Excuses for my English, I'm Dutch, I am now 75 and my last bike was a Moto Guzzi V 850 of 1972. I sold it 2012 ! But in 1966 I had a Triumph Tiger 90 and on te motorshow IFMA in Cologne I met mr Philip Cross, Triumph's advertising manager. He was so glad that I could help him talking to a German customer that he invited me to see him at the factory in Meriden. So I did. Henry Vale was very proud that I recognised him because I was a subscriber of a motorcycle magzine There they converted my Tiger 90 to Tiger 100. They gave me a bike to do some touring. It was the KUE 65 D. They told me to be very careful because nobody could see I was a foreigner. The KUE broke down in Stratord u. A. and I drove back on one cilinder. Vic Fiddler took it in his shop to repair the bike and I was looking around. Partially covered with a cloth I discovered a cilinderhead with three combustion chambers. I showed it to Vic and he took it out of my hands and said: ooouuuhhh TOP SECRET. In 1972 I was with my friend and wife in Meriden and Vic Fiddler repaired the clutch cable of my friends Moto Guzzi V7. I could write a book. I was there with my 1969 Bonnie to replace the valveseats, on honeymoon in I think 1974, mr Carter invited us to have lunch with the staff. ALL GREAT PEOPLE, I still love them. "My mechanic was Gordon Mathews
I bought a 750 k2 , it was a million miles away from all the stuff that was around in the day. like getting on a rocket ship . I went to Ibiza on that bike and it never missed a beat. what a fab bike
I owned both a '69 BSA Rocket 3 and a K1 750. They were both great bikes. I had to rebuild the Rocket 3 and I couldn't get an exhaust for it and I had to use Trident triple manifold and ran them into two megaphones. The sound was unreal. It pulled a good wheel stand as well. Great memories.
I remember seeing two Rocket 3s on a trailer in 1971 on the A6 just south of Derby. Their distinctive silencers were painted black. I was 13 and the bike bug was biting hard. Of course I now know it was John Cooper on his way home from beating Ago by just 3/5ths of a second at Malory Park. I always find it interesting that everyone always forgets MV had a road going DOHC four several years before Honda. The Rocket 3 wins on nostalgia and racing history, as well as a very personal teen memory which played a significant part in my love of bikes. But the Honda CB750 is a vastly superior machine in so many ways. At 17 I was riding a CB250G5. I’m currently restoring a 1983 Marysville built USA spec VF750F Interceptor, which is yet another leap forward in technology, and in my opinion much better than the ‘69 bike, even if it is still too heavy.
I bought a '69 rocket 3 from Irv Seaver in Orange Calif, and inside of 6 months had the center piston collapse, a cracked crankcase filled the clutch basket with oil and a good number of minor failures and constant leaking oil spots on the ground. Was very glad to get a good trade on a Honda.
Thanks for your reply Keith. The CB 750 had its flaws, especially handling, but as a (close to) out-of-the-crate motorcycle for production racing it wasn't bad. A Rocket 3 production-based racer was certainly better than a CB 750 production motorcycle ridden in production races. But as every-day bikes for the average punter the Honda wins hands down. I say this as someone who was enchanted with "odd-ball Spanish single-cylinder things" like Bultaco's Metralla.
After working on both Brit (BSA & Triumph, but no Triples) and Japanese bikes (mainly 2-strokes), you really appreciate the jewel like machining and lack of leaking oil, plus that great reliability, made me a Rice Burner aficionado! I ride a Ducati now, but only after they got their act together in the early 90's.
My older brother had a BSA Rocket 3 and he was constantly working on it to keep it running while the kids with the CB750's just kept riding them. I agree the Rocket 3's best feature was its sound.
One of my friend had bought a Rocket 3, he kept it one month, and when the CB-750 showed up in the showrooms, he traded the Rocket 3 immediatly, and never looked back.
After 28 years on bikes those days are now behind my creaking aged frame. Like many others I resisted Japanese bikes for a long time. I started out on an old Ariel. Then it was Triumphs, then BSAs and a Norton. I get everything everybody says about loving the sound they made and the ride. The love isn't dead. I also remember the oil leaks, the crap switchgear, the left thread for this and the right thread for that. The woodruff keys that wouldn't move. The screws that chewed. The cotter pins, the valve covers that kept unscrewing themselves and dropping off from the vibration and the uncle Joe Lucas electrics. It's a balance. You either loved them despite all that, or not. I did. Then I finally went for a Honda 750 4. Was it as good in the same positives? No it wasn't. That Honda engine though, was a bloody masterpiece. The electrics were a different class. Maintenance was relatively minimal and it just never let you down. I loved it. There were things I loved about them all, particularly the Norton Commando. Looking back all considered, which one was the best of them all overall? It was the Honda. I don't like admitting it, but it was.
The Honda engine was designed so well not only for superior performance and long service life but was a good engine for a beginner to disassemble, repair, and reassemble. It is not surprising that the per unit cost for production allowed Honda to undercut the competition. British bikes are great performers but no one really likes unnecessary oil spots on their driveway. Most BSA and Triumph owners in the US end up having to take their bikes to a professional to get a good repair result, the engine designs are somewhat quirky. The excessive vibration means constant monitoring of fixings, the smooth ohc four Honda rarely loosens bolts or nuts.
That's why the Rocket 3 hit 131 mph in 1968, for performance and road holding a Honda 750 couldn't touch it, Also a Trident, Rocket3 has no excessive vibration with it's perfectly designed and balanced 120 deg. crank. On the 100 top bikes program they put a glass of water on a Honda 750 saddle and revved the engine to show lack of vibration, guess what I went outside and did the same on my T150V
@k d Real motorcycle, (one word) folks? Remail loyal to day (one word not two)? Really? The line reads..."motorcycles" with an s (comma) folks. As in...you gotta love motorcycles. The passage does not refer to motorcycle people or folks, so your point of contention is based on a false premise, a misinterpretation. You're bad. But as you have now raised the question... You're a "real" bitter looser with a bad attitude. It's those rich folks spending fortunes on the restoration and preservation of these iconic machines that makes it possible for all of us to enjoy and admire for generations to come. The only way to make a small fortune restoring a collection of classic motorcycles is to start with a large fortune. Maybe if you would have studied a little longer or worked just a little harder or smarter? Think of the possibilities. You don't have to look any further than Jay Leno's Garage right here on TH-cam to see what a rich guy has built for all of us to enjoy and study. And by the way. Jay is the epitome of a "real" motorcycle guy.
@k d You are clearly not very bright so you can disregard the mention of working smarter in the previous post. Thank you for the affirmation. You are, indeed, a bitter looser. If you'll excuse me now as I am going out to the shop and enjoy my classic motorcycles. Sometimes I like to just sit and admire them. Toodles, Lab Rat.
@k d My gawd you really are dumber than dirt. You misinterpreted that, as well. You affirmed your ignorance, moron. You don't read very often or very much, do you?
@k d I am very positive. I am absolutely positive that you are a bottom feeder that is permanently ensconced at the bottom of the evolutionary totem pole.
Norton Commando vs the Honda CB-750.. But the CB-750 just had the low end grunt to pull that weight off the line so hard. And the Honda was full of first that were reserved for the race track. That is why people loved it. One of the longest best selling bikes produced at the time. It was also reliable.
Beautiful Rocket 3! They were always better than the T150 Trident. Lucas , Prince of Darkness had a lot to answer for in regard to reliability with all this stuff , and Honda with Denso electrics already had an advantage. Indeed Lucas could make very good gear but the bean-counters in the British bike firms didn’t want to pay the extra required to build better components. Both of these bikes are iconic , with the BSA being the best of the old and the Honda being the start of the new , which makes for a somewhat unfair comparison. Both nice bikes!
Not to mention amal carburetors which in my opinion were the crapiest (and still are ) component ever fitted to a motorcycle. Just bought a new set of premiers for a T160, float levels so far out they shut off fuel before the bowls were half full. returned to the supplier, no explanation or apology from amal, 45 years on they have learnt less.. And as for the mikuni Copy MK11 what a piece of...Ironic that in their last year they used German Bing CV as BMW. Shame it took them so long to admit the mistake.
Read Bert Hopwood's book "what happened to the British motorcycle industry". Apparently they could've released the 'triples' about 6 years earlier,and they had plans for ohc engines. But...
My favorite motorcycles were my 1962 BMW R69S, my 1965 Triumph Bonneville and my 2012 Suzuki V-Strom 650. I rode the Beemer from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back in the summer of '65. Oil changes and valve adjustments were the only things I did to it. The Bonneville, on the other hand, was fast and nimble for those days, but it needed a lot more maintenance than the BMW. I thought the BSA 650 Lightning was gorgeous, but it was too heavy compared to the Bonneville and didn't handle as well. Compared to the Bonneville, the Trident and Rocket 3 were pigs in my estimation. I was never tempted by the CB750. They were too heavy and didn't handle well when they came out. Since then I have only owned Yamahas and Suzukis. I don't understand the rationale for a bike bigger than 650cc. Once I was trying to catch a friend on an interstate highway. As an ambulance jockey, when I hit 130 mph indicated on the speedometer on my bike, I had a vision of my co-workers scooping up hamburger from the highway and delivering it to my wife. I've never been over 100 on a bike since. The V-Strom was smoother than any of my other bikes, quick enough for an old man, and comfortable on a long trip without weighing 700 or 900 lbs like most touring bikes.
me 75 had a new 67 Norton and and did 14000km on BMW K1200GT in 2013, believe me, i used that speed and horsepower in USA as people tried to kill me, I cruised 80mph in Texas, was never tempted to do 150, I rode a cb750 in early 60,s liked it, it was borrowed, then a borrowed 900 bol dore which was the worst bike ever
The CB 750s handled well for a 525lb bike. Sure, they weren't as nimble as a 650, but they weren't wobbling at high speed either. I'd say they handled better than 99% of the riders who rode them could use......
Over the years I owned four CB750 fours...absolutely bullet proof engine...never a drama with any of mine. A joy to own and ride. However, back in the day, I rode with guys who owned Triumph, BSA, Ducati, and Norton bikes...plus a few other makes. Just about every time we went on a long ride, one or two of them broke down. It was never my Honda four, that failed. The most unreliable bike of our group (1970's), was a Ducati 900 SS. It had a piss poor electrical system, that failed like clockwork. It's fuses were under the seat, if I recall correctly. They shorted out on a regular basis. I now own a Kawasaki VN900 Classic, but would swap it tomorrow for a trusty 750 Four. If there is one bike that they should do a retro on it's the Four.
Agree. Not everyone needs the fastest bike in the world. I rode year round, and not until the age of 24 did I own an auto. The Honda 750 Four was/is a great bike. I wish I had not let mine sit and rust away, then sold at scrap prices. With that said, I love british bikes. So please, Triumph, BSA, Norton lovers don't go off on diatribes. I love those bikes but for different reasons. After 40 years away from riding I purchased a 2017 Royal Enfield 500 Classic, why?, because it is the closest thing to my 441 BSA Victor, my first, but short lived, bike. The pre ~70's BSAs were gorgeous. Then - I don't know what happened in the styling office. At 24 I started work at Ford Motor and sorry to say the quality was terrible back then. They almost lost it to Japan as did the Brits. Just read Shooting Star, The rise and fall of the British Motorcycle Industry. Reminded me of my days at Ford '78-84. Never realized what a powerhouse the Brits were with motorcycles back then. As a Yank I take no joy knowing what happened to the British MC industry. But let's give the 750 Honda its due.
ave a '79 CBK 750 DOHC and a Z N1100 Kaw. They both have their charisma to me , but I remember my 850 Norton and 750 Royal Enfield from 30 years ago for the same reasons.
Edward Turner built a 4cyl OHC prototype in 1967 and the management asked only one question: : How many existing parts did you use?" Thus the 100 and 1/2 was produced, Cycle world : "too little, too late" or "pray for BSA's baby" . BTW, the British bike that won the most races was the Triumph 500 twin. The 750 Honda set the industry on it's ear in '69
When I was a new rider in the early seventies I had a book on how to write a motorcycle written by an English lady and on the back cover she had her and her BSA rocketry and I thought wow what a beautiful motorcycle that is I had no idea BSA had gone out of business a couple years earlier. The Honda 750 was a cheap bike built cheap and they had a brand new Factory that was pumping them out one every three minutes imagine that of course a 750 Honda that cost $2,500 in America was $3,500 in Germany and $4,000 in France. Peter Egan of Cycle World Fame once said in his column that his Honda 750 was cheaper to throw away and buy a new one then fix the old one. You can get anything for a BSA Rocket 3 you can't get anything for a Honda 750. Of course people will say that's because they always need parts
I worked for a BSA / Kawasaki / Suzuki dealer through the '70s in the U.S. Loved the ride of a Rocket 3 and, of course, it's sound. I wasn't fond of the clutch cables as they would wear out too soon (teflon lined). It is the most favored memory I have of those days though a Kaw. Z-1 is right there also.
