What is the oldest bike that is modern day practical?

[redrider90]

Any twin cylinder Vincent with all of the modern upgrades .

 Dusty

Modern upgrades Dusty? That is cheating. 

[redrider90]

I think my 72 Ducati with Amal's could go across the country just fine. I did 2 up with my ex and camping gear on a couple of small trips. It's top end was maybe a ton but I hardly go there anyhow. The only time it let me down was on Grandfather Mt. on the BR Parkway. It went to one cylinder. The rear cylinder was fouling due to the crankcase venting into the air filter. I replaced the plug roadside and after I got home I put a PCV valve on it and vented it to the outside. No more fouled plugs after that. It really was a simple bike except when adjusting the valves. Carrying around a big selection of Winkler caps on a long distance trip would be a drag. It's total lack of vibration and it's well known excellent handling made it an easy rider even if not fast.

[Tusayan]

I was searching for a suitable bike made earlier than the ‘69 Honda CB750 - which would actually be the obvious choice for me, like everybody else who has mentioned it.  What eventually came to mind is the first Laverda twin, in 1967 650 cc form.  That might qualify as modern day practical if you could live with the brakes.  I think maybe more so than the very first Guzzi V7.





https://www.mcnews.com.au/laverda-650-twin/

Not surprisingly the Laverda was inspired by and to some degree copied smaller Honda’s of the ‘60s, but was available with more power than those Honda twins, and sooner than the Honda four.  Ten years later (1977) there were all kinds of bikes that you could ride daily today.  1967-77 was really an amazing decade for motorcycle development.  Then by 1983 we had ten years of Italian superbike production accomplished, mostly bikes completely useable today, and the introduction of the Honda VF750F Interceptor which at least in my mind is a functionally modern bike.

[Gliderjohn]

Maybe it is just winter but...
Took a nice ride today on the T-3 and I see no reason that I couldn't jump on it tomorrow and ride it on a major trip. Have to thank "Flynguzzi, Dusty, MotorChuck250 and FUBAR for upkeep help over the years  and Moto Guzzi to have designed such a durable and enjoyable ride. That era still is a very doable ride today.
GliderJohn

[Moto]

Maybe it is just winter but...
Took a nice ride today on the T-3 and I see no reason that I couldn't jump on it tomorrow and ride it on a major trip. Have to thank "Flynguzzi, Dusty, MotorChuck250 and FUBAR for upkeep help over the years  and Moto Guzzi to have designed such a durable and enjoyable ride. That era still is a very doable ride today.
GliderJohn

I agree. My T-3 is a transitional bike from an older era to the modern one, with brakes that are really adequate for today's traffic and speeds. It also has all-day usable power, more than enough for any interstate. Finally, it has a heavy flywheel effect that I find very desirable for long trips, and that is missing in modern bikes, including Guzzis. It is completely adequate and in some ways unsurpassed for highway travel. (With good maintenance, it is also very reliable.)

Moto

[SIR REAL ED]

......  The old bikes we recall with so many fond memories really where not that great. We were just younger then. I can't recall any that were really bad but none of the older bikes compare to what is out there today.  I love old bikes and old pickup trucks but I want something more modern for today's traffic.   

Well said.  The primary reason old guys (& girls) like old bikes is they transport you back..... to your youth.

Back then, their massive horsepower sped life up!  Now, the same bikes lack of horsepower (relative to new bikes) slows lie down.

[Sheepdog]

I believe the best part of the bikes from the fifties and sixties is their sustainable nature. Old bikes need for you to do things like change the oil more often, solder condensers to point sets (with a heat sink to protect the condenser), monitor generator brushes, re-torque the rockers at every valve adjustment, spark plugs every 5-6000 miles, and adjusting mixture for various altitudes...yes, the work is substantially greater than with a newer bike. However, these machines are made to be repaired over and over. There are no electric doo-dads; even starting is kick-only, but the weight is low and the maintenance/repair is simple. I rode a '60 BMW R60 for five years when I lived in Albuquerque. It was my commuter, as well as my traveler and never let me down.  One really cold morning at the PITS Rally in Flagstaff it was the only bike that would start! Old bikes are a commitment, but have really great rewards...plus I sold it for more than I paid for it. It had 99,000 miles...


At the

[Dilliw]

 '80 GS850G. 

[LowRyter]

Landmark.  The first modern motorcycle.

[Rough Edge racing]

  This is what I rode in the 70's...67 Triumph 650....Daily rider except in the worst weather..I lived in a city at that time and the bike served me well for about 5 years.I see no reason why a younger guy with limited funds couldn't use the same bike today.The photo was taken in 1975

       

     

[oldbike54]

Landmark.  The first modern motorcycle.

 Well , except if you read the claims made in that it all kinda falls apart . 102 MPG and 102 MPH 

 The NSU Fox was probably a better example .

