120mph on a bike with flexing forks wallowing suspension and drum brakes, leaking oil and slowly shaking it's self to bits isn't all it is cracked up to be. The new modern classics have the looks, feel and style without the worry. Speed and power isn't always the be all, feeling the wind on your face and enjoying the open road is where the magic happens and knowing you don't have to stop every hour or less to spanner everything up. As I have gotten older top speed is meaning less, and not having to lay on a wet road trying to tighten rounded nuts is the appeal of the new T100 for me. Great video bart.
and I feel the same way, couldn't care less about going 100 mph, I literally clunk around on an old Triumph. I just find many of the new ones to be soulless and uninteresting, and in terms of styling just a bit off. Like too thick!
@@bartmotorcycle totally with you mate where the emotion and soul is lacking. The wet weights I could find for the slender 69 650 Bonnie 402lb/182kg, the porky 2017 T120 494lb/224kg and the lardarsed 2017 T100 a staggering 506lb/230kg, but I would take the T100 if I needed a reliable daily ride,. Having owned a 1972 750 Tiger back in the 80's when I was in my teens. It was a time when all my mates were riding LC 350's CBR 600's, and GPZ 750/900s, I still remember what happened on longer rides and the assortment of tools I needed to tighten all the different sized nuts up. I am happy to say, if I had the money, the classic Bonnie/Tiger would be in my stable, more for the weekend joy ride to take me back to my youth.
I'm 72 years old and recently bought a Triumph Street Twin. My first bike when I was 18 years old was a used 1962 Triumph Bonneville that I bought from my brother-in-law. Comparing the two, I much prefer the new Street Twin. It's reliable, sounds much better, is far more comfortable, and if I start it up in the garage I won't die from poisonous exhaust fumes. Regarding the weight, my 1962 Bonneville had kick start, air cooling, no catalytic converter and no battery. The new bike has liquid cooling, electric start and emissions system which adds weight but the weight is negligible because it's very low. It also has lots of electronics that give me all sorts of information to enhance my ride. My first bike required lots of labor to keep it running. The electric components were especially unreliable. The riding experience wasn't really that great because the sounds coming from the engine were mostly mechanical that drowned out the exhaust. The new Street Twin with it's 270 crank sounds wonderful and other engine noises are suppressed (probably by the liquid cooling). My new Street Twin satisfies this old man's desire to enjoy riding a motorcycle only for the joy of riding. In addition, it looks and sounds wonderful! At my age I don't care to spend hours trouble shooting and fixing problems, I want to ride and enjoy the experience of moving through nature on a wonderful and beautiful motorcycle.
I find it amusing that you say the old bonneville had electrical problems. My street twin has been back to the dealers on numerous times for this, mainly wiring loom problems. There is also a well documented potential problem with the gearbox selector shaft. I also found the excessive weight a real issue so finally swapped it for a slightly smaller Japanese bike and finally found the near perfect bike.
Hi. This is very interesting, but speaking as an "old geezer" (aged 69) who does not look at the world through rose-coloured spectacles, a key point is missing. British bikes of that period were hideously unreliable. They blew up all the time, their electrics were always failing and they vibrated so much that they would fall apart under you. They had not advanced in terms of fundamental design since the pre war Triumph Speed Twin. I had BSAs, Nortons and Matchlesses and, frankly, they were all shit. The British motorcycle companies were exhausted, undercapitalised and lazy. As soon as bikes like the Honda CB350 turned up it was game over, and thank God for that. I went Japanese as soon as I could, migrating to the wonderful Suzuki T500 Titan. It was transformational - it always worked and it went like stink - I loved that bike. The problem for bike designers now, including modern Triumph, is that consumers nowadays expect motorbikes to be reliable, which is why the retro bikes are heavy and underpowered, as the video points out. Nobody nowadays would tolerate the rubbish the British were serving up. And we should feel no sympathy for the British motorcycle companies of that period. If you look at the Italian motorcycle industry, as they crawled out of the ruins of world war two they started with little bikes for Italian commuters, but immediately they started innovating with interesting, modern engines. Likewise the Japanese and the Germans. By contrast, the US bike industry in that period seemed to match the British for being lazy and inbred. So it goes - culture matters.
@@bartmotorcycle Just a further thought from "the old geezer". Looking to the future, I think motorcycle design right now is crying out for innovation to make motor bikes simpler, lighter and cheaper. Motorbike design at the moment seems to me to be bloated. It's happened before. The genius of the Edward Turner designed pre-war Triumph Speed Twin was that it was simpler, lighter and cheaper than the competition. What's really fascinating now is the E-bikes, like the Zero bikes out of California, which look wonderful to me. And don't discount the internal combustion engine just yet. A lot of really interesting innovation is taking place with marine outboard motors that could flow into motorbikes - imagine supercharged, direct injected two strokes. Another really interesting thing is the holy grail of ceramic internal combustion engines. These would be engines that can run much hotter, because they wouldn't melt or seize, getting way better fuel combustion and therefore power. Then your motor would have no ignition system (more like a diesel) and no cooling system. Indeed your motor would have lagging around it to keep the heat in. Amazing. Right now, maybe in China, there is a young, new Edward Turner thinking about this stuff. I can't wait, even as "an old geezer".
@@pauljackman7233 for some reason all the old geezer comments end up being the ones I read. Super interesting. I sometimes wonder if the next Japanese take over in motorcycling will come out of China. They need to unveil a CB 750 level bike that changes everything, like an affordable competitor to Ducati and Aprilia. Idk lol
Coolness in motorcycles is often derived from the absence of accessibility. Most normal riders would kill themselves on the MV Agusta Superveloce - IF they could ever afford one. The same was true of Bonnevilles in the 60s. "Only for the expert rider". So if Triumph made the modern Bonneville what you are asking for, you probably would end up thinking it was cool, but not buying it - and that is a bad business model. My two cent's: At the end of the day, a cool motorcycle is the one you ride, that puts a smile on your face.
Drove a basement construct Bonneville chop job early in my motorcycle life. It had Z bars, battery eliminator and magneto. Crucial safety feature is I could not get it started when I was too drunk.
I am not sure if I understnd why the bikes are that heavy though. But most modern bikes are just crazy good. You actually have to put in effort to buy a bad bike. So styling doesn't matter. At lest in my eyes.
@@ralphwarom2514 Styling is just fashion and you pay for it. Stupid little fenders, crazy power and inaccessible parts. But, you're right I've had old bikes and my new bike (NC750X) works incredibly well.
Yeah shocking isn't it that it requires more cross-sectional area, that is weight in the frame and the forks and everything else, not the flex all over the road. Wasn't just British bikes and bikes from the 60s. I got off of about an 80 BMW and got on a 85 Honda and it was like night and day in the way the things handled. All those old school bikes we called flexi-frame flyers. Harley up until fairly recently built a bike that would spontaneously flex all over the road and throw you off. How they got away with that without having their asses sued in the ground these days I don't know.
Confusing. You want more power, lighter, more unusual models. But then Superveloce is good but it could do with a bigger engine? I think one sentence in there sums it all up. "I would never buy one." These companies don't create bikes for people that would never buy them. Or else history would repeat itself and they would all go out of business. You cant sell bikes like they were made in the 60s, it wasn't feasible then, and its way way way less feasible now. You are basically asking bike manufactures to go back to the decade they all went bankrupt and go through the process of going bankrupt again!
Yeah. Most people buying a first bike wouldn't necessarily buy a classic. But any regular or returning biker would appreciate the heck out of a comfy classic. They sell like hot cakes so obviously there's more than a decent sized market for it. You don't need the fastest, lightest, most techy ride to enjoy a nice afternoon/early morning/ late night run around town/ hill. I guess the video maker was looking to get some cheap heat to push engagement/views /comments up, which is fair enough ,kudos .
@@shadow_realm47 You just described me there! I had lightweight, fast superbikes when I was young, 20 years later after a looonnng break a big lazy classic is exactly what's hitting the spot for me. I have as much fun on my Bonneville at legal speeds as I ever had on my GSXR750 at very illegal speeds.
What's the point of having a 200hp or even 150hp bike when you have you risk your life every time you twist the throttle. Advancement and technology is good but at the end of the day we just want to enjoy the ride and come back home safely. You can have the latest and greatest for the track but for practical purposes a stable, refined, beautiful and safe bike is what you want.
This comparing power, torque all the time is the saddest thing in the whole motorcycle industry. There's a lot that goes into motorcycle characteristic, the frame, the stroke length, the crank diameter, the gearing arrangement, how the air fuel mixture is tuned, the clearances and how everything works as you reach the redline. These can't all be taken into account when talking factually about a motorcycle, that's why the "feel" matters. If it's well designed and well tuned it is gonna feel well at whatever usable rpms and speeds you drive it at, but everyone is concerned about that X hp that is achieved at N rpm like they are going to drive it at that rpm all the time. I can tell you what makes most power, petrol buring in an open dumpster fire ! Delivery matters. So yeah the older bikes might post better figure in terms of power and rpm because the design of engines haven't changed very much and the modern bikes have to work with the disadvantages of having to be more reliable, safe and adhering to emissions. The modern bikes are more safer, from chassis design to all parts within the engine are all mostly simulated and tested for better reliability and to be more environmentally friendly. And they would still do better speeds than their older counterparts with more stability and safety, probably.
A lot of the people that go on about the British bikes being unreliable and leaking oil and Lucas Electric these bikes for ride to work bikes for people who couldn't afford a car and people who had gas rationing for 10 years after the war if you maintain them properly they were good running reliable bikes set with rack up to miles my TR6 Triumph took fifty years to wear out the cams and it's like crap was almost full but still good with oil the bike with so easy to take apart down to the crankcases wash it and put the new parts in and put it back together the new bikes whatever their brand name wherever they're made they are all disposable they are not rebuildable at all people like to badmouth to be sa-250 single yet the bike was good enough to gradually double in size to a 500 and then to a 600 undersea cm all of the challengers I pretty much off the road and scrapped with the number of old British bikes resurrected and on the road many of them will soon hit their hundred-year mark staying power is a mark of quality
The w800 and interceptor could probably do a lot more horses, but they were made with A2 licenses in mind, which is limited to 47hp Also power really isn’t anything, your not buying these bikes to be one of those people who loves to break the speed limit at every possible moment, your riding them to just enjoy them because you like the look of them
And u can mod these interceptors too. S&S cycles provide big bore 865cc 11:1 compression kit, high compression pistons for 11:1 and up the disp to 657cc, high lift cams, or u can also put a power commander ecu after that too.
I ride an old Yamaha XS-650 with about that much power, and it's plenty for in town usage. Honestly the power would be fine on the highway too if the engine didn't vibrate so much at high RPMs. A 650 with 50ish horsepower is usually fairly torquey at lower RPMs too; there's no free lunch in engine design so a 600 class sportbike engine makes more horsepower by pushing the torque higher up the rev range.
