Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rough Edge racing on March 02, 2015, 05:11:53 AM
-
So...some of you here have running and licensed old Triumphs, BSA's or other vertical twin twin bikes...I have several including my race bike..... There's a discussion on a popular vintage Triumph forum about vibration....Some guys saying how smooth their 650/750 Triumphs are on the highway......
In fact when I said a 1000 Guzzi is far smoother on the highway than any old Triumph a few told me something is wrong with my Triumph....Must be unbalanced or have loose bolts.They rode a Guzzi and it vibrated more than the Triumph at highway speeds.....I was laughing inside knowing that 40 years of Triumphs taught me something...
What do you say from actual recent riding experience ? Prefer a 650 Triumph to a Guzzi on a road trip because it's smoother?
-
No recent experience but when I was a younger man, 35 years ago, riding with a group including Sportsters and Triumphs taught many of us how to ride fast to stay in front of the bikes most likely to shed parts. Not saying they were bad bikes, just tough to hold together.
Peter
-
Oh goody , another vibration thread . Did that Motogoosy fella put you up to this ? ::) :D
Dusty
-
I find that hard to believe, I still consider myself a "Brit Bike guy" I think my T140 was smoother at 60 than my T120 but I don't believe it would ever be smoother than an Eldorado or a T3. Was the Guzzi tuned properly? Were there any modifications to the Triumph? One of the guys in the Triumph International owners club would cruise all day with his Harley buddies at 65 to 75 Mph I found that hard to believe until he gave up his secrets. He had the Crank shaft dynamically balanced to smooth out the vibration at that RPM range and he replaced the standard sprockets. This made the his T140 a much more relaxed ride at that speed for long distances.
-
Asking "Does this bike vibrate a lot?" is sort of like asking "Does this bike have a comfortable seat?" or "Are the handlebars too far back for comfort on this bike?"
Comfort level is not something you can measure, I don't think. I've ridden many tens of thousands of miles on BSA vertical twins, including my current '69 A65 and my '61 A10, and I don't consider the vibration level annoying at highway speeds, nor do I "shed parts" on the side of the highway.
I spent $100 to get the crankshaft on my A65 dynamically balanced when I had it rebuilt many years ago, and it's smooth by most standards. The A10 crank has not been balanced, but it's a lower-compression bike with more mass than the A65, and the vibration isn't even noticeable.
You can feel the gentle pulsing of the Vtwin engine in the Guzzis, but to consider them as "vibrating"? Not hardly.
I've never ridden a solid-mount Sportster; I'd love to see what the vibration feels like on those - I hear it's bad, but won't know till I ride one.
So when people talk about how their BSA or Triumph "vibrates" or "loses parts" or has "Lucas-itis" or "leaks oil", my suggestion is to knock off riding for a while, fix your bike, THEN take it out and enjoy it!
Lannis
-
The thing I found comparing Brit bikes to Guzzi's is that you can ride the Guzzi at higher speeds longer. ;D DonG
-
Another exercise to knock the other guy's bike to make you feel good about your own. It's silly.
Both the old British twins and the old Guzzi bikes are great and fun to ride. Different bikes, yes, but great in their own way.
The British twins tended to be the sport bikes of the era. They were/are nimble, quick-handling and offered spirited acceleration. I suspect they were more of a young man's choice in the day.
The Guzzi twins were more of a touring type machine, better suited to extended trips in the saddle. They are smooth on the roadway, require no daily chain maintenance and offer a more mature, comfortable ride.
As far as vibration, the British 360 degree vertical twin inherently has more running vibration than a 90 degree engine like the Guzzi. Counterbalancing does not quell it all. You can rev an old Triumph on its centerstand parked on a concrete floor and it will walk. Over time, this same character can play havoc with assorted bolt-on items that are not Lock-Tight fastened.
Some of the old British marques are much better in this regard. The Nortons with their rubber engine mounts and the Royal Enfield English twins with their better-supported and balanced crankshafts are smoother than the Triumph. Still, on the open road, the British twins, even the Triumphs, seem fine to me.
I recently sold a much-loved 1970 Bonneville that I kept for years and regularly rode. In the mountains particularly, I was always amazed that the acceleration and handling of that vintage British twin was not far below that of the late-model Triumph twin that I owned. The brakes were adequate although not quite up to modern standards but that thing would haul ass.
Much as I have loved more than one Guzzi Loop Frame, they were not even in the same ballpark as the Triumph as far as sporting performance. Although the later LeMans and Sport models were better, the Triumph would run circles around the Goose.
Still, if someone was going to make a trip from Jacksonville Florida to San Diego CA, most people would probably be happier on the Guzzi. On the other hand, many folks, maybe even I, would be keen to do it on the Triumph.
ALL ARE GOOD-
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/leafman60/Bike%20Pics/T4.jpg) (http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/leafman60/media/Bike%20Pics/T4.jpg.html)
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/leafman60/Guzzi%20V700%20II/IMG_5262.jpg) (http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/leafman60/media/Guzzi%20V700%20II/IMG_5262.jpg.html)
-
I had a Royal Enfield Interceptor that vibrated cracks in welds, ate up bulb filiments, and wore numerous holes in wire insulation. It was terrible...the worst bike I've ever owned. My Norton wasn't bad, due to the rubber mounts, but still rattled off engine/transmission bolts. Unbalanced parallel twins are the perfect storm for vibration. They're even worse than many singles because they typically have higher redlines. Guzzis, on the other hand, have perfect primary balance with the connecting rod offset causing only a small rocking couple throb. Even with a Guzzi's heavier pistons there is no comparison...
-
Ah geez.
My one and only long trip on a British twin;
1982, 21 years old. My and my good buddy decide we're men enough to ride from Detroit to Daytona, in February, on a '73 Commando (Me) and a '76 BMW /7.
The Norton shook the engine mount bolts out, literally all but 2 (which were both loose) before Toledo. Good thing there was a marine hardware around with SS studs. So for another $50 we went on our way.
It took 3 days to get to Macon, GA where the Brit kicked a rod out the case. I had been completely numb for 2 days by then. I admit the bike was...not properly prepared by my 21 y.o. self. Nevertheless, it shook like a dog shitting a peach pit even after refastening the motor.
-
A certain well known writer coined the term * Norton Contaminator Twin * :D
Dusty
-
I've never ridden a solid-mount Sportster; I'd love to see what the vibration feels like on those - I hear it's bad, but won't know till I ride one.
