Thanks Paul, very convincing points you made. All the technical talk about one bike vs another are valid considerations, but to my mind, how much fun you can have on any particular machine is the most important factor in selecting your mount. I have enjoyed owning and riding British bikes. I don't regret owning any of them, though some did require more attention than others. Overall, glad to have had the experiences with them. Commenting from USA.
Fair points! I've never had the pleasure of riding a Tiger Cub, sadly. My first bike was a Honda CD175 but I had moved on to a Triumph 3TA before a friend asked me to test ride a Kawasaki Z200 for him (he was planning to start motorcycling but hadn't got his provisional licence at the time). I found it to be a very pleasant bike to ride, nicer than my Honda had been, but I haven't seen one around for years, unlike Tiger Cubs. I'm not surprised that the Cub was more economical than the Z200 because my 3TA used less petrol than my CD175 had.
So true! Bought a Honda 550 in 1982 and despite regular servicing, it developed terminal cam chain problems at 10k miles. Took it back to the dealer who told me 10k was all I could expect before it would spit its giblets.
I did the Wolds Ride on my 650 Interceptor. Chap in front 2 up on an old 650 Triumph made me work to keep up. I suspect it was fettled but by Christ it was a good bike.
In the early 70’s I worked at a Honda dealership & the 450 was a strong machine. The only problems we had with them was the cam chain & toothed rollers. As you stated the 25000 to 35000 mile mark was time to address the cam drive system. The styling of the 500T was a little too classic compared to the 450. As with Harleys you produce the same product for many years the parts are plentiful but when other manufacturers make so many changes that don’t interchange from year to year you catch a bad case of “sorry not available”. That says a lot about the latest & greatest. Most of us that repair motor bikes really appreciate being able to find that elusive part that’s still being produced! That’s the difference between machines that are built as heirlooms vs built as throw aways! Dependablity & rebuildability are our driving force!👍
I had a Tiger Cub which was tuned up wth bigger Amal carb, hc piston (9:1) and roller big end bearing. It could achieve 90mph on the speedo which was probably 75-80 mph in real life. Later I bought a Honda CD175 twin which was ultra reliable and used as a daily driver for a couple of years. Both bikes were very good in their own way. The Cub being bit more exciting but equally reliable.
I agree with you. The British bikes did break down, but only in places. My Honda 50cc Cub C100 push rod type was a very nice machine, however, when it wore out it wore everywhere at the same time. So the cush-hub went, the gears stopped selecting properly within a few weeks. Back then, buying a new engine unit was not an option & the reason the gears were not selecting was the cases were growing over time. Everything was made to the minimum thickness. With the British machines, extra metal was left in the design where they thought it would be useful in later life. The problem with the Cub & C15 was that they were marketed before they were ready. Then the designers dug their heals in & left things a little wrong. So you had to wait for some years to get the problem areas in the engines sorted out. So eventually you got the Sports cub engine & an improved 250cc engine on the 250 TRW Triumph (I think) This being a development of the scrambler engine used by Smith to win the Title. Better still, the Cub got the Bantam frame as a replacement for the Cub frame, which was too small for most buyers. It all begs one question, why were the management of BSA/Triumph so poor at making decisions. They could have sorted the engines out years previously & used the Bantam frame years previously as well. Then as they were introducing the larger single cylinder machines the reputation would have been a good one. I remember going into the dealer's in Swansea & looking at a 500cc unit construction single & thinking to myself "never buy that its engine will be nothing but trouble", how wrong I was. Then of course the place selling the little Honda's was also selling the other Honda's, so I can remember going in there & seeing holed Honda Pistons from those machines on more than one occasion. Over the years, Japanese machines have earned a reputation for week top ends caused by not having bearing inserts in the camshafts. So they run in the Aluminium of the casting.
Ian from Scotland here.Couldn't agree more with what you say Paul.My sports Cub from 1964 I've owned for 27 years and done 40,000miles on it tho it has been rebuilt a couple of times.Had a 1953 plunged one as my first bike and a trials one in the early 60's so I must like them and the present one is showing a profit but won't be sold. Long live the Tiber Cub.