“If only Triumph made motorcycles like the Trident and the Speed Twin…” huh? I have a Thruxton, I love it. Best bike I’ve ridden. I’ve gotten her up to 100 at only 5000rpms and it seemed like it was tempting me to push it more. The power is there. In a sea of plastic fairing Japanese bikes and oversized, over priced Harley’s - I’ll choose a Triumph Bonneville every time.
Plastic fairing isn't a bad thing at all... You don't have to try to degrade their functionality by saying it's a sea of plastic. You'll probably look like an older person if you ride a Bonneville and sure sitting on it for 2 hours won't hurt your 30 yr old back
imo I don't see how plastic on a motorcycle is really that bad. On cars for sure it is since that plastic means nothing in a car crash. On a motorcycle though metal won't help in crashes either lol. I'm into the japanese bikes though so I might be biased
Firstly, really enjoyed your video. I'm a 57 year old British motorcyclist and own quite a few machines. It's interesting to hear your views and understand your frustrations. I passed my motorcycle test back in 1984 and rode relatively small capacity bikes for around 5 years, as my sole means of transport. I serviced my own bikes but remember three or four occasions when an unexpected breakdown ruined a planned day out. Fast forward nearly 40 years and, amongst others, I've got a water cooled T120, Street Scrambler and a Speed Twin in the garage. All modern retros, all doing something slightly different reliably and efficiently. In over 30000 miles of combined ownership I've not wasted a moment wondering if a bike was going to let me down. In the last twelve months, the only day I've had hands covered in fuel was when my 2 year okd Honda powered lawn mower let me down. I suppose that's the appeal. Modern retros clearly don't have genuine history but, for a rider that loves motorcycling, rather than just loves motorcycles, they provide a great way to get out there and, probably, get back home again without suffering mechanical failure. When I think more deeply about the bikes, of course I'd love to be able to strip down, adjust, improve every aspect of a modern motorcycle, but, in reality, I pay my money, accept that the manufacturer has locked the ECU, but still love riding the bike. I've test ridden so many modern bikes, including the Speed Triple R, and they have the best of everything that manufacturing can now produce but, after a few hours' riding most of that seems to becomes less relevant. What remains crucial is adequate power, predictable handling, comfort and excellent braking.
Yeah I can completely resonate with what you're saying, all the reasons I still might get a modern classic at some point. And out of all the modern classics the triumphs are the most compelling. I do just wish they were a bit lighter and more sporty in line with the spirit of the originals. Which is why the speed twin is so awesome and unique in the market. I'm 6 foot tall so I worry about it being a bit to small as the pegs are apparently a bit cramped. Anyways thanks for your comment!!
@@bartmotorcycle I'm 5'10 and the Speed Twin is perfect for me. It's a small form motorcycle but, unlike the Street Twin, which does feel far too cramped, the Speed Twin has far better ergonomics. Rode 300 miles on it, today, since my earlier comments. A fantastic machine.
@@chriskay116 man it's tempting, might be my next bike. I'm already used to a bike made for smaller people on my old Triumph lol. Can you adjust the pegs?
@@bartmotorcycle The pegs aren't adjustable but I really don't think you'd need them to be. I bought the T120, convinced that it would have the perfect riding position. I looked at the Speed Twin in the showroom, noted the peg position, and thought "no way". I didn't even test ride it. Fast forward 12 months and I was loaned a Speed Twin whilst the T120 was being serviced. I was utterly knocked out by it. Bought one instantly.
I remember walking past the local bike store in the early 70's and the brand new Triumph Thruxton in the window had a drip pan under it to catch the leaking oil. A master piece of engineering? No!
I've been riding since 1964 and I remember going to the local Triumph and BSA dealerships and all the new bikes on the showroom floor had drip pans under them with oil spots in them. I also remember my friend in the Navy spending an hour every Sunday morning outside the barracks kicking his new BSA Spitfire Special Mk.2 trying to get it running. Beautiful bike, but totally unreliable. And I remember my buddy on his 66 Bonneville having to bend down and fiddle with the carbs at every stop light to make it idle, while oil and smoke spewed out of the breather tube, while my Honda Super Hawk ticked over like a Swiss watch. 30 years later I acquired an old Bonneville of my own in a fit of nostalgia and couldn't wait to get rid of it. I like the styling on old bikes and the flat seats and round gages and headlights and tube handlebars, etc., but give me modern brakes and suspension and electronic ignition and fuel injection any day. After owning and working on 26 different bikes over the years I want reliability and low maintenance now.
Had a Norton Dominator in 60s. Piggybacking on son’s YT. British Commandos had a forged primary cover but US distributor Berliner specified a stamped primary chain cover to reduce the price they paid to the manufacturer. They leaked oil like an uncapped well. Probably needed a pan under them from the jump. My Dominator never leaked. But remember Zener diodes under the seat that would black out the electrics if you hit a bump. On all the limey bikes I believe. Lucas was like GE in the UK. And owners of British bikes and cars (had a 61 3.8L Mk II Jaguar as well) called Lucas “The Prince of Darkness “. Bring back the retro bikes but keep weight under 400 pounds. Add solid state electrics. And beef up hp and torque beyond A2 restrictions for the US. And let RE sell a big bore engine without the need to first buy a 650. A lighter RE 270 crank angle 855cc engine with lighter curb weight and I will order in the Spring. Oh and fix the pegs to be like TEC replacements. Right now RE is so near and yet so far from crossing the goal line.
Thank you for an outstanding incomprehensible and silly waffling. To compare the few good qualities from 50-60 years ago with the few shortcomings from the present. I have ridden many motorcycles from different times. Also Norton, AJS, Triumph and Matchless from the 60's. It can definitely be an experience to drive these .... but the shortcomings in reliability, comfort, safety and most other things are endless. Having owned motorcycles from different eras and continents than it is really enjoyable to drive a modern Bonneville T120 that has fantastic engine character and is reliable. It has also not been a problem to increase the effect a bit and reduce the weight by 20 kg. It would be nice to have an original from the 60's in the garage as long as you did not have to drive long distances or have to rely on it.
12:29 I am half and half with your viewpoint in this video. When it comes to my Car Enthusiasm, I used to be all "sPEcs, DaTA, NuMBeRs, aND StAtiStiCS" as I churned 0-60 figures out of my mouth, pouring like Barf. However, when I got into the world of Motorcycling, I actually came with the mind of "Commuting" and not using it as a luxury item or "toy". Fast bikes are fine, I'm not gonna be some Nanny telling you there isn't a reason to push technological limits, but IMO the main appeal of Retro Bikes aren't so much that they're "Retro" or "Not real bikes" it's that they're the reason people fall in love with riding to begin with. It's crazy that as bikes get faster and faster, we're telling young new folk to kill themselves on more dangerous and dangerous vehicles. That's what riding is about to me. The Feel. The Romance. The Journeys. Not the speed. Not the Technology, specs, data, statistics, or Numbers on paper.
Thanks for checking out the video! So from the outset I really do think all motorcycles are cool and I respect that people like different bikes. I don't personally care for adventure bikes for example but I can get excited about them when I meet someone who rides one. And in terms of specs I would agree, looking back on this video its not really helpful to compare the original bikes with the bikes emulating that style, they're tuned completely differently and with modern frame design and braking and suspension a 50 year old bonneville wouldn't be about to hang with a modern one. I think because these old bikes are so influential we think of them as just the typical bike design so when I company releases a 'retro' bike that's really not at all performance oriented with that classic design, it seems ok and fitting even. But those bikes really were the sport bikes and superbikes of their day, and to make bikes entirely not in that spirit while selling nostalgia so aggressively, idk it just all feels kinda scummy at this point for me. It's like the mustang, it's a mustang! It's loud it's powerful it's aggressive, imagine Ford dies as a company, gets bought and revived 40 years later and suddenly there's a new mustang on the road, except now it only looks like a mustang, it's quiet it's void of all the character, all the rawness is gone. I mean Ford is kinda doing that already with the mustang but that's another story. Id be curious to hear your thoughts on that
i am into retro for two reasons, build quality and simplicity to maintenance. if something breaks you can fix it without to connect a freakin computer with propietary software just to put off the oil light
Also modern retros have better steering geometry, no carbs and most importantly of all disc brakes. In dryer American states drums are fine...but come to twisty Europe and you would be begging for modern anti lock disk brakes.
I don’t think it is all about the retro look, it is the ergonomics, comfortable upright seating position, the handlebar of older motorcycle that makes them more popular for older riders who are not interested in sporty ergonomics, lean forward seating position. One example is Kawasaki z900rs, same engine as z900 but much better ergonomics, and it is nothing like 60s bike .
@@ellistomago3369 I loved my Concours and ST1100 but ultimately the relatively cramped seating position had to be addressed with bar risers and dropped pegs because it was simply too uncomfortable.
The modern classics are objectively better in every way. They are stiffer, handle better, ride better, more comfortable, safer, cleaner and more reliable. If you prefer an original, that is fine but unless your a collector or ride very little, your much better off with a modern classic. Some of us ride 10,000 miles or more per year and like to actually ride out of town and travel on a motorcycle.
Just a light on power to weight ratio on Royal Enfield's bikes today. 47 hp is THE limit to A2 licenses in many Europe countries, which broadens their target audience, otherwise only folks above 24 years old could buy their bikes. It's not like they can't make a more powerful engine, it's a market decision, and a good one in my point of view. In real world a 47 hp bike, from a 53 hp bike, will be nearly identical to ride. Truly no harm here.
I am glad this is only an opinion! They do not build retro bikes to be "copycats" as you implied. They build them because there is a desire, a demand, and a very healthy market for them. Also the bikes are not built bigger because of emissions, the engines are! Many of which put out much more usable horsepower than the original did. The Z900RS is a prime example of this. The market now seems to be resisting the insect looking bikes a bit as it embraces the retro looking bikes. More comfortable to ride and and covers multi tasking better than the insect bike as well.
Retro bikes becoming popular, because they look like traditional motorcycles, not insects. I’m not just referring to Triumph Bonnie and Moto Guzzi V7 bikes. Take a look at early 70s to mid 80s Japanese bikes. They are as beautiful and timeless looking as Triumph and Moto Guzzi. It doesn’t matter how many years or decades go by, they will always look beautiful. Triumph and Moto Guzzi bikes didn’t bring back the past styling, they have always looked that way as long as they have been making bikes.
I understand where you’re coming from, but for me I don’t give a damn about the lack of tech and lack of speed. They look cool and appealing to me. I mean the speed limit is 100k in NZ. So why would I want 200 bhp. Anyway I am upgrading to the 2022 Triumph Bonneville T120 Matt Black / Graphite. Shall pick the bike up in February. Tnx for your perspective. NZ. Regards John.
I came to gently take you to task, and see that I am in good company. Mostly I feel a bit sad for you. You see trees, but no forest. You have *your* wants/needs/desires, but ignore *not-you* wants and needs. Motorcycles have a broad market. One of them is the need for speed (w00t!). One of them is making desirable bikes that n00bs can ride. An A2 license needs to be under 48 HP, so the RE Interceptor makes 47 *by design*, with a $5799 price that is 30% below it's direct competition...and they're flying out dealer's doors. (Standard with EFI and ABS too.) The Superveloce is $21k. It's only market is the same people buying the Panigale V4 ($22k). I've been riding for 40 years. At 59, I don't want OR need either of those, and I can afford them. I'd rather ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow.