Lannis
The iron head Sportster I owned vibrated worse than a Triumph. I had a modified A10 and it was fairly smooth at 60 mph as compared to other vertical twins... Lannis, the vibration thread is in the Triumph forum on Brit Bike
-
The iron head Sportster I owned vibrated worse than a Triumph. I had a modified A10 and it was fairly smooth at 60 mph as compared to other vertical twins... Lannis, the vibration thread is in the Triumph forum on Brit Bike
I had always heard that the big 45 degree Vee-twin in the Sportster was impossible to make smooth (without rubber mounts); that there's no amount of careful building and crank balancing that would allow you to ride 65 MPH all day without falling apart. I'd still like to take a properly built and maintained CH on a ride sometime and see.
The BSAs and Triumphs can obviously be made to be smooth, since even a non-mechanical-genius like me can do it, or have it done. But again, you don't want to be holding the thing at 90 MPH all day long either. You have to ride bikes how they were meant to be ridden, to some degree. A /2 BMW or even an original VW Beetle is designed so that it can be run all day at wide-open throttle and not blow up (assuming you check the oil in the VW regularly); a twin-carb BSA is not the same animal.
I haven't read the BB.com thread, but I suspect without even reading it (based on past experience) that many people who are asserting things about bikes, are talking about bikes that they haven't taken on a 2500-mile trip!
Lannis
-
I have limited experience to base a comparison on- just 2 bikes, a 1977 LeMans and a 1978 Triumph Bonneville ( T140). Neither was what one would call smooth but back in those days we rarely thought much about vibration, we just rode the bike we had and accepted what went with it.
The Guzzi LeMans I bought entirely based on looks. Never rode a Guzzi, particularly that sporting model until I got on it and rode it out of the parking area from Doc Storm's shop Sept 1977. Soon as I was on the road I realized this was waaaaay different than the KZ900 I traded in. But the issue of vibration was the power pulses, unless one kept the revs up ( which I was too ignorant to do) made the bike seem tractor like. I was 4 years into motorcycling and too unknowing to ride that bike like it was designed to be used. Traded it for a 1978 Ducati Darmah ( nightmare) a year later. Big mistake.
Still the Guzzi was smoother than a 1978 Bonneville I bought to renew and ride in 1985. I spent hours replacing parts and cleaning until the day it was pronounced ready for the street. That first ride was not good. The bike vibrated at any rpm over 3000 so bad the headlight rotated in it's shell and my hand were numbed after 45 minutes. I was disappointed to be sure and that bike wins the contest in my garage for being the vibrating-est machine I've experienced.
I've talked with and heard from other Triumph owners of smoother running Triumph twins and so I imagine mine was not representative of the T140 line, at least I hope not because the bike was so good looking, had the right sound and such a classic.
-
The Sportsters don't vibrate because after 10 minutes you're numb and can't feel it! My 79 T140 is as smooth as any of my Guzzi"s up to 40 mph, maybe 50 on a good day. After that forgetaboutit! Unless you have 2 more pistons going in the opposite direction, it's just not going to be Guzzi smooth. :BEER:
-
Never spent much time on a Triumph twin but always assumed they vibrated like a non isolastic Norton or BSA twin. Those would rattle your fillings out compared to any Guzzi twin I have ever rode.
Pete
-
Never spent much time on a Triumph twin but always assumed they vibrated like a non isolastic Norton or BSA twin. Those would rattle your fillings out compared to any Guzzi twin I have ever rode.
Pete
1. If you're into the engine, have the builder balance the crank, dynamically, and balance the pistons.
2. If there are two carbs, sync them well.
3. Install an electronic ignition where the timing relationship between the two cylinders is established by the location of the triggers on the backing plate, NOT by trying to set two sets of points so they fire at the right times, which can't be done unless you set the dwell wrong on one of them.
These things make a BIG difference!
Lannis
-
1. If you're into the engine, have the builder balance the crank, dynamically, and balance the pistons.
2. If there are two carbs, sync them well.
3. Install an electronic ignition where the timing relationship between the two cylinders is established by the location of the triggers on the backing plate, NOT by trying to set two sets of points so they fire at the right times, which can't be done unless you set the dwell wrong on one of them.
These things make a BIG difference!
Lannis
The later point plates(1968 on I think) with the condensers mounted under the fuel tank allow the dwell to be set on each set of points. I think it was with the change from monobloc to concentric carburetors.
-
I put up with some vibration because of the song the exhaust sings. 2 best sounding motors in history a Guzzi and a British twin! :BEER:
-
My T140 is pretty good at 50, not too much vibration, I could ride at that speed for hours. At 60 it's bothersome at a steady pace.
My '85 Guzzi vibrates in a much less intense way. I haven't ridden a 70's guzzi so I can't compare directly but...
I would rather ride my Guzzi through the Vermont/New Hamphshire mountains than the Triumph on a long trip.
I would rather ride the Triumph on the dirt roads and hills of the Finger Lakes.
We'll see how Tony's new Triumph compares to my T140 shake-wise and to the Guzzi this spring
And I love how both bikes sound too!!
-
My 850T and my TR6R have new cylinders, pistons and head work, but are basically stock with no special balancing. The Triumph is comfortable -- the vibration is there but not annoying. The Guzzi is smoother at all speeds. Both bikes handle beautifully but the Triumph is roughly 25% lighter (with a shorter wheelbase) and therefore more agile. I trust the Guzzi for long distances and high speeds -- not so the Triumph.
-
My T140 is pretty good at 50, not too much vibration, I could ride at that speed for hours. At 60 it's bothersome at a steady pace.
My '85 Guzzi vibrates in a much less intense way. I haven't ridden a 70's guzzi so I can't compare directly but...
I would rather ride my Guzzi through the Vermont/New Hamphshire mountains than the Triumph on a long trip.
I would rather ride the Triumph on the dirt roads and hills of the Finger Lakes.
We'll see how Tony's new Triumph compares to my T140 shake-wise and to the Guzzi this spring
And I love how both bikes sound too!!
Pete,as soon as the glaciers retreat and we beat back the polar bears.
-
I think the guy saying the triumph was smoother fibbed.