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. I know that the TC was a good bike period, especially considering the abuse mine got in my teenage hands. It could be argued I did the reverse, taking a decent bike and mistreating it, I did maintain it but that's not the same as thrashing it and asking it to do more than it was designed to. It rarely stopped and never took long to get moving safely again, that's my measure of a good bike. I still can't explain what I was thinking when I swapped it for a C15 but that was a good bike too, it just stopped more often. Thanks Paul.
We started with 250's back in the 60's Ariel Arrows, C11'S C12's and a couple of Cub's, one standard and one we called the Mountain cub, meaning the trials version. They both had the distributer on the top of the cases! Anyway the cub was always up at the front of the "pack" scraping pegs on every corner! Then of course along came the C15 which, as you well know had a derivative of the Cub engine installed. The SS 80 followed and then the RE 250 Continental and gt models but by this time we had mostly upped our game and rode 500 and 650's but still have fond memories of the little bikes we rode as learners! So I totally agree with you Paul the 20 year gap with anything makes a huge difference!!!
Quite agree if you get hold of the "Tiger Cub Bible" by Mike Estall there is a chronology starting with the Terrier from December 1953 to March 1967 Super Cub T20B last of the line. The book lists all the changes, modifications throughout. Great bikes and less expensive to buy parts for than David Silver Honda. Another good conversation (not rant) 👍
The Cub was a tremendous commercial success for Triumph, outselling all of the larger models during its Meriden years. Many survive, sweet to ride and easy to fix. It lost out eventually to the more up to date, cheaper and faster Japanese 250's.
One more thought Paul. When I mentioned the styling of the 500T,most people that purchased them over here were well familiar with the AMC triplets(Norton-AJS & Matchless). That was the styling Honda was counting on to stir nostalgia.
Interesting, you mentioned the Honda CB500, just as I was thinking of my old T-reg CX500, which also had cam drive problems. Once I’d sorted it (around 25,000 miles) I rode it for 65,000 fairly troubleshooting free miles. In my experience, most (but not all) motorcycle problems are owner/maintenance related.
For an example of what 20 years engineering progress looks like, see 1939 aviation to 1959 aircraft. The most reliable bikes is always a good discussion, and often it's the least fashionable. A case in point is the Honda CX500, a motorcycle variously described as The Slug and the Plastic Maggot. This slowish pushrod V-twin was held in disapproval if not contempt by the motorcycle press, but was loved by couriers who made their living on a bike. The two valve Suzuki 4 cylinder bikes were another despatcher favourite. Small capacity singles have been dismissed for as long as I can remember by self-styled serious motorcyclists, whatever their origin.
As far as I’m concerned comparisons between British and Japanese bikes, should come down to designers and management. Theirs tried and ours became complacent.
I rode the Edinburgh Trial with a guy on a 1967 Tiger Cub that he had owned for 50 years. It ran faultlessly, and came fourth overall! But, and there's always a but, he's a trained mechanical engineer, and the Cub was by no means standard. Piston, alternator, frame, forks, wheels, swinging arm, ignition system and headlamp were all non-standard. Surely the fairest comparison if we are going to go Brit v Japanese would be the Cub v the Honda CG125...both pushrod singles?
I’m itching to get my Terrier plunger frame back from storage in France . Still a basket case but along with my Dads NSU Quickly, they’re my next project.
Interestingly today I bought a motorcycle magazine dated 31 December 1964 from Maidstone auto jumble. A report of the Southern Experts trial at Bristol showed a young Gordon Farley on his special trials Cub had finished runner up to Don Smith. Sammy Miller had a bad day and retired early.
Another great rant. The plans for a major update on the British bikes, I believe was called the modular concept, starting with a 200cc single, 400 twin etc. Bike magazine published an article including drawings they got hold of, on this proposed development that never happened. Shame. I think every manufacturer has managed to produce at least one lemon. Also before the mid 70’s, most young lads could only afford something that was way past its best.
G'day Paul, well said and informative, never owning a Cub or seeing one in action l have to go off what l have seen on your videos and from that I'm impressed by the performance of the 200cc Cub, cheers mate, Neil 🤠
Was amused when you mentioned " Hustler" while mentioning Suzuki 250's back in the day. They were sold here in the states as the "X-6 Hustler" and in a good example would just touch 100mph. My '67 was not that good, but would bump a bit over 90 on good days when the heavens were smiling and we were on a downhill slope....very downhill on the slope...