Here's the thing, I agree with you and actually, I prefer slow bikes, I ride a 50 year old 40hp bike. Im even ok with the modern classics being slow, almost beginner motorcycles, it's cool. What I don't get is why they need to weigh 500 pounds! That isn't in the spirit of the originals in my opinion. I just compared my bike with a modern street twin in a recent video and I actually really liked it. A bit soulless but overall they great, fun bikes. But mine just feels so much more nimble. But listen I spent years drooling after the modern classics, I know entirely too much about this segment and I totally understand why people ride them. I just don't think they're perfect that's all.
@@bartmotorcycle as someone whose owned both, neither is your original. Some guys don’t mind wrenching more than riding, some of have things to do and just want to get out for an hour or two on the weekend knowing the bike is gonna start and run as expected when you want it to. “ Perfect” is an illusion young man
I absolutely love my air cooled Triumph 865 SE. It feels just like a 45 year old bike without the negatives of a 45 year old bike. I have owned bikes by every major manufacturer except Ducati and Indian. This is my 4th Triumph and my first retro bike and I could not be happier..
The best bike I have owned was a Moto Guzzi Griso, but it's not in the garage because I couldn't afford the maintenance - they dont call them grenades for nothing!
This is why I like Harley-davidson, they never stopped making the same bikes they just evolved, no fakery, no retro, simple old school engineering. Works
100% agree. Calling things "hipster" is a lazy take, but yeah. There is ABSOLUTELY a big hole in the market for a true evolution of classic style. Not everyone wants to ride a sharp, angular sport bike that looks straight out of an anime, but people do like the performance. Every new bike I immediately feel like I need to mod just to make it cleaner and less alien-looking.
i've owned over 60 bikes, from 170 hp supernakeds to stage iv harley big blocks. y'know what i ride most of the time nowadays? a guzzi v7iii. 50-ish hp. the connection between throttle, engine, and the road is profound. speed is a novelty; feeling the road in a purer form lives beyond the adrenaline peaks.
Good thing you like the Speed Twin, I test rode one about 2 months ago and my goodness it was the smoothest bike ever that felt like a rocket when twisting the throttle. Everything about it was just so polished. The whole reason why people (myself included) love modern retros is this: it’s like owning a resto-modded classic car. There’s no worry about it not starting, drum brakes, crap tires, etc. it gives me the same feeling as the old bikes but without any of the worry of being stranded on my weekend rides.
You say "retro," I say "standard." Riding position has meant more to me since my mid-40s than scraping knees or pegs. I don't have many years left to ride but I sure as hell aren't going to suffer with lower back pain after 45 minutes of saddle time. There are bold riders, and old riders, but there are very few old & bold riders.
Thanks for your thoughtful review that somehow hits the nail. But you've gotten it completely wrong to include Royal Enfield in your assessment because it is the only english brand who was never discontinued and therefore is still to be considered as probably the only genuine and original company which has always kept an eye on building simple, service friendly and easy to use motorcycle's thanks to the perseverance of the factory based in India. This is quite ironic because an independent Commonwealth State has preserved a british masterpiece over more than a century and therefore shouldn't in any way be mistaken as a so called "modern classic". It is still and simply to be valued as a ongoing original.
Speaking as someone who owned a REAL Royal Enfield (TT Interceptor, '69) the "never discontinued" statement is false. And on top of that, the 250 Enfield of 1969 was FASTER than what now passes for - but is not - a 350 "Royal Enfield".
Well at least you've got people-talking ! I ride a W650 the same as 'pams' (mighty-garage) . I've owned 54 bikes over many years (just bought another !) I would have been happy with any of the modern-retro-classics really, but this deal came-along . I push-it hard and it hasn't broken-yet . Only '1' of my old-brits didn't 'lunch-itself' spectacularly, but I still loved-them all. I live too-far out-of-town to risk owning one these-days plus I'm too-old to push it far . I would love-one in my lounge (partner wouldn't !) ..or maybe a real-old single-banger so I could do 'the-old-guy-on-the-old-bike thing '.... on occasion. .. for laughs . Look all-stooped, break-out the grey-hair ...then do a back-flip (we all have dreams ). Dave NZ
For me, modern classic bikes tell me that companies are willing to listen to the demand of the market. How many people have said "I love the old boxy style trucks" or "I miss wide body cars". People love that older aesthetic and clamor for it in cars and the car manufacturers seem to be like screw you here's another weird, round, bulbous take on a car we've been selling for 50 years. MC bikes are giving people what they want, classic looks but with modern features.
I have a 2019 Street Twin. I didn’t want something that pretended to be a track bike and I didn’t want a cruiser. For me the Street Twin balanced off so many factors: it’s approachable, low seat, strong in every gear, good looking and well-made. I’ve had sport bikes before, but the Street Twin is how I want to ride now. It gives me enough speed, looks great and is easy to own.
What is so good about retro's is that they have feeling, compassion for the ride. They were basic and direct in application. They were fun. Bikes of today are way beyond what is needed for good motorcycle ride and touring today. Fast is not the only reason for owning a motorcycle. The retro's are the kind that you take to the beach, country touring, and out with your girlfriend or boyfriend. Speed or power is such a narrow focus on the enjoyment of riding. It basically says a person does not understand the passion for riding, if they are focused on power. So many of the bikes today have too much plastic on them, and too many shrouds. At point, Why do you think Harley has such a big following. They are true owners of compassion for riding and nostalgia and the calmness of yesterday.
Indeed. I love my sports bikes for the thrill ride effect, but my 1976 Honda four has a charm. It's a bit flexy, it's not super powerful, it's heavy etc, but when on it it has a vibe that makes me enjoy the whole experience immensely too. More than the sum of the nuts and bolts
I think you need a different perspective on the term 'retro'. You admit that the '60's Bonneville's, etc., look great, and they do, but they don't look great just because they are old, they just look great, period. The point is, people aren't just attracted to them because the 'bikes hark back to those days, and there's a lot of nostalgia involved, there's just not that much you can do with unfaired motorcycle design, and the simple elegance of just a tank, seat and and a nice looking motor is timeless. Just look at some of the modern offerings, like the transformer like Yamaha MT-01 and the cumbersome MT-09, and Kawasaki's god awful supercharged things, and you'll see that the only thing you can do with unfaired design is add bits and pieces that often just look messy and ugly. 'Retro' should be seen as a term that means motorcycle's made like they have been for decades, because that's what motorcycles should look like, simple, elegant and timeless.
You said it yourself Emissions! It's pretty amazing that brands like triumph are offering what they do. Everything is a compromise nowadays, just to survive. On the plus side, bikes are way more reliable and stop better today.
I'm 56 have owned a bunch of vintage motorcycles and ended up picking a 2017 BMW R9T its just the right amount of retro that when I go to vintage motorcycle meets my bike doesn't get mixed up with a vintage bike.
I have a Bonny, I bought one of the first fuel injected ones because I wanted to spend the time riding, not messing with a mixture adjustment and timing. It looks like I expect a motorcycle to look and it isn’t trying to kill me. Triumph could do a stripped version with more power, sure, but they are a business and they know their market. They have other bikes for the organ donors to ride.
My first vehicle ever, at 16 yrs old , in 73, was a 71 RD350. Drum brakes front and rear. Top speed, 110 mph. Felt sketchy. Loved that bike. Still have it.
I really like the idea of older retros from the 20s through 40s... I have a Royal Enfield Classic 500, and Continental GT 650, and love them both. I'm happy that neither of them are plagued with mechanical and maintenance issues. Which is a common theme amongst old motos of the 50s and 60s. I also have an Indian Scout 60 Bobber. Totally different moto than the other two, but also reliable and beautiful. High performance isn't a key concern of mine... Why? Because I'm not a racer. Nobody pays me to risk my life and go fast. I simply ride, and I enjoy it. That's what these motos are made for, and they do exactly that. Now, that being said, I did buy the BIG Bore Kits to give both Royal Enfields a higher cruising speed and passing power.
I was also drawn to the Scout 60 for the old-made-new-again appeal. It's my first and only bike for now, and when I get the chance to cruise, I'm enjoying it much more than driving helped in no small part due to the cost of fuel lately. It may not be the best on the road, or an original Scout, but it's all I asked of it for an entry into riding.
It’s the style that draws people to them. Enjoy what you enjoy is bottom line. There is merit in aesthetics for both styles, different strokes for different folks.
I agree! but for someone like me with a short inseam I have to stick with cruisers due to the low seat height. I just can't reach the ground on many of the newer bikes like adventure and sport bikes.
@@genegoodwin8925 agree completely with inseam issues. I wish the manufacturers would do a retro (late 60’s early mid 70’s) style dual purpose/enduro. One that didn’t require a ladder to get on lol. At 62 not as flexible as I once was
I was somewhat frustrated with the beginning of the video but when you hit the Ducati analogy you totally made your point. Great video, and I agree 100%!
After not riding for the last 36 years or so, at the age of 78 I have bought an Interceptor 650 on the 1st of November and have just finished running in at 2,000 km. My last bike was a Suzuki 1100 gsx e which before they brought out the katanas. The Interceptor has plenty of get-ups and goes when you twist the throttle. The biggest surprise was how heavy it is, 2017kg. My Suzuki was 253 kg and I don't remember it feeling heavy, might be age though. I had a 650 triumph trophy tr6 in the early 70s and it was about 173kg in comparison to the Interceptor. I bought a 900cc honda new when the came out and traded it back straight away for the new Suzuki, I like a bike to have the old-fashioned sit-up style and hated the clip-on bars. The 1100 GSX E was the best bike, easy to handle, no powerband so to speak, you could be in top gear sitting on the 60km speed limit and turn it on and it would accelerate hard all the way to 190 km an hour before wind resistance started to make its presence felt. I never had to drop back gear with a pillion on to pass a car ever. The Royal Enfield 650 Interceptor is a great bike, what's not to like! Low price, abs brakes, eft ignition, disk brakes, 3-year warranty, 3-year roadside assist, and 12 months rego. As for why riders like them it's because a lot of riders don't want to be perched and crouched over like a racer especially in the cities.
I'm OLD so you'll have to excuse me. I grew up riding motorcycles in the 60's so retro motorcycles represent the motorcycles I knew way back then. They were simple machines, usually a side by side twin cylinder of small engine size. Honda's largest back then was a 300cc Dream or a 305cc scrambler. The fuel was fed by gravity, not electric fuel pumps and EFI wasn't even thought of back them for motorcycles. No ABS or driving modes, they were very crude to say the least, but it was fun transportation. I think most of the manufactures today are just targeting old riders like me. I don't think somebody twenty years younger who grew up with sport bikes would be the least interested in a retro bike. Retro to them would be the earlier sport bikes. Retro does sell, that's why HD and Indian are there. But the Japanese bike makers have already rode that ride and are returning to more modern bikes with all the bells and whistles and some of them are wonderful motorcycles, but old people like me hardy ever give them a second look. I may be different, I love all motorcycles, the Honda 300 single cylinder is a neat bike. I do like the Royal Enfields, the 650 twins, Himalayan and the Meteor. And I really like the Kawasaki W 800. I've owned many motorcycles since I started riding in 1964 but I had to go to trike a couple of years ago due to my wife's health issues. (she always rides with me) I checked out different three wheeled machines but I found the Harley Davidsons handles much better than the others so now I own a HD Tri-GLide. Please don't hate me for that. I have a friend who owns 47 motorcycles, mostly old Triumphs and BSA's some completely restored and they are beautiful motorcycles.