Love the BSA, my avatar is a ridgidized Gold Star that was great fun in 72. I was in Japan when the Honda came out and THAT SOUND! It was funny watching the shorter riders zipping them around while wearin sandals. I’d take the BSA and put electronic ignition in My first bike when I got back from the service was a CB5004F and I wish I had never traded it for a Z1 in 75. The Honda was better in everything than the Z1. Tires, chains, sprockets, gas, valve adjustments were all cheaper and less time intensive than the Kawasaki. Not exhaust systems were prone to rotting out( I didn’t have a car so short trips were something I couldn’t avoid). And even with a smaller engine the CB500 got me from Shreveport to Houston every couple of months in fine fashion.
I have had both sequentially I nearly died riding the Honda. the rocket 3 handled superbly, the Honda handled like a sack of potatoes, no comparison. I loved my rocket 3, but the Honda was more reliable. The Honda was mass produced the BSA was a hand made work of art. My brain says Honda, my heart says BSA ; a motorcyclist should follow his heart.
I bought a brand new 1969 Rocket 3 in 1969. I traded in a 1968 BSA Firebird Scrambler for it. I paid $1800.00 in Toronto for the Rocket 3. I really thought I had a knockout looking bike back then. I started off with a 1959 Ariel Square 4 which I thought was pretty decent back in the mid 60’s. I remember reading about Yvon Duhamel breaking records I believe at Daytona on a Rocket 3. I do have to agree with the choice of the panel though. The Honda definitely was definitely better engineered and had more safety features with the disc front brake and turn signals. I still like the look of the BSA though.👍👍🇨🇦
Hi guys the honda might have been the first hydraulic disc brake but lambretta tv 175 was the first production bike with a disc brake ever ,1962-3. whether you don't count every two wheeled , engined vehicle as a motorcycle is up to you
Growing up in the sixties in Belgium it was all Italians and Brits and one German, with Benelli, Morini, Ducati, Moto Guzzi, Norton, Triumph, BSA and BMW. Then into the seventies all of a sudden it was Japanese starting with a take-over by Honda. A bit later it was Kawasaki and still later Suzuki and Yamaha with the odd Moto Guzzi California for people who were tired of the Harleys that broke down every couple of miles. The Triumph Bonneville and Norton Commander held on for a while but late seventies early eighties it was all Japan. BMW also started to suffer but came back with a vengeane with the K100 series.
I have 2 1970 CB750 K0 owned one for 40 years! Red 180,000 miles and the other a genuine Orange 14,000 miles both immaculate as you can still get spares, both crack 125 dont leak sound brilliant and would take me to the south of France tomorrow without a missed beat . The first one cost me £600! the second £3,500 they are worth a few more £s today. Handling? Just fit modern rubber, keep the head stock bearings correct or fit taper rollers and surprise yourself that engine is high up ground clearance is good, they go well.
It has to be the Honda the BSA view is just nostalgia. The BSA was the best they could do with the money available from the beancounters, the parts bin and the tooling. The Honda added so much while the BSA was still an old piece of push rod kit with an extra piston slotted in. I'm a BSA fan I had two and my favourite bike of all time is the goldie clubman, but at the end of the day you have to be honest and BSA were on a nosedive and couldn't cope with the japanese onslaught.
When I was a young kid on a bicycle there was a guy with an immaculate red Rocket 3 in my town. That beautiful bike, the heavenly sound of it, the poise and presence of it was the catalyst that made me into a motorcyclist for the rest of my life.
CB 750: 4 cylinders, 5 speed gearbox, Overhead cams, electric start, front disc brake, indicators, no oil leaks, no breakdowns. Rocket 3: 3 cylinders, 4 speed gearbox, overhead valves and pushrods, kick (several times) start, drum brakes, no indicators, oil leaks from new, frequent breakdowns. No contest. It's that simple. And talk about sound - the only sound that beat the haunting wail of those 4 pipes was the banshee howl of the CBX's 6 pipes when the CBX came out in later years.
Well, the tipping point was actually the Honda 300 superhawk scrambler in the early 1060's. Absolutely reliable , leak free, and really cheap buy in. My first Honda was a CB 450 with the torsion bar valve springs. Would do 97 MPH in fourth gear and 103 MPH kicked down to third. Handeling better than my BSA A30 which was a rigid frame. The good news about the A30 was it was narrower and easier to push home than the BSA 650 thunderbolt. The prince of darkness was their downfall. The Norton Atlas could be counted on to be running on one cylinder by the time I got home. The prince also made magnetos that didn't like oil leaking into them. Bought a Royal Enfield 736 CC interceptor and never looked back. Great, did I mention great handeling. Sounded good and outran my sportster 1/4 mile or winding road. The Enfield NEVER broke down and 51 years later it is still not for sale. Anyone remember that the CB 750 was a road bike based on Honda's side car racing rig that embarassed the decades old dominance of BMW in side hack racing. Three years in racing development and they decided to build a road bike out of it. Honda had things like 6 cylinder 50cc (not a typo) with 4 valves per cylinder as well as V5 and 6 cylinder 250 up to 1100cc. And then.... there was the eliptical shaped piston engines with increased valve areas, possibly more than 4 valves, not sure on that. I had a Ducatti which never had an electrical failure. Makes me feel like I am not eligible for a Ducatti owners club. Unless they have one featuring the crap clutch lifting mechanism. On about the 6th or 7th replacement of the same parts I designed something completely different. Designed for funcionality and to be as ugly as possible so people would ask about it. Daily driver is now a Kawasaki that overcharges the battery to failure annually but otherwise is a really nice bike.
Hasn't Enfield made a Big Resurgence, The Quality Control seems a lot better of late, the Early British built Enfields were well made & Underrated, I think the Enfield Constellation was Faster than Either the BSA or Triumphs! Never sell the Interceptor!!👍👍😉🇦🇺
There was a joke going on in Germany about while topping off missing oil it would be less work to just pour it on the ground under the engine of a Triumph instead of bothering pouring it into the engine .Joke aside, we mourn the vanishing of all the great British Marques that all played such a great role in advancing motorcycle technology.Norton ,BSA and Triumph..at least The latter made an astonishing comeback to the market with utter excellence .
Choosing a motorcycle is an emotional decision, so, if I were buying a new bike in 1969, I would've bought the BSA. Well actually I would've bought the Triumph version, the Trident, and put Bonneville mufflers and fuel tank on it. Considering the cost difference, I probably would've just bought the Bonnie and not had to change anything. If it had been 1972, I would have CERTAINLY bought the Ducati 750GT.
I rode a Honda Four on rough roads and loaded with luggage. That frame and suspension were just dangerous. Frame flex and under dampened suspension. I just bought a Laverda and solved the problems - reliable, comfortable and good handling.
I'm a Honda trail rider from years ago , what is Very disappointing from Honda is ther lack of oem spare parts , I have a GL1000, a T160 and a Norton 750 even an old Matchless g80 , the British need to be commended big time on the spares they still sell , it is Fantastic .
I have owned both, that being said. I wish I still had my Beezer. I've also owned both Norton and Triumph. My Commando was bored, stroked with open pipes. Now THAT bike was just a beast.
Thanks for putting this up on TH-cam. Although I'm a Kawasaki Triple guy I love all old bikes and these are great classics with their own personalities. That was the thing about this era, the bikes were quite different from each manufacturer which gave you a real range of riding experience....which I guess is why I and many others still work on them.
Just saw this and it made me smile. I owned more than a dozen British triples and several Honders which is why I ended up riding a Laverda 3C back in the 70's/80s. Rocket 3, too little too late. CB750 too much, too soon. Honda made some great bikes once they worked out the bugs. Anyone who thinks CB 750s handled never tried riding one around a bend.
I had later versions of both bikes, and in many ways came to the same conclusions. I had a CN750F1 first, and it was the quickest and best handling Japanese 840s of the time (the Kawasaki nutter machines excepted with regards to speed)! But very early on I upgraded the rear shocks to Koni’s. Even so, on a u roads with more than gentle curves I couldn’t keep up with my brother on his BSA B40, despite more than twice the engine capacity and huge amounts more horsepower! The engine was bullet-proof, with rumoursthat their 24-hour endurance racers used the sane bottom end, unmodified! One journey back from Oulton Park involved a road which had a right-angle bend in the middle of a railway bridge. But someone had removed the “sharp bend” signs and I was confronted with the black and white chevrons only hards away, at nearly 70 mph! I cogged down 3 gears, hit the brakes and got round the bend with everything scraping! The rev counter needle shot out of the top of the red band, so who knows ehat revs the engine was doing, but it was fine. If I had done that on the Trident there would have been engine bits for miles around! When I got the Trident, a T160V, it wasn’t as smooth as I thought it should be, lumpy compared with the buzziness of the F1. UntiI swapped the standard Norton Commando silencers (why did they do that?) for those original ray-guns, and suddenly I knew what silky-smooth meant! Visiting my brother at uni involved an 80 mile round trip, and on the F1 I would get home tired, but on the T160V I would want to go again because the bike was such a joy to ride. The bike was let down by shoddy engineering and design work.Triumph converted the bike to left-foot gearchange - the clutch operating mechanism stayed put but was actuated by a pushrod running through the width of the gearbox which was no thicker than a knitting needle. The resultant flexing meant that the clutch always dragged, despite having it stripped 7 or 8 times. When it started burning oil I had the whole thing overhauled, and the engineer’s report was that there were only 3 beatings in the entire engine and gearbox which were any good. This was after only 26,000 miles! Not inly was the centre cylinder known for running hot, the exhaust clamps were also a heat trap which meant that the bores wore oval!!! 🙄 O what might have been with just a bit of design skill! So the Trident was by far the best bike to ride, but only when it was working, but the Honda was made properly and gave customers exactly what they were looking for, until the realised that going round bends safely was actually a rather good idea!
Why not put them round a track ? better still put them in a cold store overnight then get the owners in a travel lodge and say all the ale is on us and you can have a sleep in. then get them up at half four in the morning. take them to their beloved mounts and get them to attempt to start them. sober them up and then make them ride around a race track er is it just me or is this just total crap with another payday for the boys ? picking up my latest purchase tomorrow and its a triumph T160 v 1975 all there and lots of bits to and guess what I am not paying silly money for it catch you later Colin.
The utter failure of the Brit bike industry became apparent long before these bikes under discussion here. In 1962 the Honda CB77 became available in England. 305 cc, 11000 rpm, no oil leaks, elec. starter. It made Brit bikes look crap. I had one and could stay with 650 BSAs etc.
@Goetmhmiac fairchild I get your point entirely . My first bike was Russian, followed by Japanese. I'd love a Norton or a Triumph now but its driven more by nostalgia than practicality.
LOL! I am the "old fart" now - but back then I could easily see the advantages and benefits. It is a wonder and a puzzle that those at the head of the British bike companies failed to see that similarly or even to react at the time to fight the Japanese attack by producing better bikes!
They weren't delivering reliable every day transport to work, miss a few days work and you would get the finger wagging, in the 60 70s bikes were still primary transport for a lot of fam
I fell in love with the Commando when I was 14 in 1973. A few weeks later I read a magazine article about a Commando owner who was outraged and wasn’t going to tolerate some 4 cylinder Honda running away from him. He found the right wizard to help him put a crank driven supercharger on his beloved Norton. Problem solved.....and passed on to me because ever since it has been a dream of mine.
Didn't need a Supercharger, the stock Norton was faster than the triple, the triple was faster than the cb750. Cycle mag Superbike 7 shootout, May 1970
My friend bought the first year Z1 in 1973 for 2100 dollars. Was quite an impressive machine but it had a terrible defect known as a high speed wobble. I witnessed it one time behind him on my K4 and thought it was curtains for sure but he miraculously pulled out of it. The Z1 forced Honda to up their game , Suzuki and Yamaha to build inline Fours and put another nail in the coffin of the Brit bikes period.