 Dusty

[wymple]

'80 GS850G.

Nope. '81 GS850G. Better seat.

[Moparnut72]

I worked in a rental shop that had 3 or 4 Super Hawks. I found them to be a bit crude and the gear spacing was terrible. The 350s that we replaced them with were a vast improvement. I really liked them a wouldn't mind having one now but they go for pretty good $'s.
kk

[LowRyter]

Well , except if you read the claims made in that it all kinda falls apart . 102 MPG and 102 MPH 

 The NSU Fox was probably a better example .

 Dusty

huh?   NS what?  Funny.

Take away the hype and it was still all that.  It would run 90 and get 45mpg.  It was cheap and would start and run.  Go like hell.  Race it, beat it, commute it, cruise it, tour it.  It was the first reliable motorcycle.   

They sold thousands. 

Nothing comes close.    Laverda copied it.  I have no idea why deny the obvious. 

wiki:
The Honda CB77, or Super Hawk, is a 305 cc (18.6 cu in) straight-twin motorcycle produced from 1961 until 1967. It is remembered today as Honda's first sport bike. It is a landmark model in Honda's advances in Western motorcycle markets of the 1960s,[4] noted for its speed and power as well as its reliability, and is regarded as one of the bikes that set the standard for modern motorcycles.

[wirespokes]

Well said.  The primary reason old guys (& girls) like old bikes is they transport you back..... to your youth.

Back then, their massive horsepower sped life up!  Now, the same bikes lack of horsepower (relative to new bikes) slows lie down.

The T3, R90 or LM4 have no difficulty keeping up with traffic. Sure, the newer bikes are a bit faster, stop quicker with better suspension.

The point is, from sometime around the late 60s, bikes had evolved sufficiently to be capable every-day machines.

Those of us who prefer the older bikes aren't into them due to nostalgia or reliving our youth. It's because they're simpler machines that for a lot of reasons are better than the new stuff, whether it's aesthetics, maintenance, cost of repairs or cost of ownership. I'm sure there are other reasons.

After the 70s I believe there's a point of diminishing returns. There were improvements in all areas, but nothing like the giant leaps in the years before that. By that time bikes could do 100 - how much more is needed on the road?

 

[lazlokovacs]

my everyday riders in the last 15 years have been...

1970 triumph t100c. - perfect for the city, yes those TLS drum brakes can stop you in a hurry if need be. I once had to brake from 40mph to 0 to save my life and those brakes worked.

1970 moto guzzi v7 speciale (ambassador in the US). - became a perfect do anything bike after I converted the front end to discs and modern forks. Until then I would say it was marginally appropriate for modern city riding and superslab stuff.

1989 moto guzzi lemans 1000 - perfect do-it-all bike. I keep up with my friends on GXSRs in the real world. Can tour on it, do anything really.

2001 triumph sprint rs - stolen from me within a month of ownership, A bit of a handful round town, snatchy on/off FI at low throttle, but so much power!



I think mostly anything from the 70s on and you're golden.

[Dilliw]

Nope. '81 GS850G. Better seat.

 

IMO to meet the definition you have to have disc brakes to make it "modern day practical."  That puts you in the mid 70's or later although I'm sure some of you old geezers would call me a wimp.  It also needs to be able to wear modern bias tires in fairly common sizes in case you have a flat.  My mind got to either the early Wing or the GS's and my Suzuki bias  kicked in. 

The 850g was always the practical choice of the GS's.  I had the 550T and while it did it all (I rode it Daytona bike week) the 100mi range and the chain are cons to the bigger shaft drive 850.

So there's my .02

[keener]

'80 GS850G.

     RUN forever......... also the GS1000G    Forget the CB.............Suzu ki made a better stronger engine  as did Kawasaki

[Rough Edge racing]

.

1970 triumph t100c. - perfect for the city, yes those TLS drum brakes can stop you in a hurry if need be. I once had to brake from 40mph to 0 to save my life and those brakes worked.

 I have expereince with 68-70 TLS front brake on 650 Triumphs...I believe they are equal to the early Japanese disc brakes...Obviously how the bike performs depends on the riding, city or highway....
 

[SIR REAL ED]

Nope. '81 GS850G. Better seat.

I owned a 1980 GS1000G for 17 years.  Hard bike to beat in lots of different circumstances.

[SIR REAL ED]

The T3, R90 or LM4 have no difficulty keeping up with traffic. Sure, the newer bikes are a bit faster, stop quicker with better suspension.

The point is, from sometime around the late 60s, bikes had evolved sufficiently to be capable every-day machines.

Those of us who prefer the older bikes aren't into them due to nostalgia or reliving our youth. It's because they're simpler machines that for a lot of reasons are better than the new stuff, whether it's aesthetics, maintenance, cost of repairs or cost of ownership. I'm sure there are other reasons.