-
I have an 82t140es and a 83lemans III...the first is a 1938 design the other an early 70s solution. The 30 years of difference are immediately apparent after a ride. The first is a "split" single, the other a "balanced" 90deg design. Both are fun to ride, t140 is a fun urban bike, for everything else there is the Guzzi.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What the hell it's Monday morning and a good way to start the week off with my OPINION !
Had a 67 Triumph Trophy in 69 and sure didn't seem like it vibrated at all but compared to what back in the day ? My 74 850 Commando didn't vibrate either but I could sure see the engine doing a helluva lively dance . Those rubber mounts sure worked good .
My problem with these bikes was keeping them on the road . The Norton was like owning a boat , just kept throwing money at it . The Triumph tranny blew about 2,000 miles into owning it . Oh ya , 2 wiring harnesses for the Norton . Stranded me more than once !
I know I'm off topic here but lets face it were does dependability come into the equation but definitely overlooked and I know I'm off topic ???
The guzzis at speed are slightly vibrating machines , like anything that's not Jap or 3 cylinder and will get you to your destination without leaving you on the side of the road , vibration or no vibration . Thats an important feature for this rider . If I was mechanically inclined beyond normal maintenance I still might have one of those brit bikes but my love affair with them has been over for a longtime . Ride on Guzzi.............. ................... ......... ;-T
-
I rode a 60s triumph as my daily transport in london for a few years, great bike.
Now I'm doing the same with a loop, both great bikes.
The triumph handles, the guzzi is smoother, both have endless character and knock most modern bikes for 6.
(cricketing term, substitute home run)
my tuppence worth...
(substitute 2c)
ps yes, a 500cc triumph WILL vibrate your back teeth at highway speeds
-
No Triumph experience but a few years ago I spent a couple of months with a 67 or so BSA 650 Thunderbolt in preparation for 3 weeks in the UK and Isle of Man for the BSA International Rally that year. I was expecting cement-mixer vibrations but no. It vibrated a bit, but nothing like the SR/XT 500 Yamahas I've ridden that had me seeing double in short order. Or an old girlfriend's XS650. Single carb could have helped there. It was happiest on the country roads it was really meant for but could do ok on motorway or freeway up to about 60 mph.
My V50 II feels very smooth, almost no vibration. The Monza has a noticeably rocking couple at idle, more so than the II if less than the Le Mans. A BSA B40 single in SS90 tune has come to live with me and is also surprisingly smooth. Foot massage yes, double vision not at all. Recalcitrant starting, um, yeah it's a Beezer single, lol. Makes an old Guzzi feel modern! :BEER:
cr
-
I had a bobbed TR6 after my Commando.
The Commando was HORRIBLE until I found a guy down Boston that could really set up the isolastic mounts. What a difference in handling and vibration. I was well on my way to pronouncing Commandos to be over-protected damnation cycles till I had mine set up correctly.
Later, when I got the bobbed Triumph on the road - it was completely unacceptable to ride into Boston. Rigid mount bars, no rear suspension and a motor put together with the wrong tools and wishful thinking.
It came apart and where applicable was both statically and dynamically balanced. After that, big fat Triumph grips and pegs, the right tires and tracking down some otherwise mysterious transmission/sprocket vibrations and I had a wonder of motoring pleasure. This in a rigid, long chain Triumph. The antithesis to touring bikes. Putted that thing all over New England and even into Canada. 'Course, had to ship my 'possibles in a GreyHound. :BEER:
So much one can do wrong inside a Brit-Twin!. Pistons, crank, clutch assembly, trans...
Todd.
-
I owned a Bonneville for a few years in 1969-1970. It vibrated quite a bit.
-
:beat_horse :beat_horse :beat_horse :beat_horse :beat_horse :beat_horse
-
So...some of you here have running and licensed old Triumphs, BSA's or other vertical twin twin bikes...I have several including my race bike..... There's a discussion on a popular vintage Triumph forum about vibration....Some guys saying how smooth their 650/750 Triumphs are on the highway......
In fact when I said a 1000 Guzzi is far smoother on the highway than any old Triumph a few told me something is wrong with my Triumph....Must be unbalanced or have loose bolts.They rode a Guzzi and it vibrated more than the Triumph at highway speeds.....I was laughing inside knowing that 40 years of Triumphs taught me something...
What do you say from actual recent riding experience ? Prefer a 650 Triumph to a Guzzi on a road trip because it's smoother?
I think the question is biased because it doesn't consider the design limits of the parallel twin and focuses on 650cc and larger twins. British twins were designed at 500cc and that is where they seem to excel, especially if rigidly mounted. I have owned a couple of British 650cc twins ('67 Triumph TR6C, Matchless G12) , an 850cc British twin ('74 Commando) and one 500cc twin (1961 Norton Dominator 88) and the Dominator is far and away the smoothest of the lot. I had the Dommie crank dynamically balanced during restoration but don't know about the other bikes so my comparison may also be extremely biased because of this dynamic balancing step. All I know is that my Dominator 88 is as smooth as silk compared to any of the other Britbikes I have owned. But I have to agree with several of the other posters that any Guzzi is always going to be smoother than any parallel twin. Just the nature of the design.
-
Forgot to discuss the Commando which is a whole different kettle of fish as far as British parallel twins go. Don't think you can really compare them to other Brit bikes. Rubber mounted engine makes all the difference even though engine is bored out to it's limit. My Commando vibrates like an SOB at idle (never seen an engine bounce around so much) and up to about 3000 rpm. Beyond that, the isolastics kick in and she's very smooth. Wouldn't hesitate to tour long distances on a Commando if I had an Interstate tank and low pipes to clear the side bags.
-
A certain well known writer coined the term * Norton Contaminator Twin * :D
Dusty
The other favourite for the Domminator was the 'Morecome Flagelator' for reasons apparent to anyone who rode a wide line with a 650 lump in it.
Pete
-
Fond memory of hanging out at the late, great TT Motors in Berkeley long ago (looking for Darmah parts most likely) and watching a somewhat hotrodded Norton Atlas idling. I should have checked the readout on the seismograph on campus… and you could have mixed paint quite well by bungeeing it onto the seat. If anything could withstand the 8.5 or so shaking…
cr
-
Reading these posts on early Triumphs and Guzzi's helps me appreciate my Hinkley Triumph America and my Moto Guzzi Nevada. Great improvements over the years. I remember my TR-6 fondly, but had a chance to ride one recently and was amazed at what we had to put up with in power, handling and braking back in the 60's.
