|
Old bikes own. Its the culture surrounding them that sucks. Much like new bikes. And really old bikes and not so old-ish 80's and 90's bikes and just about everything that someone can be into that isn't bikes. You dont ride a CB350 because you want R1-esque performance. You ride it because you can appreciate an older bike in the same way that people can appreciate anything old. Its the idiots who turn it into a life statement that make riding an old bike terrible.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
The problem with old bikes, especially late-70's / early 80's, is that the parts are really drying up and they had specialized aspects which makes fabricating them not possible. Valves for an 80's CB/CM? May as well buy a new bike!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:"Character" is great when some other poor oval office has to work on the thing. I would love to have an old bike. I started with a 1979 XS400 and dinked around with it a bunch and blat-blatted around town with my Dunstall mufflers and and homemade drag bars and learned to work on carbs and things. I got rid of it because it stranded me a bunch and I was sick of fixing it more than riding it, not making 70 mph, a sore spine, a stupid amount of vibration, and generally having an old bike as my only bike. But I'll still have an old CL or something one day in the future to dick around with and ride on sunny days when I have that kind of income. Old bikes are the poo poo in terms of character, but not in terms of performance and reliability and things that really count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:The problem with old bikes, especially late-70's / early 80's, is that the parts are really drying up and they had specialized aspects which makes fabricating them not possible. Valves for an 80's CB/CM? May as well buy a new bike! Hence why the best old bike is a Honda 350, with 300,000 of them manufactued and racing classes devoted to the platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:The problem with old bikes, especially late-70's / early 80's, is that the parts are really drying up and they had specialized aspects which makes fabricating them not possible. Valves for an 80's CB/CM? May as well buy a new bike! What are valves on old bikes made of anyway? Hardened steel? Forged steel? Inconel? Sodium filled? Surely it couldn't be as simple as chucking a block of carbon steel on a lathe and making replacements, could it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What are valves on old bikes made of anyway? Hardened steel? Forged steel? Inconel? Sodium filled? Surely it couldn't be as simple as chucking a block of carbon steel on a lathe and making replacements, could it? Actually, it might be. I'm fairly sure that old valves are just high-carbon austenitic steels. Hard to machine, definitely, but not impossible, and if you have the proper setup to heat-treat the steel you could end up with something just as good as the factory product. The valve seats are a bigger problem -- if the engine was designed for unleaded gas, they'll be made of stellite, an extremely tough cobalt-chrome alloy. The only way to work on stellite really is by grinding it. Modern valves are stainless steel, titanium or (in the case of exhaust valves particularly) even the sort of exotic nickel alloys used in gas turbine blades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What are valves on old bikes made of anyway? Hardened steel? Forged steel? Inconel? Sodium filled? Surely it couldn't be as simple as chucking a block of carbon steel on a lathe and making replacements, could it? Stellite coated steel, in the case of Honda. That's why if you grind them, they evaporate in about 10,000km. Harley, Norton, etc used larger valves which could be solid chunks without the coating, hence why you can find aftermarket for a 60 year old thumper. Rime fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Or if it's an FZR600 the intake valves are made of cast play doh. Mine only had 18k on it and was at negative goddamn clearance on 5 of the intake valves while the others were merely at a hair above 0. I guess racers would typically go through a set of intakes every season. Next valve adjustment will be via a valve job. Thankfully they're only $22 each when my friend gives me his employee discount OR I can go with custom made valves for only $55  My mini rant was mostly for all the people I hear talking poo poo about how new stuff has no soul or whatever bullshit they come up with (mostly hipsters and boomers from my experience). I do like older machines (I do a 60 mile commute on a 25 year old bike for christ's sake) I just have no illusions in my mind that new stuff is better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
I'm not a vintage bike guy at all, but I will loving murder my father if he sells his absolutely pristine 82 Suzuki GS1100E to anyone other than me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:I'm not a vintage bike guy at all, but I will loving murder my father if he sells his absolutely pristine 82 Suzuki GS1100E to anyone other than me. Just murder him right away and inherit the bike!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
