Enfield 750 at EICMA?

[Tusayan]

Enfield will get better right quick, they make a LOT of motorcycles. I think they must have made more Enfields than the original Enfield by now. And the heritage is there too..

Enfield makes more motorcycles in a week than Guzzi makes in year, by some margin, they've built a very big business.  They have the resources to make a reliable retro 750, and I'd imagine in time the bike will be developed and prove itself.  In the meantime they just need to price the bike right (which they can do with their producion volume and Indian manufacture) and make sure they don't have any notable reliability disasters in US and European markets.  I predict success, as long as the current very real market for simple old fashioned bikes exists.

[Testarossa]

It's not unfair to say that all the classic British parallel twins followed Edward Turner's lead in the 1938 Triumph Speed Twin. (His design was a fairly big departure from an even earlier Triumph parallel twin.)

Right on.

Not to take anything away from Edward Turner, who was the brilliant innovator of the '30, '40s and '50s. Yes, most of the British twins were derived from the Speed Twin, but that wasn't IP theft so much as a history of corporate mergers and cross-manufacturing arrangements along with revolving doors in the design departments. So Val Page, after hiring Turner at Ariel, moved on to Triumph and Norton; and Bert Hopwood, who was Turner's assistant, moved on to BSA, Norton and back to Triumph. Meanwhile all these brands were in stages absorbed into Norton Villiers Triumph, while management refused to modernize the war-era production tooling right up to the '70s, so all these separately branded engines were at one time or another produced with the same machinery. Enfield was NOT absorbed, and at least has the distinction of pioneering swing-arm and telescopic fork suspension.

Then there were the Japanese Britwins:  Kawasaki's original W series, which was a license-built BSA (and therefore I guess a Hopwood design) and Yamaha's XS650 which could be thought of as a SOHC Britwin. But by that time the Japanese fours were in production.

[Arizona Wayne]

Right on.

Not to take anything away from Edward Turner, who was the brilliant innovator of the '30, '40s and '50s. Yes, most of the British twins were derived from the Speed Twin, but that wasn't IP theft so much as a history of corporate mergers and cross-manufacturing arrangements along with revolving doors in the design departments. So Val Page, after hiring Turner at Ariel, moved on to Triumph and Norton; and Bert Hopwood, who was Turner's assistant, moved on to BSA, Norton and back to Triumph. Meanwhile all these brands were in stages absorbed into Norton Villiers Triumph, while management refused to modernize the war-era production tooling right up to the '70s, so all these separately branded engines were at one time or another produced with the same machinery. Enfield was NOT absorbed, and at least has the distinction of pioneering swing-arm and telescopic fork suspension.

 Yamaha's XS650 which could be thought of as a SOHC Britwin. But by that time the Japanese fours were in production.

The only Japanese 4s were built by Honda back then for the street starting in 1969 with the 750.   The smaller  Honda versions came later.   Benelli, etc., copied the Honda 4s motors.

[tetarabra]

And what about this one ?

http://www.carberrymotorcycles.com/

[Testarossa]

The only Japanese 4s were built by Honda back then for the street starting in 1969 with the 750.   The smaller  Honda versions came later.   Benelli, etc., copied the Honda 4s motors.

Now we're quibbling. Kawasaki's four was up and running in '69 as a 750, and when Honda beat them to market they regrouped and spent three years redesigning it as a 900 for introduction in '72. The Benelli 750 Sei was derived from the Honda 500/4, quite a different engine from the CB750 -- and the Sei was originally supposed to be branded as a Guzzi!

[LowRyter]

Seth, mentioning Japanese 4 stroke parallel twins, Honda built more than anyone from 125 to new 1000 Africa.   Most famous were the Superhawk and Black Bomber.

[Rough Edge racing]

Now we're quibbling. Kawasaki's four was up and running in '69 as a 750, and when Honda beat them to market they regrouped and spent three years redesigning it as a 900 for introduction in '72. The Benelli 750 Sei was derived from the Honda 500/4, quite a different engine from the CB750 -- and the Sei was originally supposed to be branded as a Guzzi!

