One correction! The Triumph 500 indeed NEVER had an electric start. For some reason the later Daytonas looked like they had electric start but they didn't. Good thing I have you guys to keep me in line!
@@virusdumb Not exactly. The 1973 Triumph Daytona 500 had twin carbs (not necessarily a good thing 😮), twin leading shoe front brake, twin instrument (speedometer + tachometer) instrument cluster.
I don't see much in the way of pre-1970s machines here but I think that the Honda CB77 Superhawk deserves a mention. It was produced from 1961 to 1966, to be replaced by the CB350. This 305 cc twin came with electric start and a good one at that. It is rated at 28 HP at the rear wheel, somewhat less than the 50 HP or so mentioned for the Triumph, but it too will go 100 mph. I know from experience in the early 70s when I rode and raced against others with Triumph 500s and other British bikes that the 305 was not outclassed by the 500 and could beat it. On top of that it is much more reliable and, of course, doesn't leak oil. The CB77 didn't kill Triumph but it is the first in the line of Japanese bikes to match or exceed its performance at a better price. And, the large twin leading shoe brakes work well, better than the Triumph's based upon your description. I enjoy your series. Thanks for your effort.
The biggest advantage the triumph had over the Honda, was that it never needed the oil changed. Due to oil leaks it was contunually receiving clean oil top ups.
They only leaked oil until EVERYONE flatsanded the cases and put them back together with better ( usually homemade ) gaskets. What? You didn't do that, too? Come on. Everyone did and still do it!
After getting my BA degree from Michigan State in 1973, I rode my '73 CB500 from Michigan out in the Rockies, covering 9 states in 3 weeks. I rode with a group of friends most having CB750's. My old Honda ran flawlessly through the trip. Wish that I still had that bike.
Reliability. The main purpose of the bike which is to get us from point a to b is what keeps most owners/enthusiasts interested. Nevermind the other means like cars or public transportation or other more reliable bikes. That is why some of us in other parts of the world bought old Honda's in the first place because it's still reliable and relevant upto this day. Otherwise what's the point if you can't ride a beautiful bike around town? We can always have other bikes in our garage but personally I'm always going to have one Honda in there. Old CB's are just legendary, good-looking and makes revving sounds just as good as any other newer bikes in this year because classic never goes out of style. As long as the parts and prices are reasonable that is. I'll stick to that.
A friend of mine back in 1970 had a Triumph Daytona (500cc). As I was a pillion passenger, I held onto the rear crash bars. The vibration that came through the crash bars made me feel like I was getting an electrical shock with pins and needles going through my hands. In 1973 he sold the Triumph and bought a Honda 750.
I rode with a guy for years that had a early sixties 650 Tiger. Granted the bike got plenty of attention everywhere we pulled in. As you said, it looked and sounded great. He loved the bike. He let me ride it once. It had a right side shifter. That took a little bit to get used to. The buzz throughout the bike at speed convinced me I never wanted to ride it again. One day after a cold start with the bike sitting on the kickstand, I watched a nut and bolt loosen and fall to the ground that held the drive chain guard. I don't know if I would give any one bike credit for killing a British bike line. I believe the British motorcycle and car industry killed itself by simply doing nothing, letting the world pass them by.
@leomonster1973 As I remember, they all had their issues. The Japanese vehicles were right straight out of the dealership, unlike their American counterparts that had relied on the dealers to fix the problems. This was a normal practice way before the seventies, and we didn't know better. Chrysler lean burn, the Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega, just starting the long list. The Japanese kicked our ass for sure. GM felt that whatever they built, Americans would happily purchase. You are right.The seventies were a wake-up call.
@@williamwintemberg competition is supposed to breed excellence into the competitors… The end result being that the consumer wins because his choices are better and cheaper across the board… Except in America, when the competition becomes to fierce from foreign companies, the home teams go to the government and ask for protectionist restrictions. Harley knows all about that. The older companies saw the influx of Reliable, cheap, reliable, fast, reliable, easy to maintain, reliable, Japanese bikes and didn’t plow any money into R&D to one up them…
I think you'll find that the Honda CB250/CB350 parallel twins, released in 1968, had more to do with Triumph's demise than your 500. The CB250 could almost get up to 100 mph, while the CB350 could do about 110 mph. Both had a 5 speed gearbox & reliability that British bikes could only dream of. They paved the way for the CB750 that arrived a year later.
I own a cb350 and the only way it can do 110 mph is if your on the downside of a very big hill with the wind at your back. Or close to the event horizon of a black hole. I don't think it was japanese bikes that ruined the british motorcycle industry, I think it was greedy shareholders not spending money to update 50 year old tooling. They could have carried on as a premium brand making a modest amount of motorcycles at a decent profit, much like ducati or bultaco or maico or husqvarna at the time.
The CB 250 up jetted free flow 2 into 1 exhaust and K&Ns flat out could just manage a true 87mph the speedo had a mind of its own. The CB 350 never made the magic 100. 98mph was as good as the average enthusiast could manage with all the usual above mentioned upgrades. That is assuming the cam chain didn't snap or eat the tensioning slippers first.. I loved and hated my CBs in equal measures
I had a CB250 and it was a great bike in many ways BUT Honda HP is not equivalent to anyone else's HP. It might have reached almost 90 mph on an optimistic speedo. It was very thirsty for its power output. The gearbox was TERRIBLE. First was way, way, way too high and the gap between 4th and 5th belonged on a race track not on the road. It was also very sticky with a pair of very short lever arms to move the gear shift rearwards. The 180 crank created chain snatch below 3000 rpm where the 175 Honda was unstallable with a 360 crank. I found an old Honda 305 dream and it was a far better bike. Much more efficient with a similar power output and speed. It only needed four gears. The handling wasn't as good. But overall it showed what went wrong with the newer Honda's. The newer honda had better handling but the engine was disappointing until I dismantled it and faired the cylinder head to the head gasket and the cylinder. Small mismatches prevented it from reaching its potential. Equally the rings in both it and a friends Honda 750 don't last as long as I would expect. But people buy on the illusion, not reality. They discover that later. I met my wife because she bought the honda 90 scooter and they claimed 60 mph top speed. It didn't do that so she came to a motorcycle rally to ask us what was wrong. Luckily she came to talk to me. And more than 50 years later we ride together every day. If the bike HAD done what was claimed I may never have met her. So I have to thank Honda for lying and selling her the wrong bike under false pretences.
He says the 500 Triumph would go 110. My Bonneville 650 would only go 110. What about the 305 Super Hawk or CB77, those were pretty fast at about 110mph.
@@michaeljoesmith3977 the T100 official top end was 91 the t110 Daytona what's 105 a very good properly setup t120 oil in tank not in frame could just pull 115 to 120 depending how it had been set up and if it had been blueprinted
That I think is where they went wrong. Their bikes were selling so they just kept turning out the same old designs without a thought that another country might come out with something better. Well that's just what happened. The other country being Japan.
I remember hearing that when Hondas first came to Britain a Benly 125 cost more than a British 500. But people bought them anyway because of their reputation for reliability.
Unit Triumphs don't leak oil if they are put together properly. I've had my T140 for 29 years and have never had to put a drip tray under it in the garage.
I went from a parallel twin to the 550 Honda four. I couldn't believe the difference. The smoothness was great and made long trips less fatiguing. with the twin you could sortakinda tell something was behind you but with the Honda you could actually see what it was.
The Triumph engine was designed and first built in 1938 and remained virtually unchanged apart from increase in capacity right up to the 80's Bonneville T140. Their downfall was the management not being willing to come up with a new design. They went up to three cylinders with the Trident T150 and T160 but when one of their engineers produced a prototype 4 cylinder engine nicknamed the Quadrant and when it was shown to the management team they allegedly replied that they could not see than anybody would want a four cylinder motorcycle. Within a very short space of time Honda produced four cylinder bikes from 350, 400, 500, 550 and 750. Triumph lost out due to poor management decisions and lack of foresight more than anything else.
Bad management killed of BSA and Triumph as BSA owned Triumph. The first trident P1 ran in 1964 and could have been in production by 1966 but management didn't want to know. Only when news of the CB750 reached management did things progress but BSA wanted there own version requiring different frame and crank cases which delayed production and put up costs. The P1 looked like a Bonneville but the design was putout Ogilve Design who came up with the slab tank and Raygun silencers which the USA hated which resulted in beauty kits being sent to the USA. The Quadrent was never a prototype as it was two Trident engines with a cylinder cut of each one and joined together, crank was pressed assembly and a overhang on one side of the frame to keep the drive in line , with a mid state of tune due to the crank assemble it did 125mph. what was being developed was the T180 of which 3 engines were built, one was tuned for racing which is now owned by Steve Brown
Triumph also made a two stroke engine but again triumph Management put their heads in the sand. Wanna see it go to New milton hampshire uk, sammy millers museum.
"....The "feedback" is so important. As a long time rider and service professional, I can't help but recall taking out the shop owner's BSA Rocket III a few times and totally enjoyed it. It was no Z1 Kawasaki or GT750 Suzuki but it's quality of "feel" could not be disparaged.
THIS! The Brit bikes weren't the fastest by the time the CB750 came out, but you could ride one hard on curvy roads and they just became part of you. Very unlike the Honda, and especially the Kawasaki 750, which would go great in a straight line, but kill you on a twisty mountain road. If all you wanted to do was go fast in a straight line, then get a CB Honda or the big Kaw triple. If you wanted to really RIDE hard, a Brit bike was hard to beat. I love Harleys too, but that is a different kind of riding altogether. Cruse and hear the thump as opposed to tame the windy roads on a Trumpet or Norton.
It's easier for me to choose a bike to meet my needs if I ignore such irrelevant factors as standing quarter or 0-60 times. Fuel economy matters (I have a 109Km each way commute) but I'm not concerned with power as long as it's adequate.
@@bertmeinders6758 The "thrill factor" seems to be driving so many to want performance over function. By the time the '70s came around, there wasn't a bike we sold whose drum brakes weren't adequate for safe riding and stopping distances. When the front disk brake became the norm, I felt that any brake that could make the front tire howl was good enough. Now, the quest is to have brakes that can stand up to repeated punishment which really is not necessary on a commuter bike.
When I got my first job after I left the service I found one of these CB500s. Great bike. I used it to go to work, ride around Shreveport and to run down to Houston where my mom and dad were living. The bonehead i bought it from had cut off the exhaust tips and the noise drove me nuts. In Shreveport you could ride a bike all year, you just needed a good coat( I had liberated a.field jacket from the Marine Corps.) and you had to pick your days. The bike just never failed. Keep good tires on and change the fluids when the service manual said to and you can still find running examples now that it’s. Fifty years later. I have to argue with “ the triumph just looks better.” I had a Norton 750 for a little while in Guam in 64. It was gorgeous but, to me, the Honda 500 with the seeping pipes and small piston set and killer tank shape were captivating to me.
Love those drip catchers under the Triumph! Takes me back, since I had a 60s vintage TR6. Another Triumph feature was their habit of shaking themselves to bits. Thanks for some oil-stained memories, and a great channel!
My dad helped me when I was 15 to buy a Triumph 500 in 1975 for $275. I never owned a CB 500 but I did have a CB550 a year later. Wish I had all the bikes I ever owned.
You and me both, I often see how much some of the bikes I've owned are making on eBay now, if I'd kept them all I'd be sitting on a fortune (I'd also need a bloody big garage).
I work in a motorcycle museum. There are way more Triumphs there than Hondas, perhaps because it's easier to keep the Hondas running :) Then there are the oil spill from the british bikes in general compared to the japenese...
My 1980 Benelli 900 Sei was based on the Honda CB500F, in 1972 Benelli's engineers added an extra cylinder on each end of the CB500F crank and they created the 750 Sei, after a two year delay the Benelli's six cylinder machine went on sale in 1974, producing a road going six cylinder motorcycle was a world first for Benelli. Between 1974 and 1978 Benelli produced 3200 units of the 750 six, in 1979 the motor was bored and stroked to create the 900 Sei which was in production between 1979 and 1989, but only 1863 of the 900 sixes were ever produced, so it is a rare piece of motorcycle history.
Cool bike. I remember first seeing one 45 years ago and noting the resemblance to the CB500 though with slightly canted cylinders. They sure do sound sweet. Those were the days of the Laverda twins and triples too. Wish I could go back and relive them.
A mate of mine who is a Brit bike fan had a couple of T-shirts back in the '70s. One featured a Gold Wing and the slogan, "Honda, from the people who brought you Pearl Harbour" and the other had a Lightning 650cc and the legend, "BSA - the world is my drip tray".