I love my '67 BSA Bantam. It's 175cc but only about as powerful as my girlfriends 50cc scooter. The frame flexes, the forks flex (visibly), the front brake is entirely ornamental and the back brake locks up the oddball-sized bias ply rear tyre that provides most of the meaningful rear suspension. The clutch basket is made of cheese so it notches and makes gear changes an exercise in frustration, when you remember that the shifter is on the wrong side of the bike, that is. It's terrible. But on my favourite coast roads, with the Sun low in the sky and the little engine burbling away it just puts a smile on my face, and I couldn't really tell you why. Now, to rebuild the engine... and the electrics... aaand the forks... aaaand get some new rear shocks... Oh look, the chain needs boiling in paraffin again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Bugdrvr posted:My mini rant was mostly for all the people I hear talking poo poo about how new stuff has no soul or whatever bullshit they come up with (mostly hipsters and boomers from my experience). I do like older machines (I do a 60 mile commute on a 25 year old bike for christ's sake) I just have no illusions in my mind that new stuff is better. I feel like we'd hear a lot less poo poo talking about new stuff if companies hadn't stopped importing loving standards in the 1980's. I mean goddamn, I don't want a cruiser, I don't want a sci-fi crotch rocket, and I don't want a dirtbike. That leaves me with few options unless I want to pay out the rear end for a lovely Triumph, or even more for an admittedly awesome Moto Guzzi V7. It's only in the past couple of years that Enfield has started exporting to North America and they're still hella rare. There is a huge loving market out there for a reasonably priced 500-750cc UJM like the SR400, but instead we're stuck cannibalizing whatever rat eaten CB frames are still kicking around and praying you can find one before a hipster rices it up into some monstrosity. In this market, yes, I'm going to say that new bikes are "poo poo". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Rime posted:I feel like we'd hear a lot less poo poo talking about new stuff if companies hadn't stopped importing loving standards in the 1980's. I mean goddamn, I don't want a cruiser, I don't want a sci-fi crotch rocket, and I don't want a dirtbike. That leaves me with few options unless I want to pay out the rear end for a lovely Triumph, or even more for an admittedly awesome Moto Guzzi V7. It's only in the past couple of years that Enfield has started exporting to North America and they're still hella rare. Seca, Bandit 600 or 400, GS500, Ninja 500R/EX500. They're not UJM, but they're simple inexpensive standards that are pretty well road-proven with decent aftermarket support and fanbases. Bugdrvr posted:people I hear talking poo poo about how new stuff has no soul or whatever bullshit they come up with Soul=character=personality usually, which means "poo poo consistently goes wrong with this bike."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
HenryJLittlefinger posted:Seca, Bandit 600 or 400, GS500, Ninja 500R/EX500. They're not UJM, but they're simple inexpensive standards that are pretty well road-proven with decent aftermarket support and fanbases. See Also: Italian bikes
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
A number of years ago I was looking at a Lotus Europa on eBay, and the seller said something along the lines of "This is a very reliable car. I would have absolutely no concerns about taking it on a 100-mile drive."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
HenryJLittlefinger posted:Seca, Bandit 600 or 400, GS500, Ninja 500R/EX500. They're not UJM, but they're simple inexpensive standards that are pretty well road-proven with decent aftermarket support and fanbases. My ZRX1200 had loads of character and never broke down. Most people in the world are idiots; this rule doesn't change for motorbikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Soul isn't something they put in at the factory, it's something you put in when you ride. Says the 80s UJM owner
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Ola posted:Soul isn't something they put in at the factory, it's something it edit: I'm bad at spelling. karms fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Ola posted:Soul isn't something they put in at the factory, it's something that vibrates loose when you ride.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I'd definitely like something in the 500-700 range with a UJM aesthetic, if only because it would be awesome to sit upright on a bike with enough seat for two people. I know Triumph kinda does this and the CB1100 does, too, but both seem pricey for what you get, especially since it would be the bike I ride when my wife wants to come along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
HenryJLittlefinger posted:Seca, Bandit 600 or 400, GS500, Ninja 500R/EX500. They're not UJM, but they're simple inexpensive standards that are pretty well road-proven with decent aftermarket support and fanbases. Those are sport bikes. They are loving useless except on pavement. They have absurd seats. The ninja is a goddamn sport bike designed for the track. That is what I classify as a "sci-fi crotch rocket". This is a modern standard: 