  Interesting, if Kawasaki's 750 was really ready in 1969 why wouldn't they introduce it even if Honda came first? Maybe compared to the Honda it was a marginal engine? It would seem a solid design can be increased 250 CC's without 2 year development. Perhaps they were quite happy making hi performance 2 strokes for a few more years.. They had to see coming strict emission standards and good bye two stroke street bike

[Dharma Bum]

I had always heard that the XS650 was based on a Horex design.

[Arizona Wayne]

Now we're quibbling. Kawasaki's four was up and running in '69 as a 750, and when Honda beat them to market they regrouped and spent three years redesigning it as a 900 for introduction in '72. The Benelli 750 Sei was derived from the Honda 500/4, quite a different engine from the CB750 -- and the Sei was originally supposed to be branded as a Guzzi!

A bike up and running isn't the same as a bike you can buy.  In `74 or '75 Yamaha was ready to offer a 750 inline 4 2-stroke just when the USA had a gasoline shortage compliments of the Arab oil countries.  So it never saw the light of day.  This is the same thing that shot down the popularity of the Suzuki rotary RE5? MC because it got lower gas mileage than 4 stroke inline 4 MCs then.

[Testarossa]

I had always heard that the XS650 was based on a Horex design.

I'd heard that too but it turns out to be a myth. The origin of the XS650 engine was Yamaha's design work for Toyota. Yamaha designed and built the straight-six engine for the 2000GT, and when they wanted a bigger 4-stroke m/c engine they used the 2000GT pistons, valves and combustion chamber. The car was dohc and Yamaha changed the valve train to sohc. The look-and-feel target was Triumph, so that's why the engine looks the way it does. They obviously badly missed the handling target.

The earlier Honda twins (the C70 series of the late 50s, 250 and 305cc) were influenced not by Brit twins but by NSU, which was the world's largest m/c manufacturer at the time. Mike Hailwood was winning races on NSU's sohc 250 single. Honda used the NSU layout and pressed-steel chassis in the C-series, took its twin version racing, and this was the technology that evolved into the CB72/77 series, the original 305 Superhawk of 1961 -- the real breakthru for Honda's exports to the US. Then Laverda copied the CB77 engine at double the capacity without duplicating the reliability.

I spent a lot of time on borrowed CB twins in my youth and owned a Laverda for a while. The best of the CBs was the 450, which was the first Japanese dohc production bike.

[larrys]

Meanwhile all these brands were in stages absorbed into Norton Villiers Triumph, while management refused to modernize the war-era production tooling right up to the '70s, so all these separately branded engines were at one time or another produced with the same machinery.

Ancient tooling, the death of the British motorcycle industry. In the middle '70's, I lived in jolly olde England as a guest of our government (USAF). I visited the Triumph factory in Meriden, and the Norton factory in Wolverhampton. It was like going back in time to the turn of the 20th century! All of the tooling was OLD. The foundries looked and smelled like hell itself. No wonder the Japanese took over the motorcycle industry.
Larry

[Mr Pootle]

Ancient tooling, the death of the British motorcycle industry. In the middle '70's, I lived in jolly olde England as a guest of our government (USAF). I visited the Triumph factory in Meriden, and the Norton factory in Wolverhampton. It was like going back in time to the turn of the 20th century! All of the tooling was OLD. The foundries looked and smelled like hell itself. No wonder the Japanese took over the motorcycle industry.
Larry

That sums up a major reason behind the death of British manufacturing. If it works, don’t replace it. If it’s broken, fix it rather than replace it. Let’s not spend money, our shareholders won’t like it.

[Darren Williams]

That sums up a major reason behind the death of British manufacturing. If it works, don�t replace it. If it�s broken, fix it rather than replace it. Let�s not spend money, our shareholders won�t like it.

Save for a defective coil, my 2004 Thruxton has been faultless.  From what I have seen in the last dozen plus years the Bonnies have had Japanese like dependability. I keep thinking of selling my Thruxton, until I take it on a couple hundred mile ride, then I just smile, drain the carbs, stare at it for a bit and put it back under the cover until the next ride.

[Shorty]

Guzzi, Enfield, Ural. The Trifecta of Hobbyist Bikes. Bring a wrench and a smile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKZ_fan4PA

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

Guzzi, Enfield, Ural. The Trifecta of Hobbyist Bikes. Bring a wrench and a smile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKZ_fan4PA

I don't understand why you lump Guzzi in with those two POS. Yes, Guzzis aren't perfect, but are light-years better than either of those. And WTH does that song have to do with anything?