I'm with you - also old. I believe that the maker of the video, bart, is about 35 years too young to appreciate and understand the attractions of, say, a Bonneville T120.
Royal Enfield are the oldest motorcycle company in continuous production, so they aren't emulating anyone; they just are being consistent. I own a RE GT650 and my previous bike was a a 1970 T120 Bonnie so I know the category well. Both are 100mph+ bikes, but the GT650 handles better, stops better and is far more reliable. With a bit of dieting it now only weighs 8kg more than the '70 T120. What's not to like? Not everyone wants a pointless 200hp bike... how fast can you go on a naked bike on a public road before you become just another Yammie-Noob-style hood ornament.
Completely disagree. Motorcycles went too superbike focused which are fun sure. Most fun on a track day though. A new moto guzzi v7 or t100 has around 60bhp and you can ride it all day. The brand new Royal enfield meteor 350 has 30bhp but is the most comfortable bike ever in my opinion. Perfect for getting out on a sunny day for a few hours. The roads are only going to get busier, more degraded. Real world bikes are coming back.
One of the best bikes I've owned was my Norton 750 Commando. I have no doubt that it would kick the arse of a modern retro performance wise. However, handling, brakes, emissions and reliability would be no contest whatsoever.
As someone who owns a Moto Guzzi V7iii, your argument is ON POINT. There is literally no reason why old school design can’t evolve. Granted, I’m in love with this bike, it is amazing, but after some time, the torquey, low power engine just feels slow. I am going to eventually move to their Griso 8v or their new Mandello V100 for that reason. They are making attempts to build on their heritage while still reminding everyone that said heritage WAS RACING AND INNOVATION.
I own the same bike. I had a Suzuki Vanvan for a year and ride it around town, then bought the V7. Feels pretty fast to me lol. I guess everything is relative.
Correction, the Kawasaki W1, 2 and 3 were specifically sourced from a BSA design that they had acquired a licence to produce through a takeover, not an attempt to build a Bonneville knockoff.
There are several reasons the weight has gone up over time: Emissions certainly but also the addition of starter motors, starter motor drive mechanisms and larger batteries to power the starter motors. Balancer shafts and their drive mechanisms. Also the engines are far more robust now. Those old classics couldn't sustain freeway speeds in excess of 70mph without tearing themselves apart, but the modern retro can because the engine components are beefier in design. The sad part is the lack of use of modern materials in the modern retro. Frames and cycle parts could be made far lighter using composites or even aluminium alloys.
I mean they could make carbon frames, but then nobody would buy it because too expensive ;) ... they always have to watch at the selling price, because otherwise there is always a bike with similar specs with a lower price tag... the only company that does not give a shit about this is Harley...
@@andrewslagle1974 If resell-price is something that is important for you: then yes. But honestly: if you are thinking about reselling a bike before you buy it, it is maybe the wrong decision from the beginning....
I love that you’d used that gal and her W650 from a The Mighty Garage video. I’ve switched from looking for an Int650 and am now seriously searching for a W650 with low-ish miles. IDK , they just seem more solid than the Interceptor. More of what I want. Less plastic. I really like the RE option and have been torn (like , the only reason I want the W650 over the W800 is the kickstart option)but I’m pretty settled on the W … unless something too good comes along.
If classic and modern is what you want and couldn’t care less for things like Power to weight ratio (though Here I think it was talked about as a comparison between old and new models) just buy a Guzzi. Had a Griso, rode a 1200 sport, V7 II/III and the new 850. Lovely and reliable machines.
A very thoughtful video. You have recognised (many do not) that the bikes being emulated were performance machines in the day, not retro cruisers.... They were also very modern. This was before Honda invented the UJM and suddenly made them look old. I am in the "cynical about retro" camp, but I see their place in the current market. To my mind, it was Italy that kept the British bike tradition going after Triumph Meridan became a sad Victorian backstreet workshop and even Norton kept churning out the 850 Commando as if nothing had changed. Moto Guzzi was almost British on character, as was Laverda. Even Ducati had something British going on, if you could afford one. I do believe the current retro trend is more about seeing oneself reflected in a shop window while popping out for a latte. But that isn't a crime. None of these retro bikes will offer half the visceral thrill of a 1980s Guzzi or Laverda. That is the true retro buzz. Good video.
I do like and ride modern bikes and have done for many years as they have progressed. I started riding in 1967 and loved Triumph bikes the most. I still have a 1966 model Triumph Tiger 100 (T100SS) which I have owned for many years. It is a beautiful bike and I love the fact that it creates interest wherever it is parked. On the reliability side you are right they were not good when thrashed but if maintained well and regularly and ridden sensibly they do give good service.
Well, I guess if you like the British bikes in the 60's. It Works for you. I myself started on Hondas or Yamaha's. The bike that started the death of the British bike was the CB750 in 1969. If you were after speed, the inline is the way to go
This has been said thousands of times, there are as many different reasons to ride a motorcycle as there are people who ride them. I'm 63 years old. I still like the music from the '70s and '80s better than anything popular today. My love for motorcycling began with '70s dirt bikes, before the Jap 4 even made purpose built motocross bikes. You had to take a DT and strip it down to bare frame and motor. Make it loud, fiddle with the carb, knobby tires. And my connection to motorcycles is much the same today. I like em minimalist, noisy, and fierce. I've ridden "retro" motorcycles ever since I turned to street riding - Yamaha XJ650 Seca, then a BMW R100, now a Moto Guzzi 1200 Sport - because they were highest in the character that appeals to me, that maxmizes my motorcycling experience. They aren't copies of anything, they just look like motorcycles - beautiful. With a minimum of suspension and fuel mods, they've all been fast, stable, and reliable. Anyone who has not read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance may not get it. Just ask anyone riding a Harley, or a bobber of any make. Why are manufacturers building retro models? Because people like them and people are buying them. It all comes down to soul.
i spent some time considering this question over the last two years or so, and i get what you are saying. i like the look of the old bikes, but ultimately i went with a modern design for safety, performance and re-sale value.
I just bought a 2021 speed twin and I have to say I have never ridden a bike that is this much fun. Pure pleasure. I can honestly sat that my relationship is suffering a bit because I am truly in love with this bike. It is a blast! Get one!
Alternative viewpoint. Not to say you don't get it, more like... I see it differently. See, the thing is these are "retro" only if you think of them as retro. Rather, I see them as the original motorcycle shape that never changed. Shape here means not just aesthetics, it is more about posture. Posture dominates feel. Somewhere down the line, motorcycle companies started making their lineups based on racetrack parameters. But some of us couldn't care less about racetracks, so that whole diversion in design direction is pointless. The original design is more pillion-friendly. For an analogy, it would be ridiculous if car companies started turning their whole lineups into uncomfortable sports-cars and started referring to sedans as "retro". That's right, these are just the sedans of the motorcycle world; what's with all the wannabe MotoGP obsession? For another analogy, I like using a computer keyboard rather than a mobile touchscreen to type, not because I am old-fashioned or retro, but rather because it is more comfortable and works better. It is not about nostalgia, it is just the fact that the original design was better and I am not interested in motorsport. All that said, there is one factor that makes me leave the original motorcycle shape and posture behind: Monoshocks! But then there are "best of both worlds" for that, like the BMW RNine T and some of Ducati's models. They manage to deliver the original comfort & posture while still using modern suspension technology and frame design.
I completely agree with your assessment. But but but…..in music, are variations on a theme, copycats? Are rock reworkings of country, or bluegrass classics copycats? I don’t think anyone thinks so. Is imitation not the highest form of flattery? That triumph/Kawasaki etc sell retro bikes that, let’s face it, are not sold for performance or features, but because of looks says something about the state of today’s motorcycle design. I personally would rather get an interceptor or a triumph speed twin way over anything Honda produces. I look at the cb500 and admire the engineering, and hate the design. For me, the motorcycle is something that I like to look at, and I don’t like looking at the ninja. Modern motorcycle design leaves me completely indifferent. Am I a hipster? Sure, whatever. If I am going to invest in a luxury item, I wants beauty and the retro designs to me were much more beautiful.
I agree with your sentiments. I wanted to post the *full quote* about imitation, because it changes everything. “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”- Oscar Wilde
It is an Interesting take, I have a vintage honda and love it. It feels so different than a modern bike and I like working on things. So the work and maintenance I have to do is part of having an old bike. I look at current triumphs and the Royal Enfields and people call them retro bikes. But I feel they should just be called standard bikes. They are a class of there own and keep the look similar to the beginning is no different than ford, chevy and other brands bring new takes on their sport cars but trying to keep them looking the same as they once did. Think of a triumph they have the specific look.
I’ve been riding for fifty years. After I got off my buddy’s new Thruxton the first thought that came to mind was, “Wow. This is what the ‘73 Norton Commando 850 wanted to be when it grew up.” Still . . . in my muddled opinion, anything Suzuki uses its magical K5 lump in is as retro as I need.
I Just love the look of retro scramblers and cafe's and I cant be assed to deal with the unreliable poor handling and slow junk that most actual retros are so a retro's in reality are so a retro style bike with modern handling and reliability is a win/win for me. That said I would die a happy man if I could ride a Brough superior.
Maybe learn to take care of and maintain a motorcycle like men used to and it wouldn’t be unreliable. As for slow, my 95hp ‘78 XS1100E would leave (many) of these de-tuned retros choking in the dust
@@gtemnykh no it really wouldn't, not anything with a larger displacement anyway It's just a fact that most modern bikes are not only more reliable, they have the brakes and handling to back up the power they have (which is another thing most actual old bikes lack) your Yamaha being a perfect example of this as they are well know for handling as well as a bag of shit with wheels and having inadequate brakes for it's power. As for you're first point your barking up the wrong tree here (though people 100% need to learn at the minimum some basic maintenance skills, not that being a man has the slightest thing to do with it and it's frankly just a weird thing to bring up) not only did i grow up using lathes and the like at my fathers engineering company rebuilding as well as servicing bikes and cars I now work repairing and maintaining trains an locomotives.
@@axeami1354 look up the quarter mile on one of these retro remake CB1100s or even a 1200cc speed twin and get back to me. I’ve toured the continental US on old Japanese bikes including a coast to coast ride on a 76 XS500. If you’ve gone through them well they’re about as reliable as anything modern, with the benefit of being able to work on it yourself. But far and away the biggest thing is the feel of the old bikes. All of the retro remakes I’ve ridden feel contrived and sanitized.