This takes me back! 37 years ago I purchased a bike from a friend who had built it from a collection of various Honda parts - it was a 500/4 engine and frame, but the forks and fuel tank were from a slightly later 550/4, whilst the clocks were from a 750/4 I believe The frame was bright red, and the tank was white with a matching red stripe It was my only daily transport as I didn't have a car licence for another 3 years so I rode that thing all year round Loved it. He had also fitted one of the original Yoshimura 4 into 1 pipes, and to this day I've never heard a better sounding 4 cylinder exhaust... It did have a few downsides though The electric start would never work from cold if it wasn't the middle of summer The bike would cut out on 2 cylinders after about 20 minutes in the rain and the vibration although unnoticeable at first would gradually turn your little finger on both hands numb after 45 minutes or so Handling wasn't great either but I loved it
I read that Edward Turner (designer of the Triumph Speed Twin, Ariel Square Four, and Daimler SP250 V8 engines) was sent circa 1956 by Triumph to Japan to assist a Japanese licensee. When he returned, he reported to the Triumph board that there was trouble brewing in Japan. They replied, "Oh no, dear boy, the Japanese build only small bikes. Besides, they don't know our market." I think that he made a second trip to Japan c 1959 and met with the same indifference upon his return. It was already too late.
@Alfred Wedmore Thanks for clearing that up. I never clearly understood the postwar relationship between BSA and Triumph. I do though recall reading that Turner was sent to Japan twice regarding license issues and that his British colleagues dismissed his reports of impending competition from Japan. I read this decades ago, so I've forgotten the details.
British needed a new motor long before Hondas arrived 360° paralle twin was outdated WW2 hindered development in British Auto industry across the board 1930's designs used well into post-war period Electrics on Brit bikes awful 'Damned good headlight Just dont ride at night', Joe Lucas
The 60's-era Triumphs (650s ad 500s) were the most beautiful bikes ever made, in my opinion. Love everything about them, their sound, the way they ride, etc. The most beautiful of all were the ones with the stainless fenders, again, in my opinion. I also love those CB 500's, though. I think they were quite handsome, but in a completely different way. In other words, I agree with everything you said about these two bikes.
In 1975, Dave Minton said that, as when fully fuelled, the CB500 wasn't much lighter than the CB750. He said that Honda had made it a more agile bike, learning from mistakes made with the 750. Probably right.
I remember in the early sixties when the Honda bikes arrived in my country. They really put the local product to shame when it came to engineering. I was in my first job so the new Japanese bikes were out of my reach. I rode a 1957 350cc AJS single at the time but I coveted the Honda 125 Benly and 250 Dream (there was a 305cc bike also but I don't know what that was called, I guess a CB77). In those days the Triumph was known for its engine but the frame was thought too flexible (some folks took the Triumph engine and put that in a Norton feather bed frame for the best of both worlds). I don't remember much sympathy for the manufacturers of the British bikes (or for the British car manufacturers that followed the same path a little later), they had not invested in the future, turning out the same old tired designs for decades and by the time they woke up it was too late. Nowadays I run an Indian made 650cc Royal Enfield (which I like a lot).
England had been bombed almost out of existence, and I think maybe they were spending their money to get back in business and didn't have the choices Japan had. They should have sent MacArthur to rebuild the British.
@@algentry1 Well I'm no expert on this stuff but as I understand it Japan was pretty much bombed around the clock by the US, culminating in a couple of Atom bomb drops. After the war the US poured a lot of time and money into getting Japan back on its feet. Not so much the UK. One thing the Japanese did have going for them post WW2 was not spending huge amounts of money on the military (likewise Germany), that was forbidden while the British had to cope with a rapidly self dismantling Commonwealth of nations and its choice of its own nuclear deterrent (which was not cheap). The British also had to pay back the US for much of the war materials help they had proffered prior to 1941 i.e. from 1939.
@@dogphlap6749 - well said, also aloof management and politics played a part plus clueless money wasting on models like the Triumph Tina and Ariel 3 making Japanese bikes all the more welcome in the UK by the 1970's, the Japanese changed the whole game and made bikes fashionable again while BSA were still making the Bantam thinking about moving the spark plug to the centre of the head, the choice of 22 Japanese 125's killed that relic stone dead, thank god. It still doesn't diminish the T100 being a very fine and versatile motorcycle that could take a man round the World, win Trophy after Trophy and two Daytona 200's as well as lend itself to the basis of the Tridents and Rocket 3's which ruled the Daytona 500 for a good few years eventually competing directly with the Honda CB750 in race trim, more the stuff of immortal legend than killed by a CB500 .. unless it died laughing at the Honda's original 4 silencers? quite possible. The UK was actively involved with the Japanese, Barry Sheene won two Grand Prix's for Suzuki, Belfast university were doing race work for Yamaha and more importantly we were buying their Bikes and enjoying them, and still do after long restorations.
The quality comparison reminds me a lot of what happened with American automakers when reliable, efficient Japanese cars came to market. Pretty crazy how much complacency there was with existing American (or British) mfgs that became immediately apparent! Btw, you're right about opinions--I think the Honda is SOOO much nicer looking, haha.
A fad hit in 1971+ for tiny cars. At the same time US regulations emerged to cripple Detroit and British existing cars. Everything from Cutlass/Falcon up in US cars were solid and much more roadworthy in the late 60s than JapOboxes and MGs/Minis at the time. The 1965 Cadillac, Imperial and Lincolns were fantastic cars. The problem was trying to redesign a big car into a tiny car. The Vega and Pinto took drastic and stupid design shortcuts to make a $2200 and $1995 base. 4cyl engines hadn't been built in numbers in Detroit since WW2. Labor them down with cheap automatics and AC and stuff in a 20 year old gas tank design to a hatchback. All to make a car that looked like the fad. Gasoline was 38c and up to $1.40 by 79 so everyone was encouraged to buy economy boxes to save gas....but it didn't really make any cost sense. You paid $1500 more for more spartan and cramped Datsuns in 72 than a Malibu or Torino or LTD to save about $100 a year in gas. Or you could buy a Vega and get the experimental motor rebuilt every 30k miles. You see the same marketing trick used for EVs today. You spen an extra $30,000 for a car that has serious travel limitations but you don't buy gas. A car ownership lifetime of gasoline 3000 gals. Gas would need to cost $10 to even break even. Salesmanship vs Logic.
I am not sure how much complacency there was in the UK. The Japanese government created a huge (and irresponsible) local market and restricts imports, giving Japanese makers critical volume.
@@mtntime1 x2 on that one. Quite pleased with the craftsmanship on many later vehicles, particularly starting around the late '00s and 2010s. Many really improved their fit and finish during that time, Ford in particular seemed to lead the way on that.
What killed the British bikes and almost Harley? A guy by the name of Edwards Deming goes to Japan after WWII and teaches them total quality management to hasten Japan's recovery. They adopt TQM in every aspect of their design through manufacturing processes and incrementally built better and better products. Of course American and British management couldn't be bothered because they saw marketing & sales and shareholder returns as more important than product quality. And the Japanese and South Koreans have been dominating the market since. What killed Triumph, stodgy old management who thought the party would never end. Until it did.
You are right on! Not just in motorcycle but in most industries as well. I had a good fortune of studying TQM from a Dr. Yoshida in college. He studied under Dr. Deming at George Washington University in the 70’s. After his involvement in manufacturing for the war efforts, Dr. Deming was ignored by the U.S. government to further TQM in the rebuilding the country. Instead, he was sent to Japan. There, he found the perfect scenario & cultural experiment in TQM. The highest honor for a company for quality product, production & manufacturing is called the Deming’s award. Dr Yoshida was the only professor, whom I know, on every weekend-sometimes the weekdays-traveling all over the US & the world consulting businesses on TQM. Thank you Gene for mentioning & recognizing the contributions of Dr. Deming. Excellent video, Bart. Function(Honda) v emotion(Triumph) is a toss-up; however, your son is right:gotta have both. Scribed. ✌🏼& 🏍
As a young Aussie I toured the western states of America starting in LA on a Honda 500 with beautiful paint job, extended forks and sissy bar in 1975 carrying camping gear. It was an ever reliable bike. In fact I learnt to ride on it. You can guess which one I think looks best. Later I bought another as a commuter bike in Melbourne, Australia and that was great too. Could always beat the traffic. Thanks for the report.
I agree with you about the Triumph's aesthetics. The British bikes of the 50s and 60s were among the most beautiful motorcycles I have ever seen. That said, if I were to buy a motorcycle and take up riding, I would probably buy a 4 stroke Japanese motorcycle. I'm just not interested in owning a bike that requires the level of upkeep as a vintage Triumph. I would consider a modern Brit bike, but only if they had the level of reliability that I would expect from a Japanese motorcycle.
"Besides maybe handling", and beauty. Ted Simon 'circumnavigated' the globe on a single carb Triumph 500. Triumphs never needed an electric right leg because they started on the first easy push of the kick starter. What killed the Triumph was the inability of the company to satisfy the Unions, as each section of the factory had a different labor union. That and, Honda poured a gazillion dollars into an advertising campaign that went You meet the nicest people on a Honda. I always thought that the 750K gas tank looked like a bread box. Great video, thanks for posting.
I was thinking recently the same thing. Honda and Kawasaki are making new "retro style" bikes that look like the 1970s CB750 and Kawasaki Z1000. And I'm thinking, that's kind of strange in a way, because those bikes weren't known for their styling or good looks when they came out. They were considered when they were new in the 1970s, to look like kitchen appliances.
Very well done. Even-handed and mostly accurate, this review notes that mechanically the Honda was superior in nearly every way. But it also points out that there's something intangible about the Triumph that catches the soul.
Honda for me. My first bike (my only bike so far, *_but I keep my license current_* ) was a used CM400T. I loved that bike. It was my only transportation and it never let me down. Ramona to El Cajon in 23 minutes. Rode it out to Phoenix, through summer monsoons, got the best ticket ever. Honda, all day, every day.
Hi bart - it's Big Rodders in Ireland. In 1973 I bought a Yamaha XS650 for £750 instead of the Honda CB500 that was priced at £900. I was earning £60 net per month so the price difference was the deciding factor. In 1979 when I owned a BMW 100/7 I had a test ride on a friend's Honda CB550. I was astounded by its smoothness, tractability from low revs and low fuel consumption. Overall, a captivating motorcycle and one I would have instantly swapped my Beemer for given half a chance.
I started riding in 73 in England. Mostly cheap old British Ariel, AJS & BSA. Newer Triumph & Norton's were sought after and I did ride a Speed Twin. In our neighbourhood was a biker called "Little Kev" he was quite disabled with polio but hung on to his 500-4 and rode fast. The howl from the Piper 4 into 1 exhaust was awesome.
The first time I saw a Honda 750 I thought aliens had landed, if Honda produced a modern retro 550/750 four I would buy one in a heartbeat, Triumphs were always great looking bikes but they were light years behind the Japanese, even Honda's 450 twin could out perform them....
My daily ride is a 1980 cb750 Custom survivor that I've had since the early 90s. Beautiful machine. No silly computers or fuel injection to spoil the relationship between man and machine.
I have a 1973 Honda CB 750 out in my garage right now , It's a lot of fun to ride and when I was 17 I had one of the funnest bikes on earth a 1975 Kawasaki KH1 500 the old 3 cylinder 2 stroke and I had that bike up to 135 mph and it still had more left and took it to the drag strip and stock it would do the 1/4 mile in 11 seconds , I like the older bikes and that's why I have a CB750 in my garage today
Bart, as someone who owned both of these bikes, the Triumph at 17 and the Honda at 18, I agree with everything you say. However, I don't know about the USA but in England the last iteration of the Triumph Daytona had twin carbs, a close ratio 5 speed gearbox and a front disc brake and could be tuned to produce 60 BHP. As a back road blaster, it could out perform the heavier Bonneville.
@@johnoneil6206 I think he's talking an all out race bike. The Bonneville 650 was only 52hp, so if the 500 tuned was 60hp, my guess is it wouldn't be too reliable@2hp/cubic inch!!!!!!
@@johnoneil6206 Not rear wheel power, at the crank and it could be done by race tuners, probably around 48 bhp at the wheel. How long the engine lasted was another thing. BTW a 750 Combat could also be tuned to produce a bloody sight more than 47 bhp. Between 58 and 68 BHP at the wheel. Again race spec and short life expectancy.
The Honda in the clip, does not have the genuine exhaust system, which consisted of FOUR mufflers, not the two on this bike. I owned one of these bikes, the first thing I did, was ditch the speedo and tacho to fit the 750 sized ones, bigger and easier to read at speed. the bike was as smooth as a swiss watch, no vibes an all, rear vision mirrors easy to see at any speed. On a long trip to our Pilbara area in the 70's, the high oil temp came on, was using recommended oil, Castrol at the time. Slowed down, light went out, on return home, fitted oil cooler wafer between oil filter and engine and oil radiator. Never again had any such issues. Chain and sprockets were the biggest wear and replacement components on the bike. The fuel consumption and too small a tank were also issues on long touring trips, had to carry spare gallon container at times, whilst Yamahas Suzukis all had better economy than my Honda. BUT the biggest win for me, after owning a BSA, was NO OIL LEAKS !
Ever try a bmw..just move your tushy it takes a turn..But my 750 would aniliate it once road openned up..i tossed my center stand it dragged scary as shit on long ramps.. Life chanes when it dragged.. Took it off that day..
Thank you for offering a very personal honest take on the difference between two motorcycles that are very different, coming from 2 very different eras & schools of motorcying
The Triumph 500 Daytona ruled its namesake racetrack for 30 years try taking a cb500 4-cylinder off road and see how far you get before you have to call for a road call.
