Guzzi VS old Brit bike

[oldbike54]

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

[Rough Edge racing]

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...
 

[LowRyter]

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?

[oldbike54]

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

[tpeever]

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!!

[Rough Edge racing]

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.

[Sheepdog]

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...

[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!!

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

[dl.allen]

I ride a 72 triumph and a 75 guzzi

The triumph rides like a 1950s  bike
The Guzzi rides like an early 90s bike

[lazlokovacs]

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..

[Rough Edge racing]

Timing slips on a track or it didn't happen.

Lannis

 Now ain't that the truth... And I got the time slips   8) 

[Rough Edge racing]

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?

[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?

His own Ducati race bike was bound to be one of them.

Lannis

[oldbike54]

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

[MotoGoosy]

A Norton will turn heads, but a Guzzi gets the chicks.

[Rough Edge racing]

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.
 

[oldbike54]

   
 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

[tpeever]

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!!

[garbln]

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. 

[oldbike54]

 Serious question Garbin ?

  Dusty

[Lannis]

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 ....

[oldbike54]

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

[garbln]

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.   

[oldbike54]

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

[kirby1923]

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) :-)

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

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/

[Rough Edge racing]

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.

[Guido Valvole]

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

[kirby1923]

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

??

[oldbike54]

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