-
Jay Leno has a beautiful 62 Norton 650 SS . It's on you tube and well worth a watch . His comments are valid and says something for our obsession with bigger is better . What a machine ! When well fetted and properly set up they were great .
www.nbc.com/jay-lenos-garage/video/1962-norton-650ss/2783179
Or just google Jay Leno 1962 Norton and it will come up .
-
Overheard 20 years ago at Jack's (primarily HD and Triumph choppers) Cycle in Tulsa. ". Of COURSE your BMWs and Guzzis are smoother and more reliable than Triumph and HD: You gotta shed some metal to make POWER!!" :D
-
Overheard 20 years ago at Jack's (primarily HD and Triumph choppers) Cycle in Tulsa. ". Of COURSE your BMWs and Guzzis are smoother and more reliable than Triumph and HD: You gotta shed some metal to make POWER!!" :D
Would that have been Denny ?
Dusty
-
Would that have been Denny ?
Dusty
Denny's boss. :BEER:
-
Denny's boss. :BEER:
Ahh , Miss L :D
Dusty
-
Wasn't it written somewhere "A Norton will get you there faster but a Guzzi will get you there sooner"?
-
Wasn't it written somewhere "A Norton will get you there faster but a Guzzi will get you there sooner"?
A Norton will take you to Nirvana , but a Guzzi will get you back home :D
Dusty
-
Yup a Guzzi will get you back, as long as your Generator dont fall off! :BEER: DonG
-
I think I'll put in my $.02-
I ride a '97 Sport 1100i, and a '75 Norton Commando 850 Roadster.
The Norton was dead smooth over 3000 rpm, but a paintshaker below that rev, UNTIL I overhauled the motor and very carefully set the Isolastics (rubber mounts and springs on the head-steady) to the factory specs. Made a tremendous difference, it is smooth from just off idle now. Gentle pulsations, but definitely not shaking bad.
As some of you know, the Sporti with it's fuel injection and light flywheel vibrates pretty bad for a Guzzi. That is probably a little more pronounced due to the clip-on bars. When the vibration gets bad, I reset the TPS and sync the throttlebodies, and it calms down to a manageable level.
Bottom line - the Norton is smoother - less vibration. But remember, this is a rubber mounted engine.
Both are great fun to ride.
I won't go into a comparison with my 6 cyl Gold Wing, since this thread is about the twins.
When I rode a Ducati Darmah (which was smoother than either of the twins above) I traded rides with a friend who owned an 883 Sportster (pre rubber mounted). That thing had you spitting teeth and seeing double at any speed. He traded it in for a Gold Wing after a couple of months. Go figure.
YMMV
-Dale
-
Overheard 20 years ago at Jack's (primarily HD and Triumph choppers) Cycle in Tulsa. ". Of COURSE your BMWs and Guzzis are smoother and more reliable than Triumph and HD: You gotta shed some metal to make POWER!!" :D
hope it wasn't their chief wrench. ;D
-
Jay Leno has a beautiful 62 Norton 650 SS . It's on you tube and well worth a watch . His comments are valid and says something for our obsession with bigger is better . What a machine ! When well fetted and properly set up they were great .
www.nbc.com/jay-lenos-garage/video/1962-norton-650ss/2783179
Or just google Jay Leno 1962 Norton and it will come up .
Beautiful! Faster than a 750cc or 850cc Commando as well. Would love to own one but prices are getting crazy.
-
Forgot to discuss the Commando which is a whole different kettle of fish as far as British parallel twins go. Don't think you can really compare them to other Brit bikes. Rubber mounted engine makes all the difference even though engine is bored out to it's limit. My Commando vibrates like an SOB at idle (never seen an engine bounce around so much) and up to about 3000 rpm. Beyond that, the isolastics kick in and she's very smooth. Wouldn't hesitate to tour long distances on a Commando if I had an Interstate tank and low pipes to clear the side bags.
-
hope it wasn't their chief wrench. ;D
These are (were) the real old school chopper guys. They considered anyone with shock absorbers, electric start, a windshield, hell, even front brakes or fenders a puss. They ran cams, straight pipes, and apes. They never expected more than 20k miles from a rebuild. Most of those who are still alive today have moved on to 'Lectraglide baggers. Fun dudes.
-
These are (were) the real old school chopper guys. They considered anyone with shock absorbers, electric start, a windshield, hell, even front brakes or fenders a puss. They ran cams, straight pipes, and apes. They never expected more than 20k miles from a rebuild. Most of those who are still alive today have moved on to 'Lectraglide baggers. Fun dudes.
Until they got drunk in that bar next door and started shooting at each other ;) Seriously , Denny built some quick Triumphs and HDs .
Dusty
-
Beautiful! Faster than a 750cc or 850cc Commando as well. Would love to own one but prices are getting crazy.
That "faster" thing is going to get people talking .... ! Problem is, what are the chances of getting a 750 Commando and a 650 SS on the same track at the same time so that the statement could be verified? In the meantime, I don't think so!
Lannis
-
Thought this thread was right up my ally, but you guys are talking about NEW Brit bikes!!! Well, except the Domie's pretty old. :BEER:
However, if we want to talk OLD Brit bikes....
Vibration, the 500cc Monza is smoother than the 500cc Ariel Red Hunter - but only really different above 45-50mph. If we are talking corners, the Red Hunter is best under 25 mph and equal to the Monza up to about 40-50 where the fixed foot pegs of the Hunter start to scrub :o. The Monza is more comfortable to corner than the LMIII at any speed up to about 60 or so. Faster than that, the LMIII probably corners better, but mostly my sphincter tells me "No". Starting from a dead stop on a hill the Red Hunters are best. Accelerating out of a corner the LMIII is best. LMIII is the winner on the super slab. On loose gravel the Red Hunters beat the Guzzis except they have no air filters so try to avoid it. On bumpy roads the Monza is best if I can avoid most of them and the LMIII better if I gotta hit them. Three disks always beat two 7" drums in the emergency stop event. Parking on uneven ground or backing up is easiest with the Ariels followed by the Monza with the LMIII dead last. Getting on the stand it's Ariel, Monza and finally, with a 150lbs penalty, the LMIII. In the parking lot talk event it's '39 Ariel, '47 Ariel, Monza and LMIII (poor thing). Most top 100 roads (other thread) is '47 Ariel. In the leaving me stranded on the side of the road event - all are tied with perfect scores (though I've had to do a skosh of work once and a while 8)).