@@juanrodriguez-ry6yt I said ruled Daytona which is why they called it the Daytona. And just like Edward Turner used to say all the time nor used to spend so much money on their racing program that they never improved thier street bikes.
Bought a '68 Triumph 500 in "72 just after graduating high school. It was a blast to ride, but you never knew if you were going to get to where you were headed. Not to mention you were taking your life into your own hands riding at night w/ the LUCAS lights! When the CB Honda hit the scene it was a game changer for sure! "What the devil was that that just blew by me' !?! Having said that, I currently own two "modern" Triumphs & just returned from a week long tour of Southern New Mexico/Az on my '12 Triumph Speedmaster. No oil leaks, no problems, great ride! Nice video!
Cool Vid! My Dad had a CB550-4 new in 1975, looked just like your Honda Cb500-4. Looking at your bike brings back a lot of Good Memories for me! Thanks.
The CB 500 was one of the most beautiful bikes to hit these shores, second only to the Kawasaki Z1 900. I had a CB 250, what a bike, I absolutely loved it.
I just acquired a cafe racer based on a CB750 from 1977. A more aggressive aesthetic suits the sound of the engine way better than the squareness, the tameness, of the original aesthetic. Given to choose between the Triumph and the stock CB500 in this video, I'd also go for the Triumph. But between a cafe racer CB500 and that same Triumph? I'd take the CB500.
An excellent series of presentations Bart . My experience with Honda's first four was something like when Chevrolet introduced 'turbo Fire' to the world . The Honda had an aircraft front break though , putting it squarely in the 'Oh WOW' category . Another contribution to Triumph was the longshoreman's strike in that year covering everything on eastern shores including gulf ports . I picked up my Bonneville in sixty nine deeply discounted for that sixty eight model . That memory is still one of my best of the best . . . That's what she said . LOL
Riding is a visceral thing. Also, like personal relationships, sometimes the idiosyncrasies and shortcomings help us to bond closer. Machines stimulate us in different ways, some vibrations, sounds, tickles and wind can annoy us or endear us. Having ridden everything since mini ones in the 60’s, some of the fondest memories are of the most break down prone bikes, like my iron head sporty I carried to and fro for 2 years. However, there is a place in my heart for the ‘69 cb 750, that I only changed oil , filters and rode for 2 years. I have a new Harley that is a beast and I couldn’t want more, yet I one for the shovel head I had briefly (spent more time fixing than riding). Or the xs11 that was a rocket ship or a kitten depending on how you rode it. Throw a leg over, ride and buy all you can (there are great deals on all kinds of old bikes now) and find out what pokes and prods push your buttons. Ride ride ride, and if you have to fix it, make it a party! Thank you for all your great vids, you are a true rider the story goes a non rider saw someone getting off a bike and said “ oh, I would never ride a bike! don’t you get cold and hot and sand and bugs and wind and rain and people trying to run you down? “ The bike pauses and smiles and says “ Yeah, ain’t it great!”
Loved and love the "Limies". I lived through the Japanese motorcycle invasion. Was sorry to see the Brits go home. Was scared HD would shut down, and almost did. I currently own two Harleys and one Yamaha stratoliner. Love them all. All bikes. I agree with all you're saying here. You get it!!
I've ridden all my life. Last was a totally re-habbed '71 Norton 850. All polished stainless fasteners, painted graphics (no stickers), bored carbs. Although not nearly as slick as my new BMW R1200, the Norton was one hell of a ride. And my favorite of all time.
There's no comparison, the Honda didn't leak, didn't numb your hands or feet with vibration after 15 minutes, could stop so hard the front wheel would howl and didn't break down. And yes, the review mirrors were crystal clear and usable. No bs, I lived it and I was there.....Now, a CB750 KO or even K1 were totally different. They would put hair on your chest with their power!!!
I had the K1 fang machine just for fun, perfect once you open up the muffler, You could retune them and do all sort of wonderful stuff to them. My brother's Norton Commando would catch me in the corners and I would overtake him going up the hill. The roar of those puppies was delightful.
Agree completely. I had a 1968 Triumph T100C and still have a 1970 Honda CB450. Two years apart in age and about 30 years apart in development. Honda is still perfectly usable in modern traffic and the Triumph looked cool but felt like a dinosaur.
I was in charge of service for our dealership when the CB450 first came out, funny looking tank and all, and to me, it was already a Brit bike 'killer'. Even though it only had a four speed, it was very smooth and would rev until tomorrow. The wheelbase was a little short but that wasn't a detraction at the time. Also, I was a new rider when the predecessor of the T500 came out as a 350cc and that was in '57. Very little was changed in the design from then on.
@@whalesong999 One of my favorite things about it is the very high rev range and by 1970 it had a front disc brake and five gears. Really love the bike even if it was eventually overshadowed by the 4-cylinder models.
I had a cb450 cam chain broke after I had it for three months after a Honda mechanic had rebuilt it I got half my money back the original cb450 with a four speed gearbox shook like a paint mixer the chief 500 was not an overboard 350 with a completely new design it had nothing to do with a 350 made 10 years prior to it being constructed. You can read the road test at Cycle World did on the motorcycle and they stripped it down to the engine cases to see how well it was built you can get parts easier for a fifty-year-old British motorcycle than for a 30 year old Japanese motorcycle now you have the Triumph C range your bike is geared for on and off road. My 73 Daytona with twin carb and rode gearing tops out at over 110 that's what the police officers radar said he was cool he let me go with a warning here we just talked about the bike for 20 minutes. Read Bert hopwood's what happened to the British motorcycle industry and you will get a clearer picture of the industrial Shenanigans and down online competency that went on all through the 70s the Japanese did not compete with the British Italians or the German, they competed with other Japanese company and that is how we got the Big 4
@@frankmarkovcijr5459 Yup, your last sentence makes the most sense. In terms of being where the showrooms competed though, that was where the Brit bikes began to lose in sales, hence losing out to the "big four". Design wise, it was becoming pretty clear that there were no real upgrades for the British machines in terms of engineering. Burying the transmission output sprocket behind the clutch needed to be changed, for just one thing. While there might not be direct carry-over of interchangeable parts from the "21" to the T500, the engineering was the same. That does not mean that I disparage the Triumphs, just that they lagged behind in development that was moving so quickly. They were a pleasant ride. Ironically, our first Rocket III in late '68 came with a sort of diaper made of sheet metal with an absorbent material under the engine unit IIRC to catch wayward oil drips. Nice touch, better than our Nortons at the time. The Japanese makers had to come up from being drubbed into submission by the war and wanted to prove their viability to a changing world. The British and the Americans had no such incentive since they'd "won" and would continue with traditional ways. The paths crossed very quickly. A Harley had a 90 day/4k mile warranty in '67 as I remember; our Suzukis had 12 month or 12k mile warranties.
Practically all of the British motorcycles outside of Bemus set had and outboard clutch you don't have to disassemble the whole primary to change a fresh rocket or you do is slacking the chain off and you just take the clutch basket out and then there's 5 screws and holes the cover on and bang there's your sprocket. Let me put it this way my 1980 CX500 Honda water cooled 4-valve Wonder with Cam chains lacock 10 years at 250,000 miles before the change broke and snapped the camshaft into and then tore through the water pump my low-tech 883 Harley Sportster hash 370000 miles on it and it's still going strong. I have not touched any of the internal engine working because I have not needed to do I've had to do simple stuff like the stator work out and wouldn't charge anymore at a quarter of a million miles but it lasted a quarter of a million miles and to me that's pretty good the camshaft in my TR6 both wore out and I had to split the cases to replace them while in there any bearing or bushing that was questionable got replaced and the flood trap got replaced with a new one because she to take it almost 50 years to fill up the old one everybody who has a pre-unit British motorcycle has a b that is 70 years old or more. Outside of a vintage show I never see any of the Japanese motorcycles I grew up with in the seventies except in the show. Now I would say most everybody in America learn how to ride a motorcycle on riding a little Honda Suzuki Kawasaki Cushman whatever but once you learn how to ride you want bigger and better you want to be able to h a u l girl around with you on trips and vacations two-up with luggage a Honda 4-cylinder specially the 750 Road hottest hell and would wear out change and sprockets like tires Honda made a list of all of the 750s problems for touring and solve them all with the Goldwing. Honda did not want to go to double overhead cams like Kawasaki Suzuki and Yamaha dead because they did not want it said that they were copying their competitors the last year 750 Honda had cams so abrupt they would mushroom the valves you could only go so far with a single cam before you have to go to a twin overhead cam
WTH? XS650, CB450 and the KZ750b dealt the death blow to the Brit bikes. Stone cold reliable. Then there were the triples. Boom. I'm not talking Trident...the XS killed on the flat track
I agree. I have a '75 CB550F Super Sport that I bought new in high school. It isn't running currently but I will bring her back to life with a complete frame off restoration before I take my last breath. I installed a set of Kerker 4 into 1 headers on the bike shortly after I bought her and to this day it's still one of the best sounding and running bikes I've ever encountered. Four years ago I bought a new 2014 CB1100 as it reminded me so much of the CB550F. It's about 100 pounds heavier with twice the power plus better brakes and suspension. I immediately installed Arrow headers to emulate the old 550. And just as I hoped it truly is a time machine taking me back 45 years as I ride the exact same roads. It will be something else to ride them back to back when I get the old girl back on the road.
@@gwilliamwallace Bet you will love the CB 550 when its done. I bought a 500 Four K last year for my first bike (dont See any mid 20 riding old bikes ;-) ), and it was a blast to ride. The sound is loud but way, way more pleasing than other bikes as it goes up rpms. Im now looking for a 350 Four or 400 Four as I want something bit smaller and less weight. And funnily the consumption was 4,5-5,5l - Thats actually really really good.
I had a 1956 500cc Triumph T100 for three years. Very similar to the one shown here, but it still had the separate gearbox, and the streamlined headlamp/instrument housing. The sound was the same - heavenly. Great bike. Much later, for seven years my ride was a 1982 500cc Honda GL500I Silverwing Interstate, another wonderful bike.
Does it make sense to compare a hedgehog with a rabbit? No, not really! The diffrence between these two bikes is similar. Technically they have nothing in common. The only way to see a comparsion between both should be the technical evolution from 1966 to 1969. The real counterpart to all the Triumph twins was the CB 450 from 1965.
Both great bikes. I’m around your age as well but my affinity is for the in-line 4s. I work as an engineer so I think prioritize function over form when it comes to these old bikes. I love my admittedly weird looking ‘81 xj Yamaha 550 in all its over engineered glory. I marvel at its DOHC and fancy induction control system. I feel Yamaha sometimes gets overlooked in the classics category because they just copied styling from Honda but some of their engineering was top notch.
I have an Yamaha 88 FJ1200 my mates all have Harleys and one a Triumph speed triple. My old girl is better engineered than them all and still pulls 230 + Kph no problem.
@@kevscranes my last bike was an 84 fj1100. Awesome. Felt like an extension of my mind, you just looked at the line you wanted to take and the machine did the rest. My taillight disappeared in the distance to more than a few SDPD patrol cars.
When the Yamaha RD250 and 350 LCs came out in the early 80s, they were a marvel, game changers in performance and all sorts of ways. They virtually made all the other bikes in any class obsolete overnight. Never had Honda been so outwitted and caught flat-footed. And they had ‘King’ Kenny Roberts dominating the 500GP class as the perfect advertisement. We all salivated over those machines haha
@@MrSummerblade rd250 made all bikes in any class obsolete? Maybe if you weigh 120lbs in leathers and helmet and are racing on hairpin turns. Thats a moped for nearly anyone else.
Good to hear that Mike came over to help you out. That’s what it’s all about. Thanks for posting (I have a ‘73 500Four sitting next to my ‘70 T100C). Love them both’ it totally agree with your assessment. Kudos to Mike and Jeff too.
You left out one thing. Jumping. Try to take the Honda through the air for say 15 yards .. not much fun. However, the Triumph will fly with ease. I could also go down the road with no hands .. even put my feet on the tack. Triumphs had a very low center of gravity and handled like a dream. You don't get that today. Even today the Bonneville is awesome just to look at.
I agree with you, modern bikes are so much more efficient and reliable and that's progress but to me they have no soul. I think the Triumph is beautiful and would love to own one just to look at it. Sadly because of my age I'm too scared to ride these days.
Quite right! By 1971 the Bonneville was uglified but the 500 still looked like a Triumph. You came to the same conclusion most riders did. No question the Honda was a better long-haul road bike. However, if you liked a hot rod over modern precision engineering, the Triumph had some advantages for blasting around backroads for a few hours, particularly on dirt or gravel. In a drop, the rigid steel foot peg mounts were like crash bars and the levers were steel.
I've owned and ridden all sorts of Japanese machines all my life but it got boring and I basically stopped owning motorcycles. I ran across an old Harley Sportster a while back and bought it having never owned one. It's got it's own idiosyncrasies that I never had to deal with on imported machines however the satisfaction in owning and riding the Harley far outweighs the shortcomings it presents. The look, the sound and the history just seems to satisfy my riding needs as never before. So, I completely understand your feelings towards the British bike as opposed to the Japanese one.