I love modern and classic bikes. I have a Triumph T120 because I no longer have the time to tinker with cars or bikes. I just want it to work - which it does. Lovely bike.
It's the style and the lines! I've got two classic Hondas. 72 CB450K and a 75 CB550 Four. Love them, but they're not the best for daily use. For that i've owned several "modern" bikes i turned into retro bikes, but now i'm getting a Speed Twin. I was waiting for this recent update. This is what it should have been from the start! My current runaround is an XJR 1300
Completely agree. My favourite bike is a Norton Commando MkIII 850. It is light, fast, handles brilliantly, has decent lights and even stops quite well. It looks gorgeous, as slim as a hungry whippet. To be honest if I wasn't so ancient with weak legs and dodgy knees I would have an earlier kickstart one with drum brakes. But at my age compromises have to be made. Foolishly I bought a nearly new Triumph T120 Black a year ago. Great lardy behemoth with loads of silly useless tech. Kept it about 3 months and sold at a huge loss.
@@bartmotorcycle The thing is Bart I live in Sussex, England. A land of narrow twisty single carriageway roads. So, I like a light nimble machine that you can have fun wringing its neck on these roads. Generally speaking I prefer a good set of drums to disk brakes. I hate and loathe computers near the things I ride/drive. I like simplicity. I like carburetors. I enjoy tinkering and servicing. My AJS Model 20 is probably only worth about £3500. It is an excellent little bike. The drum brakes work well. It doesn't leak oil. It doesn't vibrate badly. With an LED bulb the lights are OK. It is quite lusty and if I wring its neck I can get nearly 90 out of it. If I really chuck it around the handling does get a bit scary but that is at limits that are really beyond my riding anyway. The engine is beautifully flexible. It will pull from about 15mph in 3rd and 25 in top. Then I tell myself "this thing was made in 1957 and it is still to me a bloody good motorcycle"
Had a similar run-in with a almost-new 01 Bonneville that I got for a song with a dirty carburetor. It was so smooth and refined and quiet it just bored me to tears. Missing the feel of a true classic twin.
i love my T140ES. the sounds, the vibrations...I cant stop smiling while riding my 750. the norton 850 is also sooooo funnn. why go retro, when you can go classic/vintage. I havent had issues with either, and i do keep up with maintenance more than I do with my KLR or victory kingpin. that way Im always riding.
This whole topic could be dismissed immediately if we all just bought (or restored) whatever bike we like, and forgot about what the next guy liked. If you need more zip than Steve McQueen, you can have it; if you're good with less, there're plenty of choices for you. There are old-looking bikes, new-looking bikes, beginners bikes, alien-insect-transformer bikes, WW I thumper bikes, Isle-of-Man-death-wish bikes, - just ride whatever you like. The more you worry about seeming cool to other bikers, the less cool you actually are; cuz what's _really_ cool in life is confidently making your own autonomous choices.
Harley Davidson survived by not straying to far from its roots, the modern sport bikes have their place, the verity of equipment out there, should suit almost everyone, not everyone understands motorcycling, some cannot tolerate other people’s taste,
Well with old bikes one aspect that really bothers me now is the safety. Abs is something I would wish if it can be incorporated in those old bikes, it increases your confidence in your ride a lot.
You all may be missing the point. The reason "Retro" bikes are so awesome is because they don't look like modern bikes which are freakin hideous!!! I mean damn, are you imagining you're in an Avatar movie or something riding on a giant wasp?
For me, my 78 Bonneville T140V does everything I want - it's quick enough for me, easy and comfortable to ride (as long as you don't want to go too far , too fast) simple to maintain and will never go down in value. The added bonus in the UK is that it is exempt from annual road tax and MOT test (vehicle inspection), and has lower insurance rates, as a classic. I'm also a retired mechanic with time on my hands, which helps.
The reasons retros have become so popular is that over that last 20 years we have pushed performance to the level of insanity. I'm 52, raced 3/4 liter bikes in the late 90's. 105-115 hp doing 140 miles an hour on the few tracks in the south east that had those straights. The liter bikes were even faster (on the straights). That is power so beyond normal road conditions it's scary and useless.The fun just got lost to the larger market. To find the market again we're going back to bikes that won't kill a new rider but still are sexy and quick. Pretty simple really. I've ridden some of the retros and like them. But if your gonna make a retro, hmm, 75-95 hp please ;-).
A couple comments on the RE Interceptor: first the power output is limited on purpose to 47 so it can be sold World Wide on an 'L' plate or bottom rung of a graduated licensing program. This makes them hugely popular within reach of many more riders...good marketing decision. Can you easily make more power...of course! They're actually fairly easy to get into the mid to high 50's which makes for a pretty sprightly ride while still being simple and reliable...for a modern machine. The frame was designed by Harris and is very well done...great handling stock and again...easily improved as you progress as a rider. The weight is part of the desire to make them affordable so steel is used for durability and cost. It's not hard to get them down to about 415lbs just with exhaust cans (the stockers flow well but are very heavy) and anyone complaining about a mid 50 HP Interceptor being slow...the bike isn't...it's YOU. All of this..."I want 200 HP" is BS. You do realize that the bikes that offer this amount of power never really give it to you...yes? They all have traction control, wheelie and stability control and electronic throttles which won't come close to fully opening especially in the lower gears. If you doubt this...look back at the development of the KTM Super Duke 1290. The test rider asked the engineers to program the bike so he had a true 1:1 throttle with no aids....they didn't want to do it because they said "you'll not be able to ride it". But he insisted and they reprogrammed one and he took it for a ride on the test track....and didn't make even a full lap. Came back and said "you were right...I can't ride it". Anything much over 125 actual HP is a REAL handful that will bite you unless you're very skilled. The RE Interceptor is a willing and friendly bike that can be thrashed on a back road where it isn't the limiting factor about how fast you are going...YOU are. Affordable, simple, strong and easily modified...what's not to like? There are 750 and 865 kits available if you want more but most people find a mildly modified 650 does the job just fine. The only place it's lacking is in big numbers you can brag about to your buddies. If you can ride...they'll have trouble catching you on a winding road where the union of bike and rider is much more important than how much raw power it makes.
I own a 2000 W650, a great looking retro 20 years ahead of its time. You can ride modern retro's thousands of miles with no breakdowns, oil leaks or bits falling off due to the vibrations. I also own a 1960 BSA 650, another great bike but with 60 year old bike limitations.
3 роки тому+1
Me too! :) Spectacular bike! and the opportunities to make changes to it are enormous!
The W650 is the most honest/real “retro remake,” better than triumphs own attempts to bring the bonneville back as a overweight sanitized electric-blender smooth machine. The W650 even *looks* more like the 60s bonneville.
Are the old bikes really quicker? They had less power, a lot less torque, less gears…yeah I get less weight. I have a Street Twin which has more power, superior brakes, great suspension, sound, and looks great..25 lbs lighter than a T100. When you get tired of the bad brakes, suspension, and carbs of your original, check out the Street Twin. When you get tired of a bike falling off in power at 70+, get a Speed Twin. They are expensive…but they have such nicer components. These Modern Classics from Triumph are their best sellers. May not be the right bike for you, but more of us disagree and ride the new ones.
I had a triuph bonneville 70s, kick start, oilleak, bad brakes.....I also in the 80s a motoGuzzi... Recently I bought a Moto Guzzi v7 ii, the specs are identical to the original Bonneville, power, weight...and similar to my 80s MG.; The new bonnevile has nothing to do with the original,
Your T100 looks like the one Ted Simon rode around the world. I had a TR7E back in the day. Great bike, when it wasn't leaking oil or making funny noises again, or bits falling off.
My first bike was 1968 Bridgestone 350 GTR. Not a very popular bike but for six years was my transportation! It was ahead of its time with rotary disc valves to control the the air flow to the engine! The bike had 19 inch wheels which aided its stability at high speed speed. It was a two stroke with oil automatic injection. It was a true sleeper from a tire company. I understand only 9,000 we’re ever imported to the US. Oh! it was only $695.00 at Montgomery Ward. Lastly it had a six speed transmission. Except for spark plug fouling very reliable. Had 57,000 miles on the odometer when I went for a car.
I agree that modern bikes are heavy, but this video has absolutely no reference to torque, torque band, power band etc. Figures on paper are just a vague guide to a bike's real world performance. As for brakes and suspension, you can brag about how fast your bike is as you pick bits of your shattered drum brake out of the back of the car you just rear-ended. Also, I prefer a headlamp that illuminates beyond the front mudguard. Vintage bikes are a great hobby, but I wouldn't rely on one.
I got my license at 15 back in 1972. I am now 64. And I can concur with what you say. I was somewhat lost on the points the nice channel guy is trying to make. But in away I can relive my past, but with a reliable bike. NZ
Wow, watching this makes me appreciate my 2017 Honda CB1100EX even more than I did. With a 1140cc air and oil cooled transverse inline-four making 88.5hp / 68.5lb-ft in a 544lb wet package, it really does hold its head up high as Honda's premier retro/heritage bike.
@gtemnykh Bandits are cool and all, but they're not retro. Plus, if I want to go fast, I just ride my CB900F ('919' or '900 Hornet'); which makes more power than the Bandit or the CB1100EX, and in a much lighter package.
I know I am very late to this and I know you showed respect to Triumph for being the closest to maintaining the style, but (at risk of sounding like a fanboy) i think the spirit of the old Triumph is alive in their modern sport bikes and roadsters. Trident, street triples, modern Daytona, and the Rocket 3! Full transparency, I own a "baby Bonni", a Speed Twin 900. But you nailed it at the end of this video. The spirit of the retro bikes may be compromised, but the spirit of the brand is alive. Modern Bonnis are for people like me. I wanted a fuel injected Bonneville that starts every time and makes me feel good to twist the grip. Im a smaller, city rider and 59 ftlbs can move 500 pounds plenty fast between stoplights. But man that 360 crank sounds gooooood.
![How Royal Enfield made the best [selling] retro motorcycle in the world](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDU50er5zGc/mqdefault.jpg)
120mph on a bike with flexing forks wallowing suspension and drum brakes, leaking oil and slowly shaking it's self to bits isn't all it is cracked up to be. The new modern classics have the looks, feel and style without the worry. Speed and power isn't always the be all, feeling the wind on your face and enjoying the open road is where the magic happens and knowing you don't have to stop every hour or less to spanner everything up. As I have gotten older top speed is meaning less, and not having to lay on a wet road trying to tighten rounded nuts is the appeal of the new T100 for me. Great video bart.
i mean the same could be said of a classic mustang vs a new one... But I'd still rather have the classic
and I feel the same way, couldn't care less about going 100 mph, I literally clunk around on an old Triumph. I just find many of the new ones to be soulless and uninteresting, and in terms of styling just a bit off. Like too thick!