After the 70s I believe there's a point of diminishing returns. There were improvements in all areas, but nothing like the giant leaps in the years before that. By that time bikes could do 100 - how much more is needed on the road?

I agree with pretty much everything you said.  Lots of different reasons for owning older bikes.  Maybe due to when I came of age, born in 1959, but to me the 1970's are the golden era.  Perhaps culminating in 1978 with the introduction of the Z1-R, the XS11, GS1000, and the CBX.  Considering some technologies, delta box frames, etc, maybe 1988 was the real end of the golden era.  I recall Cycle magazines raving about the Kawasaki EX 500.  Brilliant idea, half of a Ninja 1000 motor.

Probably greatly dependent upon one's age and childhood/early adulthood experiences.

I'm referring primarily to Japanese bikes.  Since I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, European bikes, street or dirt, or for that matter any new bike at all, were never, ever considered, due to cost.

Back when there was actually information in motorcycle magazines, I recall Cycle magazine doing a huge comparison of the 1973 super bikes, Norton Commando, Z1, CB750, H2, Harley, Trident, etc.  These were bikes that only the experts could master.  64 rear wheel horsepower for the Z1!!!!  What a killer!!!!

Fast forward (no pun intended) to 1999 and the Suzuki SV 650 could eat them all for lunch, yet was considered a beginner's bike at the time.  I bought one for my wife, primarily based on weight, not performance.

Still one of the all time great street bikes.  When the SV debuted in 1999, I told one look and thought "Wow!  Modern day Norton Commando!"  Ended up buying two!

[Lannis]

I have expereince with 68-70 TLS front brake on 650 Triumphs...I believe they are equal to the early Japanese disc brakes...Obviously how the bike performs depends on the riding, city or highway....
 

Fay and I ride in the NC-TN-VA mountains every year with friends; we're all on old Britbikes.   

Not many of the group ride with a 400-pound two-up payload, but I do, so I'm particular about the brakes on an all day, loaded up ride on steep mountain roads.

We used to do it on my BSA A10 with a TLS brake upgrade on the front, a brake like I have on my Firebird Scambler, which I do believe is (as you say) about as good as an early disk.   Good brakes, but not good enough for that job, not with my precious pillion-in-a-million behind me.

So I went hunting for a old Brit with suitable brakes.   There were only two that had the brakes for that job - a Triumph Trident triple, or a '75 Norton Commando with disks front and rear.   I chose the Norton and we've been riding happily ever after with no brake worries ....

Lannis

[s1120]

IMO to meet the definition you have to have disc brakes to make it "modern day practical."  That puts you in the mid 70's or later although I'm sure some of you old geezers would call me a wimp.  It also needs to be able to wear modern bias tires in fairly common sizes in case you have a flat.  My mind got to either the early Wing or the GS's and my Suzuki bias  kicked in. 

The 850g was always the practical choice of the GS's.  I had the 550T and while it did it all (I rode it Daytona bike week) the 100mi range and the chain are cons to the bigger shaft drive 850.

So there's my .02

I had a GS650G and it was a great bike!  Shaft drive, and more then enough power to get the job done. Loved that bike, and had it for 20 years.  Ended up selling it when the kids came.. Sorry I did, but if I still had it I would not have ended up with my Guzzi.. so thats good

[Rough Edge racing]

Fay and I ride in the NC-TN-VA mountains every year with friends; we're all on old Britbikes.   

Not many of the group ride with a 400-pound two-up payload, but I do, so I'm particular about the brakes on an all day, loaded up ride on steep mountain roads.

We used to do it on my BSA A10 with a TLS brake upgrade on the front, a brake like I have on my Firebird Scambler, which I do believe is (as you say) about as good as an early disk.   Good brakes, but not good enough for that job, not with my precious pillion-in-a-million behind me.

So I went hunting for a old Brit with suitable brakes.   There were only two that had the brakes for that job - a Triumph Trident triple, or a '75 Norton Commando with disks front and rear.   I chose the Norton and we've been riding happily ever after with no brake worries ....

Lannis

 Yes, The TLS front brake was great on a 400 pound 650 but marginal on the 500 pound Trident...I do believe a good disc brake is easier to control near the point of lock up..

[Lannis]

Yes, The TLS front brake was great on a 400 pound 650 but marginal on the 500 pound Trident...I do believe a good disc brake is easier to control near the point of lock up..

That's a fact.   The "self-energizing" nature of properly arced TLS shoes has surprised me with a "chirp" from the front tire more than once - disks never have.

This whole thread has convinced me that the word "practical" has a completely different meaning to a Wild Guzzi member in his early days on the road, where anything you could afford was by definition "practical", and the Wild Guzzi member today, for whom "practical" has a long list of "must haves" having to do with comfort (or the perception of it), convenience (or the perception of it) and safety (or the perception of it).