I grew up with a lot of motorcycles from the 1960s and early 70s. Not in a good way, we mostly got old street bikes and chopped things off them and installed knobby tires and used them for trail riding and hill climbing. I had several Honda 305 scramblers, uncountable CB and SL 350s, Most of the Suzukis were TS or TC. The Yamaha's were mostly DT 125 and 250s. I wish I had some of those bikes back today.
For me it's the CB all day long although I think the twin's burble wins slightly over the inline 4's roar. I see you notched back the rear brake actuator arm ... nice.
The Honda CB500/4 had the same single pot front brake fitted to the CB250, the CB360 and the CB400/4. It really was one pot on a swinging arm which was sprung against a stop. The other pad was not powered at all. Not too bad when new but deteriorated rapidly when subjected to the corrosive salt of a British winter resulting in a seized pivot post and half the expected braking power. We were teenagers so these bikes were our "daily drive". I worked in a machine shop and biking friends came to me for help. I'd press out the pivot pin and polish it. The brake swing arm would be reamed clean if sufficiently bad. The key modification was to fit a grease nipple to the swing arm. If you could pump grease until it came out of the top and bottom of the pivot, the brake worked correctly. As an aside, I have always found a decent properly adjusted twin leading shoe drum to be every bit as effective as a single disc. Just a bit of a bugger to adjust.
The same period Japanese 350cc 2 strokes (Yamaha R5, Suzuki T350 Rebel,, Bridgestone 350GTR & Kawasaki S2 350) were already slightly faster & quicker off the mark, than both these 4 stroke 500cc bikes.
Both are beautiful, and both sound great in there own ways. For me it would come down to reliability. If my W650 leaked oil, I would upgrade to a bike that didn't.
my cb750 custom had no center chamber it ran strait to 4 exhaust tips..At a high rev it was a diffo bike.. An animal.. what a change.. Quiet at normal but damn it changed at high revs..
I just noticed You had a dish underneath the Triumph to catch the oil, that is the most annoying part of the triumph and You never knew if You could reach Your destination. That's why I decided to buy an H2 triple, yes I was a hooligan, that's why I tuned the tripel to the limit. I am cooled down now. Most roads I used are prohibited for 40 Years for Motor Cycles. I am old now and I like to drive motorcycles even if I have to get a motorized wheelchair. Thanks for Your video, I enjoyed it. 😁😁😁
If your Triumph is indeed a 1968 model, the single carburetor indicates it's a "C" version as does the smaller headlight, BTW, they had 38 HP. The Daytona (T100R) model with dual carburetors had 41 HP and was a different beast altogether. It appears your bike's exhaust may have been changed as in 1968, every T100C I've seen, had dual high pipes on one side. I'm speaking of when they were new as this is when I started riding and a good friend was the local Triumph dealer. As far as leaking bikes, If you take care of the Triumph, it won't leak. It's just a matter of becoming one with the machine. None of my British bikes leaked or started in more than 1-2 kicks. Owning a bike back then required the rider to actually learn about the bike, do your own maintenance and get the most out of the bike. I've never rode a Japanese bike of the same vintage which shifted or handled better than a British bike, I've owned both when they were new. BTW, It's my understanding, there were a few late 1973 Daytona's which were fitted with e-start at the factory.
My Bonneville did not vibrate or leak oil, and had the prettiest purr and smoothest ride. Like most riders from back in the day, we rode each other's bikes. I road that 750, and the screaming K500s, and the wobbly yamahas. My Honda 305 Dream, beautiifully ugly, just ran and ran. But it was the bonneville that I dream of.
Great video, also I will always to be a fan of twin 360° engine sounds because the sound they produce so great compared with twin 180°. The triumph looks so better too despite the oil leaking from the engine 👍 love it
Back in the 70s remember riding first Honda 750 , it was a magic carpet tide . The yamaha RD were also beautiful bikes . Another favourite was the Suzuki Gt380
By the time the Honda CB500 came to the UK at the Motorcycle show in 1972 the Triumph 500 was already about finished, hardly any were made after 1973 due to the situation with Triumph that led to the Meriden cooperative and the long closure of the factory and production. Bikes like the Honda CB450 introduced in 1965 were ones that ate into their market, before the CB500 came to be. Yes the CB500 was a great motorcycle better in every way than the outdated Triumph, but the collapse of the BSA group and the sit in and strike at Meriden is what killed the Triumph 500, not that it's death was not imminent.
@@real_Papa_Roach I had a CB500T which I really liked even though they were poorly rated at the time, but as you say the price and relative civility of these machines had Triumph beaten for the average person. I have a 73 Triumph Tiger 750 in my collection, it's a fun motorcycle but in comparison to the vintage Japanese bikes I own it really feels like what it is, a bike from a completely different era.
given the choice in 1973 of a Triumph Adventurer or Daytona or CB500 many purchased a Honda but with hindsight how many would change their mind now? one is just an old and somewhat boring Honda no one wants you'd struggle to give away. The 500 Triumphs are still very much alive and sought after crown jewels so the premise of the video is based on a coincidental comparison that was only there for a brief moment in time as one ended it's long and cram packed life of achievements and the other stood about losing it's grandad inspired 4-4 silencers and wobbly shocks to re-appear later in Barts garden wondering if it should cut the grass and probably hoping it gets turned into a 100% original example or a custom / bobber so it can actually have some fun and get noticed or admired half as much as the Triumph is without changing anything, a new pair of Shocks from Taiwan aren't going to cut it beyond being a usable motorcycle which it has been since it left the factory with 50,000 others in various pretty colours, at least three survived, a green one, a blue one and a gold one. Now if it was a 1975 Honda 400F or 400 Super Sport that really did hit a sweet spot then the Triumph may have run away and hid for a while but either way the Triumph has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.
@@mc2594 There's definitely something to what you say, a big difference for me as a retrospective is that now my vintage Triumph is a toy to play with and enjoy on summer days, the Hondas I had back in the day were everyday transport, that makes a big difference over which one is the better choice, in which era.
I think a more accurate title would be, how the British motorcycle Industry killed itself. They did try to innovate with the BSA and Triumph triples, but the basic problems in leakage and reliability were never resolved. They were running a losing technology catch up race and lost out to the foreign companies they fell behind. No more uncle Joe Lucas electrics. No more Amal tickle me carbs. No more crap switch gear. No more tappet covers unscrewing themselves on the road. Don't get me wrong. I loved my BSAs and Triumphs when I had them for all their faults. The first time I owned a Honda CB 750 F1 though, it was where have you been all my life? I do get it why people still love the old British classics though. They had a sound, beauty and handing all of their own. I cherish the memory, but never missed the dirty fingernails.
@@jbkstafford Just to torture you a little, 😀 it is a 1974 with dual disk brake front end. I also have a '74 Eldorado Police Special, also disk brake front end. As I get older I ponder when I will sell the Sport because I prefer riding the Eldorado now. Getting old stinks!
@@lint2023 I just looked up the police special. Oh my golly gosh. What a thing of beauty. Nothing like that here in Australia. I suggest mounting as artwork on your wall. Keep forever with a shrine surrounding it and candles burning.
@@jbkstafford The artwork description works well and I renewed them nicely a long time ago. I won best Italian in show once with the Sport. I've had the Sport 30 years and the Eldorado 40 years. That seems unbelievable now that I say it. I've always had a yearning to visit Australia. Best wishes from USA.
I agree Japanese bikes were more technically advanced and used more modern manufacturing techniques which the likes of Triumph, BSA etc could not match, one of the main reasons was lack of money for development, Japanese industry had millions of dollars pumped into it because it had been destroyed in world war two, unfortunately the British bike industry didn't have that luxury, I worked briefly for Velocette, they were the same, they spent large amounts of money on development just before the second world war and had no money left after it, Britain was virtually bankrupt after six years of war, our industry had suffered extensive bomb damage during the blitz by the Luftwaffe, but look at Triumph motorcycles these days, with the right investment it is now a world class manufacturer, it's fair to say that it has learned a lot from Japanese manufacturing methods. As a case in point about how much more advanced Japanese bikes were, I had a 1949 Royal Enfield J2 500cc single, my mate had a Honda CB161, it was much faster than the Enfield and as mentioned in the video didn't leak oil, no contest.
@@dknowles60 I'm not making excuses, the fact is that British industry had no money for development so kept banging out the old designs based on pre 1939 technology, the Japanese had brand new machinery and factories and had billions of dollars pumped into them, there was also a culture in the UK in the 1960s and 70s of union unrest so new working practices were hard to adopt without strikes. The Japanese have taught us all a lesson in how to build modern, reliable bikes and cars.
Sadly Triumph didn't invest for the future. Honda was just a better engineered machine. As I Brit I'm pleased John Bloor managed to resurrect the brand
I don't know about USA but in UK Triumph had customers with brand loyalty who would not have considered buying a Honda. The 1970s was a bad time for manufacturing in general in UK. The Triumph Trident never worked as well as it should as the tooling was antiquated and not designed for 3 cylinder engines. The same with the Triumph Bandit, lack of investment meant that they just never managed to get it into production. If you think the CB500 has good brakes, try riding it in the rain!
I bought a new '72 CB500 in late '73. Same color as the one in this video. Over the next 4 years, I rode it from MA to OR/CA and back twice, and finally rode it to TX where I sold it in '76 w/ about 65k miles. It never failed me. I could start it w/ one hand. I went through 2 sets of stock exhaust due to rust until I replaced it w/ a Hooker header. I put a Vetter Windjammer on it for comfort. I removed the throttle spring to make long distance riding more comfortable. It was a great bike. But by 65k miles, it was completely worn out.
One correction! The Triumph 500 indeed NEVER had an electric start. For some reason the later Daytonas looked like they had electric start but they didn't. Good thing I have you guys to keep me in line!
So the 1973 triumph is literally the same as the one in the video
@@virusdumb Not exactly. The 1973 Triumph Daytona 500 had twin carbs (not necessarily a good thing 😮), twin leading shoe front brake, twin instrument (speedometer + tachometer) instrument cluster.
I don't see much in the way of pre-1970s machines here but I think that the Honda CB77 Superhawk deserves a mention. It was produced from 1961 to 1966, to be replaced by the CB350. This 305 cc twin came with electric start and a good one at that. It is rated at 28 HP at the rear wheel, somewhat less than the 50 HP or so mentioned for the Triumph, but it too will go 100 mph. I know from experience in the early 70s when I rode and raced against others with Triumph 500s and other British bikes that the 305 was not outclassed by the 500 and could beat it. On top of that it is much more reliable and, of course, doesn't leak oil. The CB77 didn't kill Triumph but it is the first in the line of Japanese bikes to match or exceed its performance at a better price. And, the large twin leading shoe brakes work well, better than the Triumph's based upon your description.
I enjoy your series. Thanks for your effort.
@@kshred3043 Well the 68 T100R had that as well, this is just a T100C. but yeah better brakes and also the exhaust is a bit different
You young guys need to get your facts straight, no E-Start on 500 TRI !!!
The biggest advantage the triumph had over the Honda, was that it never needed the oil changed. Due to oil leaks it was contunually receiving clean oil top ups.
😅
They had pans under them at the dealerships. I bought the CB 500 as my first bike, $1350 new.
😂😂😂😂😂
They only leaked oil until EVERYONE flatsanded the cases and put them back together with better ( usually homemade ) gaskets. What? You didn't do that, too? Come on. Everyone did and still do it!
@@mountainmandale1587 Not on Honda's or Kawi's that I knew of.
After getting my BA degree from Michigan State in 1973, I rode my '73 CB500 from Michigan out in the Rockies, covering 9 states in 3 weeks. I rode with a group of friends most having CB750's. My old Honda ran flawlessly through the trip. Wish that I still had that bike.
Honda killed it with it's dependability, perhaps the most reliable bikes ever produced- the CB line is tops.
So true. It just is. Reliability is everything.
@@Ian-ny6ux A bike can be as enjoyable to ride as you like, but it's not enjoyable if it breaks down.
Plastic is more reliable than wood.. wood has beauty, plastic doesn't. If function was all that was important, we'd all be chasing functional women. 😄
So you liked the single round “puck”disk on the 70’s CB750? 😖 That thing was noisy on all 4 of mine.
Reliability. The main purpose of the bike which is to get us from point a to b is what keeps most owners/enthusiasts interested. Nevermind the other means like cars or public transportation or other more reliable bikes. That is why some of us in other parts of the world bought old Honda's in the first place because it's still reliable and relevant upto this day. Otherwise what's the point if you can't ride a beautiful bike around town? We can always have other bikes in our garage but personally I'm always going to have one Honda in there. Old CB's are just legendary, good-looking and makes revving sounds just as good as any other newer bikes in this year because classic never goes out of style. As long as the parts and prices are reasonable that is. I'll stick to that.
A friend of mine back in 1970 had a Triumph Daytona (500cc). As I was a pillion passenger, I held onto the rear crash bars. The vibration that came through the crash bars made me feel like I was getting an electrical shock with pins and needles going through my hands. In 1973 he sold the Triumph and bought a Honda 750.
750/4 a wise move.
Sounds like a Harley
Owning a Triumph is like having a piece of a better time
@@asacarrick1440 I agree Ive ridden Harley Ironheads and Shovelheads, but theres nothing classier than a clean pre 71 Triumph.
