that was never meant to last that long. Norton experimented with OHC 4's in the 50's but they were quite small really and poorly funded...

Ironically - a 72 BSA twin is probably the best of the lot - and the last. Bloody typical!

[Motu]

The OIF is supposed to be based on the Trackmaster frame,and they certainly look very similar - but a large tubing bent backbone oil carrying frame with duplex cradle is going to look like that anyway.

Of course the CB750 was more powerful and faster than the Trident,but the Trident handled better was by far a much more exciting bike to ride....depending on where you get your excitement.Unfortunatly I think at that time riders were far more interested in straight line speed than how fast you could go around corners.The Trident filled me with confidence....the CB750 with fear.

A friend had the best of both worlds - a CB750 powered Trident.

[pete376403]

Was browsing the bike mags at Whitcoulls the other day and the Classic Bikes (?) had a test of the A70 BSA - an A65 taken out to 750 via long stroke crank. Only a few of them made it out of the factory before they closed. Still had the bronze timing side bearing though, just as they did in the 1960s. How could they possibly hope to compete with bikes as sophisticated and just plain well put together as the CB750?

[Max Headroom]

A friend had the best of both worlds - a CB750 powered Trident.

Motu, are you talking about the Quad? I remember that bike. Wasn't it originally Aidan's?

John M still had that bike as late as 1985/86, 'cos he came & visited one Saturday morning on it. By that time it was getting a little tired & scruffy. He sold it not long after to a (then) workmate with plans to rebuild it. That guy apparently still has it in bits but refuses to sell it.....

[GrayWolf]

Close...

What WAS outsourced was a lot of the design work for things like the Trident and Rocket 3 to Ogle Design - it was not popular and when the trident was shown to the US dealers they thought it was a humerous joke fake to wind them up. There were so many unsold 68 / 69 tridents they had to make a 'beauty kit' to move the bloody things... Dealers were wild - the looks of the triumphs had never been a problem - it was the limited performance...

The trident arrived about the same time as the CB750 - it just was not as good - it was better in many respects but it was not enough - people wanted change, they wanted Hondas.l!

Sadly NVT did have some chance. Untill management stepped over them to run with the parallel twin. Norman Hyde had the solution for the leaking trident heads, he made a fair business out of hopping up tridents (900cc). There was a 500cc Norton Wolf? I think it was called, in the pipeline the 350 twin BSA/Triumph was rushed into production and had a catastrophic failure. They hopped up various models beyond what would be reasonable expectations Spitfire, Combat etc. As youngsters you never listen to the 'old heads' I had 2 bonnie's and they were a vibrating. part and piece losing noisy lot of fun! But the old guys? Ahhhh buy a Tiger or an A10 lad, they are the best. They were right, softer tuned, more 'robust' and reliable, but not as fast dammit!!

[Paul in NZ]

Was browsing the bike mags at Whitcoulls the other day and the Classic Bikes (?) had a test of the A70 BSA - an A65 taken out to 750 via long stroke crank. Only a few of them made it out of the factory before they closed. Still had the bronze timing side bearing though, just as they did in the 1960s. How could they possibly hope to compete with bikes as sophisticated and just plain well put together as the CB750?

The A70 was never a serious road bike - it was just a way of allowing BSA to run 750 twins in AMA dirt tracking. The plain bush was OK as originally made but of course a bearing is better. The CB was better at medium speeds - almost serene as some put it, sure the trident handled OK (ish) but would deck everything due to poor ground clearance (sigh)

NVT really fucked up by pouring cash into the rotary and the stepped piston 2 stroke. They just could not bring themselves to produce a OHC multi - or at least the factory didn't have the capability - very sad...

[Voltaire]

Was browsing the bike mags at Whitcoulls the other day and the Classic Bikes (?) had a test of the A70 BSA - an A65 taken out to 750 via long stroke crank. Only a few of them made it out of the factory before they closed. Still had the bronze timing side bearing though, just as they did in the 1960s. How could they possibly hope to compete with bikes as sophisticated and just plain well put together as the CB750?

Ford ,GM and Chrysler are probably asking similar questions....

The Japanese seem to understand the market.

Paul Weller once observed:
'The public want what the public get.."
Was he refering to the Btitish motor industry...?

[toycollector10]

Motu says the CB750 frightened him.

I own a CB and have used it on half a dozen or so track days. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the bike and it's been ridden to its limit many times.

I't also been called a "sphagetti framed piece of shit" by someone on this forum.

I think the problem is that when it first arrived on the scene it was too much for a lot of people to get their heads around. They would have looked at their tired old Brit banger then looked at a CB, say, in Candy Blue Green, which would have completely blown their mind.

And if they couldn't afford to buy one the next step would have to have been justifying why.

Hence all the bad press. Doesn't handle, boring, Jap crap, no character etc, all the same old crap.

I'd back my 1969 K0 over any bike built in the same year.