I remember when BSA took four rocket threes to Daytona uncrated them prep them and they circulated the field at 130 miles an hour stock everything that was BSA before they went Belly Up. Yeah the company was going under while they were spending thousands and thousands of dollars for racing. They should have concentrated on the business of making motorcycles and supplying their dealers with parts they would still be in business if they Supply the dealers with what they wanted instead of what they told them they could have the dealers knows what sells.
The Rocket 3's owner looked more and more angry every time he looked at the panel who seemed to be tearing his love to pieces. The Honda has to be the dogs bollox because it still looks and sounds good, the Rocket was the past, Honda the future.
My mate had a Rocket Three while I burned out an oil in frame '70 Lightning. The Beezer was a beast if you got it tuned right but the CB750 had a better engine and even with four carbs was easier to tune. stick a honda mill in a BSA frame and go like stink. The honda steering head angle wasn't for me and I went back to good old tried and true A50 Royal star for eight years with the usual plug change, oil change and one carb to clean rain and sun to work and back six days a week.
had a 1966 bsa spitfire in 68 and a 1971 honda 750 looked at the rocket but it looked dated .the honda was very smooth wanted to rev easy to get speeding tickets.you had to man handle the bsa to get it to go but would love to have my spitfire back
Big rich Texas - most of the above comments were either Wishful thinking, lack of experience, drug addled memories, dreams, or outright fabrications. Like you i also had a 1972 BSA Rocket 3, T160 Trident, and a 75 Kawasaki Z1B (the most ferocious Z1 of them all) and, since I worked at a Brit bike shop, rode many Nortons, Lightnings and Bonnies. None of them came close to the straight line power of that Z. The fastest of the Brits I ever rode was a 72 Norton 750 combat commando and it would embarrass any stock Honda four of the 70s. Additionally, from a 70 mph roll, there was virtually, nothing on the streets that was even close to that Z-1untii the Yamaha XS Eleven. Not a car OR a bike.
The Matchless G15s , BSA Spitfires had style ; the BSA Rocket 3 , Triumph Trident were just too boxy looking. The introduction of of the Honda CB750 literally put an end to the English motorcycle industry at the time and to add insult to injury even the beautiful American designed( Craig Vetter ) Hurricane couldn't save it. In 1978 a local dealer who was also a renowned classic motorcycle collector offered my father a brand new BSA Rocket 3 , still in the crate for 2300 dollars. If I could of bought it I would of knowing it would appreciate in value but it tells you they weren't a sought after motorcycle.
Richard Pope that's why it was just voted motorcycle of the century. Back in the day in my neck of the woods I don't think avid motorcyclist had 4 wheel cages on their minds.
CB750 represents why the British industry was all but dead, the Honda was in a different league quantifiable better than Brit bikes in almost every way, but the handling was questionable, to put it in context of how it compared with what was possible in the mid 70s, I chased a late CB750 on a early Morini 500 Sport and sailed past it as the CB weaved round a sweeping right hander, with the Morini not even stressed. I would say that the CB750 did to the Rocket 3 what the GPz 900R did to Laverda Jota a decade later, it simply offered the performance with none of the sacrifice.
Well Im not surprised. What can I say, I own both a restored 1971 K1 750 and a soon to be going again 1974 T150V Trident.....best of both cultures. That 750 Honda on this show, needs some more fettling tho. The stripe is the wrong colour, should be black, the gold is too dark, should be lighter, the bottom tank chrome stripe is incorrect, it is for a K1-on, and the indicator lenses are later ones, they are too dark amber, early ones were lighter. But Im sure John Wyatt has corrected all that by now. Golly good show.
The Honda 4 was reliable, but not much else. A 1972 dyno test by "Superbike" showed 49.6 bhp, a far cry from 67, and the bike weighed 525 lbs. It had less cornering clearance than a BMW. A Honda 4 was the scariest handling bike I'd ever ridden, even compared to other Japanese bikes (Kawasaki 750 2-stroke triple included). Back in the day, the were no performance match for my 650 Bonneville.
The 67 horse power was from the 69 CB which were the fastest. I had a 69 and it would whip the pants off my friends practically new 73. My 69 already had 23,000 miles on it in early 72. Typical if we rolled open the throttle at 70 mph next to each other on the freeway, my 69 would run away from his 73 even when I could hear him dropping down to 4th and even 3rd behind me. No match.
I grew up in an era when these were new, worked in a motorcycle repair shop, rode most of these. the Triple was better on bendy roads but seemed a bit lacking down low, but in a drag race of the lights the triple could most often beat the Honda, I found the early cb 750 Honda were more powerful than the latter ones...
I believe you are correct about the later Hondas. I had '71 450 Honda full custom chopper. I think stock air filter but low restriction exhaust. I raced a stock 500 twin carb Triumph and ran away front the Triumph. My bike was also faster than a friends stock later model 450. Later I owned a 750 Four. My mechanic said the ever increasing noise and exhaust requirements took a toll as the years went on. He cut a V notch in the air clear cover to allow better breathing. I asked why it was so enclosed and it was to lower the sound.
My first new bike was a 1971 Triumph Bonneville $1,425 with a 5 speed transmission. The 750 Honda was available then ,but I'd learned to ride on my uncle's Triumph Trophy 650,so I wanted a Triumph. I also thought the Triumph Bonny was a better looking bike too. Vibration made the mirrors useless on that Triumph..A friend had a Triumph Trident,didn't care for it's styling either..
@Smith Smith 1 am an old UK fogey and in 1970 at the age 33 I bought a Triumph Bonneville. (£425 translates to $1100) Enjoyable to ride but reduced by the upright wide spread handlebars. Then I bought a Triumph Trident which was unreliable and used to drink oil. I followed with a CB750 F1 which didn't meet Honda appearence standards but was totally reliable. Too many years later I now have the best bike I have owned a 2002 registered Yamaha 600 Fazer.
@@divvy1400yam600 I've owned all the Japanese brands except Yamaha..From what I have read Yamaha is considered the best of the Japanese brands. Wouldn't mind having a big Yamaha Tenere 1200,I think. I have seen used 71 Bonnevilles out there, but once was enough..
@@michaeljoesmith3977 Since 1996 I have owned three 600 Yamahas. I have replaced 1 battery and had a repair made to the bottom of 1 exhaust pipes . I can thoroughly recommend Yamaha's I have never owned a Kawasaki, I dont want a twin and 600 4 stroke has for me a too racy riding position. On top of that Im not really strong enough even for a middle weight bike. (moan)
BSA had a prototype 4 cylinder called the Rocket 4 and it looks like a BSA Rocket 3 with an extra cylinder and four pipes. Like the triumph quadrant what bikes they could have been
The Rocket 3 was faster and handle better than CB it was the fastest bike in the world still in production right up until the 900z . In 71 BSA annihilated the Japanese in the production class racing. BSA would have sold a hell of a lot more of these if Lional had not broken up the the Rocket line and started building his Ariel 3 trike.
Well, I had a mate with a 68 rocket 3, and later on I had a T160. I can tell you quite definitely, on the road the Brit bikes would whip the Honda's arse! The Honda brakes were disc, but they certainly didn't work too well. People get all misty eyed about the Honda's nowadays, and they were a step forward in technology, but they were and still are as boring as all get out!
David Hall no the argument raged on, do you know how many fuckin starter clutches I had to replace on those fuckin bikes back then, even if you then used the kickstart the bloody things rattled all the time, Kawasaki's back then spent more time being fixed than being ridden.
Have a Rocket 3 just like this, the frame is on the patio, the tank ,seat & side covers are in the bed room, the motor is in my car,the primary cover is on the kitchen floor.I grew up in this era and saw for myself the Rocket could leave the Honda behind, the Honda was not in the match on bendy roads, I had one new and rode hard. never once did I ever blow away a Rocket 3 or a Commando.this is the truth ,I am a believer in giving credit when its due.
If I remember correctly the first production bike with a disc front brake was a Honda CB450, they didn't sell well so perhaps they have gone unnoticed.
The disk brake dates back in one form or another right back to the pre 1920s, BSA had one on the Titan MX back in 65, Lambretta were also fitted with a disk brake
Honda got a sweetheart deal from the Japanese government to build a new factory to build Honda 750. A new CB 750 came off the assembly line every 3 mins.
Top Dog bike intro: with a doggy style paw....and a lion or tigers snarl? lol! - Ach well, it _was_ Men & Motors from back in the day. Used to get me all ranting back then when they did mostly car stuff and very little bikes. But, when they _did_ do a bike feature, it was a quality one.
2020 it would be the rocket, unless the Honda was a 69. Imo. But that's maybe value and being collectible. The Honda was obviously the better bike but I'd rather have the Rocket.
Honda's 750 set the template for the UJM (universal Japanese motorcycle). It deserves its TD award. I checked its record in the Castrol 6 Hour Production Race .... a CB 750 came 2nd in the 1970 inaugural race (Triumph 650 1st & 3rd) and won the 1971 race - and dominated the first ten placings in the unlimited class. BSA had NO representative in 1970, 71 or 72 ... I didn't bother looking further.
+Ian Fluker Trident,Rocket 3 won at Daytona ,Bol deor 24 hour races, ,Slippery Sam won the Isle Of Man production TT five years running till it was banned .John Cooper ridding a Rocket 3 took on Aggostini on his GP MV raccer twice and beat him both times
+keith rowley Thanks for your reply Keith. The CB 750 had its flaws, especially handling, but as a (close to) out-of-the-crate motorcycle for production racing it wasn't bad. A Rocket 3 production-based racer was probably better than a CB 750 production motorcycle ridden in production races. But as every-day bikes for the average punter the Honda wins hands down. I say this as someone who was enchanted with "odd-ball Spanish single-cylinder things" like Bultaco's Metralla.
+Ian Fluker I would have lived to be able to buy this Buktaco Metralla late in 1974. At that time I was 18, but I had not the little money it coasted, and finally production ended
Excellent choice of top dog comparo's. The Rocket 3 won Daytona 200 in 71 and the 750-4 in 70 both ridden by Dick "Bugsy" Mann. Lord, I wish I could go back to those days.
The story of Honda's victory is that Dick Man having been at the speed tests of the Rocket 3 in 1968 new how fast the road going bikes were but was dropped by Triumph/ BSA as being to old, he was offered a ride on the Honda with instructions to get out in front and stay there as long as he could the bike wasn't expected to last the race and Honda had the advertising already printed saying Honda leads at Daytona, the Honda stayed together and won. Dick Mann was reported to say if the race had been run a hundred times the Triumph/BSA's would have won 99 times.If the Honda was so good why did he ride a Rocket 3 the following year
The BSA is a motorcycle that goes and handles, the Honda is modern engineering. The reason you ride a bike like the BSA is to feel alive, the reason you’d ride 750 4 is because you didn’t go fast except on the straights. BSA like lots of bikes at the time needed routine maintenance, the Honda much less so. However British bikes main problem especially in places like America is they don’t have fun twisty roads like in Britain, that’s why Harley’s sell.
Obviously we have miles of flat straight roads. We also have miles and miles and miles of bends. Some of my summer trips have been 4500 miles. Tail of the dragon is only one such road.
I have owned both and the Honda was better in all departments but pull into the Rock Store and the BSA will attract the the most lookers. And that is because the 750 Honda sold in the millions and the Brit triples sold a few thousands.