Speaking personally, obviously, I think we need to agree that it all depends on the owner, type of bike, maintenance etc. I don’t think there’s a bad bike out there; some ugly ones for sure. I’ve just been pushed into retirement and have bought a Royal Enfield 350 Hunter. I used to have a 4 speed 350 Bullet. Both RE, both 350, both single… should I compare them? I’m not going to, totally different eras. Last year was not a fun year and I was put off fiddling in the shed, something I’ve done for years. I personally think we should stop comparing bikes. The view, right or wrong through the seventies was Japanese bikes were oil tight and more reliable. Right? Wrong? Were all British bikes in the hands of maintenance incompetent owners? I doubt it. I’ve had too many bikes, an illness I’m afraid. Whilst I don’t think there’s a bad one, the design of some drove me crazy when stripping them. So maybe this whole conversation is just that, a conversation. An argument starter, a which camp are you in, mine or yours etc. We’ll all have favourites. I’ll finish on a controversial note… I think the British bike industry could/should have done better.
My wife had a honda cb250rs, it wasn't a bad little bike, it was quite quick for what it was and was easy to work on and service. Funnily enough though, she much prefers her BSA C15, which she still has
And the C15’s Daddy was the Tiger Cub… I had a standard C15 back in the 60s, and always hankered after a Sports Cub. Better looking and better-ish performance. Never satisfied! Got a Serow and an Innova now, the Serow is quite like a Sports or Trials Cub in many ways. Les
@@bananabrooks3836 No, C15 was developed from the Terrier/Tiger Cub. Take a look at the two engines… only difference is C15’s upright cyl, and slightly bigger capacity. And they also developed alongside each other.. ‘distributor’ points tower went to the points on end of camshaft circa same time. Oil pump driven from points drive, etc. C15 was VERY different from C11G, C12 engines. And C15 frame was more like a Triumph frame than a BSA.
People should love these old bikes for what they are . What’s the point of comparing these machines, just keep them up and most importantly ride them .
The XL125/175 is also a comparison, cam in head anyone? The RS250 was certainly a sprightlier ride than the Superdream but the design was based on the XL250S from '78 with the twin exhaust outlets.
When I was a lad our local copper had a Honda 200. He would come over to me and my mates to see what we were up to if we were out at night. The bike was a terrible starter and we'd have to give him a push!
80s Japanese bikes had what they called a new cam chain called it hyvo in fact they were a morse chain invented by sir Henry morse in the 19th century used to be one on a steam engine at the bass brewing museum Burton on trent
I had a tuned cub in 1974, blimey it was fast, if the speedo was to be believed it did over 85mph and it sounded great when it was running too, and there was it's problem, it is easily the most unreliable bike I've ever owned infact it seemed hell bent on it's own self destruction.
The later, the better engine wise. The Bantam Cub and Super Cub probably had the most durable engines, with all the modifications and the low compression ratio helping keep stresses down.
While my mates were riding Bonnevilles and Nortons to the coast for a coffee, I was commuting every weekend 150 miles across the Pennines on a James 150 and then a Bantam FEK 939F. They were both great bikes . Now I have 2 cubs to get back on the road.
Very well said Paul, thanks for your videos.
Always worth a listen Paul, Tell it like it is mate. Lester Now in Australia.👌
Thanks Paul, very convincing points you made. All the technical talk about one bike vs another are valid considerations, but to my mind, how much fun you can have on any particular machine is the most important factor in selecting your mount. I have enjoyed owning and riding British bikes. I don't regret owning any of them, though some did require more attention than others. Overall, glad to have had the experiences with them. Commenting from USA.
Fair points! I've never had the pleasure of riding a Tiger Cub, sadly. My first bike was a Honda CD175 but I had moved on to a Triumph 3TA before a friend asked me to test ride a Kawasaki Z200 for him (he was planning to start motorcycling but hadn't got his provisional licence at the time). I found it to be a very pleasant bike to ride, nicer than my Honda had been, but I haven't seen one around for years, unlike Tiger Cubs. I'm not surprised that the Cub was more economical than the Z200 because my 3TA used less petrol than my CD175 had.