I rode with a guy for years that had a early sixties 650 Tiger. Granted the bike got plenty of attention everywhere we pulled in. As you said, it looked and sounded great. He loved the bike. He let me ride it once. It had a right side shifter. That took a little bit to get used to. The buzz throughout the bike at speed convinced me I never wanted to ride it again. One day after a cold start with the bike sitting on the kickstand, I watched a nut and bolt loosen and fall to the ground that held the drive chain guard. I don't know if I would give any one bike credit for killing a British bike line. I believe the British motorcycle and car industry killed itself by simply doing nothing, letting the world pass them by.
So true. I recall the mid/late 70s in the UK, no one was even thinking about buying a British bike. They were way out of date, inferior in every way.
Kinda Like 70's GM in that regard
@leomonster1973 As I remember, they all had their issues. The Japanese vehicles were right straight out of the dealership, unlike their American counterparts that had relied on the dealers to fix the problems. This was a normal practice way before the seventies, and we didn't know better. Chrysler lean burn, the Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega, just starting the long list. The Japanese kicked our ass for sure. GM felt that whatever they built, Americans would happily purchase. You are right.The seventies were a wake-up call.
@@williamwintemberg competition is supposed to breed excellence into the competitors…
The end result being that the consumer wins because his choices are better and cheaper across the board…
Except in America, when the competition becomes to fierce from foreign companies, the home teams go to the government and ask for protectionist restrictions. Harley knows all about that.
The older companies saw the influx of Reliable, cheap, reliable, fast, reliable, easy to maintain, reliable, Japanese bikes and didn’t plow any money into R&D to one up them…
I think you'll find that the Honda CB250/CB350 parallel twins, released in 1968, had more to do with Triumph's demise than your 500. The CB250 could almost get up to 100 mph, while the CB350 could do about 110 mph. Both had a 5 speed gearbox & reliability that British bikes could only dream of. They paved the way for the CB750 that arrived a year later.
I own a cb350 and the only way it can do 110 mph is if your on the downside of a very big hill with the wind at your back. Or close to the event horizon of a black hole. I don't think it was japanese bikes that ruined the british motorcycle industry, I think it was greedy shareholders not spending money to update 50 year old tooling. They could have carried on as a premium brand making a modest amount of motorcycles at a decent profit, much like ducati or bultaco or maico or husqvarna at the time.
The CB 250 up jetted free flow 2 into 1 exhaust and K&Ns flat out could just manage a true 87mph the speedo had a mind of its own. The CB 350 never made the magic 100. 98mph was as good as the average enthusiast could manage with all the usual above mentioned upgrades. That is assuming the cam chain didn't snap or eat the tensioning slippers first.. I loved and hated my CBs in equal measures
I had a CB250 and it was a great bike in many ways BUT Honda HP is not equivalent to anyone else's HP. It might have reached almost 90 mph on an optimistic speedo. It was very thirsty for its power output. The gearbox was TERRIBLE. First was way, way, way too high and the gap between 4th and 5th belonged on a race track not on the road. It was also very sticky with a pair of very short lever arms to move the gear shift rearwards. The 180 crank created chain snatch below 3000 rpm where the 175 Honda was unstallable with a 360 crank.
I found an old Honda 305 dream and it was a far better bike. Much more efficient with a similar power output and speed. It only needed four gears. The handling wasn't as good. But overall it showed what went wrong with the newer Honda's. The newer honda had better handling but the engine was disappointing until I dismantled it and faired the cylinder head to the head gasket and the cylinder. Small mismatches prevented it from reaching its potential. Equally the rings in both it and a friends Honda 750 don't last as long as I would expect. But people buy on the illusion, not reality. They discover that later. I met my wife because she bought the honda 90 scooter and they claimed 60 mph top speed. It didn't do that so she came to a motorcycle rally to ask us what was wrong. Luckily she came to talk to me. And more than 50 years later we ride together every day. If the bike HAD done what was claimed I may never have met her. So I have to thank Honda for lying and selling her the wrong bike under false pretences.
He says the 500 Triumph would go 110. My Bonneville 650 would only go 110. What about the 305 Super Hawk or CB77, those were pretty fast at about 110mph.
@@michaeljoesmith3977 the T100 official top end was 91 the t110 Daytona what's 105 a very good properly setup t120 oil in tank not in frame could just pull 115 to 120 depending how it had been set up and if it had been blueprinted
The Triumph motorcycle design department's motto was, "What was good enough for the grandfather is good enough for the grandson".
That I think is where they went wrong. Their bikes were selling so they just kept turning out the same old designs without a thought that another country might come out with something better. Well that's just what happened. The other country being Japan.
Harley until recently!
Not just Triumph but BSA Norton and all the rest really....
I think that British bikes were built to a price and Hondas were more expensive but also reliable and stuff
I remember hearing that when Hondas first came to Britain a Benly 125 cost more than a British 500. But people bought them anyway because of their reputation for reliability.
Unit Triumphs don't leak oil if they are put together properly. I've had my T140 for 29 years and have never had to put a drip tray under it in the garage.
What is this unicorn you speak of?
I went from a parallel twin to the 550 Honda four. I couldn't believe the difference. The smoothness was great and made long trips less fatiguing. with the twin you could sortakinda tell something was behind you but with the Honda you could actually see what it was.
AND it stayed behind you..
Fair enough, that is correct, no vibes. Heavier on fuel was the tradeoff. They were like moving a barge around on the highway.
Sorta like kinda...you missed " like"
@@asacarrick1440 LOL No where I'm from we skip the like.
The Triumph engine was designed and first built in 1938 and remained virtually unchanged apart from increase in capacity right up to the 80's Bonneville T140. Their downfall was the management not being willing to come up with a new design. They went up to three cylinders with the Trident T150 and T160 but when one of their engineers produced a prototype 4 cylinder engine nicknamed the Quadrant and when it was shown to the management team they allegedly replied that they could not see than anybody would want a four cylinder motorcycle. Within a very short space of time Honda produced four cylinder bikes from 350, 400, 500, 550 and 750. Triumph lost out due to poor management decisions and lack of foresight more than anything else.
Bad management killed of BSA and Triumph as BSA owned Triumph. The first trident P1 ran in 1964 and could have been in production by 1966 but management didn't want to know. Only when news of the CB750 reached management did things progress but BSA wanted there own version requiring different frame and crank cases which delayed production and put up costs. The P1 looked like a Bonneville but the design was putout Ogilve Design who came up with the slab tank and Raygun silencers which the USA hated which resulted in beauty kits being sent to the USA. The Quadrent was never a prototype as it was two Trident engines with a cylinder cut of each one and joined together, crank was pressed assembly and a overhang on one side of the frame to keep the drive in line , with a mid state of tune due to the crank assemble it did 125mph. what was being developed was the T180 of which 3 engines were built, one was tuned for racing which is now owned by Steve Brown
And then along came the Z1.....
I had that experience in an unrelated industry. Within a couple of years they had licensed in a design!
Triumph also made a two stroke engine but again triumph Management put their heads in the sand. Wanna see it go to New milton hampshire uk, sammy millers museum.
@@carolrowley9868 is this the same bike where the management asked the designer if the engine could use existing barrels and the designer said no?
I find it amazing that both of your vintage bikes are in amazing condition. I wish you many years of enjoyment with your bikes.
"....The "feedback" is so important. As a long time rider and service professional, I can't help but recall taking out the shop owner's BSA Rocket III a few times and totally enjoyed it. It was no Z1 Kawasaki or GT750 Suzuki but it's quality of "feel" could not be disparaged.
THIS!
The Brit bikes weren't the fastest by the time the CB750 came out, but you could ride one hard on curvy roads and they just became part of you. Very unlike the Honda, and especially the Kawasaki 750, which would go great in a straight line, but kill you on a twisty mountain road.
If all you wanted to do was go fast in a straight line, then get a CB Honda or the big Kaw triple. If you wanted to really RIDE hard, a Brit bike was hard to beat.
I love Harleys too, but that is a different kind of riding altogether. Cruse and hear the thump as opposed to tame the windy roads on a Trumpet or Norton.
It's easier for me to choose a bike to meet my needs if I ignore such irrelevant factors as standing quarter or 0-60 times. Fuel economy matters (I have a 109Km each way commute) but I'm not concerned with power as long as it's adequate.
@@bertmeinders6758 The "thrill factor" seems to be driving so many to want performance over function. By the time the '70s came around, there wasn't a bike we sold whose drum brakes weren't adequate for safe riding and stopping distances. When the front disk brake became the norm, I felt that any brake that could make the front tire howl was good enough. Now, the quest is to have brakes that can stand up to repeated punishment which really is not necessary on a commuter bike.
When I got my first job after I left the service I found one of these CB500s. Great bike. I used it to go to work, ride around Shreveport and to run down to Houston where my mom and dad were living. The bonehead i bought it from had cut off the exhaust tips and the noise drove me nuts. In Shreveport you could ride a bike all year, you just needed a good coat( I had liberated a.field jacket from the Marine Corps.) and you had to pick your days. The bike just never failed. Keep good tires on and change the fluids when the service manual said to and you can still find running examples now that it’s. Fifty years later.
I have to argue with “ the triumph just looks better.” I had a Norton 750 for a little while in Guam in 64. It was gorgeous but, to me, the Honda 500 with the seeping pipes and small piston set and killer tank shape were captivating to me.
Love those drip catchers under the Triumph! Takes me back, since I had a 60s vintage TR6. Another Triumph feature was their habit of shaking themselves to bits. Thanks for some oil-stained memories, and a great channel!
My dad helped me when I was 15 to buy a Triumph 500 in 1975 for $275. I never owned a CB 500 but I did have a CB550 a year later. Wish I had all the bikes I ever owned.
Hmmm. i had a few bikes i regret i bought them.
@@drhkleinert8241 I do too, but wouldn't mind having them again for nostalgic reason.
You and me both, I often see how much some of the bikes I've owned are making on eBay now, if I'd kept them all I'd be sitting on a fortune (I'd also need a bloody big garage).
Don't beat yourself up. When I see the current prices for the Bultacos, Ossas, Montessas and Czs I owned, I can barely sleep at night.
Both my father and brother owned a CB500 and both held the same views-smooth,well balanced and very stable handling
I work in a motorcycle museum. There are way more Triumphs there than Hondas, perhaps because it's easier to keep the Hondas running :) Then there are the oil spill from the british bikes in general compared to the japenese...
My 1980 Benelli 900 Sei was based on the Honda CB500F, in 1972 Benelli's engineers added an extra cylinder on each end of the CB500F crank and they created the 750 Sei, after a two year delay the Benelli's six cylinder machine went on sale in 1974, producing a road going six cylinder motorcycle was a world first for Benelli. Between 1974 and 1978 Benelli produced 3200 units of the 750 six, in 1979 the motor was bored and stroked to create the 900 Sei which was in production between 1979 and 1989, but only 1863 of the 900 sixes were ever produced, so it is a rare piece of motorcycle history.
Cool bike. I remember first seeing one 45 years ago and noting the resemblance to the CB500 though with slightly canted cylinders. They sure do sound sweet. Those were the days of the Laverda twins and triples too. Wish I could go back and relive them.
A mate of mine who is a Brit bike fan had a couple of T-shirts back in the '70s. One featured a Gold Wing and the slogan, "Honda, from the people who brought you Pearl Harbour" and the other had a Lightning 650cc and the legend, "BSA - the world is my drip tray".
In the 70s, my buddy had a BSA 250, I had 71 RD 350. I knew his bike had more issues, but, I loved seeing it run. ( still have my RD 350)
This takes me back! 37 years ago I purchased a bike from a friend who had built it from a collection of various Honda parts - it was a 500/4 engine and frame, but the forks and fuel tank were from a slightly later 550/4, whilst the clocks were from a 750/4 I believe
The frame was bright red, and the tank was white with a matching red stripe
It was my only daily transport as I didn't have a car licence for another 3 years so I rode that thing all year round
Loved it.
He had also fitted one of the original Yoshimura 4 into 1 pipes, and to this day I've never heard a better sounding 4 cylinder exhaust...
It did have a few downsides though
The electric start would never work from cold if it wasn't the middle of summer
The bike would cut out on 2 cylinders after about 20 minutes in the rain and the vibration although unnoticeable at first would gradually turn your little finger on both hands numb after 45 minutes or so
Handling wasn't great either but I loved it
The FrankenHonda!
The Japanese killed the British bikes because if British arrogance. They didn’t think they had to change.
I read that Edward Turner (designer of the Triumph Speed Twin, Ariel Square Four, and Daimler SP250 V8 engines) was sent circa 1956 by Triumph to Japan to assist a Japanese licensee. When he returned, he reported to the Triumph board that there was trouble brewing in Japan. They replied, "Oh no, dear boy, the Japanese build only small bikes. Besides, they don't know our market."
I think that he made a second trip to Japan c 1959 and met with the same indifference upon his return.
It was already too late.
@Alfred Wedmore Thanks for clearing that up. I never clearly understood the postwar relationship between BSA and Triumph.
I do though recall reading that Turner was sent to Japan twice regarding license issues and that his British colleagues dismissed his reports of impending competition from Japan. I read this decades ago, so I've forgotten the details.