Rime fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Rime posted:They are loving useless except on pavement. Also, the notion of Standard vs Sport has to do with seating position and ergonomics, not looks. You want a vintage bike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Saying something isn't a "UJM" or especially not a "standard" bike because the rear seat isn't a park bench is a bit silly. It also ignores the natural evolution of the UJMs themselves. When I think of 'modern UJM' I think of something like a Honda Hornet - which has a bolt-upright riding position - and a rounded rear seat. I also throw the smaller Ducati Monsters in there. You've got a raft of new bikes like the CB500F that fall into this as well, and it's absurd to classify something like those as a 'crotch rocket'. They're not retro-styled, which is what some people are looking for, but they're far less racy than the '70s Honda CBs were in their day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Rime posted:Those are sport bikes. They are loving useless except on pavement. They have absurd seats. The ninja is a goddamn sport bike designed for the track. That is what I classify as a "sci-fi crotch rocket". Ninja is a brand name, not a class of motorcycle. The ZX-6s and the like are supersports, yes, but the EX series (250R and 500R) are absolutely standard bikes with upright seating, all-purpose bars, centered controls, tandem seats.  I'm sure that there are a lot of GS500 riders out there who would be flattered to hear that they ride a "sci-fi crotch rocket", though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I think Rime is the antimoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:Those are sport bikes. They are loving useless except on pavement. They have absurd seats. The ninja is a goddamn sport bike designed for the track. That is what I classify as a "sci-fi crotch rocket". I called my fz6 a sport bike and was quickly corrected by other posters on here that it was a standard. I'm with you tho, I think bikes like a bandit or fz6 muddy the water. I put them as sport bikes with bikes like an r6 or gixxer being a 'super sport' and something like a bonnie or that MG being a 'standard'
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Yeah I couldn't figure what he was upset about. He doesn't have metric sockets up to 17? Come on bro, tool up. But then I thought maybe he's talking about a 17mm O2 sensor socket which is a weird thing with a cutout on the side or something isn't it? Couple pages back but I just got here. Not mad, just frustrated. The Striple is a pretty common and the fact the information wasn't readily available irritated me. But yeah, I was trying to find the actual O2 sensor socket with the side scalloped out. You'd think at some point someone would want to know and it would be in the shop manual or something. Not everyone has a big-rear end toolbox with all the poo poo you could possibly need just waiting to be dug through when the situation calls for it. Mind you I would /like/ a big rear end tool box, but these days I'm in a little apartment and I don't have the storage for it. And to catch up on the recent chat, that little Monster is a beautiful bike. Am I just over simplifying poo poo to go: sport bike = clip-ons and rear set standards = proper bars and and controls not forward cruisers = bars and forward controls Vintage = old standards Cause honestly, that poo poo seems to work like 95% of the time for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
The other problem with the term "standard" is the same as calling a manual transmission a standard -- they're anything but. In most parts of the USA, a "standard" motorcycle would be a 1000cc+ cruiser, followed by maybe a 600~ supersport. I don't know what else you'd call a bike that is meant to be "a generally good and practical motorcycle that does everything decently but isn't quite a touring bike or a dual-sport", though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I wish there was a name for "adventure" bikes that didn't make the owner sound like you were planning to gently caress off to outer mongolia at a moment's notice. Maybe SUB? Sport Utility Bike?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I ride my 1980 CB lying on the tank in a full tuck half the time, if all we care about is seating position does that mean I own a super sport?  Sagebrush posted:The other problem with the term "standard" is the same as calling a manual transmission a standard -- they're anything but. In most parts of the USA, a "standard" motorcycle would be a 1000cc+ cruiser, followed by maybe a 600~ supersport. I don't know what else you'd call a bike that is meant to be "a generally good and practical motorcycle that does everything decently but isn't quite a touring bike or a dual-sport", though. Need a word that epitomizes "non-niche", generic even. The thing about the retro-standard / UJM is that they were stupidly versatile. The same frame and engine can go from a track ripping monster to a total mud thrasher just by changing the tires and exhaust, and tweaking the suspension stiffness. You didn't have to have three bikes in the garage, because one could do whatever you wanted. The same cannot be said of what is being peddled as a "standard" today. "Blank Slate Bike"? I don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The other problem with the term "standard" is the same as calling a manual transmission a standard -- they're anything but. In