Old Bike Love

[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

[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

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

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

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

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..
I must get it back on the road.....Triumphs rule

[pete376403]

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

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.