The yr's later and '72 Kawasakis H1-Mk3/H2-MK4, respectively, first generation used a somewhat more oval rear but still styled after the Rocket's forward canting frontal fuel tank, so did '72's Suzuki GT750 in a further near duplication complete with the raised full length top rib (and color contrasted) plus also with very similar oil-tank covers.. AND.. even Honda ended up using this exact front canting tank design on their later '79 CB750F ('78 Super Dream 1st).. (Edit.. almost forgot)> The BSA also uses the instrumentation pod while the Honda has the seperate bezels, as did the Trident. You've got it backwards dudes, (edit> if anything) it was the CB750 that in fact then looked more like a British bike with (Edit)> the BSA setting the styling standard, as attested to to by it's competitors' many incarnations duplicating it. The Japanese didn't TRULY come full into their own stylewise unti the '80 XJ-650/750 Secas. The original '68 Rocket 3, as do all prototypical designs, was so advanced as for it's genius to slip under the radar of the general motorcycling masses, as proven by the many ressurections of said styling. Why would I want the '71 retro-styled Rocket 3 when BSA had already been there/done that (if not better) with their A65 Lightning 650 twins?, especially the later till '70 model year
Sad that the panel got so much wrong about the Rocket III, I am not talking about their opinions, although I have strong reservations on some of those, it is the factual errors that annoy me. Styling was the problem with the early Trident/Rocket III, the Ogle styling was supposed to make it look modern, and it was more modern than the previous bikes, and THAT was the problem - the "bread loaf" tank was, in my opinion, a complete disaster. One of the awful results of the Ogle styling was that it delayed the introduction of the bike by years, some sources say 18 months, but others consider the delay to be much longer, perhaps four years, the Triumph prototype (still exists) was running in 1966 from a design mostly complete in 1962! It also added weight and lost the "made for purpose" aesthetic of the earlier bikes. Further, the decision to make two different engines (I will admit that the sloping cylinders did look better and had some advantage in packaging) added further delays to the launch of the bike. IMHO, the delay and cost was probably not worth it, if I had never seen the sloping cylinders of the Rocket III, I would not have missed them, the upright Trident still looks the part. The engine was all Triumph design as Doug Hele worked for Triumph, and he designed the engine based on the Triumph 250 single, not the 500 twin - check the bore and stroke. Bert Hopwood designed the bike, and he worked for BSA, although the two companies were one, they still operated as two different companies in many important areas and there was rivalry and jealously resulting in truly stupid decisions. The only difference between the two engines was the crankcase angle. After the end of Rocket III production in 1972, there were a considerable number of surplus BSA engines and frames at the factory, these were used on the initial Hurricanes, new crankcases had to be made for later Hurricanes and this sealed the fate of the upright Triumph cylinders. Fortunately, the inclined cylinders allowed enough space to fit the electric start of the T160. All the engines were completely built at BSA's factory, not just the crankshafts, but it was not an easy build. The 56 operations, one panel member speaks of, were apparently required by the centre section of the crankcase, I find this difficult to believe, almost as difficult as 56 operations to build an entire engine - any engine. The engine build number per week was small but this was not due to the crankshafts but difficulties with the old-fashioned build. The Trident was supposed to be a temporary measure to keep the company going while Hopwood and Hele designed a whole new (modular) range of modern, oil leak free, easy to build, OHC engines, this is probably the reason Hele stayed with Triumph rather than going over to Norton. I think the OHC engines would have been good marketing, but a very good pushrod design can do wonders in most road bikes. As well as the better CofG, the engine can be lighter and more compact, sure it will reach limits before a OHC but on a road machine, that is not so great a limitation. For those who doubt the British builder's ability to build OVC engines at that time, look up Coventry Climax. If only Cosworth, ahh well. While the engines were the same, the frames were not, the Triumph used the classic Bonneville single down tube frame and the Rocket III used the classic BSA double down tube frame. The reason the bike was not a success was terrible management, internal conflict, dithering, unfavourable exchange rate, typical of the day management/workforce relations (WAR!), emissions standards, Meriden!, NVT!!!!, the list goes on - it was not the technical details of the bike, Hele was confident of getting considerably more power out of the engine (as was proved in racing) at least 90hp, the CofG was lower than an overhead cam would have been resulting in improving handling. Had they brought the Trident out in, say, 66 (quite possible with decent management, Hele and Hopwood were capable if let off the leash) using the styling of the time and keeping the bike lean, mean and tuned, it would have been a force. Faced with such a potent machine, I wonder what the Japanese would have done, I doubt it would have been the CB750 as we know it. Disc brakes are also a significant point. The full width, double-leading-shoe, front drum brake was also an excellent stopper only failing after repeated heavy braking from high speed. The British discs were far better than the Japanese discs, the Japanese discs were designed to not rust (the British ones rusted up very quickly), this resulted in a less than optimal co-efficent of friction, but they looked prettier. Earlier modernisation to say T160 specs would have made the Trident more attractive to US buyers, but the exchange rate made it too expensive, and it was white-anted by the cheaper Norton Commando. At this stage, the cost of Japanese bikes was artificially lowered by government action, they were playing the long game With the British, this was not necessary, they were determined to destroy their once great motorcycle industry, much the same as they destroyed most of their other industries. Even if this was not the case, some previously mentioned other factors were at play. Don't forget that Vincent had gone extinct in the 1950s despite all of its technical excellence and reputation. The Honda was technically advanced but tubby, the difference between a sports car and a powerful but, well, tubby sedan/saloon, my view, I am allowed to have it. Anyhow, a Trident, with a sympathetic exhaust system (MUST keep the split centre cylinder pipes), at mid revs under load can produce a glorious sound, almost like a big six sometimes, , as the revs go up it can get a bit of a bark to it. Once, in special circumstances, I could not tell if it was the Trident coming or an old 50s Mack Thermodyne. 😁 The Honda, like a sewing machine - meeeh - who wants to ride a sewing machine (see above). Enough! It still makes me angry, so many lost opportunities, so much stupidity, so many experiences forgone.
In 1969 I much preferred the Honda 750 over the Rocket 3. Actually during that era the Norton and Kawasaki 500 would have been my choice over the Honda or Rocket 3. Today I would prefer to own a John Player Norton or Kawasaki 750 H2. To me the Honda 550 was a better balanced than Honda 750 anyway. Oh yeah the Honda 750 would need a strong tail wind to hit a true 125 mph.
The '69-'70 K0 750s would hit 125mph. The early Honda Fours were a very visceral, masculine machine in the K0 models. Starting with the '72 K2 models, Honda neutered them considerably. I worked at a Honda shop when the K2s came out. We called them K2 slugwagons......
@@milojanis4901 I will be posting a superbike showdown from Cycle Guide in 1972 between the GT 750 Suzuki, Kawasaki 750 H2, CB750, Norton 750, Yamaha TX 750 and Harley 1000 Sportster in a few weeks.
It's 2004 and three chaps tell us how the BSA Trident looked dated in 1970. On the left we have Mr. 1992, replete with period correct accessories. Centre we have Mr. 1972, appropriate beatnik goatie and to his right, straight out of an eighties Queen MTV video, Mr. 1982. But one million vs 6700 sales. Sad. How could it be?
Easy enough to make the BSA a 1000cc and that makes them a whole new ball game. Better to stroke the original crank than use after market ones as they tend to be made out of phase.
Despite oft-heard pronouncements by fellow riders of what superb motorcycles those Rocket 3s and Tridents were when I lived in Britain in the late 70s and early '80s, I always just thought there was something "dorky-looking" about the BSA Rocket 3s. As for the Tridents, they were attractive enough, I guess--just sort of uninspiring and vaguely Japanese-looking, like a "British UJM." Even though I was a "Yank" with a ratty old police surplus Norton Commando, and hence a member of sorts in good standing of the British Bike fraternity, I usually kept those notions about the triples to myself back then, since one sensed a patriotic desperation in the air with their almost pathetic realization that their recently once proud British motorcycle industry was very suddenly a smoldering husk with barely a pulse. Nowadays, nearly 40 years later, I still have a Norton 750, but mostly I just thump happily around on a gorgeous and cheap Royal Enfield Bullet 500, sort of an engineering fossil: a 1955 British-designed thumping single that was screwed together basically unchanged in 2005 in India fifty years later. So, I guess my tastes haven't changed all that much, and I still think the BSA Rocket 3 looks "dorky." As for the CB750, I just don't think much about them at all. If they all suddenly disappeared from the planet, gathered up in some "Multi-Cylindered Rapture," I can't say as I'd personally feel one way or the other about it.
During seventies Honda was a top dog for me for sure with is brilliant engineering and reliability, but I never had a chance to ride Rocket 3. I didn't want to - she looked so terrible on paper : push-rods, drum brakes, no electric start, all the package was uninspiring. But time changes things, today I recognize the Rocket 3 as a much better bike to ride with it's stability and much better handling, today seeing Honda as to short, to wide and top heavy with very poor road manners. Somehow Honda's 68 HP doesn't feel much stronger than Rocket's 58 either. What stayed the same is Honda's reliability and quality of workmanship - in Rocket's case quality varied a lot. If you got a good one it was very good, but a bad one was a complete dog. And not a top dog for sure :).
Tridents won 750 production races on the isle of man 5 year's in a row in the 70s then not allowed Set a average lap time of 100mph over 37 miles hence the dunlop tt100 k81 i recently bought one $120 aud still going strong after 50 years,
The Honda 750 was the first bike that required you to be above average hight to be comfortable. That is why I only had the 450 the much under rated Black Bomber.
even though I'm a triumph lover, I rememberalways having to keep an eye on the tachometer when riding fadt as the tripples would happily rev to destruction, they would hit 10,000rpm in decent tune, them some time in the future, throw a conrod, usually through the crankcase, the honda could not be reved to death, but on the other hand a friend of mine ended up in the scenery when trying to follow me down a fast windy road on his cb750 and he was a better rider than me, but once things started to flex it was all over for his bike and nearly for him as well, Honda better engineering, triumph better handling, either take your pick or choose a more modern bike offering both
@@G58Yes, really. H-D shipped the whole factory, tooling and all to Japan in the early 1930's. I forget the exact year. Rikuo Internal Combustion Company 陸王 (Rikuō Nainenki Kabushiki kaisha) was one of the first motorcycle manufacturing companies in Japan. In the early 1930s Rikuo operated under the license and name of Harley-Davidson, using their tooling, and later under the name Rikuo until 1958.[2] Harley-Davidson themselves did not publicize this Japanese connection because the Japanese were helped in developing mass-production techniques by the introduction of this factory into Japan just prior to the Second World War
I still have my two Rockets and two Tridents since 1978. They steel the show all thoughout the state of Wisconsin...I love my British!
Excuses for my English, I'm Dutch, I am now 75 and my last bike was a Moto Guzzi V 850 of 1972. I sold it 2012 ! But in 1966 I had a Triumph Tiger 90 and on te motorshow IFMA in Cologne I met mr Philip Cross, Triumph's advertising manager. He was so glad that I could help him talking to a German customer that he invited me to see him at the factory in Meriden. So I did. Henry Vale was very proud that I recognised him because I was a subscriber of a motorcycle magzine There they converted my Tiger 90 to Tiger 100. They gave me a bike to do some touring. It was the KUE 65 D. They told me to be very careful because nobody could see I was a foreigner. The KUE broke down in Stratord u. A. and I drove back on one cilinder. Vic Fiddler took it in his shop to repair the bike and I was looking around. Partially covered with a cloth I discovered a cilinderhead with three combustion chambers. I showed it to Vic and he took it out of my hands and said: ooouuuhhh TOP SECRET. In 1972 I was with my friend and wife in Meriden and Vic Fiddler repaired the clutch cable of my friends Moto Guzzi V7. I could write a book. I was there with my 1969 Bonnie to replace the valveseats, on honeymoon in I think 1974, mr Carter invited us to have lunch with the staff. ALL GREAT PEOPLE, I still love them. "My mechanic was Gordon Mathews
I bought a 750 k2 , it was a million miles away from all the stuff that was around in the day. like getting on a rocket ship . I went to Ibiza on that bike and it never missed a beat. what a fab bike
I owned both a '69 BSA Rocket 3 and a K1 750. They were both great bikes. I had to rebuild the Rocket 3 and I couldn't get an exhaust for it and I had to use Trident triple manifold and ran them into two megaphones. The sound was unreal. It pulled a good wheel stand as well. Great memories.
Yes.
I remember seeing two Rocket 3s on a trailer in 1971 on the A6 just south of Derby. Their distinctive silencers were painted black. I was 13 and the bike bug was biting hard.
Of course I now know it was John Cooper on his way home from beating Ago by just 3/5ths of a second at Malory Park.
I always find it interesting that everyone always forgets MV had a road going DOHC four several years before Honda.
The Rocket 3 wins on nostalgia and racing history, as well as a very personal teen memory which played a significant part in my love of bikes. But the Honda CB750 is a vastly superior machine in so many ways.
At 17 I was riding a CB250G5. I’m currently restoring a 1983 Marysville built USA spec VF750F Interceptor, which is yet another leap forward in technology, and in my opinion much better than the ‘69 bike, even if it is still too heavy.
Weight and seating are so important.
I bought a '69 rocket 3 from Irv Seaver in Orange Calif, and inside of 6 months had the center piston collapse, a cracked crankcase filled the clutch basket with oil and a good number of minor failures and constant leaking oil spots on the ground. Was very glad to get a good trade on a Honda.