[Chuck in Indiana]

I don't understand why you lump Guzzi in with those two POS.

  Well, I wouldn't have said it, but  :1:

[Shorty]

  The song is called 'You ain't Going Nowhere.'  It is amusing that a couple of first rate mechanics don't see the humor in that. And, all the excuses Ural and Enfield lovers make for their bikes sound vaguely familiar in Italian.... I suppose it is a matter of degrees.

[huub]

no excuses from me, unlike most i actually have a enfield. so i don't need to repeat urban myths.  :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu
 i used to run a old iron barrel 500 enfield as a daily transport for a couple of years.
 it was slow , but reliable. after the initial rebuild ( it was a clapped out india import when i got it)   it did nearly 50.000 miles without touching the engine.
 it was superseded by a guzzi nuovo falcone , that dropped a valve twice,
 that one was superseded by a guzzi lario, that dropped a valve too!
not sure what, but there might be a lesson in there.....

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

no excuses from me, unlike most i actually have a enfield. so i don't need to repeat urban myths.  :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu
 i used to run a old iron barrel 500 enfield as a daily transport for a couple of years.
 it was slow , but reliable. after the initial rebuild ( it was a clapped out india import when i got it)   it did nearly 50.000 miles without touching the engine.
 it was superseded by a guzzi nuovo falcone , that dropped a valve twice,
 that one was superseded by a guzzi lario, that dropped a valve too!
not sure what, but there might be a lesson in there.....

Let's see... You choose two Guzzis known to have those issues and then wonder why they grenade? 

I guess a "reliable" Indian Enfield is possible, the same as a friend's "reliable" Yugo GV. With enough Fiat parts to replace the failed originals, he made it to 250,000 miles before the body was just too rotted away. He replaced it with a Miata, which promptly broke it's crankshaft...

[rodekyll]

Ancient tooling, the death of the British motorcycle industry. In the middle '70's, I lived in jolly olde England as a guest of our government (USAF). I visited the Triumph factory in Meriden, and the Norton factory in Wolverhampton. It was like going back in time to the turn of the 20th century! All of the tooling was OLD. The foundries looked and smelled like hell itself. No wonder the Japanese took over the motorcycle industry.
Larry

That sums up a major reason behind the death of British manufacturing. If it works, don’t replace it. If it’s broken, fix it rather than replace it. Let’s not spend money, our shareholders won’t like it.

Except that after the war, British factories were crated and shipped to Japan en toto.  So the modern Japanese auto and m/c industries were started with that exact pre-war clapped-out tooling -- often with no alterations.  Datsuns of the 60s shared parts with cars like Heralds and Spitfires.  Under the bodywork they were generally identical throughout the bluebird and fair lady (310/410) years.  The bodies themselves were Pinnifierra (sp? read that "Fiat") designs. 

Japan itself was still in imitation mode.  It wasn't until about 1968 that they breached the US market with the in-house developed 510/520/110 models.  '68/69 were the breakout years for a lot of the surviving Japanese vehicle mfgrs -- Subaru, Datusn, Toyota, Honda, and the m/c companies that succeeded.  The ones that didn't show innovation by then faded into memory.

[oldbike54]

Then there were the Japanese Britwins:  Kawasaki's original W series, which was a license-built BSA (and therefore I guess a Hopwood design) and Yamaha's XS650 which could be thought of as a SOHC Britwin. But by that time the Japanese fours were in production.

 Val Page designed the A7 unit construction motor .

 Dusty

 

[huub]

Let's see... You choose two Guzzis known to have those issues and then wonder why they grenade? 

I guess a "reliable" Indian Enfield is possible, the same as a friend's "reliable" Yugo GV. With enough Fiat parts to replace the failed originals, he made it to 250,000 miles before the body was just too rotted away. He replaced it with a Miata, which promptly broke it's crankshaft...

i can relate to that , had been running a 2cv truckette for ages , until there was no body left to weld repairs on.
decided i had enough of this shit,  bought a toyota they are supposed to be reliable.
that broke its engine , gearbox clutch and basically everything else in the first year i owned it.
after a year i was so pissed off i scrapped the toyota, and bought a 35 year old 2cv.
if i am destined to spend my life working on cars , i might as well have a fun car

[rodekyll]

I see that.