@@bartmotorcycle totally with you mate where the emotion and soul is lacking. The wet weights I could find for the slender 69 650 Bonnie 402lb/182kg, the porky 2017 T120 494lb/224kg and the lardarsed 2017 T100 a staggering 506lb/230kg, but I would take the T100 if I needed a reliable daily ride,. Having owned a 1972 750 Tiger back in the 80's when I was in my teens. It was a time when all my mates were riding LC 350's CBR 600's, and GPZ 750/900s, I still remember what happened on longer rides and the assortment of tools I needed to tighten all the different sized nuts up. I am happy to say, if I had the money, the classic Bonnie/Tiger would be in my stable, more for the weekend joy ride to take me back to my youth.
@@bartmotorcycle SAME!
@@bartmotorcycle unless they made a reliable new one that looked just like the classic. (Saying this as the owner of a '66).
I'm 72 years old and recently bought a Triumph Street Twin. My first bike when I was 18 years old was a used 1962 Triumph Bonneville that I bought from my brother-in-law. Comparing the two, I much prefer the new Street Twin. It's reliable, sounds much better, is far more comfortable, and if I start it up in the garage I won't die from poisonous exhaust fumes. Regarding the weight, my 1962 Bonneville had kick start, air cooling, no catalytic converter and no battery. The new bike has liquid cooling, electric start and emissions system which adds weight but the weight is negligible because it's very low. It also has lots of electronics that give me all sorts of information to enhance my ride. My first bike required lots of labor to keep it running. The electric components were especially unreliable. The riding experience wasn't really that great because the sounds coming from the engine were mostly mechanical that drowned out the exhaust. The new Street Twin with it's 270 crank sounds wonderful and other engine noises are suppressed (probably by the liquid cooling).
My new Street Twin satisfies this old man's desire to enjoy riding a motorcycle only for the joy of riding. In addition, it looks and sounds wonderful! At my age I don't care to spend hours trouble shooting and fixing problems, I want to ride and enjoy the experience of moving through nature on a wonderful and beautiful motorcycle.
I’m with you all they way !!
^^^ THIS!!!
@@billwilson1071 Meaning ?
well said
I find it amusing that you say the old bonneville had electrical problems. My street twin has been back to the dealers on numerous times for this, mainly wiring loom problems. There is also a well documented potential problem with the gearbox selector shaft. I also found the excessive weight a real issue so finally swapped it for a slightly smaller Japanese bike and finally found the near perfect bike.
Hi. This is very interesting, but speaking as an "old geezer" (aged 69) who does not look at the world through rose-coloured spectacles, a key point is missing. British bikes of that period were hideously unreliable. They blew up all the time, their electrics were always failing and they vibrated so much that they would fall apart under you. They had not advanced in terms of fundamental design since the pre war Triumph Speed Twin. I had BSAs, Nortons and Matchlesses and, frankly, they were all shit. The British motorcycle companies were exhausted, undercapitalised and lazy. As soon as bikes like the Honda CB350 turned up it was game over, and thank God for that. I went Japanese as soon as I could, migrating to the wonderful Suzuki T500 Titan. It was transformational - it always worked and it went like stink - I loved that bike. The problem for bike designers now, including modern Triumph, is that consumers nowadays expect motorbikes to be reliable, which is why the retro bikes are heavy and underpowered, as the video points out. Nobody nowadays would tolerate the rubbish the British were serving up. And we should feel no sympathy for the British motorcycle companies of that period. If you look at the Italian motorcycle industry, as they crawled out of the ruins of world war two they started with little bikes for Italian commuters, but immediately they started innovating with interesting, modern engines. Likewise the Japanese and the Germans. By contrast, the US bike industry in that period seemed to match the British for being lazy and inbred. So it goes - culture matters.
Regardless of your disagreement with me I hope everyone reads this comment, I think it's a great observation. Spot on. 👍
@@bartmotorcycle Thanks Bart. To really see the contrast, look at the British motorcycle industry pre-war. Then they were real innovators.
Have you read the book called 'the strange death of the british motorcycle industry'? Really highlights what you're saying
@@bartmotorcycle Just a further thought from "the old geezer". Looking to the future, I think motorcycle design right now is crying out for innovation to make motor bikes simpler, lighter and cheaper. Motorbike design at the moment seems to me to be bloated. It's happened before. The genius of the Edward Turner designed pre-war Triumph Speed Twin was that it was simpler, lighter and cheaper than the competition. What's really fascinating now is the E-bikes, like the Zero bikes out of California, which look wonderful to me. And don't discount the internal combustion engine just yet. A lot of really interesting innovation is taking place with marine outboard motors that could flow into motorbikes - imagine supercharged, direct injected two strokes. Another really interesting thing is the holy grail of ceramic internal combustion engines. These would be engines that can run much hotter, because they wouldn't melt or seize, getting way better fuel combustion and therefore power. Then your motor would have no ignition system (more like a diesel) and no cooling system. Indeed your motor would have lagging around it to keep the heat in. Amazing. Right now, maybe in China, there is a young, new Edward Turner thinking about this stuff. I can't wait, even as "an old geezer".
@@pauljackman7233 for some reason all the old geezer comments end up being the ones I read. Super interesting. I sometimes wonder if the next Japanese take over in motorcycling will come out of China. They need to unveil a CB 750 level bike that changes everything, like an affordable competitor to Ducati and Aprilia. Idk lol
Coolness in motorcycles is often derived from the absence of accessibility. Most normal riders would kill themselves on the MV Agusta Superveloce - IF they could ever afford one. The same was true of Bonnevilles in the 60s. "Only for the expert rider".
So if Triumph made the modern Bonneville what you are asking for, you probably would end up thinking it was cool, but not buying it - and that is a bad business model.
My two cent's: At the end of the day, a cool motorcycle is the one you ride, that puts a smile on your face.
But. What a way to go.
Drove a basement construct Bonneville chop job early in my motorcycle life. It had Z bars, battery eliminator and magneto. Crucial safety feature is I could not get it started when I was too drunk.
I am not sure if I understnd why the bikes are that heavy though. But most modern bikes are just crazy good. You actually have to put in effort to buy a bad bike. So styling doesn't matter. At lest in my eyes.
@@ralphwarom2514 Styling is just fashion and you pay for it. Stupid little fenders, crazy power and inaccessible parts. But, you're right I've had old bikes and my new bike (NC750X) works incredibly well.
Yeah shocking isn't it that it requires more cross-sectional area, that is weight in the frame and the forks and everything else, not the flex all over the road. Wasn't just British bikes and bikes from the 60s. I got off of about an 80 BMW and got on a 85 Honda and it was like night and day in the way the things handled. All those old school bikes we called flexi-frame flyers. Harley up until fairly recently built a bike that would spontaneously flex all over the road and throw you off. How they got away with that without having their asses sued in the ground these days I don't know.
Confusing. You want more power, lighter, more unusual models. But then Superveloce is good but it could do with a bigger engine? I think one sentence in there sums it all up. "I would never buy one." These companies don't create bikes for people that would never buy them. Or else history would repeat itself and they would all go out of business.
You cant sell bikes like they were made in the 60s, it wasn't feasible then, and its way way way less feasible now. You are basically asking bike manufactures to go back to the decade they all went bankrupt and go through the process of going bankrupt again!
Yeah. Most people buying a first bike wouldn't necessarily buy a classic. But any regular or returning biker would appreciate the heck out of a comfy classic.
They sell like hot cakes so obviously there's more than a decent sized market for it.
You don't need the fastest, lightest, most techy ride to enjoy a nice afternoon/early morning/ late night run around town/ hill.
I guess the video maker was looking to get some cheap heat to push engagement/views /comments up, which is fair enough ,kudos .
@@shadow_realm47 You just described me there! I had lightweight, fast superbikes when I was young, 20 years later after a looonnng break a big lazy classic is exactly what's hitting the spot for me. I have as much fun on my Bonneville at legal speeds as I ever had on my GSXR750 at very illegal speeds.
@@stevec6427 Me to steve ,guess we are getting older?
What's the point of having a 200hp or even 150hp bike when you have you risk your life every time you twist the throttle. Advancement and technology is good but at the end of the day we just want to enjoy the ride and come back home safely. You can have the latest and greatest for the track but for practical purposes a stable, refined, beautiful and safe bike is what you want.
“I would never buy one”
well said @sirdekkar
This comparing power, torque all the time is the saddest thing in the whole motorcycle industry. There's a lot that goes into motorcycle characteristic, the frame, the stroke length, the crank diameter, the gearing arrangement, how the air fuel mixture is tuned, the clearances and how everything works as you reach the redline. These can't all be taken into account when talking factually about a motorcycle, that's why the "feel" matters. If it's well designed and well tuned it is gonna feel well at whatever usable rpms and speeds you drive it at, but everyone is concerned about that X hp that is achieved at N rpm like they are going to drive it at that rpm all the time. I can tell you what makes most power, petrol buring in an open dumpster fire ! Delivery matters.
So yeah the older bikes might post better figure in terms of power and rpm because the design of engines haven't changed very much and the modern bikes have to work with the disadvantages of having to be more reliable, safe and adhering to emissions. The modern bikes are more safer, from chassis design to all parts within the engine are all mostly simulated and tested for better reliability and to be more environmentally friendly. And they would still do better speeds than their older counterparts with more stability and safety, probably.
well said
Nicely put
A lot of the people that go on about the British bikes being unreliable and leaking oil and Lucas Electric these bikes for ride to work bikes for people who couldn't afford a car and people who had gas rationing for 10 years after the war if you maintain them properly they were good running reliable bikes set with rack up to miles my TR6 Triumph took fifty years to wear out the cams and it's like crap was almost full but still good with oil the bike with so easy to take apart down to the crankcases wash it and put the new parts in and put it back together the new bikes whatever their brand name wherever they're made they are all disposable they are not rebuildable at all people like to badmouth to be sa-250 single yet the bike was good enough to gradually double in size to a 500 and then to a 600 undersea cm all of the challengers I pretty much off the road and scrapped with the number of old British bikes resurrected and on the road many of them will soon hit their hundred-year mark staying power is a mark of quality
you drive a slow bike
@@jradish that ok bro
I like living in a world of technological progress where we still retain the option to buy classic designs. Plenty of room for us all it seems...
The w800 and interceptor could probably do a lot more horses, but they were made with A2 licenses in mind, which is limited to 47hp
Also power really isn’t anything, your not buying these bikes to be one of those people who loves to break the speed limit at every possible moment, your riding them to just enjoy them because you like the look of them
And u can mod these interceptors too. S&S cycles provide big bore 865cc 11:1 compression kit, high compression pistons for 11:1 and up the disp to 657cc, high lift cams, or u can also put a power commander ecu after that too.
Yet other manufacturers are perfectly capable of building bikes of this style with restriction to A1 status a simple change within the ECU.
@@Jon-zj2nj a1 is not just power it’s limited to 125cc
@@saswatapaladhi4608 couple grand later for a 20ish hp increase..... I really wanted to like the interceptor. The sv650 motor is far better.
I ride an old Yamaha XS-650 with about that much power, and it's plenty for in town usage. Honestly the power would be fine on the highway too if the engine didn't vibrate so much at high RPMs. A 650 with 50ish horsepower is usually fairly torquey at lower RPMs too; there's no free lunch in engine design so a 600 class sportbike engine makes more horsepower by pushing the torque higher up the rev range.