Thanks for your reply Keith. The CB 750 had its flaws, especially handling, but as a (close to) out-of-the-crate motorcycle for production racing it wasn't bad. A Rocket 3 production-based racer was certainly better than a CB 750 production motorcycle ridden in production races. But as every-day bikes for the average punter the Honda wins hands down. I say this as someone who was enchanted with "odd-ball Spanish single-cylinder things" like Bultaco's Metralla.
After working on both Brit (BSA & Triumph, but no Triples) and Japanese bikes (mainly 2-strokes), you really appreciate the jewel like machining and lack of leaking oil, plus that great reliability, made me a Rice Burner aficionado! I ride a Ducati now, but only after they got their act together in the early 90's.
The Honda 4 is like a cake of soap compared to a piece of pumice for a good scratch.
My older brother had a BSA Rocket 3 and he was constantly working on it to keep it running while the kids with the CB750's just kept riding them. I agree the Rocket 3's best feature was its sound.
One of my friend had bought a Rocket 3, he kept it one month, and when the CB-750 showed up in the showrooms, he traded the Rocket 3 immediatly, and never looked back.
what i liked about the japanese revolution was the reliability, i was fed up with breaking down
After 28 years on bikes those days are now behind my creaking aged frame. Like many others I resisted Japanese bikes for a long time. I started out on an old Ariel. Then it was Triumphs, then BSAs and a Norton. I get everything everybody says about loving the sound they made and the ride. The love isn't dead. I also remember the oil leaks, the crap switchgear, the left thread for this and the right thread for that. The woodruff keys that wouldn't move. The screws that chewed. The cotter pins, the valve covers that kept unscrewing themselves and dropping off from the vibration and the uncle Joe Lucas electrics. It's a balance. You either loved them despite all that, or not. I did. Then I finally went for a Honda 750 4. Was it as good in the same positives? No it wasn't. That Honda engine though, was a bloody masterpiece. The electrics were a different class. Maintenance was relatively minimal and it just never let you down. I loved it. There were things I loved about them all, particularly the Norton Commando. Looking back all considered, which one was the best of them all overall? It was the Honda. I don't like admitting it, but it was.
I owned 2 Honda 750s. Dependability was their forte. You knew they would get you there.
The Honda engine was designed so well not only for superior performance and long service life but was a good engine for a beginner to disassemble, repair, and reassemble. It is not surprising that the per unit cost for production allowed Honda to undercut the competition. British bikes are great performers but no one really likes unnecessary oil spots on their driveway. Most BSA and Triumph owners in the US end up having to take their bikes to a professional to get a good repair result, the engine designs are somewhat quirky. The excessive vibration means constant monitoring of fixings, the smooth ohc four Honda rarely loosens bolts or nuts.
That's why the Rocket 3 hit 131 mph in 1968, for performance and road holding a Honda 750 couldn't touch it, Also a Trident, Rocket3 has no excessive vibration with it's perfectly designed and balanced 120 deg. crank. On the 100 top bikes program they put a glass of water on a Honda 750 saddle and revved the engine to show lack of vibration, guess what I went outside and did the same on my T150V
MrBeezumph what did you do put stick um underneath that glass. As a former Brit bike owner I have to call BS on that one.
How could you possibly go wrong with either one? Motorcycles, folks. Gotta love em. They are both icons.
Well said.
@k d Real motorcycle, (one word) folks? Remail loyal to day (one word not two)? Really? The line reads..."motorcycles" with an s (comma) folks. As in...you gotta love motorcycles. The passage does not refer to motorcycle people or folks, so your point of contention is based on a false premise, a misinterpretation. You're bad. But as you have now raised the question... You're a "real" bitter looser with a bad attitude. It's those rich folks spending fortunes on the restoration and preservation of these iconic machines that makes it possible for all of us to enjoy and admire for generations to come. The only way to make a small fortune restoring a collection of classic motorcycles is to start with a large fortune. Maybe if you would have studied a little longer or worked just a little harder or smarter? Think of the possibilities. You don't have to look any further than Jay Leno's Garage right here on TH-cam to see what a rich guy has built for all of us to enjoy and study. And by the way. Jay is the epitome of a "real" motorcycle guy.
@k d You are clearly not very bright so you can disregard the mention of working smarter in the previous post. Thank you for the affirmation. You are, indeed, a bitter looser. If you'll excuse me now as I am going out to the shop and enjoy my classic motorcycles. Sometimes I like to just sit and admire them. Toodles, Lab Rat.
@k d My gawd you really are dumber than dirt. You misinterpreted that, as well. You affirmed your ignorance, moron. You don't read very often or very much, do you?
@k d I am very positive. I am absolutely positive that you are a bottom feeder that is permanently ensconced at the bottom of the evolutionary totem pole.
Norton Commando vs the Honda CB-750.. But the CB-750 just had the low end grunt to pull that weight off the line so hard. And the Honda was full of first that were reserved for the race track. That is why people loved it. One of the longest best selling bikes produced at the time. It was also reliable.
You are dead wrong - the Commando had way more low end torque than the Honda - IMHO !!
@@stuartwilliamjohnson7549
I agree. ANY big twin is going to have more low end than a 4 banger of the same displacement.....
Beautiful Rocket 3! They were always better than the T150 Trident. Lucas , Prince of Darkness had a lot to answer for in regard to reliability with all this stuff , and Honda with Denso electrics already had an advantage. Indeed Lucas could make very good gear but the bean-counters in the British bike firms didn’t want to pay the extra required to build better components.
Both of these bikes are iconic , with the BSA being the best of the old and the Honda being the start of the new , which makes for a somewhat unfair comparison. Both nice bikes!
Not to mention amal carburetors which in my opinion were the crapiest (and still are ) component ever fitted to a motorcycle.
Just bought a new set of premiers for a T160, float levels so far out they shut off fuel before the bowls were half full. returned to the supplier, no explanation or apology from amal, 45 years on they have learnt less..
And as for the mikuni Copy MK11 what a piece of...Ironic that in their last year they used German Bing CV as BMW.
Shame it took them so long to admit the mistake.
i had both bsa rocket 3 and a cbx 750 f honda and wish i still owned both now,,,love them the same,
Read Bert Hopwood's book "what happened to the British motorcycle industry". Apparently they could've released the 'triples' about 6 years earlier,and they had plans for ohc engines. But...
My favorite motorcycles were my 1962 BMW R69S, my 1965 Triumph Bonneville and my 2012 Suzuki V-Strom 650. I rode the Beemer from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back in the summer of '65. Oil changes and valve adjustments were the only things I did to it. The Bonneville, on the other hand, was fast and nimble for those days, but it needed a lot more maintenance than the BMW. I thought the BSA 650 Lightning was gorgeous, but it was too heavy compared to the Bonneville and didn't handle as well. Compared to the Bonneville, the Trident and Rocket 3 were pigs in my estimation. I was never tempted by the CB750. They were too heavy and didn't handle well when they came out. Since then I have only owned Yamahas and Suzukis. I don't understand the rationale for a bike bigger than 650cc. Once I was trying to catch a friend on an interstate highway. As an ambulance jockey, when I hit 130 mph indicated on the speedometer on my bike, I had a vision of my co-workers scooping up hamburger from the highway and delivering it to my wife. I've never been over 100 on a bike since. The V-Strom was smoother than any of my other bikes, quick enough for an old man, and comfortable on a long trip without weighing 700 or 900 lbs like most touring bikes.
me 75 had a new 67 Norton and and did 14000km on BMW K1200GT in 2013, believe me, i used that speed and horsepower in USA as people tried to kill me, I cruised 80mph in Texas, was never tempted to do 150, I rode a cb750 in early 60,s liked it, it was borrowed, then a borrowed 900 bol dore which was the worst bike ever
@@stuarth43 You must mean early 70s!! The CB750 came out in 1969.......
The CB 750s handled well for a 525lb bike. Sure, they weren't as nimble as a 650, but they weren't wobbling at high speed either. I'd say they handled better than 99% of the riders who rode them could use......
Over the years I owned four CB750 fours...absolutely bullet proof engine...never a drama with any of mine. A joy to own and ride. However, back in the day, I rode with guys who owned Triumph, BSA, Ducati, and Norton bikes...plus a few other makes.
Just about every time we went on a long ride, one or two of them broke down. It was never my Honda four, that failed.
The most unreliable bike of our group (1970's), was a Ducati 900 SS. It had a piss poor electrical system, that failed like clockwork. It's fuses were under the seat, if I recall correctly. They shorted out on a regular basis.
I now own a Kawasaki VN900 Classic, but would swap it tomorrow for a trusty 750 Four.
If there is one bike that they should do a retro on it's the Four.
Agree. Not everyone needs the fastest bike in the world. I rode year round, and not until the age of 24 did I own an auto. The Honda 750 Four was/is a great bike. I wish I had not let mine sit and rust away, then sold at scrap prices. With that said, I love british bikes. So please, Triumph, BSA, Norton lovers don't go off on diatribes. I love those bikes but for different reasons. After 40 years away from riding I purchased a 2017 Royal Enfield 500 Classic, why?, because it is the closest thing to my 441 BSA Victor, my first, but short lived, bike. The pre ~70's BSAs were gorgeous. Then - I don't know what happened in the styling office. At 24 I started work at Ford Motor and sorry to say the quality was terrible back then. They almost lost it to Japan as did the Brits. Just read Shooting Star, The rise and fall of the British Motorcycle Industry. Reminded me of my days at Ford '78-84. Never realized what a powerhouse the Brits were with motorcycles back then. As a Yank I take no joy knowing what happened to the British MC industry. But let's give the 750 Honda its due.
ave a '79 CBK 750 DOHC and a Z N1100 Kaw. They both have their charisma to me , but I remember my 850 Norton and 750 Royal Enfield from 30 years ago for the same reasons.
Edward Turner built a 4cyl OHC prototype in 1967 and the management asked only one question: : How many existing parts did you use?" Thus the 100 and 1/2 was produced, Cycle world : "too little, too late" or "pray for BSA's baby" . BTW, the British bike that won the most races was the Triumph 500 twin. The 750 Honda set the industry on it's ear in '69
When I was a new rider in the early seventies I had a book on how to write a motorcycle written by an English lady and on the back cover she had her and her BSA rocketry and I thought wow what a beautiful motorcycle that is I had no idea BSA had gone out of business a couple years earlier. The Honda 750 was a cheap bike built cheap and they had a brand new Factory that was pumping them out one every three minutes imagine that of course a 750 Honda that cost $2,500 in America was $3,500 in Germany and $4,000 in France. Peter Egan of Cycle World Fame once said in his column that his Honda 750 was cheaper to throw away and buy a new one then fix the old one. You can get anything for a BSA Rocket 3 you can't get anything for a Honda 750. Of course people will say that's because they always need parts
I worked for a BSA / Kawasaki / Suzuki dealer through the '70s in the U.S. Loved the ride of a Rocket 3 and, of course, it's sound. I wasn't fond of the clutch cables as they would wear out too soon (teflon lined). It is the most favored memory I have of those days though a Kaw. Z-1 is right there also.
Love the BSA, my avatar is a ridgidized Gold Star that was great fun in 72. I was in Japan when the Honda came out and THAT SOUND! It was funny watching the shorter riders zipping them around while wearin sandals. I’d take the BSA and put electronic ignition in
My first bike when I got back from the service was a CB5004F and I wish I had never traded it for a Z1 in 75. The Honda was better in everything than the Z1. Tires, chains, sprockets, gas, valve adjustments were all cheaper and less time intensive than the Kawasaki. Not exhaust systems were prone to rotting out( I didn’t have a car so short trips were something I couldn’t avoid). And even with a smaller engine the CB500 got me from Shreveport to Houston every couple of months in fine fashion.
What more is too much when there is a rigid single in the shed. BSA BB31(400cc).
I have had both sequentially I nearly died riding the Honda. the rocket 3 handled superbly, the Honda handled like a sack of potatoes, no comparison. I loved my rocket 3, but the Honda was more reliable. The Honda was mass produced the BSA was a hand made work of art. My brain says Honda, my heart says BSA ; a motorcyclist should follow his heart.