most parts of the USA, a "standard" motorcycle would be a 1000cc+ cruiser, followed by maybe a 600~ supersport. I don't know what else you'd call a bike that is meant to be "a generally good and practical motorcycle that does everything decently but isn't quite a touring bike or a dual-sport", though. It doesn't help that every drat person I meet calls it a 'crotch rocket' too. I think I've repeated the same thing about handlebars and pegs etc 100 times. I even tell them it's a standard but to most people there are 2 kinds of bikes, Harley's and crotch rockets. Rime posted:Need a word that epitomizes "non-niche", generic even. The thing about the retro-standard / UJM is that they were stupidly versatile. The same frame and engine can go from a track ripping monster to a total mud thrasher just by changing the tires and exhaust, and tweaking the suspension stiffness. You didn't have to have three bikes in the garage, because one could do whatever you wanted. The same cannot be said of what is being peddled as a "standard" today. This is nuts. You certainly could do that with any new standard and it'd do it better than a retro UJM. What retro UJMs are track ripping monsters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Rime posted:Those are sport bikes. They are loving useless except on pavement. They have absurd seats. The ninja is a goddamn sport bike designed for the track. That is what I classify as a "sci-fi crotch rocket". Rime posted:I ride my 1980 CB lying on the tank in a full tuck half the time, if all we care about is seating position does that mean I own a super sport?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
nsaP posted:What retro UJMs are track ripping monsters? Well, back when they were new, they all were (or could be) -- at the time they were new. But I wouldn't call them "stupidly versatile". My CL350 is the most "versatile" model Honda made at the time, and its concessions to off-road mud thrashing are high pipes, knobby tires, a 1" larger front wheel and lower gearing. It's great fun on fire roads but as far as a dirt bike goes it's heavy, slow and harsh. The CB street model, with 1" smaller front wheel, higher gearing and street tires, does well enough on a track to have a racing series around it, but it sure wasn't anything like a GP racer of the time, and compared to a modern street bike it's got utterly poo poo brakes and suspension and the CV carbs give it terrible engine response and so on and so on. I think Rime doesn't want a standard, he wants a standard and also the year to be 1973.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.  E: Except for Sagebrush's post just now, that is all completely true. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
I was gonna say, you want a UJM that isn't old and lovely. Unfortunately, taking away those two qualities would automatically make it not a UJM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
I will say this though: I do wish there were more standards available in North America. Why do we never get stuff like the XBR500? Cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:I ride my 1980 CB lying on the tank in a full tuck half the time, if all we care about is seating position does that mean I own a super sport? Yeah, none of those bikes I listed are sportbikes, hence me listing them specifically. They aren't geared for racing, and the ergonomics, suspension, exhaust, body, etc are all designed for them to be a basic first bike/commuter/short tripper/middle-of-the-road motorcycle. They are the very embodiment of what most people consider a standard, with some wiggle room for semantics. You won't trail ride with them, but there's a whole lot of people that take those models and put knobbies on for very capable gravel riding. poo poo, I've ridden my Seca fully-laden on many miles of rutted-up Forest Service road on street tires without incident. No, "retro-standard" UJMs were not stupidly versatile. It's just that there weren't nearly as many styles of bike available when they were in highest production. No UJM anywhere went from track ripping monster to a total mud thrasher just by changing tires, exhaust, and suspension. If you wanted a track ripping monster and had a UJM, you tuned the poo poo out of the engine, carbs, intake system, exhaust, suspension, and stripped weight off. If you wanted a total mud thrasher, you bought an enduro or dirt bike, because otherwise you'd have a street bike that was mediocre off-road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
HenryJLittlefinger posted:Yeah, none of those bikes I listed are sportbikes, hence me listing them specifically. They aren't geared for racing, and the ergonomics, suspension, exhaust, body, etc are all designed for them to be a basic first bike/commuter/short tripper/middle-of-the-road motorcycle. Wikipedia posted:The Kawasaki Ninja 500R (which was originally named, and is still referred to as the EX500 and is known as the GPZ500S in some markets) is a sport bike. Wikipedia posted:Class: Lightweight Sport bike (GS500F)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Sure, in the way that a Chevy Cobalt SS is a "sports car", I guess 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Also any manufacturer website. lol The SR400 is listed under 'Supersport' 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 00:29
|
|