All of this data collected by a precision calibrated seat of the pants. ;D
The subjects:
(http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn233/shawnsci/IMG_1327mod_zpsf9anpjop.jpg)
-
That "faster" thing is going to get people talking .... ! Problem is, what are the chances of getting a 750 Commando and a 650 SS on the same track at the same time so that the statement could be verified? In the meantime, I don't think so!
Lannis
I have to agree. The Dominator was pretty stout, but with everything else equal the Commando was good for about five more horsepower.
-
A well tuned Norton 750 Commando moves along well for a Brit twin. I had a Commando bought used for a few years but never warmed up to the shaking below 3000 rpm or the handling. The Norton actually is more stable at high speeds but lacks the feedback of the Triumph.
Then I bought a 4 year old Ducati 750 Bevel drive twin and was amazed how solid the bike was.
-
A well tuned Norton 750 Commando moves along well for a Brit twin. I had a Commando bought used for a few years but never warmed up to the shaking below 3000 rpm or the handling. The Norton actually is more stable at high speeds but lacks the feedback of the Triumph.
Then I bought a 4 year old Ducati 750 Bevel drive twin and was amazed how solid the bike was.
My '82 900ss has the smoothest running ridged mounted engine I've ever owned. I've heard the 750's are smoother.
-
Boy Rough, I am surprised you say the Commando is more stable than the Triumph. Unless my Nort is perfect with fresh tires, new shocks, and wheels alligned within a millimeter it becomes a white knuckle experience over 80. Anything can throw it off like a wind gust or small bump.
For the record I have owned my '71 from new and have done all the tricks like minimising isolastic clearances and pinning the swingarm and beefier head steady. Also added a fork brace and steering damper. On the track on smooth pavement, no problems but on typical roads around here just keep it in double digits. If I want to go fast I get on the LeMans. That bike has never wavered.
Pete
-
Sounds like your commando acts like mine (i've had mine since 1980), anything over 80 you are constantly waiting for the next wave or wobble. long sweeping corners at 100 mph are just plain scary.
technically rubber mounting a swingarm is just plain stupid, even if you add lots of hardware to limit the sideways motion.
dont get me started on the difference in reliability between my guzzi's and the commando,
i managed some 80.000 miles on the commando but needed two engines to do so.
one in the bike ,and one being rebuilt. :-[
-
Two motors here too. I didn't know about the loose engine mounting studs and the left case eventually cracked on top. When I put in the second engine I reamed all the mounts the next size larger and installed ground studs. Still iffy at speed.
Close to same mileage too. ODO reads 77K but many miles covered with a broken speedo cable.
Pete
-
The later isolastic system , Mk something, supposedly cured some of the hinged-in-the-middle sensation that earlier Commandos suffered from . Not having ridden one in several years , can't remember if that is true . This issue could explain why the first 100 MPH lap at the IOM by a production bike was accomplished on a Triumph Bonneville instead of on a more powerful Commando .
Dusty
-
At a nicely-stocked and well-run used motorcycle shop a few years ago, a very pretty customized Ironhead Sportster caught my eye. Nicknamed by the staff "the bad penny," the salesperson quickly let me know that the bike was not for me: "We never have any trouble selling that bike, even though it keeps coming back. Nobody can stand riding it for very long." Must have been a great money-maker for the shop.
-
The later isolastic system , Mk something, supposedly cured some of the hinged-in-the-middle sensation that earlier Commandos suffered from . Not having ridden one in several years , can't remember if that is true . This issue could explain why the first 100 MPH lap at the IOM by a production bike was accomplished on a Triumph Bonneville instead of on a more powerful Commando .
Dusty
The later system has adjusters while the early system you had to shim. Easier to get right but still the same principle. It took me about 30 years of ownership to realize the swingarm is not centered in the frame. Center the wheel in the swingarm and its offset about 5/8" from the centerline of the frame.
My Nort was a comfortable touring bike but never lived up to the "legendary" handling of its predecessors.
Pete
-
The later isolastic system , Mk something, supposedly cured some of the hinged-in-the-middle sensation that earlier Commandos suffered from . Not having ridden one in several years , can't remember if that is true . This issue could explain why the first 100 MPH lap at the IOM by a production bike was accomplished on a Triumph Bonneville instead of on a more powerful Commando .
Dusty
And that 100 MPH lap was on the old water pipe and brazed cast steel frame. Triumphs are one of the rare items that the product far exceeds the sum of it's parts. The forks flex,the frame flexes and they bounce around but the machine stays on course and is never intimidating. The rider knows exactly what the bike is doing at all times and they can be ridden at the limit....
Pete my comment about the Norton was mainly about high speed stability in a straight line. My "dead" remark was no rider feedback in turns, most likely from the Isolastic issues...
-
And that 100 MPH lap was on the old water pipe and brazed cast steel frame. Triumphs are one of the rare items that the product far exceeds the sum of it's parts. The forks flex,the frame flexes and they bounce around but the machine stays on course and is never intimidating. The rider knows exactly what the bike is doing at all times and they can be ridden at the limit....
Pete my comment about the Norton was mainly about high speed stability in a straight line. My "dead" remark was no rider feedback in turns, most likely from the Isolastic issues...
Actually the Triumphs (and BSAs) built with the shuttle valve forks and gas Girling shocks were decent handling bikes . Also didn't hurt that the Evergreen Percy Tait was "up" on the Triumph . Maybe one of the greatest production based racers ever . Twas him that helped Yamaha sort the 650 twin in the mid '70s .
Rough , what are your plans for the Triumph now that it is retired ?
Dusty
-
Actually the Triumphs (and BSAs) built with the shuttle valve forks and gas Girling shocks were decent handling bikes . Also didn't hurt that the Evergreen Percy Tait was "up" on the Triumph . Maybe one of the greatest production based racers ever . Twas him that helped Yamaha sort the 650 twin in the mid '70s .
Rough , what are your plans for the Triumph now that it is retired ?
Dusty
The retirement of the race bike is not till it's made passes down the mile and a half track at Loring Maine this July. My rider and I hope for 130 mph ....It is as we speak the fastest 650 push rod stock frame naked bike on gas in the standing start mile or mile and a half on a paved LSR track..It's also faster than the same class at Bonneville, but that not really a fair comparison....After that I don't know.....I have my fresh T120/750 bike is ready to go .The roads are clear of snow but my 350 foot long narrow winding driveway is still a glacier...