I bought a brand new 1969 Rocket 3 in 1969. I traded in a 1968 BSA Firebird Scrambler for it. I paid $1800.00 in Toronto for the Rocket 3. I really thought I had a knockout looking bike back then. I started off with a 1959 Ariel Square 4 which I thought was pretty decent back in the mid 60’s. I remember reading about Yvon Duhamel breaking records I believe at Daytona on a Rocket 3. I do have to agree with the choice of the panel though. The Honda definitely was definitely better engineered and had more safety features with the disc front brake and turn signals. I still like the look of the BSA though.👍👍🇨🇦
Yvon DuHamel rode a modified Kaw Z1 to all sorts of records at Daytona......
Hi guys the honda might have been the first hydraulic disc brake but lambretta tv 175 was the first production bike with a disc brake ever ,1962-3. whether you don't count every two wheeled , engined vehicle as a motorcycle is up to you
Growing up in the sixties in Belgium it was all Italians and Brits and one German, with Benelli, Morini, Ducati, Moto Guzzi, Norton, Triumph, BSA and BMW. Then into the seventies all of a sudden it was Japanese starting with a take-over by Honda. A bit later it was Kawasaki and still later Suzuki and Yamaha with the odd Moto Guzzi California for people who were tired of the Harleys that broke down every couple of miles. The Triumph Bonneville and Norton Commander held on for a while but late seventies early eighties it was all Japan. BMW also started to suffer but came back with a vengeane with the K100 series.
I have 2 1970 CB750 K0 owned one for 40 years! Red 180,000 miles and the other a genuine Orange 14,000 miles both immaculate as you can still get spares, both crack 125 dont leak sound brilliant and would take me to the south of France tomorrow without a missed beat . The first one cost me £600! the second £3,500 they are worth a few more £s today. Handling? Just fit modern rubber, keep the head stock bearings correct or fit taper rollers and surprise yourself that engine is high up ground clearance is good, they go well.
@Graham Sutton, I suspect folk are social distancing your comment due to jealousy...!🧐😎😜
It has to be the Honda the BSA view is just nostalgia. The BSA was the best they could do with the money available from the beancounters, the parts bin and the tooling. The Honda added so much while the BSA was still an old piece of push rod kit with an extra piston slotted in. I'm a BSA fan I had two and my favourite bike of all time is the goldie clubman, but at the end of the day you have to be honest and BSA were on a nosedive and couldn't cope with the japanese onslaught.
When I was a young kid on a bicycle there was a guy with an immaculate red Rocket 3 in my town. That beautiful bike, the heavenly sound of it, the poise and presence of it was the catalyst that made me into a motorcyclist for the rest of my life.
So true, a local DB34 BSA did that for me.
and the disc brake was seen on a 1923 Douglas at the IOM tt that year witch my Great Uncle Freddie won the sidecar race
Keep up the good work.
I had one of 750/4 with 810 Yoshi kit and brother had 500/4 610 kit great bikes
CB 750: 4 cylinders, 5 speed gearbox, Overhead cams, electric start, front disc brake, indicators, no oil leaks, no breakdowns.
Rocket 3: 3 cylinders, 4 speed gearbox, overhead valves and pushrods, kick (several times) start, drum brakes, no indicators, oil leaks from new, frequent breakdowns.
No contest. It's that simple.
And talk about sound - the only sound that beat the haunting wail of those 4 pipes was the banshee howl of the CBX's 6 pipes when the CBX came out in later years.
The Rocket I love but the Honda is the one really it had everything .
Cool bikes.
Well, the tipping point was actually the Honda 300 superhawk scrambler in the
early 1060's. Absolutely reliable , leak free, and really cheap buy in. My first
Honda was a CB 450 with the torsion bar valve springs. Would do 97 MPH in
fourth gear and 103 MPH kicked down to third. Handeling better than my BSA A30
which was a rigid frame. The good news about the A30 was it was narrower and
easier to push home than the BSA 650 thunderbolt. The prince of darkness was
their downfall. The Norton Atlas could be counted on to be running on one
cylinder by the time I got home. The prince also made magnetos that didn't
like oil leaking into them. Bought a Royal Enfield 736 CC interceptor and never
looked back. Great, did I mention great handeling. Sounded good and outran my
sportster 1/4 mile or winding road. The Enfield NEVER broke down and 51 years
later it is still not for sale.
Anyone remember that the CB 750 was a road bike based on Honda's side car
racing rig that embarassed the decades old dominance of BMW in side hack
racing. Three years in racing development and they decided to build a road
bike out of it. Honda had things like 6 cylinder 50cc (not a typo) with 4 valves
per cylinder as well as V5 and 6 cylinder 250 up to 1100cc. And then.... there
was the eliptical shaped piston engines with increased valve areas, possibly
more than 4 valves, not sure on that.
I had a Ducatti which never had an electrical failure. Makes me feel like I am
not eligible for a Ducatti owners club. Unless they have one featuring the crap
clutch lifting mechanism. On about the 6th or 7th replacement of the same
parts I designed something completely different. Designed for funcionality
and to be as ugly as possible so people would ask about it. Daily driver is
now a Kawasaki that overcharges the battery to failure annually but otherwise
is a really nice bike.
Hasn't Enfield made a Big Resurgence, The Quality Control seems a lot better of late, the Early British built Enfields were well made & Underrated, I think the Enfield Constellation was Faster than Either the BSA or Triumphs! Never sell the Interceptor!!👍👍😉🇦🇺
George, Honda NEVER built a 6 cylinder 50cc. Closest they came was a 125cc 5 cylinder......
There was a joke going on in Germany about while topping off missing oil it would be less work to just pour it on the ground under the engine of a Triumph instead of bothering pouring it into the engine .Joke aside, we mourn the vanishing of all the great British Marques that all played such a great role in advancing motorcycle technology.Norton ,BSA and Triumph..at least The latter made an astonishing comeback to the market with utter excellence .
Choosing a motorcycle is an emotional decision, so, if I were buying a new bike in 1969, I would've bought the BSA. Well actually I would've bought the Triumph version, the Trident, and put Bonneville mufflers and fuel tank on it. Considering the cost difference, I probably would've just bought the Bonnie and not had to change anything. If it had been 1972, I would have CERTAINLY bought the Ducati 750GT.
I rode a Honda Four on rough roads and loaded with luggage. That frame and suspension were just dangerous. Frame flex and under dampened suspension. I just bought a Laverda and solved the problems - reliable, comfortable and good handling.
I'm a Honda trail rider from years ago , what is Very disappointing from Honda is ther lack of oem spare parts , I have a GL1000, a T160 and a Norton 750 even an old Matchless g80 , the British need to be commended big time on the spares they still sell , it is Fantastic .
I have owned both, that being said. I wish I still had my Beezer. I've also owned both Norton and Triumph. My Commando was bored, stroked with open pipes. Now THAT bike was just a beast.
Who supplied the stroker Norton crankshaft?
All I remember from the Norton 850 engine was the vibration, painful.
Thanks for putting this up on TH-cam. Although I'm a Kawasaki Triple guy I love all old bikes and these are great classics with their own personalities. That was the thing about this era, the bikes were quite different from each manufacturer which gave you a real range of riding experience....which I guess is why I and many others still work on them.
Just saw this and it made me smile. I owned more than a dozen British triples and several Honders which is why I ended up riding a Laverda 3C back in the 70's/80s. Rocket 3, too little too late. CB750 too much, too soon. Honda made some great bikes once they worked out the bugs. Anyone who thinks CB 750s handled never tried riding one around a bend.
I had later versions of both bikes, and in many ways came to the same conclusions.
I had a CN750F1 first, and it was the quickest and best handling Japanese 840s of the time (the Kawasaki nutter machines excepted with regards to speed)! But very early on I upgraded the rear shocks to Koni’s. Even so, on a u roads with more than gentle curves I couldn’t keep up with my brother on his BSA B40, despite more than twice the engine capacity and huge amounts more horsepower!
The engine was bullet-proof, with rumoursthat their 24-hour endurance racers used the sane bottom end, unmodified! One journey back from Oulton Park involved a road which had a right-angle bend in the middle of a railway bridge. But someone had removed the “sharp bend” signs and I was confronted with the black and white chevrons only hards away, at nearly 70 mph! I cogged down 3 gears, hit the brakes and got round the bend with everything scraping! The rev counter needle shot out of the top of the red band, so who knows ehat revs the engine was doing, but it was fine. If I had done that on the Trident there would have been engine bits for miles around!
When I got the Trident, a T160V, it wasn’t as smooth as I thought it should be, lumpy compared with the buzziness of the F1. UntiI swapped the standard Norton Commando silencers (why did they do that?) for those original ray-guns, and suddenly I knew what silky-smooth meant!
Visiting my brother at uni involved an 80 mile round trip, and on the F1 I would get home tired, but on the T160V I would want to go again because the bike was such a joy to ride.
The bike was let down by shoddy engineering and design work.Triumph converted the bike to left-foot gearchange - the clutch operating mechanism stayed put but was actuated by a pushrod running through the width of the gearbox which was no thicker than a knitting needle. The resultant flexing meant that the clutch always dragged, despite having it stripped 7 or 8 times. When it started burning oil I had the whole thing overhauled, and the engineer’s report was that there were only 3 beatings in the entire engine and gearbox which were any good. This was after only 26,000 miles! Not inly was the centre cylinder known for running hot, the exhaust clamps were also a heat trap which meant that the bores wore oval!!! 🙄
O what might have been with just a bit of design skill!
So the Trident was by far the best bike to ride, but only when it was working, but the Honda was made properly and gave customers exactly what they were looking for, until the realised that going round bends safely was actually a rather good idea!
Why not put them round a track ?
better still put them in a cold store overnight then get the owners in a travel lodge and say all the ale is on us and you can have a sleep in.
then get them up at half four in the morning.
take them to their beloved mounts and get them to attempt to start them.
sober them up and then make them ride around a race track er is it just me or is this just total crap
with another payday for the boys ?
picking up my latest purchase tomorrow and its a triumph T160 v 1975 all there and lots of bits to and guess what I am not paying silly money for it catch you later Colin.
Hardly comparing like with like.
Just shows how far behind the British bike industry was
The utter failure of the Brit bike industry became apparent long before these bikes under discussion here.
In 1962 the Honda CB77 became available in England. 305 cc, 11000 rpm, no oil leaks, elec. starter. It made Brit bikes look crap. I had one and could stay with 650 BSAs etc.
@Goetmhmiac fairchild I get your point entirely . My first bike was Russian, followed by Japanese. I'd love a Norton or a Triumph now but its driven more by nostalgia than practicality.
LOL! I am the "old fart" now - but back then I could easily see the advantages and benefits.
It is a wonder and a puzzle that those at the head of the British bike companies failed to see that similarly or even to react at the time to fight the Japanese attack by producing better bikes!
They weren't delivering reliable every day transport to work, miss a few days work and you would get the finger wagging, in the 60 70s bikes were still primary transport for a lot of fam
I'd love to see a 'Top Dog' Norton Commando vs Triumph Bonneville.
So would I, having owned many of both I know the winner, have rode sweet 650 & 750 Triumphs and they are great.But no match for the Commando....
I fell in love with the Commando when I was 14 in 1973. A few weeks later I read a magazine article about a Commando owner who was outraged and wasn’t going to tolerate some 4 cylinder Honda running away from him. He found the right wizard to help him put a crank driven supercharger on his beloved Norton.
Problem solved.....and passed on to me because ever since it has been a dream of mine.
Didn't need a Supercharger, the stock Norton was faster than the triple, the triple was faster than the cb750.
Cycle mag Superbike 7 shootout, May 1970
Norton beat everything
Rode a Norton with 810 Dunstill kit that would eat them both! 😎
Kawasaki Z1 903cc was the king of the road in 1973. I have a 1975 Z1B..awesome bike.
I have to agree, I always wanted one but never got there. Russel Stratton.(my name)
My friend bought the first year Z1 in 1973 for 2100 dollars. Was quite an impressive machine but it had a terrible defect known as a high speed wobble. I witnessed it one time behind him on my K4 and thought it was curtains for sure but he miraculously pulled out of it. The Z1 forced Honda to up their game , Suzuki and Yamaha to build inline Fours and put another nail in the coffin of the Brit bikes period.
I remember seeing oil pools under the Rocket after a while....
Of course
@@vicent436 Lol!