So true! Bought a Honda 550 in 1982 and despite regular servicing, it developed terminal cam chain problems at 10k miles. Took it back to the dealer who told me 10k was all I could expect before it would spit its giblets.
I did the Wolds Ride on my 650 Interceptor. Chap in front 2 up on an old 650 Triumph made me work to keep up. I suspect it was fettled but by Christ it was a good bike.
As a cub owner I agree Paul, the development of the engine was significant even compared to some pushrod car engines.
In the early 70’s I worked at a Honda dealership & the 450 was a strong machine. The only problems we had with them was the cam chain & toothed rollers. As you stated the 25000 to 35000 mile mark was time to address the cam drive system. The styling of the 500T was a little too classic compared to the 450. As with Harleys you produce the same product for many years the parts are plentiful but when other manufacturers make so many changes that don’t interchange from year to year you catch a bad case of “sorry not available”. That says a lot about the latest & greatest. Most of us that repair motor bikes really appreciate being able to find that elusive part that’s still being produced! That’s the difference between machines that are built as heirlooms vs built as throw aways! Dependablity & rebuildability are our driving force!👍
I had a Tiger Cub which was tuned up wth bigger Amal carb, hc piston (9:1) and roller big end bearing. It could achieve 90mph on the speedo which was probably 75-80 mph in real life. Later I bought a Honda CD175 twin which was ultra reliable and used as a daily driver for a couple of years. Both bikes were very good in their own way. The Cub being bit more exciting but equally reliable.
I agree with you. The British bikes did break down, but only in places. My Honda 50cc Cub C100 push rod type was a very nice machine, however, when it wore out it wore everywhere at the same time. So the cush-hub went, the gears stopped selecting properly within a few weeks. Back then, buying a new engine unit was not an option & the reason the gears were not selecting was the cases were growing over time. Everything was made to the minimum thickness. With the British machines, extra metal was left in the design where they thought it would be useful in later life. The problem with the Cub & C15 was that they were marketed before they were ready. Then the designers dug their heals in & left things a little wrong. So you had to wait for some years to get the problem areas in the engines sorted out. So eventually you got the Sports cub engine & an improved 250cc engine on the 250 TRW Triumph (I think) This being a development of the scrambler engine used by Smith to win the Title. Better still, the Cub got the Bantam frame as a replacement for the Cub frame, which was too small for most buyers. It all begs one question, why were the management of BSA/Triumph so poor at making decisions. They could have sorted the engines out years previously & used the Bantam frame years previously as well. Then as they were introducing the larger single cylinder machines the reputation would have been a good one. I remember going into the dealer's in Swansea & looking at a 500cc unit construction single & thinking to myself "never buy that its engine will be nothing but trouble", how wrong I was.
Then of course the place selling the little Honda's was also selling the other Honda's, so I can remember going in there & seeing holed Honda Pistons from those machines on more than one occasion. Over the years, Japanese machines have earned a reputation for week top ends caused by not having bearing inserts in the camshafts. So they run in the Aluminium of the casting.
Ian from Scotland here.Couldn't agree more with what you say Paul.My sports Cub from 1964 I've owned for 27 years and done 40,000miles on it tho it has been rebuilt a couple of times.Had a 1953 plunged one as my first bike and a trials one in the early 60's so I must like them and the present one is showing a profit but won't be sold. Long live the Tiber Cub.
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. I know that the TC was a good bike period, especially considering the abuse mine got in my teenage hands. It could be argued I did the reverse, taking a decent bike and mistreating it, I did maintain it but that's not the same as thrashing it and asking it to do more than it was designed to. It rarely stopped and never took long to get moving safely again, that's my measure of a good bike. I still can't explain what I was thinking when I swapped it for a C15 but that was a good bike too, it just stopped more often. Thanks Paul.
We started with 250's back in the 60's Ariel Arrows, C11'S C12's and a couple of Cub's, one standard and one we called the Mountain cub, meaning the trials version. They both had the distributer on the top of the cases! Anyway the cub was always up at the front of the "pack" scraping pegs on every corner! Then of course along came the C15 which, as you well know had a derivative of the Cub engine installed. The SS 80 followed and then the RE 250 Continental and gt models but by this time we had mostly upped our game and rode 500 and 650's but still have fond memories of the little bikes we rode as learners! So I totally agree with you Paul the 20 year gap with anything makes a huge difference!!!
