Old Bike Love

[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.