I remember when BSA took four rocket threes to Daytona uncrated them prep them and they circulated the field at 130 miles an hour stock everything that was BSA before they went Belly Up. Yeah the company was going under while they were spending thousands and thousands of dollars for racing. They should have concentrated on the business of making motorcycles and supplying their dealers with parts they would still be in business if they Supply the dealers with what they wanted instead of what they told them they could have the dealers knows what sells.
The Rocket 3's owner looked more and more angry every time he looked at the panel who seemed to be tearing his love to pieces. The Honda has to be the dogs bollox because it still looks and sounds good, the Rocket was the past, Honda the future.
My mate had a Rocket Three while I burned out an oil in frame '70 Lightning. The Beezer was a beast if you got it tuned right but the CB750 had a better engine and even with four carbs was easier to tune. stick a honda mill in a BSA frame and go like stink. The honda steering head angle wasn't for me and I went back to good old tried and true A50 Royal star for eight years with the usual plug change, oil change and one carb to clean rain and sun to work and back six days a week.
Great, the 500cc was excellent.
had a 1966 bsa spitfire in 68 and a 1971 honda 750 looked at the rocket but it looked dated .the honda was very smooth wanted to rev easy to get speeding tickets.you had to man handle the bsa to get it to go but would love to have my spitfire back
I witnessed the race you mentioned, with John Cooper and ago, the race version my favourite bike of all time, sound and looks
both are beautiful,i have a t150 and a bsa rocket 3,i used to have a 1975 kawasaki z1b which was truly awesome...
Big rich Texas - most of the above comments were either Wishful thinking, lack of experience, drug addled memories, dreams, or outright fabrications. Like you i also had a 1972 BSA Rocket 3, T160 Trident, and a 75 Kawasaki Z1B (the most ferocious Z1 of them all) and, since I worked at a Brit bike shop, rode many Nortons, Lightnings and Bonnies. None of them came close to the straight line power of that Z. The fastest of the Brits I ever rode was a 72 Norton 750 combat commando and it would embarrass any stock Honda four of the 70s. Additionally, from a 70 mph roll, there was virtually, nothing on the streets that was even close to that Z-1untii the Yamaha XS Eleven. Not a car OR a bike.
The Matchless G15s , BSA Spitfires had style ; the BSA Rocket 3 , Triumph Trident were just too boxy looking. The introduction of of the Honda CB750 literally put an end to the English motorcycle industry at the time and to add insult to injury even the beautiful American designed( Craig Vetter ) Hurricane couldn't save it. In 1978 a local dealer who was also a renowned classic motorcycle collector offered my father a brand new BSA Rocket 3 , still in the crate for 2300 dollars. If I could of bought it I would of knowing it would appreciate in value but it tells you they weren't a sought after motorcycle.
I bought a brand new Z-1 900 in 1976 for $2300.
The CB750 caught the eye of people looking for a touring car.
Richard Pope that's why it was just voted motorcycle of the century. Back in the day in my neck of the woods I don't think avid motorcyclist had 4 wheel cages on their minds.
CB750 represents why the British industry was all but dead, the Honda was in a different league quantifiable better than Brit bikes in almost every way, but the handling was questionable, to put it in context of how it compared with what was possible in the mid 70s, I chased a late CB750 on a early Morini 500 Sport and sailed past it as the CB weaved round a sweeping right hander, with the Morini not even stressed.
I would say that the CB750 did to the Rocket 3 what the GPz 900R did to Laverda Jota a decade later, it simply offered the performance with none of the sacrifice.
CB 750 k2 bought by me in Capetown 76' FAB unforgettable experience...
The Rocket 3 (A75) was not the last new design, the 350 Bandit was the last new design.
Absolutely awesome duo in their own right however I think it would be the Honda for me.
Well Im not surprised. What can I say, I own both a restored 1971 K1 750 and a soon to be going again 1974 T150V Trident.....best of both cultures. That 750 Honda on this show, needs some more fettling tho. The stripe is the wrong colour, should be black, the gold is too dark, should be lighter, the bottom tank chrome stripe is incorrect, it is for a K1-on, and the indicator lenses are later ones, they are too dark amber, early ones were lighter. But Im sure John Wyatt has corrected all that by now. Golly good show.
The Honda 4 was reliable, but not much else.
A 1972 dyno test by "Superbike" showed 49.6 bhp, a far cry from 67, and the bike weighed 525 lbs. It had less cornering clearance than a BMW.
A Honda 4 was the scariest handling bike I'd ever ridden, even compared to other Japanese bikes (Kawasaki 750 2-stroke triple included).
Back in the day, the were no performance match for my 650 Bonneville.
The 67 horse power was from the 69 CB which were the fastest. I had a 69 and it would whip the pants off my friends practically new 73. My 69 already had 23,000 miles on it in early 72. Typical if we rolled open the throttle at 70 mph next to each other on the freeway, my 69 would run away from his 73 even when I could hear him dropping down to 4th and even 3rd behind me. No match.
+Bill Taylor k1 k0 they were the fastest k2 detuned and extra oil lines
There never was a K0, dealers started that crap. They started at K1, and 69's are called "pre-K" models.
I grew up in an era when these were new, worked in a motorcycle repair shop, rode most of these. the Triple was better on bendy roads but seemed a bit lacking down low, but in a drag race of the lights the triple could most often beat the Honda, I found the early cb 750 Honda were more powerful than the latter ones...
I believe you are correct about the later Hondas. I had '71 450 Honda full custom chopper. I think stock air filter but low restriction exhaust. I raced a stock 500 twin carb Triumph and ran away front the Triumph. My bike was also faster than a friends stock later model 450. Later I owned a 750 Four. My mechanic said the ever increasing noise and exhaust requirements took a toll as the years went on. He cut a V notch in the air clear cover to allow better breathing. I asked why it was so enclosed and it was to lower the sound.
The '69 ones were 67 BHP...by 1976 the Bhp was down to 55.
Dated styling or not that BSA was certainly a beautiful bike.
My first new bike was a 1971 Triumph Bonneville $1,425 with a 5 speed transmission. The 750 Honda was available then ,but I'd learned to ride on my uncle's Triumph Trophy 650,so I wanted a Triumph. I also thought the Triumph Bonny was a better looking bike too. Vibration made the mirrors useless on that Triumph..A friend had a Triumph Trident,didn't care for it's styling either..
@Smith Smith 1 am an old UK fogey and in 1970 at the age 33 I bought a Triumph Bonneville. (£425 translates to $1100)
Enjoyable to ride but reduced by the upright wide spread handlebars.
Then I bought a Triumph Trident which was unreliable and used to drink oil.
I followed with a CB750 F1 which didn't meet Honda appearence standards but was totally reliable.
Too many years later I now have the best bike I have owned a 2002 registered Yamaha 600 Fazer.
@@divvy1400yam600 I've owned all the Japanese brands except Yamaha..From what I have read Yamaha is considered the best of the Japanese brands. Wouldn't mind having a big Yamaha Tenere 1200,I think. I have seen used 71 Bonnevilles out there, but once was enough..
@@michaeljoesmith3977 Since 1996 I have owned three 600 Yamahas.
I have replaced 1 battery and had a repair made to the bottom of 1 exhaust pipes . I can thoroughly recommend Yamaha's
I have never owned a Kawasaki,
I dont want a twin and 600 4 stroke has for me a too racy riding position. On top of that Im not really strong enough even for a middle weight bike. (moan)
BSA had a prototype 4 cylinder called the Rocket 4 and it looks like a BSA Rocket 3 with an extra cylinder and four pipes. Like the triumph quadrant what bikes they could have been
The Rocket 3 was faster and handle better than CB it was the fastest bike in the world still in production right up until the 900z . In 71 BSA annihilated the Japanese in the production class racing. BSA would have sold a hell of a lot more of these if Lional had not broken up the the Rocket line and started building his Ariel 3 trike.
Well, I had a mate with a 68 rocket 3, and later on I had a T160. I can tell you quite definitely, on the road the Brit bikes would whip the Honda's arse! The Honda brakes were disc, but they certainly didn't work too well. People get all misty eyed about the Honda's nowadays, and they were a step forward in technology, but they were and still are as boring as all get out!
Too true, it wasn't till the kwacker Z1 in '73 that the arguments stopped!
David Hall no the argument raged on, do you know how many fuckin starter clutches I had to replace on those fuckin bikes back then, even if you then used the kickstart the bloody things rattled all the time, Kawasaki's back then spent more time being fixed than being ridden.
I bow to your experience, but hand on heart can you say in all honesty they were more inherently unreliable that a triumph or a norton?
David Hall no I cant, it was just sort of similar :)
you are right, but oil filters killed all brit bikes. A friend of mine broke twice Trident' s engine due to lack of lubrication
Have a Rocket 3 just like this, the frame is on the patio, the tank ,seat & side covers are in the bed room, the motor is in my car,the primary cover is on the kitchen floor.I grew up in this era and saw for myself the Rocket could leave the Honda behind, the Honda was not in the match on bendy roads, I had one new and rode hard. never once did I ever blow away a Rocket 3 or a Commando.this is the truth ,I am a believer in giving credit when its due.
If I remember correctly the first production bike with a disc front brake was a Honda CB450, they didn't sell well so perhaps they have gone unnoticed.
The disk brake dates back in one form or another right back to the pre 1920s, BSA had one on the Titan MX back in 65, Lambretta were also fitted with a disk brake
i think that the Rocket 3 looks pretty damn good.
Both bikes look fantastic
I love that Rocket 3, I think the styling is great which is why they are now sort after. Honda is nice too, but.....
I suppose the faithful riders of SV bikes thought the same when OHV arrived.
I'm biased. I owned a 1998 Honda Nighthawk 750. So can't attest to the Brits they were few and out of my entry level price range
Honda got a sweetheart deal from the Japanese government to build a new factory to build Honda 750. A new CB 750 came off the assembly line every 3 mins.
The CB 750 change the bike world
Just like the Model A. what?
For better or worse?
Top Dog bike intro: with a doggy style paw....and a lion or tigers snarl? lol! - Ach well, it _was_ Men & Motors from back in the day. Used to get me all ranting back then when they did mostly car stuff and very little bikes. But, when they _did_ do a bike feature, it was a quality one.
2020 it would be the rocket, unless the Honda was a 69. Imo. But that's maybe value and being collectible. The Honda was obviously the better bike but I'd rather have the Rocket.
Honda's 750 set the template for the UJM (universal Japanese motorcycle). It deserves its TD award. I checked its record in the Castrol 6 Hour Production Race .... a CB 750 came 2nd in the 1970 inaugural race (Triumph 650 1st & 3rd) and won the 1971 race - and dominated the first ten placings in the unlimited class. BSA had NO representative in 1970, 71 or 72 ... I didn't bother looking further.
+Ian Fluker Trident,Rocket 3 won at Daytona ,Bol deor 24 hour races, ,Slippery Sam won the Isle Of Man production TT five years running till it was banned .John Cooper ridding a Rocket 3 took on Aggostini on his GP MV raccer twice and beat him both times
+keith rowley Thanks for your reply Keith. The CB 750 had its flaws, especially handling, but as a (close to) out-of-the-crate motorcycle for production racing it wasn't bad. A Rocket 3 production-based racer was probably better than a CB 750 production motorcycle ridden in production races. But as every-day bikes for the average punter the Honda wins hands down. I say this as someone who was enchanted with "odd-ball Spanish single-cylinder things" like Bultaco's Metralla.
+Ian Fluker I would have lived to be able to buy this Buktaco Metralla late in 1974. At that time I was 18, but I had not the little money it coasted, and finally production ended
Excellent choice of top dog comparo's. The Rocket 3 won Daytona 200 in 71 and the 750-4 in 70 both ridden by Dick "Bugsy" Mann. Lord, I wish I could go back to those days.
yeah
The story of Honda's victory is that Dick Man having been at the speed tests of the Rocket 3 in 1968 new how fast the road going bikes were but was dropped by Triumph/ BSA as being to old, he was offered a ride on the Honda with instructions to get out in front and stay there as long as he could the bike wasn't expected to last the race and Honda had the advertising already printed saying Honda leads at Daytona, the Honda stayed together and won. Dick Mann was reported to say if the race had been run a hundred times the Triumph/BSA's would have won 99 times.If the Honda was so good why did he ride a Rocket 3 the following year
The 305cc and 450cc twins were precursors to the CB750 and foretold what was going to happen.
Performance against reliability. Tough call, but the triple has style that Honda have never matched.