-
Didn't the engineer that designed the Triumph twin state that 650 was the largest engine size practical and effective for his design?
Or maybe I dreamed it up?
-
Didn't the engineer that designed the Triumph twin state that 650 was the largest engine size practical and effective for his design?
Or maybe I dreamed it up?
Actually Uncle Ed thought 650 CCs was already too large , at least for a high performance engine . When the first twin carb 650 debuted in 1959 , Turner stated "This will be the model that ruins Triumph" . It took another 18 years or so , but in the end he may have been right :D
Dusty
-
That "faster" thing is going to get people talking .... ! Problem is, what are the chances of getting a 750 Commando and a 650 SS on the same track at the same time so that the statement could be verified? In the meantime, I don't think so!
Lannis
Period tests suggest that it was. Can't remember the figures but Jay Leno talks about 119 mph for the 650SS. Don't think any Commando is close to that. There is a fellow over on the Commando forum who owns both bikes and who could settle this argument but don't think he hangs here. Point is that 650cc is plenty to get down the road in fine style without shaking your nuts off!!
-
Period tests suggest that it was. Can't remember the figures but Jay Leno talks about 119 mph for the 650SS. Don't think any Commando is close to that. There is a fellow over on the Commando forum who owns both bikes and who could settle this argument but don't think he hangs here. Point is that 650cc is plenty to get down the road in fine style without shaking your nuts off!!
From my experience building and racing Triumph land speed racers it requires 50 hp at the rear wheel on a naked bike to run 120 MPH... If you do a search you can find period information saying the actual tested top speed of the 650ss around 110-115 MPH in the best of conditions.
-
I got my old Commando over an indicated 120 more than once, but I'm sure the speedometer was optimistic by at least 5%. 110-114 was probably more like it...
-
Period tests suggest that it was. Can't remember the figures but Jay Leno talks about 119 mph for the 650SS. Don't think any Commando is close to that. There is a fellow over on the Commando forum who owns both bikes and who could settle this argument but don't think he hangs here. Point is that 650cc is plenty to get down the road in fine style without shaking your nuts off!!
I agree that 650cc is enough to get down the road, and that when companies that designed their bikes at 500cc started taking them to 750cc, the problems started. (I won't say anything more about companies that started their bikes at 700cc and are now at 1400!)
I must say thought, that "period tests" (which were designed to feed the advertisers egos and feed the subscribers a load of BS) and "Jay Leno Talks About" is not very objective test information.
Jay Leno is a dude, and the same is true for him as for every other dude on the planet.
On the subjects of:
1) Fish he's caught
2) Women he's had
3) How fast his motorcycle will go ....
... he will lie like a big dog with no conscience or compunction! :D
Timing slips on a track or it didn't happen.
Lannis
-
I ride a 72 triumph and a 75 guzzi
The triumph rides like a 1950s bike
The Guzzi rides like an early 90s bike
-
I ride a 72 triumph and a 75 guzzi
The triumph rides like a 1950s bike
The Guzzi rides like an early 90s bike
yes. that is a perfect description..
-
Timing slips on a track or it didn't happen.
Lannis
Now ain't that the truth... And I got the time slips 8)
-
I ride a 72 triumph and a 75 guzzi
The triumph rides like a 1950s bike
The Guzzi rides like an early 90s bike
And around 1977 Cook Neislson said the 71 and up Triumphs was still one of the 5 best handing bikes in the world at that time...Anyone know the other 4?
-
And around 1977 Cook Neislson said the 71 and up Triumphs was still one of the 5 best handing bikes in the world at that time...Anyone know the other 4?
His own Ducati race bike was bound to be one of them.
Lannis
-
And around 1977 Cook Neislson said the 71 and up Triumphs was still one of the 5 best handing bikes in the world at that time...Anyone know the other 4?
Hmm , Cook may be a bit off there , the '71 models were not really good handling bikes . The forks were too long which made them handle poorly . That , combined with over sprung under damped suspension caused the '71 and '72 models to act weird . The old Triumph guys I was hanging around with at the time hated the early OIF bikes , cussing BSA for screwing up what had been a nimble solid bike .
As for the good handling bikes in that era , Tonti frame Guzzi , Ducati , the RD series Yamaha , the 3 cylinder BSA and Triumph models , which were still built on the old chassis which Cook may have been referring to , and maybe the BMWs (gasp) . Oops , forgot the 500 CC Triumphs , they were also never Umberslade Hall mistakes .
Dusty
-
A Norton will turn heads, but a Guzzi gets the chicks.
-
Hmm , Cook may be a bit off there , the '71 models were not really good handling bikes . The forks were too long which made them handle poorly . That , combined with over sprung under damped suspension caused the '71 and '72 models to act weird . The old Triumph guys I was hanging around with at the time hated the early OIF bikes , cussing BSA for screwing up what had been a nimble solid bike .
As for the good handling bikes in that era , Tonti frame Guzzi , Ducati , the RD series Yamaha , the 3 cylinder BSA and Triumph models , which were still built on the old chassis which Cook may have been referring to , and maybe the BMWs (gasp) . Oops , forgot the 500 CC Triumphs , they were also never Umberslade Hall mistakes .
Dusty
Cook may have been referring to the T140 750.......My memory thinks, Ducati bevel drive twin, Triumph 750, Yamaha 350,I believe the Guzzi 750 S and one more I can't remember..
71 and early 72 Triumphs had very high seats ...The 750 Trident factory custom Hurricane had longer fork tubes... In 73 when Triumph introduced the 750 with a disc brake it was the same basic frame as the late 72 with lowered seat rails. The late 72 frame was the same as the 71 frame other than seat rail position. The T140 fork yokes are about 3/4 inch wider to accommodate the disc brake. The fork tubes are the same diameter with slight detail differences but I do believe they are the same length.
-
Cook may have been referring to the T140 750.......My memory thinks, Ducati bevel drive twin, Triumph 750, Yamaha 350,I believe the Guzzi 750 S and one more I can't remember..
71 and early 72 Triumphs had very high seats ...The 750 Trident factory custom Hurricane had longer fork tubes... In 73 when Triumph introduced the 750 with a disc brake it was the same basic frame as the late 72 with lowered seat rails. The late 72 frame was the same as the 71 frame other than seat rail position. The T140 fork yokes are about 3/4 inch wider to accommodate the disc brake. The fork tubes are the same diameter with slight detail differences but I do believe they are the same length.