Quite agree if you get hold of the "Tiger Cub Bible" by Mike Estall there is a chronology starting with the Terrier from December 1953 to March 1967 Super Cub T20B last of the line. The book lists all the changes, modifications throughout. Great bikes and less expensive to buy parts for than David Silver Honda. Another good conversation (not rant) 👍
The Cub was a tremendous commercial success for Triumph, outselling all of the larger models during its Meriden years. Many survive, sweet to ride and easy to fix. It lost out eventually to the more up to date, cheaper and faster Japanese 250's.
The cg125/150 would have been another suggestion, at least they were ohv so it would have been a fairer comparison.
Fine quality drivel that🤭.
Well said and spot on.👍🏻
One more thought Paul. When I mentioned the styling of the 500T,most people that purchased them over here were well familiar with the AMC triplets(Norton-AJS & Matchless). That was the styling Honda was counting on to stir nostalgia.
Interesting, you mentioned the Honda CB500, just as I was thinking of my old T-reg CX500, which also had cam drive problems. Once I’d sorted it (around 25,000 miles) I rode it for 65,000 fairly troubleshooting free miles. In my experience, most (but not all) motorcycle problems are owner/maintenance related.
For an example of what 20 years engineering progress looks like, see 1939 aviation to 1959 aircraft. The most reliable bikes is always a good discussion, and often it's the least fashionable. A case in point is the Honda CX500, a motorcycle variously described as The Slug and the Plastic Maggot. This slowish pushrod V-twin was held in disapproval if not contempt by the motorcycle press, but was loved by couriers who made their living on a bike. The two valve Suzuki 4 cylinder bikes were another despatcher favourite. Small capacity singles have been dismissed for as long as I can remember by self-styled serious motorcyclists, whatever their origin.
Interesting comparisons. Also that mudguard looks very nice and shiny!
As far as I’m concerned comparisons between British and Japanese bikes, should come down to designers and management. Theirs tried and ours became complacent.
Some people, Paul, just have to win a debate even if they know they're on a losing wicket!
Well said. Thanks Paul.
I rode the Edinburgh Trial with a guy on a 1967 Tiger Cub that he had owned for 50 years. It ran faultlessly, and came fourth overall!
But, and there's always a but, he's a trained mechanical engineer, and the Cub was by no means standard. Piston, alternator, frame, forks, wheels, swinging arm, ignition system and headlamp were all non-standard.
Surely the fairest comparison if we are going to go Brit v Japanese would be the Cub v the Honda CG125...both pushrod singles?
I’m itching to get my Terrier plunger frame back from storage in France . Still a basket case but along with my Dads NSU Quickly, they’re my next project.
Interestingly today I bought a motorcycle magazine dated 31 December 1964 from Maidstone auto jumble. A report of the Southern Experts trial at Bristol showed a young Gordon Farley on his special trials Cub had finished runner up to Don Smith. Sammy Miller had a bad day and retired early.
Another great rant. The plans for a major update on the British bikes, I believe was called the modular concept, starting with a 200cc single, 400 twin etc. Bike magazine published an article including drawings they got hold of, on this proposed development that never happened. Shame. I think every manufacturer has managed to produce at least one lemon. Also before the mid 70’s, most young lads could only afford something that was way past its best.
G'day Paul, well said and informative, never owning a Cub or seeing one in action l have to go off what l have seen on your videos and from that I'm impressed by the performance of the 200cc Cub, cheers mate, Neil 🤠
Thanks 👍
Was amused when you mentioned " Hustler" while mentioning Suzuki 250's back in the day. They were sold here in the states as the "X-6 Hustler" and in a good example would just touch 100mph. My '67 was not that good, but would bump a bit over 90 on good days when the heavens were smiling and we were on a downhill slope....very downhill on the slope...