British needed a new motor long before Hondas arrived 360° paralle twin was outdated WW2 hindered development in British Auto industry across the board 1930's designs used well into post-war period Electrics on Brit bikes awful 'Damned good headlight Just dont ride at night', Joe Lucas
@Alfred Wedmore Latest paralle twin designs use 270°crankshafts
The 60's-era Triumphs (650s ad 500s) were the most beautiful bikes ever made, in my opinion. Love everything about them, their sound, the way they ride, etc. The most beautiful of all were the ones with the stainless fenders, again, in my opinion. I also love those CB 500's, though. I think they were quite handsome, but in a completely different way. In other words, I agree with everything you said about these two bikes.
In 1975, Dave Minton said that, as when fully fuelled, the CB500 wasn't much lighter than the CB750. He said that Honda had made it a more agile bike, learning from mistakes made with the 750. Probably right.
I remember in the early sixties when the Honda bikes arrived in my country. They really put the local product to shame when it came to engineering. I was in my first job so the new Japanese bikes were out of my reach. I rode a 1957 350cc AJS single at the time but I coveted the Honda 125 Benly and 250 Dream (there was a 305cc bike also but I don't know what that was called, I guess a CB77). In those days the Triumph was known for its engine but the frame was thought too flexible (some folks took the Triumph engine and put that in a Norton feather bed frame for the best of both worlds). I don't remember much sympathy for the manufacturers of the British bikes (or for the British car manufacturers that followed the same path a little later), they had not invested in the future, turning out the same old tired designs for decades and by the time they woke up it was too late.
Nowadays I run an Indian made 650cc Royal Enfield (which I like a lot).
They made a 305 dream as well
England had been bombed almost out of existence, and I think maybe they were spending their money to get back in business and didn't have the choices Japan had. They should have sent MacArthur to rebuild the British.
@@algentry1 Well I'm no expert on this stuff but as I understand it Japan was pretty much bombed around the clock by the US, culminating in a couple of Atom bomb drops. After the war the US poured a lot of time and money into getting Japan back on its feet. Not so much the UK. One thing the Japanese did have going for them post WW2 was not spending huge amounts of money on the military (likewise Germany), that was forbidden while the British had to cope with a rapidly self dismantling Commonwealth of nations and its choice of its own nuclear deterrent (which was not cheap). The British also had to pay back the US for much of the war materials help they had proffered prior to 1941 i.e. from 1939.
@@dogphlap6749 - well said, also aloof management and politics played a part plus clueless money wasting on models like the Triumph Tina and Ariel 3 making Japanese bikes all the more welcome in the UK by the 1970's, the Japanese changed the whole game and made bikes fashionable again while BSA were still making the Bantam thinking about moving the spark plug to the centre of the head, the choice of 22 Japanese 125's killed that relic stone dead, thank god.
It still doesn't diminish the T100 being a very fine and versatile motorcycle that could take a man round the World, win Trophy after Trophy and two Daytona 200's as well as lend itself to the basis of the Tridents and Rocket 3's which ruled the Daytona 500 for a good few years eventually competing directly with the Honda CB750 in race trim, more the stuff of immortal legend than killed by a CB500 .. unless it died laughing at the Honda's original 4 silencers? quite possible. The UK was actively involved with the Japanese, Barry Sheene won two Grand Prix's for Suzuki, Belfast university were doing race work for Yamaha and more importantly we were buying their Bikes and enjoying them, and still do after long restorations.
The 305cc Honda was also called' Dream'.
The quality comparison reminds me a lot of what happened with American automakers when reliable, efficient Japanese cars came to market. Pretty crazy how much complacency there was with existing American (or British) mfgs that became immediately apparent!
Btw, you're right about opinions--I think the Honda is SOOO much nicer looking, haha.
A fad hit in 1971+ for tiny cars. At the same time US regulations emerged to cripple Detroit and British existing cars.
Everything from Cutlass/Falcon up in US cars were solid and much more roadworthy in the late 60s than JapOboxes and MGs/Minis at the time. The 1965 Cadillac, Imperial and Lincolns were fantastic cars.
The problem was trying to redesign a big car into a tiny car. The Vega and Pinto took drastic and stupid design shortcuts to make a $2200 and $1995 base. 4cyl engines hadn't been built in numbers in Detroit since WW2. Labor them down with cheap automatics and AC and stuff in a 20 year old gas tank design to a hatchback.
All to make a car that looked like the fad. Gasoline was 38c and up to $1.40 by 79 so everyone was encouraged to buy economy boxes to save gas....but it didn't really make any cost sense.
You paid $1500 more for more spartan and cramped Datsuns in 72 than a Malibu or Torino or LTD to save about $100 a year in gas. Or you could buy a Vega and get the experimental motor rebuilt every 30k miles.
You see the same marketing trick used for EVs today. You spen an extra $30,000 for a car that has serious travel limitations but you don't buy gas. A car ownership lifetime of gasoline 3000 gals. Gas would need to cost $10 to even break even.
Salesmanship vs Logic.
Of course that's no longer true. My Chevy Trailblazer is approaching 300,000 virtually trouble free miles. Bulletproof American dependability.
I am not sure how much complacency there was in the UK. The Japanese government created a huge (and irresponsible) local market and restricts imports, giving Japanese makers critical volume.
@@mtntime1 x2 on that one. Quite pleased with the craftsmanship on many later vehicles, particularly starting around the late '00s and 2010s. Many really improved their fit and finish during that time, Ford in particular seemed to lead the way on that.
What killed the British bikes and almost Harley? A guy by the name of Edwards Deming goes to Japan after WWII and teaches them total quality management to hasten Japan's recovery. They adopt TQM in every aspect of their design through manufacturing processes and incrementally built better and better products. Of course American and British management couldn't be bothered because they saw marketing & sales and shareholder returns as more important than product quality. And the Japanese and South Koreans have been dominating the market since. What killed Triumph, stodgy old management who thought the party would never end. Until it did.
You are right on! Not just in motorcycle but in most industries as well. I had a good fortune of studying TQM from a Dr. Yoshida in college. He studied under Dr. Deming at George Washington University in the 70’s. After his involvement in manufacturing for the war efforts, Dr. Deming was ignored by the U.S. government to further TQM in the rebuilding the country. Instead, he was sent to Japan. There, he found the perfect scenario & cultural experiment in TQM. The highest honor for a company for quality product, production & manufacturing is called the Deming’s award. Dr Yoshida was the only professor, whom I know, on every weekend-sometimes the weekdays-traveling all over the US & the world consulting businesses on TQM. Thank you Gene for mentioning & recognizing the contributions of Dr. Deming.
Excellent video, Bart. Function(Honda) v emotion(Triumph) is a toss-up; however, your son is right:gotta have both. Scribed. ✌🏼& 🏍
As a young Aussie I toured the western states of America starting in LA on a Honda 500 with beautiful paint job, extended forks and sissy bar in 1975 carrying camping gear. It was an ever reliable bike. In fact I learnt to ride on it. You can guess which one I think looks best. Later I bought another as a commuter bike in Melbourne, Australia and that was great too. Could always beat the traffic. Thanks for the report.
I agree with you about the Triumph's aesthetics. The British bikes of the 50s and 60s were among the most beautiful motorcycles I have ever seen. That said, if I were to buy a motorcycle and take up riding, I would probably buy a 4 stroke Japanese motorcycle. I'm just not interested in owning a bike that requires the level of upkeep as a vintage Triumph. I would consider a modern Brit bike, but only if they had the level of reliability that I would expect from a Japanese motorcycle.
Honda arrived at the TT in 1958......two years later they started slaying british iron.
"Besides maybe handling", and beauty. Ted Simon 'circumnavigated' the globe on a single carb Triumph 500. Triumphs never needed an electric right leg because they started on the first easy push of the kick starter. What killed the Triumph was the inability of the company to satisfy the Unions, as each section of the factory had a different labor union.
That and, Honda poured a gazillion dollars into an advertising campaign that went You meet the nicest people on a Honda. I always thought that the 750K gas tank looked like a bread box. Great video, thanks for posting.
I was thinking recently the same thing. Honda and Kawasaki are making new "retro style" bikes that look like the 1970s CB750 and Kawasaki Z1000. And I'm thinking, that's kind of strange in a way, because those bikes weren't known for their styling or good looks when they came out. They were considered when they were new in the 1970s, to look like kitchen appliances.
Very well done. Even-handed and mostly accurate, this review notes that mechanically the Honda was superior in nearly every way. But it also points out that there's something intangible about the Triumph that catches the soul.
Honda for me. My first bike (my only bike so far, *_but I keep my license current_* ) was a used CM400T. I loved that bike. It was my only transportation and it never let me down. Ramona to El Cajon in 23 minutes. Rode it out to Phoenix, through summer monsoons, got the best ticket ever. Honda, all day, every day.
Hi bart - it's Big Rodders in Ireland. In 1973 I bought a Yamaha XS650 for £750 instead of the Honda CB500 that was priced at £900. I was earning £60 net per month so the price difference was the deciding factor. In 1979 when I owned a BMW 100/7 I had a test ride on a friend's Honda CB550. I was astounded by its smoothness, tractability from low revs and low fuel consumption. Overall, a captivating motorcycle and one I would have instantly swapped my Beemer for given half a chance.
I still plan on purchasing an old Honda CB and an old Triumph Bonneville in the future. Like you, I love both platforms.
I started riding in 73 in England. Mostly cheap old British Ariel, AJS & BSA. Newer Triumph & Norton's were sought after and I did ride a Speed Twin. In our neighbourhood was a biker called "Little Kev" he was quite disabled with polio but hung on to his 500-4 and rode fast. The howl from the Piper 4 into 1 exhaust was awesome.
The first time I saw a Honda 750 I thought aliens had landed, if Honda produced a modern retro 550/750 four I would buy one in a heartbeat, Triumphs were always great looking bikes but they were light years behind the Japanese, even Honda's 450 twin could out perform them....
My daily ride is a 1980 cb750 Custom survivor that I've had since the early 90s. Beautiful machine. No silly computers or fuel injection to spoil the relationship between man and machine.
Or woman and machine. My daughter has her own bike she rebuilt the carb on.
@ HH sez who? I've never seen a 450 Honda out perform a 500 Triumph. Been around bikes all my life and owned bunchs never seen that happen.
Loved my 450s, in my opinion, the 1st Honda Super Bike.
Kawasaki has the rs900.
I have a 1973 Honda CB 750 out in my garage right now , It's a lot of fun to ride and when I was 17 I had one of the funnest bikes on earth a 1975 Kawasaki KH1 500 the old 3 cylinder 2 stroke and I had that bike up to 135 mph and it still had more left and took it to the drag strip and stock it would do the 1/4 mile in 11 seconds , I like the older bikes and that's why I have a CB750 in my garage today
Bart, as someone who owned both of these bikes, the Triumph at 17 and the Honda at 18, I agree with everything you say. However, I don't know about the USA but in England the last iteration of the Triumph Daytona had twin carbs, a close ratio 5 speed gearbox and a front disc brake and could be tuned to produce 60 BHP. As a back road blaster, it could out perform the heavier Bonneville.
60 hp in your dreams.750 norton made 47 hp at the wheel on dyno.. 500 would not crack 30...
@@johnoneil6206 I think he's talking an all out race bike. The Bonneville 650 was only 52hp, so if the 500 tuned was 60hp, my guess is it wouldn't be too reliable@2hp/cubic inch!!!!!!
@@johnoneil6206 Not rear wheel power, at the crank and it could be done by race tuners, probably around 48 bhp at the wheel. How long the engine lasted was another thing. BTW a 750 Combat could also be tuned to produce a bloody sight more than 47 bhp. Between 58 and 68 BHP at the wheel. Again race spec and short life expectancy.
The Honda in the clip, does not have the genuine exhaust system, which consisted of FOUR mufflers, not the two on this bike. I owned one of these bikes, the first thing I did, was ditch the speedo and tacho to fit the 750 sized ones, bigger and easier to read at speed. the bike was as smooth as a swiss watch, no vibes an all, rear vision mirrors easy to see at any speed. On a long trip to our Pilbara area in the 70's, the high oil temp came on, was using recommended oil, Castrol at the time. Slowed down, light went out, on return home, fitted oil cooler wafer between oil filter and engine and oil radiator. Never again had any such issues. Chain and sprockets were the biggest wear and replacement components on the bike. The fuel consumption and too small a tank were also issues on long touring trips, had to carry spare gallon container at times, whilst Yamahas Suzukis all had better economy than my Honda. BUT the biggest win for me, after owning a BSA, was NO OIL LEAKS !
I think you’ll find that the only Meriden era of Triumphs to have an electric start were the 1975 Trident T160 and the 1980 Bonneville T140.
the 250 Sunbeam/Tigress Scooter also had an electric start which was optional.
And the Norton Electra
and MkIII Commando
@@mc2594 Not a Triumph.
'you meet the nicest people on a Hesketh'
_"If it's not leaking, something is wrong!"_
Hahahah
The pleasure to ride a Triumph on the winding roads was simply unforgettable, and that noise! But you have to be a motorcycle mechanic!! 😂👏
Ever try a bmw..just move your tushy it takes a turn..But my 750 would aniliate it once road openned up..i tossed my center stand it dragged scary as shit on long ramps.. Life chanes when it dragged.. Took it off that day..