Pretty sure the forks on the early OIF bikes were a bit longer . All I know , is that ridden back to back , my '70 model TR6R was a much sweeter handling bike than my friends '71 Bonneville . The '71 model was similar to a chopper , ugh . Yeah , the OIF frames stayed basically the same , my two '77 T140s were pretty decent after some suspension work . Still , the old shuttle valve fork model 650s always felt more planted . AND , no matter what anyone says , the conical (comical) hub brakes sucked :D Yeah , I know , longer linkages , different shoes , and proper setup can make some difference , still not as good as the twin leader brakes used '68 to '70 . Sorry , still won't own a BSA because of what they did to Triumph after Edward Turner retired ;D
Dusty
-
First bike I restored was a '72 TR6C and then a few years later I restored a '67 TR6C. The OIF bike felt much more planted and solid to me. IMHO a better bike in every way than the '67 but not nearly as pretty!!
-
I have a 73 Triumph TR7V (750 Tiger) that's a nice rider. A little lower then the early OIF models with 5 speeds and a front disk. The extra gear is nice and the disk brake is like most first gen disks, a little better than the drum. Overall a nice civilized bike and fun to ride but like most triumph's it prefers cooler weather. A question I would like answered is this, why is there so many Triumph powered Norton framed bikes (TriTon's) and none the other way around? Were there a lot of Nortons with blown engines or are there piles of Norton engines laying around somewhere? It always struck me as strange it always went that direction. I also have a 70 Ambo that is more stable at speed than the Triumph but not as nimble at slower speeds.
-
Serious question Garbin ?
Dusty
-
Hmm , Cook may be a bit off there , the '71 models were not really good handling bikes .
Dusty
On the other hand, Cook Neilson won Daytona in '77 on a bike he and his team built, so I'm going with Cook on the handling thing ...... not sure why, just a hunch ....
-
On the other hand, Cook Neilson won Daytona in '77 on a bike he and his team built, so I'm going with Cook on the handling thing ...... not sure why, just a hunch ....
Not doubting Cook's abilities , just the idea that a '71 Triumph 650 was a great handler . Seems to me I remember him calling Vincents way over rated also :o :D
Dusty
-
Well yes I was serious and not trying to be a wise a$$. It just seems like there was a lot of feather-bed frames missing engines in the "old days" and it seemed to be the thing to throw a Triumph in them. Now maybe a Norton just wouldn't fit in a Triumph frame and that was the simple reason but it's never been explained to me.
-
Well yes I was serious and not trying to be a wise a$$. It just seems like there was a lot of feather-bed frames missing engines in the "old days" and it seemed to be the thing to throw a Triumph in them. Now maybe a Norton just wouldn't fit in a Triumph frame and that was the simple reason but it's never been explained to me.
OK , it was generally accepted that the Norton featherbed frame was the best handling frame of its era , and the Norton roadholder forks were not bad . The Triumph engine was easy to hot rod and readily available . Kind of like the way that American hot rodders started putting small block Chevys in Ford cars . I've seen Tribsas , Norbsas , Norvins , even one Norton framed bike with a GS 750 Suzuki motor . As to the Norton engined Triumph , probably has been done , never have seen one .
Dusty
-
When I bought my first Tonti I discovered that it handled much better than I would have guessed. I bought a book on the development of the Tonti and there was an endorsement from Mike Hailwood.
I think it was the early 70s and he was invited to the Guzzi factory to test ride a V7 (I think), don't have the book with me.
Who knows if it was his true opinion but the quote was "Its the best handling street bike he had ever ridden" I am sure he had ridden them all at least from Europe and of course Japan.
If that was truly his opinion, well you can't get much better than that.
mike (not the bike) :-)
-
I've seen Tribsas , Norbsas , Norvins , even one Norton framed bike with a GS 750 Suzuki motor.
How about a SaaBSA? http://hooniverse.com/2010/08/03/the-saabsa-makes-you-go-duh/
(http://i1.wp.com/hooniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/saabsa_58_reduced.jpg?resize=633%2C450)
-
Not doubting Cook's abilities , just the idea that a '71 Triumph 650 was a great handler . Seems to me I remember him calling Vincents way over rated also :o :D
Dusty
Magazines loved the handling of the OIF's when they came out in 71. ...They didn't like the tall seat and the stuff Triumph didn't fix...To be honest I prefer the late 60's pipe and lug frames to the OIF's...Not because they handle better but they "feel" and look better..
Cook and Shilling were very critical of bikes in the 70's and constantly blasted the Asian machines for poor handling. When Neilson says a bike handles well he mean on a track or mountain road at the the limit of his and the bike's ability.
You are right, the earlier OIF fork tubes are shorter... by 1/8 inch.. The real difference is the top yoke. 71 and 72 have the tapered tube fit. The 73-83 have straight tubes that can be slid up into the top yoke like most other bikes.
-
Why many Norton frames ended up with anything but a Norton in them in the early and mid-1950s: Formula 3. which was originally for small cars with 500cc motorcycle engines. Stirling Moss and many others started out there. Remove engine from Norton, preferably Manx, and what to do with the frame?
Motorcycle crazy says "hey I have a hotrod Triumph engine that needs a better frame" and the rest was history.
cr
-
Magazines loved the handling of the OIF's when they came out in 71. ...They didn't like the tall seat and the stuff Triumph didn't fix...To be honest I prefer the late 60's pipe and lug frames to the OIF's...Not because they handle better but they "feel" and look better..
Cook and Shilling were very critical of bikes in the 70's and constantly blasted the Asian machines for poor handling. When Neilson says a bike handles well he mean on a track or mountain road at the the limit of his and the bike's ability.
You are right, the earlier OIF fork tubes are shorter... by 1/8 inch.. The real difference is the top yoke. 71 and 72 have the tapered tube fit. The 73-83 have straight tubes that can be slid up into the top yoke like most other bikes.
Ah have a heart OIF?? That's worse than the military. Curiosity
For us young guys that are new to this sport, please 'splain OIF!?
IJOOTT,AIHTN, I'sKMA
??
-
Ah have a heart OIF?? That's worse than the military. Curiosity, IJOOTT,AIHTN, I'sKMA.