Speaking personally, obviously, I think we need to agree that it all depends on the owner, type of bike, maintenance etc. I don’t think there’s a bad bike out there; some ugly ones for sure. I’ve just been pushed into retirement and have bought a Royal Enfield 350 Hunter. I used to have a 4 speed 350 Bullet. Both RE, both 350, both single… should I compare them? I’m not going to, totally different eras. Last year was not a fun year and I was put off fiddling in the shed, something I’ve done for years. I personally think we should stop comparing bikes. The view, right or wrong through the seventies was Japanese bikes were oil tight and more reliable. Right? Wrong? Were all British bikes in the hands of maintenance incompetent owners? I doubt it. I’ve had too many bikes, an illness I’m afraid. Whilst I don’t think there’s a bad one, the design of some drove me crazy when stripping them. So maybe this whole conversation is just that, a conversation. An argument starter, a which camp are you in, mine or yours etc. We’ll all have favourites. I’ll finish on a controversial note… I think the British bike industry could/should have done better.
My wife had a honda cb250rs, it wasn't a bad little bike, it was quite quick for what it was and was easy to work on and service.
Funnily enough though, she much prefers her BSA C15, which she still has
yup she is right
And the C15’s Daddy was the Tiger Cub… I had a standard C15 back in the 60s, and always hankered after a Sports Cub. Better looking and better-ish performance. Never satisfied! Got a Serow and an Innova now, the Serow is quite like a Sports or Trials Cub in many ways. Les
I think its Dad was the C11.
@@bananabrooks3836 No, C15 was developed from the Terrier/Tiger Cub. Take a look at the two engines… only difference is C15’s upright cyl, and slightly bigger capacity. And they also developed alongside each other.. ‘distributor’ points tower went to the points on end of camshaft circa same time. Oil pump driven from points drive, etc. C15 was VERY different from C11G, C12 engines. And C15 frame was more like a Triumph frame than a BSA.
@leslieaustin151 On further research l stand corrected. Bsa acquiring Triumph in 1951.
People should love these old bikes for what they are . What’s the point of comparing these machines, just keep them up and most importantly ride them .
Good speech Paul. Well said!
Just look how well cubs do in twinshock trials
All I know is that it wouldn't keep up with my brothers C15, but it was quicker than my mates C11G.
The way that travel enginering progressed in the past was aircraft first, then cars, then motorcycles .
The XL125/175 is also a comparison, cam in head anyone?
The RS250 was certainly a sprightlier ride than the Superdream but the design was based on the XL250S from '78 with the twin exhaust outlets.
you mean "wet dream " as we called it
@basilwatson1 Yes, the 400 version was able to drag that mass around much better. Both handled well.
Who doesn't want a cub to knock about on...?
When I was a lad our local copper had a Honda 200. He would come over to me and my mates to see what we were up to if we were out at night. The bike was a terrible starter and we'd have to give him a push!
80s Japanese bikes had what they called a new cam chain called it hyvo in fact they were a morse chain invented by sir Henry morse in the 19th century used to be one on a steam engine at the bass brewing museum Burton on trent
I had a tuned cub in 1974, blimey it was fast, if the speedo was to be believed it did over 85mph and it sounded great when it was running too, and there was it's problem, it is easily the most unreliable bike I've ever owned infact it seemed hell bent on it's own self destruction.
wow yes thank you
Which Model Cub would you recommend ?
That's probably a bit of a broad question really ...
The later, the better engine wise. The Bantam Cub and Super Cub probably had the most durable engines, with all the modifications and the low compression ratio helping keep stresses down.
I had all 3 well almost a terrier the rs with a 500 in it was the mod back in the day My daily driver is an Enfield and I wont change that tells u
Hi Paul, what's your take on the 2 stoke BSA Bantam?
Good little bike if you don't expect too much. Original design by DKW.
While my mates were riding Bonnevilles and Nortons to the coast for a coffee, I was commuting every weekend 150 miles across the Pennines on a James 150 and then a Bantam FEK 939F. They were both great bikes .
Now I have 2 cubs to get back on the road.
Subject to the same level of development: Compare D1 to B175.
Nothing wrong with a Bantam - similar applies to them as what I said about the Cubs.
they say you can't compare apples to oranges. but i have found that oranges are far superior to apples.
You can't make a pie with oranges
@@richardsimpson3792 see? you CAN compare apples to oranges!