[Voltaire]

I remember these three guys at Mt Cook in '84 telling me "Auckland....thats a long way to come on a 500/4'"
We were two up with gear, never missed a beat and handled great ( imho).
What they meant was "I'd never do that trip on my Triumph or Norton"
When it comes to handling the bike itself is only part of the equation.

[Max Headroom]

Motu says the CB750 frightened him.

I own a CB and have used it on half a dozen or so track days. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the bike and it's been ridden to its limit many times.

I't also been called a "sphagetti framed piece of shit" by someone on this forum.

I think the problem is that when it first arrived on the scene it was too much for a lot of people to get their heads around. They would have looked at their tired old Brit banger then looked at a CB, say, in Candy Blue Green, which would have completely blown their mind.
And if they couldn't afford to buy one the next step would have to have been justifying why.

Hence all the bad press. Doesn't handle, boring, Jap crap, no character etc, all the same old crap. I'd back my 1969 K0 over any bike built in the same year.

I think you're probably quite right. Your CB750 probably handles very well with its' modern shocks and modern tyres.

When it was all shiny and new 40 years ago, it was probably a different story. The OEM Japanese tyres were more plastic than rubber. The upside was that they lasted forever. The downside was that they lasted forever.....

The OEM shocks weren't flash either. The FVQ brand wasn't nicknamed FadeVery Quickly without good reason.

The Jap bikes were regarded as a handful back "in the day" primarily because of tyres and shocks. Other details like steering head bearings could make a difference, unless converted to taper rollers. Not really an issue these days: just watch a Post Classic event.

[Ixion]

..

NVT really fucked up by pouring cash into the rotary and the stepped piston 2 stroke. They just could not bring themselves to produce a OHC multi - or at least the factory didn't have the capability - very sad...

I have heard (from a totally non-authorative source) that the problem was that the factory did not have machines capable of handling a horizontal split crankcase. And the technical challenges of a four cylinder crankshaft in a vertically split case were almost insurmountable (though they managed the triple OK .But that was in some measure a Triumph (geddit ?) of workmanship over design). And of course they could not afford to retool.

[Ixion]

I think you're probably quite right. Your CB750 probably handles very well with its' modern shocks and modern tyres.

When it was all shiny and new 40 years ago, it was probably a different story. The OEM Japanese tyres were more plastic than rubber. The upside was that they lasted forever. The downside was that they lasted forever.....

The OEM shocks weren't flash either. The FVQ brand wasn't nicknamed FadeVery Quickly without good reason.

The Jap bikes were regarded as a handful back "in the day" primarily because of tyres and shocks. Other details like steering head bearings could make a difference, unless converted to taper rollers. Not really an issue these days: just watch a Post Classic event.

I have ridden many (most) of the 60/70 big Jappas. And owned quite a few.

One very important factor that is overlooked nowdays is the roads.

Typically, the old Jappas handled quite well ON GOOD SURFACES. It was when the road was crappy that they started twitching and tying themselves in knots.

Most roads back then were very bad indeed by modern standards. That challenged the contemporary machines. The Brits handled that challenge better than the Japs.

Nowadays, when bad roads are almost unknown, the challenge does not arise.And of course it never will on a race track.

But the riders of the 70s had no choice , they had to take the roads as they came. And some of the Jappas on those roads could indeed be frightening.

[Bonez]

Nowadays, when bad roads are almost unknown, the challenge does not arise.Pfff!! You obvoiusly don't know were to look.............

As for Maxs referance too FVQ shocks. Gerty had hers on her for 52,000kms before they were shagged bacause I was T-boned. The CB550s lasted 80,000kms before I fitted Konis. Nylon tyres are still produced too ;) but don't last as long as they use too :(. Had a TT100 that got so hard I had to cut the f'n thing off the rim.

[Ixion]

There's bad, and then there's bad. And then there's the dreaded pumice. Y'have to look hard to find a really bad sealed road nowadays.

[Bonez]

There's bad, and then there's bad. And then there's the dreaded pumice. Y'have to look hard to find a really bad sealed road nowadays.Guess it all depends where you come from. The good services of the likes of RT wouldn't be needed if the roads where so perfect.

[Ixion]

And the definition of 'bad' I suppose. But I think a telling indication is that bikes nowadays have alloy wheels. No way would one have gotten away with that back in the day, they'd have been buckled n no time flat.

So, I guess a sealed road that can be ridden with alloy wheels doesn't class as bad :whistle:

[xwhatsit]

The FVQ brand wasn't nicknamed FadeVery Quickly without good reason.
I've still got my original FVQs on -- and, yes, they haven't gotten any better :pinch:

But surely the Brit suspension and tyres weren't any better? Or was it just a matter of them making chassis that could cope with defects in other areas, and having less violent power to get them into shit in the first place?

[Bonez]

And the definition of 'bad' I suppose. But I think a telling indication is that bikes nowadays have alloy wheels. No way would one have gotten away with that back in the day, they'd have been buckled n no time flat.