For us that are new to this sport, please 'splain OIF!?
Oil in frame Mike .
Dusty
-
So we're all on the same page. The differences may be subtle to guys not familiar with this junk. First photo is a 60's Triumph with a "dry" frame, or pipe and brazed lug.. Organic beauty like a woman..
(http://triumphclassicmotorcycles.com/PHOTOS/1969%20T120R%20R-View.jpg)
This photo is a 73 -83 OIF or oil bearing frame....Not bad still some curves left...
(http://triumphbonneville.org/uploads/76-bonneville-1.jpeg)
This is the 71-72 first edition OIF....not as organic...
(http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads3/Bonneville+111087784117.jpg)
-
Oh my , that '69 model is really nice . Maybe if BSA had just kept using the Burgess style mufflers and organic looking side covers , tail light , and gauges ... Oh well , all history now , at least the Bloor bikes are a success .
Dusty
-
Back in 1972 I had a fully race tuned Norton 650SS with the whole deal, clipons rear sets Manx style tank , full fairing, central oil tank, lots of weight removed, Grimeca front brake, the business. This thing clocked 132mph at Bathurst a year before I bought it. Owned by a bike fanatic Barrister , it had lots of money splashed upon it. He reckoned the motor was standard apart from a slightly warmer cam. The fastest I ever took it up to was 120mph but I was often over the ton, all round the city, one of the ultimate cafe racers. But as the bloke who had owned it warned me, it didn't like sustained high speed at constant revs. He had fitted an oil cooler because it had seized on him a few times on the track. I took it for one long ride and regretted it. I sat on about 80mph for about 4 hours and it seized on me. I was quick with the clutch as he had always been so no further damage was done. But it wasn't any good for going on trips. Vibration was not an issue, as while you were bringing that engine through it's range the excitement was enough to cause no interest in such things as vibration. It just went like stink.
I believe that in this day and age, I would have had the pistons slightly reduced in size and this would have overcome that old seizing thing. Maybe.
I have since owned an Atlas, renowned for the big vibes, but mine with a Mikuni was an easy starter and a lovely backwoods bike.
Still I seized it too, though it had the reduced pistons in the big rebuild, and the reason was the timing could not be done correctly.
Though I took the magneto to the expert, the cam that the points ran from was very badly made so that when one side was correctly timed the other side was 8 degrees wrong and advanced. This way meant it got too hot. The day it seized for the second time was the day I resolved to sell it. My wife and I just wanted to go places on a bike. Maybe we should have persevered and fitted electonic ignition, but we didn't.
So we sold it and bought a Cali 3 which got us around for about 60,000k's till finally that was sold and now I have the T3.
This T3 is one of the smoothest most beautiful, well the most beautiful bike I've ridden. It has more power than anything else I've ever ridden, way more than the 650, though who can say from such a distance. Still there has to be more grunt from 950 with a warm cam than a 650 with a warm cam , at least it feels that way, but I'm not here to test the limits now, I'm 62 but I was 19 with that 650 Norton so these days things just don't happen so fast.
Back in the day I had a Triumph 56 Tbird which was a lumbering piece of shite, but it revved well and being a half share with a mate who also disrespected it, we had a running competition to see who could blow it up first. But neither of us managed that, so it wasn't too bad for reliability.
I also had a 500 Daytona that I thought was total crap. Didn't do anything that I expected a bike to do. Didn't handle. Riding on the highway you had to pull over all the time to check it hadn't shat itself because of the truly horrible tappet noise that was emitted by the alloy engine. Piece of crap.
I am surprised by the sweetness of my T3 compared to the Cali though, I'd say there is a considerable difference, both in horsepower and handling. The T3 has Marzochi forks and feels totally stable compared to the old Bitubos on the Cali.
The engines are probably the exact same size and the cams are supposedly both B10's but for some strange reason the T3 is a vastly superior motor. I'd say whoever built it did the real balancing job on it. It has been raced as evidenced by all the drillings of all the nuts and bolts everywhere and I'm told she keeps up with the Jap crowd, but not with me as the pilot. Anyway, a well sorted Guzzi in my humble opinion, is lightyears better than a well sorted Brit bike, nice as they may be.
-
So we're all on the same page. The differences may be subtle to guys not familiar with this junk. First photo is a 60's Triumph with a "dry" frame, or pipe and brazed lug.. Organic beauty like a woman..
(http://triumphclassicmotorcycles.com/PHOTOS/1969%20T120R%20R-View.jpg)
The pre OIF T120, are absolutely poetry on wheels, let alone a fine ride to boot. As long as the apples and oranges are kept in their respective areas, threads like can share folks personal experiences, enthusiasm, and appreciation for some truly great motorbikes of the latter 20th Century. OTOH , when it comes to better versus worse, not only this :beat_horse comes to mind, but it seems like a no brainer that some Guzzi guys would naturally Guzzis are best etc, etc, whereas the OP was just sharing with the group his ( fantastic , IMHO) build. Thankfully the pics and the actual riders experiences made up for the excess stuff
-
Apples and oranges but what the h… I spent time yesterday practicing starting the B40 (1963 BSA 350cc single, Electrex electronic magneto system so no battery, 12v) and a short ride. Lotsa low- and mid-range torque, ~300 pounds wet, SS90 tune so baby desert sled that needs to be revved and is a hooligan hoot. Glad to have the stock sit-up high-drag riding position and two mostly-worthless drum brakes as with a modern chassis and brakes I could easily get in serious trouble. Well, at least up to 55 or 60 mph. "Vibration" is more foot massage than anything bad, no seeing double here. 60 mpg around town, 70 with more 4th gear use. Suck my unburned hydrocarbons Prius drivers! ~;
Then on to the V50. Felt like a big heavy modern bike. Well, it is, in comparison. lol. Smooth (and smoother than the Monza/V50 III, must be the tiny carbs and resultant mousepower). Much better suspension, don't even think about brakes -- de-linked with Goodridge stainless lines so fronts are awesome and rear is almost worthless. The next generation… but not *too* modern to have all the character removed.
As far as oil leaks and doggy electrics, if the Italians had sold more they could have been a major oil producer. There was nothing in the North Sea oil fields before Notruns, Triumphs, BSAs, Jaguars, and etc etc :BEER:
All good fun but metric tools sure are easier to find than Whitworth.
cr