[Tusayan]

I guess a "reliable" Indian Enfield is possible, the same as a friend's "reliable" Yugo GV. With enough Fiat parts to replace the failed originals, he made it to 250,000 miles before the body was just too rotted away.

You can certainty keep a Yugo going for a long time... There are apparently 60,000 of them still running in former Yugoslavian countries and they have reputation for practicality, not a negative reputation. Zastava, the manufacturer, is now owned by Fiat and they make the 500L there.  Parts for older Zastavas are therefore supped by Fiat or the aftermarket.

[Rough Edge racing]

Except that after the war, British factories were crated and shipped to Japan en toto.  So the modern Japanese auto and m/c industries were started with that exact pre-war clapped-out tooling -- often with no alterations.  Datsuns of the 60s shared parts with cars like Heralds and Spitfires.  Under the bodywork they were generally identical throughout the bluebird and fair lady (310/410) years.  The bodies themselves were Pinnifierra (sp? read that "Fiat") designs. 

Japan itself was still in imitation mode.  It wasn't until about 1968 that they breached the US market with the in-house developed 510/520/110 models.  '68/69 were the breakout years for a lot of the surviving Japanese vehicle mfgrs -- Subaru, Datusn, Toyota, Honda, and the m/c companies that succeeded.  The ones that didn't show innovation by then faded into memory.

Interesting,  may I have your source for that information because I have heard a different story

[Testarossa]

Wikipedia says the Datsun 11 was an unauthorized copy of the Austin 7. 1953-59, Nissan built cars under license from Austin, at first assembling them from British-made parts and gradually switching over to Japanese-made parts. No mention of machine tools.  http://www.earlydatsun.com/austina40a50.html

Relationship to Austin Seven
The Datsun Type 11 had the same engine displacement and external dimensions as an Austin Seven, and information about the British car was widely available within Japan. In October and November 1929, the chief engineer of Austin presented a paper in Tokyo called "The British Light Car". This paper is supposed to have provided detailed explanations and illustrations of many of the mechanical components of the Austin Seven. [Madely, pg. 22] The exact relationship between the two cars is, however, in dispute.
Some authors say that it was a licensed copy of the Seven Adrian Room. Others say it was a copy, but not an authorized one Mills, Rinsey . Herbert Austin was definitely concerned about the possibility of Datsun infringing on his patents; he imported a Datsun car in 1935 in order to examine it, but decided to not file a complaint. Some websites have pointed to this as evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Datsun was not a copy of the Austin. motorsnippets ] Other websites have pointed out that the decision to not press charges might have been because by then, the Datsun designs had begun to differ from the Austin. Rat Dat ]

[rodekyll]

Interesting,  may I have your source for that information because I have heard a different story

I didn't mean that the Datsun factory was built with British factory tooling, although postwar Japan's industry was in part rebuilt using prewar British tooling.  I used Datsun in the post-war/pre-510 years as an example of a company that used British patents and Italian designs. 

[Rough Edge racing]

I didn't mean that the Datsun factory was built with British factory tooling, although postwar Japan's industry was in part rebuilt using prewar British tooling.  I used Datsun in the post-war/pre-510 years as an example of a company that used British patents and Italian designs.

 Ok, when you said this I thought you meant exactly what was said.

Except that after the war, British factories were crated and shipped to Japan en toto.  So the modern Japanese auto and m/c industries were started with that exact pre-war clapped-out tooling -- often with no alterations.

[rodekyll]

Ok, when you said this I thought you meant exactly what was said.

I did mean that British tooling was crated and shipped to Japan, yes.  I did not mean that Datsun got any.

I believe I learned about it in history class when we were studying the Marshall Plan and the rise of postwar Japanese industry.  I did not research it anew for this discussion.

[Testarossa]

Turns out it's a 650.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/auto/bikes/royal-enfield-unveils-650cc-twin-cylinder-engine/articleshow/61529456.cms