Thank you for offering a very personal honest take on the difference between two motorcycles that are very different, coming from 2 very different eras & schools of motorcying
The Triumph 500 Daytona ruled its namesake racetrack for 30 years try taking a cb500 4-cylinder off road and see how far you get before you have to call for a road call.
3 wins not 30 nortons did much better
@@juanrodriguez-ry6yt I said ruled Daytona which is why they called it the Daytona. And just like Edward Turner used to say all the time nor used to spend so much money on their racing program that they never improved thier street bikes.
Bought a '68 Triumph 500 in "72 just after graduating high school. It was a blast to ride, but you never knew if you were going to get to where you were headed. Not to mention you were taking your life into your own hands riding at night w/ the LUCAS lights! When the CB Honda hit the scene it was a game changer for sure! "What the devil was that that just blew by me' !?! Having said that, I currently own two "modern" Triumphs & just returned from a week long tour of Southern New Mexico/Az on my '12 Triumph Speedmaster. No oil leaks, no problems, great ride!
Nice video!
Cool Vid! My Dad had a CB550-4 new in 1975, looked just like your Honda Cb500-4. Looking at your bike brings back a lot of Good Memories for me! Thanks.
The CB 500 was one of the most beautiful bikes to hit these shores, second only to the Kawasaki Z1 900. I had a CB 250, what a bike, I absolutely loved it.
I know the feeling, I too sometimes go into the garage just to stare at my bike and drool over it
I just acquired a cafe racer based on a CB750 from 1977. A more aggressive aesthetic suits the sound of the engine way better than the squareness, the tameness, of the original aesthetic.
Given to choose between the Triumph and the stock CB500 in this video, I'd also go for the Triumph. But between a cafe racer CB500 and that same Triumph? I'd take the CB500.
An excellent series of presentations Bart . My experience with Honda's first four was something like when Chevrolet introduced 'turbo Fire' to the world . The Honda had an aircraft front break though , putting it squarely in the 'Oh WOW' category . Another contribution to Triumph was the longshoreman's strike in that year covering everything on eastern shores including gulf ports . I picked up my Bonneville in sixty nine deeply discounted for that sixty eight model . That memory is still one of my best of the best . . . That's what she said . LOL
Riding is a visceral thing. Also, like personal relationships, sometimes the idiosyncrasies and shortcomings help us to bond closer. Machines stimulate us in different ways, some vibrations, sounds, tickles and wind can annoy us or endear us. Having ridden everything since mini ones in the 60’s, some of the fondest memories are of the most break down prone bikes, like my iron head sporty I carried to and fro for 2 years. However, there is a place in my heart for the ‘69 cb 750, that I only changed oil , filters and rode for 2 years. I have a new Harley that is a beast and I couldn’t want more, yet I one for the shovel head I had briefly (spent more time fixing than riding). Or the xs11 that was a rocket ship or a kitten depending on how you rode it. Throw a leg over, ride and buy all you can (there are great deals on all kinds of old bikes now) and find out what pokes and prods push your buttons. Ride ride ride, and if you have to fix it, make it a party! Thank you for all your great vids, you are a true rider the story goes a non rider saw someone getting off a bike and said “ oh, I would never ride a bike! don’t you get cold and hot and sand and bugs and wind and rain and people trying to run you down? “ The bike pauses and smiles and says “ Yeah, ain’t it great!”
Loved and love the "Limies". I lived through the Japanese motorcycle invasion. Was sorry to see the Brits go home. Was scared HD would shut down, and almost did. I currently own two Harleys and one Yamaha stratoliner. Love them all. All bikes. I agree with all you're saying here. You get it!!
I've ridden all my life. Last was a totally re-habbed '71 Norton 850. All polished stainless fasteners, painted graphics (no stickers), bored carbs. Although not nearly as slick as my new BMW R1200, the Norton was one hell of a ride. And my favorite of all time.
There's no comparison, the Honda didn't leak, didn't numb your hands or feet with vibration after 15 minutes, could stop so hard the front wheel would howl and didn't break down. And yes, the review mirrors were crystal clear and usable. No bs, I lived it and I was there.....Now, a CB750 KO or even K1 were totally different. They would put hair on your chest with their power!!!
And my Trident ate them alive. Every time.
I had the K1 fang machine just for fun, perfect once you open up the muffler, You could retune them and do all sort of wonderful stuff to them. My brother's Norton Commando would catch me in the corners and I would overtake him going up the hill. The roar of those puppies was delightful.
The triumph got far better fuel mileage because we pushed them more than we rode them.
Agree completely. I had a 1968 Triumph T100C and still have a 1970 Honda CB450. Two years apart in age and about 30 years apart in development. Honda is still perfectly usable in modern traffic and the Triumph looked cool but felt like a dinosaur.
I was in charge of service for our dealership when the CB450 first came out, funny looking tank and all, and to me, it was already a Brit bike 'killer'. Even though it only had a four speed, it was very smooth and would rev until tomorrow. The wheelbase was a little short but that wasn't a detraction at the time. Also, I was a new rider when the predecessor of the T500 came out as a 350cc and that was in '57. Very little was changed in the design from then on.
@@whalesong999 One of my favorite things about it is the very high rev range and by 1970 it had a front disc brake and five gears. Really love the bike even if it was eventually overshadowed by the 4-cylinder models.
I had a cb450 cam chain broke after I had it for three months after a Honda mechanic had rebuilt it I got half my money back the original cb450 with a four speed gearbox shook like a paint mixer the chief 500 was not an overboard 350 with a completely new design it had nothing to do with a 350 made 10 years prior to it being constructed. You can read the road test at Cycle World did on the motorcycle and they stripped it down to the engine cases to see how well it was built you can get parts easier for a fifty-year-old British motorcycle than for a 30 year old Japanese motorcycle now you have the Triumph C range your bike is geared for on and off road. My 73 Daytona with twin carb and rode gearing tops out at over 110 that's what the police officers radar said he was cool he let me go with a warning here we just talked about the bike for 20 minutes. Read Bert hopwood's what happened to the British motorcycle industry and you will get a clearer picture of the industrial Shenanigans and down online competency that went on all through the 70s the Japanese did not compete with the British Italians or the German, they competed with other Japanese company and that is how we got the Big 4
@@frankmarkovcijr5459 Yup, your last sentence makes the most sense. In terms of being where the showrooms competed though, that was where the Brit bikes began to lose in sales, hence losing out to the "big four".
Design wise, it was becoming pretty clear that there were no real upgrades for the British machines in terms of engineering. Burying the transmission output sprocket behind the clutch needed to be changed, for just one thing. While there might not be direct carry-over of interchangeable parts from the "21" to the T500, the engineering was the same. That does not mean that I disparage the Triumphs, just that they lagged behind in development that was moving so quickly. They were a pleasant ride. Ironically, our first Rocket III in late '68 came with a sort of diaper made of sheet metal with an absorbent material under the engine unit IIRC to catch wayward oil drips. Nice touch, better than our Nortons at the time.
The Japanese makers had to come up from being drubbed into submission by the war and wanted to prove their viability to a changing world. The British and the Americans had no such incentive since they'd "won" and would continue with traditional ways. The paths crossed very quickly. A Harley had a 90 day/4k mile warranty in '67 as I remember; our Suzukis had 12 month or 12k mile warranties.
Practically all of the British motorcycles outside of Bemus set had and outboard clutch you don't have to disassemble the whole primary to change a fresh rocket or you do is slacking the chain off and you just take the clutch basket out and then there's 5 screws and holes the cover on and bang there's your sprocket. Let me put it this way my 1980 CX500 Honda water cooled 4-valve Wonder with Cam chains lacock 10 years at 250,000 miles before the change broke and snapped the camshaft into and then tore through the water pump my low-tech 883 Harley Sportster hash 370000 miles on it and it's still going strong. I have not touched any of the internal engine working because I have not needed to do I've had to do simple stuff like the stator work out and wouldn't charge anymore at a quarter of a million miles but it lasted a quarter of a million miles and to me that's pretty good the camshaft in my TR6 both wore out and I had to split the cases to replace them while in there any bearing or bushing that was questionable got replaced and the flood trap got replaced with a new one because she to take it almost 50 years to fill up the old one everybody who has a pre-unit British motorcycle has a b that is 70 years old or more. Outside of a vintage show I never see any of the Japanese motorcycles I grew up with in the seventies except in the show. Now I would say most everybody in America learn how to ride a motorcycle on riding a little Honda Suzuki Kawasaki Cushman whatever but once you learn how to ride you want bigger and better you want to be able to h a u l girl around with you on trips and vacations two-up with luggage a Honda 4-cylinder specially the 750 Road hottest hell and would wear out change and sprockets like tires Honda made a list of all of the 750s problems for touring and solve them all with the Goldwing. Honda did not want to go to double overhead cams like Kawasaki Suzuki and Yamaha dead because they did not want it said that they were copying their competitors the last year 750 Honda had cams so abrupt they would mushroom the valves you could only go so far with a single cam before you have to go to a twin overhead cam
The reason the Triumph leaked oil was the crankcase split vertically, on the Honda it split horizontally .
WTH? XS650, CB450 and the KZ750b dealt the death blow to the Brit bikes. Stone cold reliable. Then there were the triples. Boom. I'm not talking Trident...the XS killed on the flat track
Not "maybe handling", absolutely handling. Hopping off an early 70s Honda onto a Triumph or Norton was like jumping from an Impala to a Camaro SS
The CB 500 four is (for me) the Best looking bike wit the 4 into 4 exhaust.
And 100hp/l in the 70s is insane and the smoothness cant be matched
Nah, the CB400 Four's exhaust was better. 😉
I agree. I have a '75 CB550F Super Sport that I bought new in high school. It isn't running currently but I will bring her back to life with a complete frame off restoration before I take my last breath. I installed a set of Kerker 4 into 1 headers on the bike shortly after I bought her and to this day it's still one of the best sounding and running bikes I've ever encountered. Four years ago I bought a new 2014 CB1100 as it reminded me so much of the CB550F. It's about 100 pounds heavier with twice the power plus better brakes and suspension. I immediately installed Arrow headers to emulate the old 550. And just as I hoped it truly is a time machine taking me back 45 years as I ride the exact same roads. It will be something else to ride them back to back when I get the old girl back on the road.
@@gwilliamwallace Bet you will love the CB 550 when its done.
I bought a 500 Four K last year for my first bike (dont See any mid 20 riding old bikes ;-) ), and it was a blast to ride.
The sound is loud but way, way more pleasing than other bikes as it goes up rpms.
Im now looking for a 350 Four or 400 Four as I want something bit smaller and less weight.
And funnily the consumption was 4,5-5,5l - Thats actually really really good.
@@ETT64 i like the symmetry of the 4 into 4 better but the 400 looks and sounds also good.
I had a 1956 500cc Triumph T100 for three years. Very similar to the one shown here, but it still had the separate gearbox, and the streamlined headlamp/instrument housing. The sound was the same - heavenly. Great bike. Much later, for seven years my ride was a 1982 500cc Honda GL500I Silverwing Interstate, another wonderful bike.
Does it make sense to compare a hedgehog with a rabbit? No, not really!
The diffrence between these two bikes is similar. Technically they have nothing in common.
The only way to see a comparsion between both should be the technical evolution from 1966 to 1969.
The real counterpart to all the Triumph twins was the CB 450 from 1965.
"If it's not leaking, something's wrong" WHAHAHA!!
Both great bikes. I’m around your age as well but my affinity is for the in-line 4s. I work as an engineer so I think prioritize function over form when it comes to these old bikes. I love my admittedly weird looking ‘81 xj Yamaha 550 in all its over engineered glory. I marvel at its DOHC and fancy induction control system. I feel Yamaha sometimes gets overlooked in the classics category because they just copied styling from Honda but some of their engineering was top notch.
I'm with you! That said, in this case, I think the Honda even looks WAY better, too. (Btw yeah Yamaha is so great at engineering so many things!)
I have an Yamaha 88 FJ1200 my mates all have Harleys and one a Triumph speed triple. My old girl is better engineered than them all and still pulls 230 + Kph no problem.
@@kevscranes my last bike was an 84 fj1100. Awesome. Felt like an extension of my mind, you just looked at the line you wanted to take and the machine did the rest. My taillight disappeared in the distance to more than a few SDPD patrol cars.
When the Yamaha RD250 and 350 LCs came out in the early 80s, they were a marvel, game changers in performance and all sorts of ways. They virtually made all the other bikes in any class obsolete overnight. Never had Honda been so outwitted and caught flat-footed.
And they had ‘King’ Kenny Roberts dominating the 500GP class as the perfect advertisement. We all salivated over those machines haha
@@MrSummerblade rd250 made all bikes in any class obsolete? Maybe if you weigh 120lbs in leathers and helmet and are racing on hairpin turns. Thats a moped for nearly anyone else.
Good to hear that Mike came over to help you out. That’s what it’s all about. Thanks for posting (I have a ‘73 500Four sitting next to my ‘70 T100C). Love them both’ it totally agree with your assessment. Kudos to Mike and Jeff too.