“If only Triumph made motorcycles like the Trident and the Speed Twin…” huh?
I have a Thruxton, I love it. Best bike I’ve ridden. I’ve gotten her up to 100 at only 5000rpms and it seemed like it was tempting me to push it more. The power is there.
In a sea of plastic fairing Japanese bikes and oversized, over priced Harley’s - I’ll choose a Triumph Bonneville every time.
Nice quote 😂
What sea of plastic? Most of the big four ranges are naked models
Cb 150/300 xsr150/300/700/900 all plasticky.
Plastic fairing isn't a bad thing at all... You don't have to try to degrade their functionality by saying it's a sea of plastic. You'll probably look like an older person if you ride a Bonneville and sure sitting on it for 2 hours won't hurt your 30 yr old back
imo I don't see how plastic on a motorcycle is really that bad. On cars for sure it is since that plastic means nothing in a car crash. On a motorcycle though metal won't help in crashes either lol. I'm into the japanese bikes though so I might be biased
Firstly, really enjoyed your video.
I'm a 57 year old British motorcyclist and own quite a few machines. It's interesting to hear your views and understand your frustrations.
I passed my motorcycle test back in 1984 and rode relatively small capacity bikes for around 5 years, as my sole means of transport. I serviced my own bikes but remember three or four occasions when an unexpected breakdown ruined a planned day out.
Fast forward nearly 40 years and, amongst others, I've got a water cooled T120, Street Scrambler and a Speed Twin in the garage. All modern retros, all doing something slightly different reliably and efficiently. In over 30000 miles of combined ownership I've not wasted a moment wondering if a bike was going to let me down. In the last twelve months, the only day I've had hands covered in fuel was when my 2 year okd Honda powered lawn mower let me down.
I suppose that's the appeal. Modern retros clearly don't have genuine history but, for a rider that loves motorcycling, rather than just loves motorcycles, they provide a great way to get out there and, probably, get back home again without suffering mechanical failure.
When I think more deeply about the bikes, of course I'd love to be able to strip down, adjust, improve every aspect of a modern motorcycle, but, in reality, I pay my money, accept that the manufacturer has locked the ECU, but still love riding the bike.
I've test ridden so many modern bikes, including the Speed Triple R, and they have the best of everything that manufacturing can now produce but, after a few hours' riding most of that seems to becomes less relevant. What remains crucial is adequate power, predictable handling, comfort and excellent braking.
Yeah I can completely resonate with what you're saying, all the reasons I still might get a modern classic at some point. And out of all the modern classics the triumphs are the most compelling. I do just wish they were a bit lighter and more sporty in line with the spirit of the originals. Which is why the speed twin is so awesome and unique in the market. I'm 6 foot tall so I worry about it being a bit to small as the pegs are apparently a bit cramped. Anyways thanks for your comment!!
@@bartmotorcycle I'm 5'10 and the Speed Twin is perfect for me. It's a small form motorcycle but, unlike the Street Twin, which does feel far too cramped, the Speed Twin has far better ergonomics. Rode 300 miles on it, today, since my earlier comments. A fantastic machine.
@@chriskay116 man it's tempting, might be my next bike. I'm already used to a bike made for smaller people on my old Triumph lol. Can you adjust the pegs?
@@bartmotorcycle The pegs aren't adjustable but I really don't think you'd need them to be.
I bought the T120, convinced that it would have the perfect riding position. I looked at the Speed Twin in the showroom, noted the peg position, and thought "no way". I didn't even test ride it. Fast forward 12 months and I was loaned a Speed Twin whilst the T120 was being serviced. I was utterly knocked out by it. Bought one instantly.
@@chriskay116 man I gotta ride one. Such a cool bike. Thanks!!
I remember walking past the local bike store in the early 70's and the brand new Triumph Thruxton in the window had a drip pan under it to catch the leaking oil.
A master piece of engineering? No!
Hey that leaking oil is 'character'
That's why the stationary pictures are all on grass so you cant see the oil stains.
I've been riding since 1964 and I remember going to the local Triumph and BSA dealerships and all the new bikes on the showroom floor had drip pans under them with oil spots in them. I also remember my friend in the Navy spending an hour every Sunday morning outside the barracks kicking his new BSA Spitfire Special Mk.2 trying to get it running. Beautiful bike, but totally unreliable. And I remember my buddy on his 66 Bonneville having to bend down and fiddle with the carbs at every stop light to make it idle, while oil and smoke spewed out of the breather tube, while my Honda Super Hawk ticked over like a Swiss watch. 30 years later I acquired an old Bonneville of my own in a fit of nostalgia and couldn't wait to get rid of it. I like the styling on old bikes and the flat seats and round gages and headlights and tube handlebars, etc., but give me modern brakes and suspension and electronic ignition and fuel injection any day. After owning and working on 26 different bikes over the years I want reliability and low maintenance now.
Thruxton only produced en masse from 2004. 73 Bonneville Thruxtons produced from 1964-1967.
Had a Norton Dominator in 60s. Piggybacking on son’s YT. British Commandos had a forged primary cover but US distributor Berliner specified a stamped primary chain cover to reduce the price they paid to the manufacturer. They leaked oil like an uncapped well. Probably needed a pan under them from the jump. My Dominator never leaked. But remember Zener diodes under the seat that would black out the electrics if you hit a bump. On all the limey bikes I believe. Lucas was like GE in the UK. And owners of British bikes and cars (had a 61 3.8L Mk II Jaguar as well) called Lucas “The Prince of Darkness “.
Bring back the retro bikes but keep weight under 400 pounds. Add solid state electrics. And beef up hp and torque beyond A2 restrictions for the US. And let RE sell a big bore engine without the need to first buy a 650. A lighter RE 270 crank angle 855cc engine with lighter curb weight and I will order in the Spring. Oh and fix the pegs to be like TEC replacements. Right now RE is so near and yet so far from crossing the goal line.
Thank you for an outstanding incomprehensible and silly waffling. To compare the few good qualities from 50-60 years ago with the few shortcomings from the present. I have ridden many motorcycles from different times. Also Norton, AJS, Triumph and Matchless from the 60's. It can definitely be an experience to drive these .... but the shortcomings in reliability, comfort, safety and most other things are endless. Having owned motorcycles from different eras and continents than it is really enjoyable to drive a modern Bonneville T120 that has fantastic engine character and is reliable. It has also not been a problem to increase the effect a bit and reduce the weight by 20 kg. It would be nice to have an original from the 60's in the garage as long as you did not have to drive long distances or have to rely on it.
12:29 I am half and half with your viewpoint in this video. When it comes to my Car Enthusiasm, I used to be all "sPEcs, DaTA, NuMBeRs, aND StAtiStiCS" as I churned 0-60 figures out of my mouth, pouring like Barf. However, when I got into the world of Motorcycling, I actually came with the mind of "Commuting" and not using it as a luxury item or "toy". Fast bikes are fine, I'm not gonna be some Nanny telling you there isn't a reason to push technological limits, but IMO the main appeal of Retro Bikes aren't so much that they're "Retro" or "Not real bikes" it's that they're the reason people fall in love with riding to begin with. It's crazy that as bikes get faster and faster, we're telling young new folk to kill themselves on more dangerous and dangerous vehicles.
That's what riding is about to me. The Feel. The Romance. The Journeys.
Not the speed. Not the Technology, specs, data, statistics, or Numbers on paper.
Thanks for checking out the video! So from the outset I really do think all motorcycles are cool and I respect that people like different bikes. I don't personally care for adventure bikes for example but I can get excited about them when I meet someone who rides one.
And in terms of specs I would agree, looking back on this video its not really helpful to compare the original bikes with the bikes emulating that style, they're tuned completely differently and with modern frame design and braking and suspension a 50 year old bonneville wouldn't be about to hang with a modern one.
I think because these old bikes are so influential we think of them as just the typical bike design so when I company releases a 'retro' bike that's really not at all performance oriented with that classic design, it seems ok and fitting even. But those bikes really were the sport bikes and superbikes of their day, and to make bikes entirely not in that spirit while selling nostalgia so aggressively, idk it just all feels kinda scummy at this point for me.
It's like the mustang, it's a mustang! It's loud it's powerful it's aggressive, imagine Ford dies as a company, gets bought and revived 40 years later and suddenly there's a new mustang on the road, except now it only looks like a mustang, it's quiet it's void of all the character, all the rawness is gone. I mean Ford is kinda doing that already with the mustang but that's another story. Id be curious to hear your thoughts on that
I'm anything but a hipster, and I love my 2018 Bonnie. To me there's not enough retro bikes on the market.
I wouldn't consider myself a hipster in general, but I'm definitely a hipster when it comes to motorcycle preference
i am into retro for two reasons, build quality and simplicity to maintenance. if something breaks you can fix it without to connect a freakin computer with propietary software just to put off the oil light
Yeah I agree with you
Also modern retros have better steering geometry, no carbs and most importantly of all disc brakes. In dryer American states drums are fine...but come to twisty Europe and you would be begging for modern anti lock disk brakes.
I don’t think it is all about the retro look, it is the ergonomics, comfortable upright seating position, the handlebar of older motorcycle that makes them more popular for older riders who are not interested in sporty ergonomics, lean forward seating position. One example is Kawasaki z900rs, same engine as z900 but much better ergonomics, and it is nothing like 60s bike .
Agree. Comfort is not a matter of nostalgia.
@@ellistomago3369 I loved my Concours and ST1100 but ultimately the relatively cramped seating position had to be addressed with bar risers and dropped pegs because it was simply too uncomfortable.
Lean forward position is the worst position to ride IMO. It kills your back.
The modern classics are objectively better in every way. They are stiffer, handle better, ride better, more comfortable, safer, cleaner and more reliable. If you prefer an original, that is fine but unless your a collector or ride very little, your much better off with a modern classic. Some of us ride 10,000 miles or more per year and like to actually ride out of town and travel on a motorcycle.
Just a light on power to weight ratio on Royal Enfield's bikes today. 47 hp is THE limit to A2 licenses in many Europe countries, which broadens their target audience, otherwise only folks above 24 years old could buy their bikes. It's not like they can't make a more powerful engine, it's a market decision, and a good one in my point of view. In real world a 47 hp bike, from a 53 hp bike, will be nearly identical to ride. Truly no harm here.
I am glad this is only an opinion! They do not build retro bikes to be "copycats" as you implied. They build them because there is a desire, a demand, and a very healthy market for them. Also the bikes are not built bigger because of emissions, the engines are! Many of which put out much more usable horsepower than the original did. The Z900RS is a prime example of this. The market now seems to be resisting the insect looking bikes a bit as it embraces the retro looking bikes. More comfortable to ride and and covers multi tasking better than the insect bike as well.
Z 900 rs is a joke,a young men on vintage clothes.
