The problem with Retro Motorcycles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ย. 2021
- Retro motorcycles are cool, but they're not perfect. Triumph, Royal Enfield, all creating modern classic motorcycles that are often just heavier versions of the original legendary motorcycles. I currently own a vintage Triumph and I have to say, I'd take it over a modern classic any day
The Strange death of the british motorcycle industry
www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-...
Check out my other videos about Retro Motorcycles:
• 9 Retro Electric motor...
• 8 Retro Motorcycles th...
• 10 Neo-Retro Motorcyle...
• 10 MORE Retro Electric...
Subscribe for more Motorcycle content! ➔ tinyurl.com/ybuffutr
📚Check out my Children's Motorcycle Book!
rb.gy/bdh14b
Disclaimer
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."
I do NOT own some or all of the video materials used in this video. In the case of copyright issues, please contact me immediately for any further action.
📷 INSTAGRAM ➔ / bart.cycle
120mph on a bike with flexing forks wallowing suspension and drum brakes, leaking oil and slowly shaking it's self to bits isn't all it is cracked up to be. The new modern classics have the looks, feel and style without the worry. Speed and power isn't always the be all, feeling the wind on your face and enjoying the open road is where the magic happens and knowing you don't have to stop every hour or less to spanner everything up. As I have gotten older top speed is meaning less, and not having to lay on a wet road trying to tighten rounded nuts is the appeal of the new T100 for me. Great video bart.
The modern classics are objectively better in every way. They are stiffer, handle better, ride better, more comfortable, safer, cleaner and more reliable. If you prefer an original, that is fine but unless your a collector or ride very little, your much better off with a modern classic. Some of us ride 10,000 miles or more per year and like to actually ride out of town and travel on a motorcycle.
Hi. This is very interesting, but speaking as an "old geezer" (aged 69) who does not look at the world through rose-coloured spectacles, a key point is missing. British bikes of that period were hideously unreliable. They blew up all the time, their electrics were always failing and they vibrated so much that they would fall apart under you. They had not advanced in terms of fundamental design since the pre war Triumph Speed Twin. I had BSAs, Nortons and Matchlesses and, frankly, they were all shit. The British motorcycle companies were exhausted, undercapitalised and lazy. As soon as bikes like the Honda CB350 turned up it was game over, and thank God for that. I went Japanese as soon as I could, migrating to the wonderful Suzuki T500 Titan. It was transformational - it always worked and it went like stink - I loved that bike. The problem for bike designers now, including modern Triumph, is that consumers nowadays expect motorbikes to be reliable, which is why the retro bikes are heavy and underpowered, as the video points out. Nobody nowadays would tolerate the rubbish the British were serving up. And we should feel no sympathy for the British motorcycle companies of that period. If you look at the Italian motorcycle industry, as they crawled out of the ruins of world war two they started with little bikes for Italian commuters, but immediately they started innovating with interesting, modern engines. Likewise the Japanese and the Germans. By contrast, the US bike industry in that period seemed to match the British for being lazy and inbred. So it goes - culture matters.
Leaving the hipsters to one side, most people who ride these bikes are men like myself who have reached an age where their reaction have slowed and they want a bike that has a bit of character when riding slowly and isn't cramped. These bikes fit the bill and your comparison with the performance of 60's bikes totally ignored the fact that they'd be much slower without the leaded petrol they ran on and wouldn't pass the emissions tears we have today. That said, you could have mentioned the Indian Scout which ticks all the boxes for looks, history etc but you didn't. Instead you recommended an Italian bike which probably costs 2 years wages. You could have pointed to Harley Davidson which is a good example of overly big, underperforming bikes but you chose Triumphs which are far better. In short, I arrived at the end of the video thinking what you really want is the latest 200bhp sports bike that looks different except they never will as that exceptional performance will dictate the engineering and therefore the looks.