So, I guess a sealed road that can be ridden with alloy wheels doesn't class as bad :whistle:Yeah, but spokes were known to break..............Last a lot longer now.

[Ixion]

I've still got my original FVQs on -- and, yes, they haven't gotten any better :pinch:

But surely the Brit suspension and tyres weren't any better? Or was it just a matter of them making chassis that could cope with defects in other areas, and having less violent power to get them into shit in the first place?

I think the Brit chassis were, by and large (there were exceptions, oh yes indeed), more rigid than the Japs, and heavier. Partly because the Brits still had sidecars to consider, whereas the Japs never really bothered with those.

Early Japs were also almost always very badly undersprung , the Brits tended to spec for heavier riders (all those pies and roast beef).

All in all, with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure that the early Japs were much worse than most of the Brits (maybe leaving Norton and Velo out, and certainly excluding things like the Kockysuckie 500 ). But the handling characteristics were different and riders weren't used to the difference.

[Bonez]

I've still got my original FVQs on -- and, yes, they haven't gotten any better :pinch:

But surely the Brit suspension and tyres weren't any better? Or was it just a matter of them making chassis that could cope with defects in other areas, and having less violent power to get them into shit in the first place?I remember taking my uncles 500 Norton for a spin. Going around the first corner felt like the front and rear ends were going to meet. Shocking compared to my CJ250 I had at the time. Dads BSA 250 and Arial Huntmaster were good though.

[Motu]

Motu, are you talking about the Quad? I remember that bike. Wasn't it originally Aidan's?

John M still had that bike as late as 1985/86, 'cos he came & visited one Saturday morning on it. By that time it was getting a little tired & scruffy. He sold it not long after to a (then) workmate with plans to rebuild it. That guy apparently still has it in bits but refuses to sell it.....

That's the one.I think John put a chair on it and it collapsed a front wheel bearing going under the bridge down from his place...or was that another bike? He has had a few.

As far as CB750 handling goes - the OE shocks were crap,always oversprung and under damped,the OE fork oil was shit too,and seldom changed as the owners thought you just rode them.From my point of view the CG was too high....stepping off low CG bikes it was hard to get your head around.I found I had to lay it down far deeper than a British or Italian bike,and/or hang a cheek off the seat....to me covering up a basic flaw.Modern wide profile tyres would suit them well,as they work better with a high CG.

Sure the Trident touched down a few metal items - but that's 90% of the fun isn't it? At that point they had used up all the TT100 had to offer as lean angle.....that was the tyre specially designed for the Trident,and the best tyre to use on one.

[Voltaire]

I suppose one worn out bike is much the same as another.
My Ducati 900 that was in storage at Mums for 16 years was no fun on its 20 year old 'new' Metzlers...but great on its new BT45's.

I restored a T110 with new everything, forks rebushed and sprung, rebushed swing arm ( very very important on these things) new Hagons, steering bearings,new dunlops. etc....apart from the sub standard front brake it was awesome.( got a twin leader sitting on the shelf for it one day....but the "thats not original brigade' might not approve..:whocares:
I must get it back on the road.....Triumphs rule :Punk:

[pete376403]

I've still got my original FVQs on -- and, yes, they haven't gotten any better :pinch:

But surely the Brit suspension and tyres weren't any better? Or was it just a matter of them making chassis that could cope with defects in other areas, and having less violent power to get them into shit in the first place?

Maybe just "less power", let alone "less violent power". However they also had less weight, so the suspension and tyres had an easier time.

Cycle magazine did a "superbike shootout" in (IIRC) 1970. CB750, Trident, Rocket 3, Commando, 883 Sportster, Mach III and Suzuki T500 (way outclassed)
The Commando was the lightest bike of the bunch. The CB750 was the overall winner

[Motu]

The most important part of a magazine road test in those days was the performance specs - 1/4 mile times and top speed were of utmost importance.The Trident and Commando could both be geared to beat the CB750 in either....but never both.You will always find discrepancies in tests of those days for that reason.Being a more Euro bike,the Rocket III always had the highest top speed.The Ducati came later.

[Ixion]

Yes, what's with the modern thing for road tests that don't tell y' vital information like 'wadd'll it do?".

I was reading the latest Kiwirider, and NONE of the road tests actually tested anything!

Instead they have some stupid shit in the specifications about "Gear". If I was interested in what the rider was *wearing* I'd be reading KiwiPoofter. I want to know how fast the bloody thing goes not how gay the rider looks.

[Motu]

It's really hard today to know how fast a bike is - you have to turn the key on....and the digital speedo just say 0 - that's just bloody useless if you ask me.Yeah well,you didn't ask,so I told you anyway....that's how you learn important stuff.The Vincent just stuck it right in your face - 150mph!!!! Take that! And the speedos were cronometric - the needle moved with a jerky movement....that way you could watch the needle long enough for the speed to really sink in.