The BSA is a motorcycle that goes and handles, the Honda is modern engineering. The reason you ride a bike like the BSA is to feel alive, the reason you’d ride 750 4 is because you didn’t go fast except on the straights. BSA like lots of bikes at the time needed routine maintenance, the Honda much less so. However British bikes main problem especially in places like America is they don’t have fun twisty roads like in Britain, that’s why Harley’s sell.
Obviously we have miles of flat straight roads. We also have miles and miles and miles of bends. Some of my summer trips have been 4500 miles. Tail of the dragon is only one such road.
I have owned both and the Honda was better in all departments but pull into the Rock Store and the BSA will attract the the most lookers. And that is
because the 750 Honda sold in the millions and the Brit triples sold a few thousands.
The yr's later and '72 Kawasakis H1-Mk3/H2-MK4, respectively, first generation used a somewhat more oval rear but still styled after the Rocket's forward canting frontal fuel tank, so did '72's Suzuki GT750 in a further near duplication complete with the raised full length top rib (and color contrasted) plus also with very similar oil-tank covers.. AND.. even Honda ended up using this exact front canting tank design on their later '79 CB750F ('78 Super Dream 1st).. (Edit.. almost forgot)> The BSA also uses the instrumentation pod while the Honda has the seperate bezels, as did the Trident.
You've got it backwards dudes, (edit> if anything) it was the CB750 that in fact then looked more like a British bike with (Edit)> the BSA setting the styling standard, as attested to to by it's competitors' many incarnations duplicating it.
The Japanese didn't TRULY come full into their own stylewise unti the '80 XJ-650/750 Secas.
The original '68 Rocket 3, as do all prototypical designs, was so advanced as for it's genius to slip under the radar of the general motorcycling masses, as proven by the many ressurections of said styling.
Why would I want the '71 retro-styled Rocket 3 when BSA had already been there/done that (if not better) with their A65 Lightning 650 twins?, especially the later till '70 model year
Don't mention the cam chain tensioner the brakes that don't work in the rain.
Sad that the panel got so much wrong about the Rocket III, I am not talking about their opinions, although I have strong reservations on some of those, it is the factual errors that annoy me. Styling was the problem with the early Trident/Rocket III, the Ogle styling was supposed to make it look modern, and it was more modern than the previous bikes, and THAT was the problem - the "bread loaf" tank was, in my opinion, a complete disaster. One of the awful results of the Ogle styling was that it delayed the introduction of the bike by years, some sources say 18 months, but others consider the delay to be much longer, perhaps four years, the Triumph prototype (still exists) was running in 1966 from a design mostly complete in 1962! It also added weight and lost the "made for purpose" aesthetic of the earlier bikes. Further, the decision to make two different engines (I will admit that the sloping cylinders did look better and had some advantage in packaging) added further delays to the launch of the bike. IMHO, the delay and cost was probably not worth it, if I had never seen the sloping cylinders of the Rocket III, I would not have missed them, the upright Trident still looks the part.
The engine was all Triumph design as Doug Hele worked for Triumph, and he designed the engine based on the Triumph 250 single, not the 500 twin - check the bore and stroke. Bert Hopwood designed the bike, and he worked for BSA, although the two companies were one, they still operated as two different companies in many important areas and there was rivalry and jealously resulting in truly stupid decisions. The only difference between the two engines was the crankcase angle. After the end of Rocket III production in 1972, there were a considerable number of surplus BSA engines and frames at the factory, these were used on the initial Hurricanes, new crankcases had to be made for later Hurricanes and this sealed the fate of the upright Triumph cylinders. Fortunately, the inclined cylinders allowed enough space to fit the electric start of the T160.
All the engines were completely built at BSA's factory, not just the crankshafts, but it was not an easy build. The 56 operations, one panel member speaks of, were apparently required by the centre section of the crankcase, I find this difficult to believe, almost as difficult as 56 operations to build an entire engine - any engine. The engine build number per week was small but this was not due to the crankshafts but difficulties with the old-fashioned build. The Trident was supposed to be a temporary measure to keep the company going while Hopwood and Hele designed a whole new (modular) range of modern, oil leak free, easy to build, OHC engines, this is probably the reason Hele stayed with Triumph rather than going over to Norton. I think the OHC engines would have been good marketing, but a very good pushrod design can do wonders in most road bikes. As well as the better CofG, the engine can be lighter and more compact, sure it will reach limits before a OHC but on a road machine, that is not so great a limitation.
For those who doubt the British builder's ability to build OVC engines at that time, look up Coventry Climax. If only Cosworth, ahh well.
While the engines were the same, the frames were not, the Triumph used the classic Bonneville single down tube frame and the Rocket III used the classic BSA double down tube frame.
The reason the bike was not a success was terrible management, internal conflict, dithering, unfavourable exchange rate, typical of the day management/workforce relations (WAR!), emissions standards, Meriden!, NVT!!!!, the list goes on - it was not the technical details of the bike, Hele was confident of getting considerably more power out of the engine (as was proved in racing) at least 90hp, the CofG was lower than an overhead cam would have been resulting in improving handling. Had they brought the Trident out in, say, 66 (quite possible with decent management, Hele and Hopwood were capable if let off the leash) using the styling of the time and keeping the bike lean, mean and tuned, it would have been a force. Faced with such a potent machine, I wonder what the Japanese would have done, I doubt it would have been the CB750 as we know it.
Disc brakes are also a significant point. The full width, double-leading-shoe, front drum brake was also an excellent stopper only failing after repeated heavy braking from high speed. The British discs were far better than the Japanese discs, the Japanese discs were designed to not rust (the British ones rusted up very quickly), this resulted in a less than optimal co-efficent of friction, but they looked prettier.
Earlier modernisation to say T160 specs would have made the Trident more attractive to US buyers, but the exchange rate made it too expensive, and it was white-anted by the cheaper Norton Commando. At this stage, the cost of Japanese bikes was artificially lowered by government action, they were playing the long game With the British, this was not necessary, they were determined to destroy their once great motorcycle industry, much the same as they destroyed most of their other industries.
Even if this was not the case, some previously mentioned other factors were at play. Don't forget that Vincent had gone extinct in the 1950s despite all of its technical excellence and reputation.
The Honda was technically advanced but tubby, the difference between a sports car and a powerful but, well, tubby sedan/saloon, my view, I am allowed to have it.
Anyhow, a Trident, with a sympathetic exhaust system (MUST keep the split centre cylinder pipes), at mid revs under load can produce a glorious sound, almost like a big six sometimes, , as the revs go up it can get a bit of a bark to it. Once, in special circumstances, I could not tell if it was the Trident coming or an old 50s Mack Thermodyne. 😁 The Honda, like a sewing machine - meeeh - who wants to ride a sewing machine (see above).
Enough! It still makes me angry, so many lost opportunities, so much stupidity, so many experiences forgone.
There you go, stick the CB750 engine in a Rocket 3 frame...job done.
In 1969 I much preferred the Honda 750 over the Rocket 3. Actually during that era the Norton and Kawasaki 500 would have been my choice over the Honda or Rocket 3. Today I would prefer to own a John Player Norton or Kawasaki 750 H2. To me the Honda 550 was a better balanced than Honda 750 anyway.
Oh yeah the Honda 750 would need a strong tail wind to hit a true 125 mph.
The '69-'70 K0 750s would hit 125mph. The early Honda Fours were a very visceral, masculine machine in the K0 models. Starting with the '72 K2 models, Honda neutered them considerably. I worked at a Honda shop when the K2s came out. We called them K2 slugwagons......
@@milojanis4901 I will be posting a superbike showdown from Cycle Guide in 1972 between the GT 750 Suzuki, Kawasaki 750 H2, CB750, Norton 750, Yamaha TX 750 and Harley 1000 Sportster in a few weeks.
It's 2004 and three chaps tell us how the BSA Trident looked dated in 1970. On the left we have Mr. 1992, replete with period correct accessories. Centre we have Mr. 1972, appropriate beatnik goatie and to his right, straight out of an eighties Queen MTV video, Mr. 1982. But one million vs 6700 sales. Sad. How could it be?
Easy enough to make the BSA a 1000cc and that makes them a whole new ball game. Better to stroke the original crank than use after market ones as they tend to be made out of phase.
Despite oft-heard pronouncements by fellow riders of what superb motorcycles those Rocket 3s and Tridents were when I lived in Britain in the late 70s and early '80s, I always just thought there was something "dorky-looking" about the BSA Rocket 3s. As for the Tridents, they were attractive enough, I guess--just sort of uninspiring and vaguely Japanese-looking, like a "British UJM." Even though I was a "Yank" with a ratty old police surplus Norton Commando, and hence a member of sorts in good standing of the British Bike fraternity, I usually kept those notions about the triples to myself back then, since one sensed a patriotic desperation in the air with their almost pathetic realization that their recently once proud British motorcycle industry was very suddenly a smoldering husk with barely a pulse. Nowadays, nearly 40 years later, I still have a Norton 750, but mostly I just thump happily around on a gorgeous and cheap Royal Enfield Bullet 500, sort of an engineering fossil: a 1955 British-designed thumping single that was screwed together basically unchanged in 2005 in India fifty years later. So, I guess my tastes haven't changed all that much, and I still think the BSA Rocket 3 looks "dorky." As for the CB750, I just don't think much about them at all. If they all suddenly disappeared from the planet, gathered up in some "Multi-Cylindered Rapture," I can't say as I'd personally feel one way or the other about it.
During seventies Honda was a top dog for me for sure with is brilliant engineering and reliability, but I never had a chance to ride Rocket 3.
I didn't want to - she looked so terrible on paper : push-rods, drum brakes, no electric start, all the package was uninspiring. But time changes things, today I recognize the Rocket 3 as a much better bike to ride with it's stability and much better handling, today seeing Honda as to short, to wide and top heavy with very poor road manners. Somehow Honda's 68 HP doesn't feel much stronger than Rocket's 58 either.
What stayed the same is Honda's reliability and quality of workmanship - in Rocket's case quality varied a lot.
If you got a good one it was very good, but a bad one was a complete dog.
And not a top dog for sure :).
I agree, but reliability decidede
Who won on the race track?
BSA kicked the Sealey 750 fours ass everytime...
Ironically the great Dick Mann who BSA's top rider in the States won the Daytona 200 in 1969 on a Honda CB750.
Ironically the great Dick Mann who BSA's top rider in the States won the Daytona 200 in 1969 on a Honda CB750.
Tridents won 750 production races on the isle of man 5 year's in a row in the 70s then not allowed
Set a average lap time of 100mph over 37 miles hence the dunlop tt100 k81 i recently bought one $120 aud still going strong after 50 years,
The Honda 750 was the first bike that required you to be above average hight to be comfortable. That is why I only had the 450 the much under rated Black Bomber.
I agree. I'm 6'3 and I found my '74 tall and top-heavy. I didn't get that feeling from my KZ1000 strangely.
I owned an A75 and a rode a friend's Honda 750. The Rocket 3 would outperform the Honda until something went bang
even though I'm a triumph lover, I rememberalways having to keep an eye on the tachometer when riding fadt as the tripples would happily rev to destruction, they would hit 10,000rpm in decent tune, them some time in the future, throw a conrod, usually through the crankcase, the honda could not be reved to death, but on the other hand a friend of mine ended up in the scenery when trying to follow me down a fast windy road on his cb750 and he was a better rider than me, but once things started to flex it was all over for his bike and nearly for him as well, Honda better engineering, triumph better handling, either take your pick or choose a more modern bike offering both
Why does everyone always forget that MV had a DOHC four several years before Honda?
And Harley-Davidson was the first motorcycle mass produced in Japan.
servicarrider Really? I didn’t know that. Thank you for sharing
@@G58Yes, really. H-D shipped the whole factory, tooling and all to Japan in the early 1930's. I forget the exact year.
Rikuo Internal Combustion Company 陸王 (Rikuō Nainenki Kabushiki kaisha) was one of the first motorcycle manufacturing companies in Japan. In the early 1930s Rikuo operated under the license and name of Harley-Davidson, using their tooling, and later under the name Rikuo until 1958.[2] Harley-Davidson themselves did not publicize this Japanese connection because the Japanese were helped in developing mass-production techniques by the introduction of this factory into Japan just prior to the Second World War
I will take bsa any day had a 750 Honda wobbled and weaved all over the road .bsa looks far better too trying finding one now under 15.000.