You left out one thing. Jumping. Try to take the Honda through the air for say 15 yards .. not much fun. However, the Triumph will fly with ease. I could also go down the road with no hands .. even put my feet on the tack. Triumphs had a very low center of gravity and handled like a dream. You don't get that today.
Even today the Bonneville is awesome just to look at.
Triumph used to fall apart going down the road from vibration the Honda didn't lol
I agree with you, modern bikes are so much more efficient and reliable and that's progress but to me they have no soul. I think the Triumph is beautiful and would love to own one just to look at it. Sadly because of my age I'm too scared to ride these days.
Just turned 65, got a sweet R1 I ride daily, and 2 1800 vtxs', and a 1900 Raider. What age is too old? 🤔😏
About to turn 70 and still want a Bonnie even if just to look at it and sit on it and dream.....
Quite right! By 1971 the Bonneville was uglified but the 500 still looked like a Triumph. You came to the same conclusion most riders did. No question the Honda was a better long-haul road bike. However, if you liked a hot rod over modern precision engineering, the Triumph had some advantages for blasting around backroads for a few hours, particularly on dirt or gravel. In a drop, the rigid steel foot peg mounts were like crash bars and the levers were steel.
I've owned and ridden all sorts of Japanese machines all my life but it got boring and I basically stopped owning motorcycles. I ran across an old Harley Sportster a while back and bought it having never owned one. It's got it's own idiosyncrasies that I never had to deal with on imported machines however the satisfaction in owning and riding the Harley far outweighs the shortcomings it presents. The look, the sound and the history just seems to satisfy my riding needs as never before. So, I completely understand your feelings towards the British bike as opposed to the Japanese one.
I grew up with a lot of motorcycles from the 1960s and early 70s. Not in a good way, we mostly got old street bikes and chopped things off them and installed knobby tires and used them for trail riding and hill climbing. I had several Honda 305 scramblers, uncountable CB and SL 350s, Most of the Suzukis were TS or TC. The Yamaha's were mostly DT 125 and 250s. I wish I had some of those bikes back today.
For me it's the CB all day long although I think the twin's burble wins slightly over the inline 4's roar.
I see you notched back the rear brake actuator arm ... nice.
The Honda CB500/4 had the same single pot front brake fitted to the CB250, the CB360 and the CB400/4. It really was one pot on a swinging arm which was sprung against a stop. The other pad was not powered at all. Not too bad when new but deteriorated rapidly when subjected to the corrosive salt of a British winter resulting in a seized pivot post and half the expected braking power. We were teenagers so these bikes were our "daily drive". I worked in a machine shop and biking friends came to me for help. I'd press out the pivot pin and polish it. The brake swing arm would be reamed clean if sufficiently bad. The key modification was to fit a grease nipple to the swing arm. If you could pump grease until it came out of the top and bottom of the pivot, the brake worked correctly.
As an aside, I have always found a decent properly adjusted twin leading shoe drum to be every bit as effective as a single disc. Just a bit of a bugger to adjust.
You have to like the way your moto looks. Huge part of deciding. But, you also gotta enjoy the way it rides. Great video🥂
When i got my first japper, i realised i could leave my bag of spanners at home!
The same period Japanese 350cc 2 strokes (Yamaha R5, Suzuki T350 Rebel,, Bridgestone 350GTR & Kawasaki S2 350) were already slightly faster & quicker off the mark, than both these 4 stroke 500cc bikes.
Yes my RD350A was quicker than my mates CB500F but he was faster. As to the CB350 twin the RD blew it to pieces.
In 1978 I had an RD 400 and it was quicker and faster than my friend's 1978 Triumph Bonneville. He was pissed.
Nice comparison. “... the Honda gearbox is light years ahead of the Triumph”. A light year is a measure of distance, not time
Both are beautiful, and both sound great in there own ways. For me it would come down to reliability.
If my W650 leaked oil, I would upgrade to a bike that didn't.
my cb750 custom had no center chamber it ran strait to 4 exhaust tips..At a high rev it was a diffo bike.. An animal.. what a change.. Quiet at normal but damn it changed at high revs..
I just noticed You had a dish underneath the Triumph to catch the oil, that is the most annoying part of the triumph and You never knew if You could reach Your destination.
That's why I decided to buy an H2 triple, yes I was a hooligan, that's why I tuned the tripel to the limit.
I am cooled down now. Most roads I used are prohibited for 40 Years for Motor Cycles. I am old now
and I like to drive motorcycles even if I have to get a motorized wheelchair. Thanks for Your video, I enjoyed it.
😁😁😁
If your Triumph is indeed a 1968 model, the single carburetor indicates it's a "C" version as does the smaller headlight, BTW, they had 38 HP. The Daytona (T100R) model with dual carburetors had 41 HP and was a different beast altogether. It appears your bike's exhaust may have been changed as in 1968, every T100C I've seen, had dual high pipes on one side. I'm speaking of when they were new as this is when I started riding and a good friend was the local Triumph dealer. As far as leaking bikes, If you take care of the Triumph, it won't leak. It's just a matter of becoming one with the machine. None of my British bikes leaked or started in more than 1-2 kicks. Owning a bike back then required the rider to actually learn about the bike, do your own maintenance and get the most out of the bike. I've never rode a Japanese bike of the same vintage which shifted or handled better than a British bike, I've owned both when they were new. BTW, It's my understanding, there were a few late 1973 Daytona's which were fitted with e-start at the factory.
Trophy -1 carb
Bonneville 2 carb
My Bonneville did not vibrate or leak oil, and had the prettiest purr and smoothest ride. Like most riders from back in the day, we rode each other's bikes. I road that 750, and the screaming K500s, and the wobbly yamahas. My Honda 305 Dream, beautiifully ugly, just ran and ran. But it was the bonneville that I dream of.
Great video, also I will always to be a fan of twin 360° engine sounds because the sound they produce so great compared with twin 180°. The triumph looks so better too despite the oil leaking from the engine 👍 love it
Back in the 70s remember riding first Honda 750 , it was a magic carpet tide . The yamaha RD were also beautiful bikes . Another favourite was the Suzuki Gt380
By the time the Honda CB500 came to the UK at the Motorcycle show in 1972 the Triumph 500 was already about finished, hardly any were made after 1973 due to the situation with Triumph that led to the Meriden cooperative and the long closure of the factory and production. Bikes like the Honda CB450 introduced in 1965 were ones that ate into their market, before the CB500 came to be. Yes the CB500 was a great motorcycle better in every way than the outdated Triumph, but the collapse of the BSA group and the sit in and strike at Meriden is what killed the Triumph 500, not that it's death was not imminent.
Had a Honda 450, very stylish and although I would have loved to have had a Bonnie, less than half the cost
@@real_Papa_Roach I had a CB500T which I really liked even though they were poorly rated at the time, but as you say the price and relative civility of these machines had Triumph beaten for the average person. I have a 73 Triumph Tiger 750 in my collection, it's a fun motorcycle but in comparison to the vintage Japanese bikes I own it really feels like what it is, a bike from a completely different era.
given the choice in 1973 of a Triumph Adventurer or Daytona or CB500 many purchased a Honda but with hindsight how many would change their mind now? one is just an old and somewhat boring Honda no one wants you'd struggle to give away.
The 500 Triumphs are still very much alive and sought after crown jewels so the premise of the video is based on a coincidental comparison that was only there for a brief moment in time as one ended it's long and cram packed life of achievements and the other stood about losing it's grandad inspired 4-4 silencers and wobbly shocks to re-appear later in Barts garden wondering if it should cut the grass and probably hoping it gets turned into a 100% original example or a custom / bobber so it can actually have some fun and get noticed or admired half as much as the Triumph is without changing anything, a new pair of Shocks from Taiwan aren't going to cut it beyond being a usable motorcycle which it has been since it left the factory with 50,000 others in various pretty colours, at least three survived, a green one, a blue one and a gold one.
Now if it was a 1975 Honda 400F or 400 Super Sport that really did hit a sweet spot then the Triumph may have run away and hid for a while but either way the Triumph has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.
@@mc2594 There's definitely something to what you say, a big difference for me as a retrospective is that now my vintage Triumph is a toy to play with and enjoy on summer days, the Hondas I had back in the day were everyday transport, that makes a big difference over which one is the better choice, in which era.
I've not ridden a Triumph, but your assessment of the CB500k is spot on. I love my '71 CB500k0.
I own and love Honda cb750s, but totally agree with you on the looks, the Triumph is much cleaner, slim, artistic, lithe.
I think a more accurate title would be, how the British motorcycle Industry killed itself. They did try to innovate with the BSA and Triumph triples, but the basic problems in leakage and reliability were never resolved. They were running a losing technology catch up race and lost out to the foreign companies they fell behind. No more uncle Joe Lucas electrics. No more Amal tickle me carbs. No more crap switch gear. No more tappet covers unscrewing themselves on the road. Don't get me wrong. I loved my BSAs and Triumphs when I had them for all their faults. The first time I owned a Honda CB 750 F1 though, it was where have you been all my life? I do get it why people still love the old British classics though. They had a sound, beauty and handing all of their own. I cherish the memory, but never missed the dirty fingernails.
I had both and I agree with everything. For decades, one of my bikes is a Moto Guzzi V7 Sport. It combines all aspects of both. WOW! it really does.
My fantasy bike as a teenager in the early '70s
@@jbkstafford Just to torture you a little, 😀 it is a 1974 with dual disk brake front end. I also have a '74 Eldorado Police Special, also disk brake front end. As I get older I ponder when I will sell the Sport because I prefer riding the Eldorado now. Getting old stinks!
@@lint2023 I just looked up the police special. Oh my golly gosh. What a thing of beauty. Nothing like that here in Australia. I suggest mounting as artwork on your wall. Keep forever with a shrine surrounding it and candles burning.
@@jbkstafford The artwork description works well and I renewed them nicely a long time ago. I won best Italian in show once with the Sport. I've had the Sport 30 years and the Eldorado 40 years. That seems unbelievable now that I say it. I've always had a yearning to visit Australia. Best wishes from USA.
@@lint2023 haha. Sound exactly my age group. Let me know if you make it to Melbourne!
I had a 1973 Triumph 750. I will never forget that beautiful exhaust song.
I agree Japanese bikes were more technically advanced and used more modern manufacturing techniques which the likes of Triumph, BSA etc could not match, one of the main reasons was lack of money for development, Japanese industry had millions of dollars pumped into it because it had been destroyed in world war two, unfortunately the British bike industry didn't have that luxury, I worked briefly for Velocette, they were the same, they spent large amounts of money on development just before the second world war and had no money left after it, Britain was virtually bankrupt after six years of war, our industry had suffered extensive bomb damage during the blitz by the Luftwaffe, but look at Triumph motorcycles these days, with the right investment it is now a world class manufacturer, it's fair to say that it has learned a lot from Japanese manufacturing methods. As a case in point about how much more advanced Japanese bikes were, I had a 1949 Royal Enfield J2 500cc single, my mate had a Honda CB161, it was much faster than the Enfield and as mentioned in the video didn't leak oil, no contest.
That is a piss poor excuse. We in Detroit made the same excuse about Toyota. Honda made a better bike just like Toyota made a better car
@@dknowles60 I'm not making excuses, the fact is that British industry had no money for development so kept banging out the old designs based on pre 1939 technology, the Japanese had brand new machinery and factories and had billions of dollars pumped into them, there was also a culture in the UK in the 1960s and 70s of union unrest so new working practices were hard to adopt without strikes. The Japanese have taught us all a lesson in how to build modern, reliable bikes and cars.
Damn that’s called passion!
Old machines got a very clear soul like energy for me!
For a minimalist like me, less is more. Less cylinders, less carbs, less gears, less weight...The Triumph wins.
Don't forget, less reliability!
The Honda CB450 Black Bomber parallel-twin already outgunned the outdated Triumph in 1965.
The Triumph is not only better looking, it is by far, much better sounding.
Sadly Triumph didn't invest for the future. Honda was just a better engineered machine. As I Brit I'm pleased John Bloor managed to resurrect the brand
I don't know about USA but in UK Triumph had customers with brand loyalty who would not have considered buying a Honda. The 1970s was a bad time for manufacturing in general in UK. The Triumph Trident never worked as well as it should as the tooling was antiquated and not designed for 3 cylinder engines. The same with the Triumph Bandit, lack of investment meant that they just never managed to get it into production. If you think the CB500 has good brakes, try riding it in the rain!
That drive down Hall and cutting up to Scholls then into Conestoga took me back. Great channel. Sweet bikes.
I bought a new '72 CB500 in late '73. Same color as the one in this video. Over the next 4 years, I rode it from MA to OR/CA and back twice, and finally rode it to TX where I sold it in '76 w/ about 65k miles. It never failed me. I could start it w/ one hand. I went through 2 sets of stock exhaust due to rust until I replaced it w/ a Hooker header. I put a Vetter Windjammer on it for comfort. I removed the throttle spring to make long distance riding more comfortable. It was a great bike. But by 65k miles, it was completely worn out.
A classic triumph is a beautiful sight and it’s just sounds better than the Honda but the Honda is definitely a solid reliable choice.