I used to do things that I look back on now and say "Did I REALLY do that?  Wow, what a stud!"      

Lannis

[Rough Edge racing]

That's a fact.   The "self-energizing" nature of properly arced TLS shoes has surprised me with a "chirp" from the front tire more than once - disks never have.

This whole thread has convinced me that the word "practical" has a completely different meaning to a Wild Guzzi member in his early days on the road, where anything you could afford was by definition "practical", and the Wild Guzzi member today, for whom "practical" has a long list of "must haves" having to do with comfort (or the perception of it), convenience (or the perception of it) and safety (or the perception of it).

I used to do things that I look back on now and say "Did I REALLY do that?  Wow, what a stud!"      

Lannis

 You still ride an A10 that many here might consider quite crude....   I showed a photo of the 650 Triumph I rode daily in the 70's. I rode in the rain with no front fender....I certainly would have a fender on that bike today but in reality it's not much different than the 79 T140 I ride now..But I didn't ride long distances then or now so my situation is different...

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

This whole thread has convinced me that the word "practical" has a completely different meaning to a Wild Guzzi member in his early days on the road, where anything you could afford was by definition "practical", and the Wild Guzzi member today, for whom "practical" has a long list of "must haves" having to do with comfort (or the perception of it), convenience (or the perception of it) and safety (or the perception of it).

I realize more all the time that I am an "outlier" in my vehicle preferences, both two and four wheeled. But, I find the same types (if not brands) of vehicles to be just as practical now as they were in '79 when I got my license. I find "modern" technology and convenience features no more desirable now than they were then.

[Lannis]

You still ride an A10 that many here might consider quite crude....   I showed a photo of the 650 Triumph I rode daily in the 70's. I rode in the rain with no front fender....I certainly would have a fender on that bike today but in reality it's not much different than the 79 T140 I ride now..But I didn't ride long distances then or now so my situation is different...

There's three main things that are different from back then, to now.   

1) Back then, I didn't have a car.   I went everywhere on the bikes.   I only owned one at a time, so whatever I owned was what I was riding, short, long, highway, dirt, didn't matter.   

Owning only a bike takes a lot of commitment.   I COULD do it today but am not willing to put up with the downside.

2) Back then, I didn't have to look like anything when I got where I was going.   I could be ragged, wet, and dirty and it didn't matter, because no one at the places I went CARED if I was ragged, wet, and dirty, especially me.   If you wanted me to show up somewhere, you got what you got when I arrived.

Today, there ARE folks who care what I look like when I get where I'm going (a district nominating convention, a funeral, a 50th anniversary party for a friend, etc) and I'm not willing to affect their sensitivities and draw attention to my eccentricities.

3) Back then, I was willing to ride in weather that MIGHT potentially turn wet and freezing.   I rode roads where I could feel the wheels slipping on the ice, I rode in temperatures that had icicles trailing from my mirrors even though the road wasn't frozen ...yet ...

WAY too much danger downside for these getting-older bones today for that sort of behavior.   When you're young, you just bounce up from a low-side fall.   Not now.

So what is "practical" for me has changed quite a bit over the years.   I'm still putting 15K a year on a gaggle of bikes, and I can still handle a 7000 mile continuous trip, but my "limits" of "practicality" have shifted to the safer and more comfortable side. 

Although if it's not going to freeze, I'm still ready willing and able to throw a tent on a 60-year-old 35 horsepower drum-braked  bike and head out for a 1000 mile weekend rally.   The oldsters are practical in THAT sense!

Lannis

[cliffrod]

I realize more all the time that I am an "outlier" in my vehicle preferences, both two and four wheeled. But, I find the same types (if not brands) of vehicles to be just as practical now as they were in '79 when I got my license. I find "modern" technology and convenience features no more desirable now than they were then.

Very well stated. I agree completely. 

If I lived a different life or in a different area, maybe it would be different. Few new or newer things interest me at all.  A machine is a tool and once it reaches a certain level of development, that's all I need.  More or different isn't necessarily better.  And I hate needless depreciation.

To me, luxury is still driving/riding and depending upon the same old machines (same models, if not the actual machines I got back then) and needing no more.   I'll enjoy it while it lasts...

[Rough Edge racing]

Very well stated. I agree completely. 

If I lived a different life or in a different area, maybe it would be different. Few new or newer things interest me at all.  A machine is a tool and once it reaches a certain level of development, that's all I need.  More or different isn't necessarily better.  And I hate needless depreciation.

To me, luxury is still driving/riding and depending upon the same old machines (same models, if not the actual machines I got back then) and needing no more.   I'll enjoy it while it lasts...

  Hmm,I was ripped on for offereing the same opinion here a week ago...Must be my abrasive personality  ...