Retro bikes becoming popular, because they look like traditional motorcycles, not insects. I’m not just referring to Triumph Bonnie and Moto Guzzi V7 bikes. Take a look at early 70s to mid 80s Japanese bikes. They are as beautiful and timeless looking as Triumph and Moto Guzzi. It doesn’t matter how many years or decades go by, they will always look beautiful. Triumph and Moto Guzzi bikes didn’t bring back the past styling, they have always looked that way as long as they have been making bikes.
Harley Davidson survived by not straying to far from its roots, the modern sport bikes have their place, the verity of equipment out there, should suit almost everyone, not everyone understands motorcycling, some cannot tolerate other people’s taste,
I like living in a world of technological progress where we still retain the option to buy classic designs. Plenty of room for us all it seems...
If they would make them lighter, I'd be set. Sub 450lbs wet would be ok.
Give me an old XS650 Yamaha any day over an old Triumph. More dependable and fun to ride.
Nothing says uncool like shorts and flip flops
I'm 72 years old and recently bought a Triumph Street Twin. My first bike when I was 18 years old was a used 1962 Triumph Bonneville that I bought from my brother-in-law. Comparing the two, I much prefer the new Street Twin. It's reliable, sounds much better, is far more comfortable, and if I start it up in the garage I won't die from poisonous exhaust fumes. Regarding the weight, my 1962 Bonneville had kick start, air cooling, no catalytic converter and no battery. The new bike has liquid cooling, electric start and emissions system which adds weight but the weight is negligible because it's very low. It also has lots of electronics that give me all sorts of information to enhance my ride. My first bike required lots of labor to keep it running. The electric components were especially unreliable. The riding experience wasn't really that great because the sounds coming from the engine were mostly mechanical that drowned out the exhaust. The new Street Twin with it's 270 crank sounds wonderful and other engine noises are suppressed (probably by the liquid cooling).
Coolness in motorcycles is often derived from the absence of accessibility. Most normal riders would kill themselves on the MV Agusta Superveloce - IF they could ever afford one. The same was true of Bonnevilles in the 60s. "Only for the expert rider".
Confusing. You want more power, lighter, more unusual models. But then Superveloce is good but it could do with a bigger engine? I think one sentence in there sums it all up. "I would never buy one." These companies don't create bikes for people that would never buy them. Or else history would repeat itself and they would all go out of business.
This comparing power, torque all the time is the saddest thing in the whole motorcycle industry. There's a lot that goes into motorcycle characteristic, the frame, the stroke length, the crank diameter, the gearing arrangement, how the air fuel mixture is tuned, the clearances and how everything works as you reach the redline. These can't all be taken into account when talking factually about a motorcycle, that's why the "feel" matters. If it's well designed and well tuned it is gonna feel well at whatever usable rpms and speeds you drive it at, but everyone is concerned about that X hp that is achieved at N rpm like they are going to drive it at that rpm all the time. I can tell you what makes most power, petrol buring in an open dumpster fire ! Delivery matters.
“If only Triumph made motorcycles like the Trident and the Speed Twin…” huh?
I'm anything but a hipster, and I love my 2018 Bonnie. To me there's not enough retro bikes on the market.
The w800 and interceptor could probably do a lot more horses, but they were made with A2 licenses in mind, which is limited to 47hp
Firstly, really enjoyed your video.
Thank you for an outstanding incomprehensible and silly waffling. To compare the few good qualities from 50-60 years ago with the few shortcomings from the present. I have ridden many motorcycles from different times. Also Norton, AJS, Triumph and Matchless from the 60's. It can definitely be an experience to drive these .... but the shortcomings in reliability, comfort, safety and most other things are endless. Having owned motorcycles from different eras and continents than it is really enjoyable to drive a modern Bonneville T120 that has fantastic engine character and is reliable. It has also not been a problem to increase the effect a bit and reduce the weight by 20 kg. It would be nice to have an original from the 60's in the garage as long as you did not have to drive long distances or have to rely on it.
I remember walking past the local bike store in the early 70's and the brand new Triumph Thruxton in the window had a drip pan under it to catch the leaking oil.