Retro bikes becoming popular, because they look like traditional motorcycles, not insects. I’m not just referring to Triumph Bonnie and Moto Guzzi V7 bikes. Take a look at early 70s to mid 80s Japanese bikes. They are as beautiful and timeless looking as Triumph and Moto Guzzi. It doesn’t matter how many years or decades go by, they will always look beautiful. Triumph and Moto Guzzi bikes didn’t bring back the past styling, they have always looked that way as long as they have been making bikes.
I understand where you’re coming from, but for me I don’t give a damn about the lack of tech and lack of speed. They look cool and appealing to me. I mean the speed limit is 100k in NZ. So why would I want 200 bhp.
Anyway I am upgrading to the 2022 Triumph Bonneville T120 Matt Black / Graphite. Shall pick the bike up in February. Tnx for your perspective.
NZ. Regards John.
I love my T120. Install an X-pipe and British Customs predators and you'll have all the power you need!
A 100 kph in NZ? My, the rot has really set in. The tart with the horse teeth will probably ban motorcycles next.
@@Trevor_Austin Bikes unite, politics divide. I hate politics Trevor.
great point about speed.
Yes but in NZ if you get a bike going over 100k, you won't have enough stopping distance before you run right off the island and into the Ocean.
I came to gently take you to task, and see that I am in good company. Mostly I feel a bit sad for you. You see trees, but no forest. You have *your* wants/needs/desires, but ignore *not-you* wants and needs. Motorcycles have a broad market. One of them is the need for speed (w00t!). One of them is making desirable bikes that n00bs can ride. An A2 license needs to be under 48 HP, so the RE Interceptor makes 47 *by design*, with a $5799 price that is 30% below it's direct competition...and they're flying out dealer's doors. (Standard with EFI and ABS too.) The Superveloce is $21k. It's only market is the same people buying the Panigale V4 ($22k). I've been riding for 40 years. At 59, I don't want OR need either of those, and I can afford them. I'd rather ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow.
Here's the thing, I agree with you and actually, I prefer slow bikes, I ride a 50 year old 40hp bike. Im even ok with the modern classics being slow, almost beginner motorcycles, it's cool. What I don't get is why they need to weigh 500 pounds! That isn't in the spirit of the originals in my opinion. I just compared my bike with a modern street twin in a recent video and I actually really liked it. A bit soulless but overall they great, fun bikes. But mine just feels so much more nimble. But listen I spent years drooling after the modern classics, I know entirely too much about this segment and I totally understand why people ride them. I just don't think they're perfect that's all.
@@bartmotorcycle as someone whose owned both, neither is your original. Some guys don’t mind wrenching more than riding, some of have things to do and just want to get out for an hour or two on the weekend knowing the bike is gonna start and run as expected when you want it to. “ Perfect” is an illusion young man
@@bartmotorcyclegive me one example of a perfect motorcycle...
I absolutely love my air cooled Triumph 865 SE. It feels just like a 45 year old bike without the negatives of a 45 year old bike. I have owned bikes by every major manufacturer except Ducati and Indian. This is my 4th Triumph and my first retro bike and I could not be happier..
I briefly owned a bone stock low mileage 01 Bonneville and it felt nothing like a 45 year old bike. Felt like an electric blender on wheels.
@@gtemnykh idiots do say that. But they made them for 20 years, sold them all over the world so you are in the minority, obviously.
this is why I love Harley Davidson. no competition.no bhp. only torque which they are still producing,
the best bike is always the one you have in your garage. that sums up all said above =)
I can roll with this 🤘
The best bike I have owned was a Moto Guzzi Griso, but it's not in the garage because I couldn't afford the maintenance - they dont call them grenades for nothing!
"New motorcycles just don't offer what I love." - Yamaha Rd400 Rider
I luv it when regular folks tell OEMs what they "should" do without knowing about manufacturing, marketing, laws, oh, to hell with it....
I can sell you a turd cake with my marketing but at the end I'm morally incorrect
This is why I like Harley-davidson, they never stopped making the same bikes they just evolved, no fakery, no retro, simple old school engineering. Works
100% agree. Calling things "hipster" is a lazy take, but yeah. There is ABSOLUTELY a big hole in the market for a true evolution of classic style. Not everyone wants to ride a sharp, angular sport bike that looks straight out of an anime, but people do like the performance. Every new bike I immediately feel like I need to mod just to make it cleaner and less alien-looking.
i've owned over 60 bikes, from 170 hp supernakeds to stage iv harley big blocks. y'know what i ride most of the time nowadays? a guzzi v7iii. 50-ish hp. the connection between throttle, engine, and the road is profound. speed is a novelty; feeling the road in a purer form lives beyond the adrenaline peaks.
I have the same bike and I totally agree
Good thing you like the Speed Twin, I test rode one about 2 months ago and my goodness it was the smoothest bike ever that felt like a rocket when twisting the throttle. Everything about it was just so polished. The whole reason why people (myself included) love modern retros is this: it’s like owning a resto-modded classic car. There’s no worry about it not starting, drum brakes, crap tires, etc. it gives me the same feeling as the old bikes but without any of the worry of being stranded on my weekend rides.
You say "retro," I say "standard." Riding position has meant more to me since my mid-40s than scraping knees or pegs. I don't have many years left to ride but I sure as hell aren't going to suffer with lower back pain after 45 minutes of saddle time. There are bold riders, and old riders, but there are very few old & bold riders.
Thanks for your thoughtful review that somehow hits the nail. But you've gotten it completely wrong to include Royal Enfield in your assessment because it is the only english brand who was never discontinued and therefore is still to be considered as probably the only genuine and original company which has always kept an eye on building simple, service friendly and easy to use motorcycle's thanks to the perseverance of the factory based in India. This is quite ironic because an independent Commonwealth State has preserved a british masterpiece over more than a century and therefore shouldn't in any way be mistaken as a so called "modern classic". It is still and simply to be valued as a ongoing original.
Good point.
Well said.
Speaking as someone who owned a REAL Royal Enfield (TT Interceptor, '69) the "never discontinued" statement is false. And on top of that, the 250 Enfield of 1969 was FASTER than what now passes for - but is not - a 350 "Royal Enfield".
You Nail it like a MASTER!!!!!!
Well at least you've got people-talking ! I ride a W650 the same as 'pams' (mighty-garage) . I've owned 54 bikes over many years (just bought another !) I would have been happy with any of the modern-retro-classics really, but this deal came-along . I push-it hard and it hasn't broken-yet . Only '1' of my old-brits didn't 'lunch-itself' spectacularly, but I still loved-them all. I live too-far out-of-town to risk owning one these-days plus I'm too-old to push it far . I would love-one in my lounge (partner wouldn't !) ..or maybe a real-old single-banger so I could do 'the-old-guy-on-the-old-bike thing '.... on occasion. .. for laughs . Look all-stooped, break-out the grey-hair ...then do a back-flip (we all have dreams ). Dave NZ
Gentlemen, to each their own, let's enjoy all types of motorcycles as long as they exist, once electric vehicles take over.. it's all over.
For me, modern classic bikes tell me that companies are willing to listen to the demand of the market. How many people have said "I love the old boxy style trucks" or "I miss wide body cars". People love that older aesthetic and clamor for it in cars and the car manufacturers seem to be like screw you here's another weird, round, bulbous take on a car we've been selling for 50 years. MC bikes are giving people what they want, classic looks but with modern features.
I have a 2019 Street Twin. I didn’t want something that pretended to be a track bike and I didn’t want a cruiser. For me the Street Twin balanced off so many factors: it’s approachable, low seat, strong in every gear, good looking and well-made. I’ve had sport bikes before, but the Street Twin is how I want to ride now. It gives me enough speed, looks great and is easy to own.
Ibwant that bike so bad but iam just to big for it, now i ride a 1290 SAS cause i never found a bike like the Twin ever again in the retro segment
This is why I own not the mentioned Bikes, I use a MOTO GUZZI and this is in my opinion the most genuine Bike among this.
What is so good about retro's is that they have feeling, compassion for the ride. They were basic and direct in application. They were fun. Bikes of today are way beyond what is needed for good motorcycle ride and touring today. Fast is not the only reason for owning a motorcycle. The retro's are the kind that you take to the beach, country touring, and out with your girlfriend or boyfriend. Speed or power is such a narrow focus on the enjoyment of riding. It basically says a person does not understand the passion for riding, if they are focused on power. So many of the bikes today have too much plastic on them, and too many shrouds. At point, Why do you think Harley has such a big following. They are true owners of compassion for riding and nostalgia and the calmness of yesterday.
But the your Harley weighs what, 700-900 pounds?
Indeed. I love my sports bikes for the thrill ride effect, but my 1976 Honda four has a charm. It's a bit flexy, it's not super powerful, it's heavy etc, but when on it it has a vibe that makes me enjoy the whole experience immensely too. More than the sum of the nuts and bolts
@@alexwilsonpottery3733 You can ride that harley all day get off and feel like you were on it for 1hr you are clueless bro!
I think you need a different perspective on the term 'retro'.
You admit that the '60's Bonneville's, etc., look great, and they do, but they don't look great just because they are old, they just look great, period.
The point is, people aren't just attracted to them because the 'bikes hark back to those days, and there's a lot of nostalgia involved, there's just not that much you can do with unfaired motorcycle design, and the simple elegance of just a tank, seat and and a nice looking motor is timeless.
Just look at some of the modern offerings, like the transformer like Yamaha MT-01 and the cumbersome MT-09, and Kawasaki's god awful supercharged things, and you'll see that the only thing you can do with unfaired design is add bits and pieces that often just look messy and ugly.
'Retro' should be seen as a term that means motorcycle's made like they have been for decades, because that's what motorcycles should look like, simple, elegant and timeless.
You said it yourself Emissions! It's pretty amazing that brands like triumph are offering what they do. Everything is a compromise nowadays, just to survive. On the plus side, bikes are way more reliable and stop better today.
I'm 56 have owned a bunch of vintage motorcycles and ended up picking a 2017 BMW R9T its just the right amount of retro that when I go to vintage motorcycle meets my bike doesn't get mixed up with a vintage bike.
I have a Bonny, I bought one of the first fuel injected ones because I wanted to spend the time riding, not messing with a mixture adjustment and timing. It looks like I expect a motorcycle to look and it isn’t trying to kill me. Triumph could do a stripped version with more power, sure, but they are a business and they know their market. They have other bikes for the organ donors to ride.
My first vehicle ever, at 16 yrs old , in 73, was a 71 RD350. Drum brakes front and rear. Top speed, 110 mph. Felt sketchy. Loved that bike. Still have it.
I really like the idea of older retros from the 20s through 40s... I have a Royal Enfield Classic 500, and Continental GT 650, and love them both. I'm happy that neither of them are plagued with mechanical and maintenance issues. Which is a common theme amongst old motos of the 50s and 60s. I also have an Indian Scout 60 Bobber. Totally different moto than the other two, but also reliable and beautiful.
High performance isn't a key concern of mine... Why? Because I'm not a racer. Nobody pays me to risk my life and go fast. I simply ride, and I enjoy it. That's what these motos are made for, and they do exactly that.
Now, that being said, I did buy the BIG Bore Kits to give both Royal Enfields a higher cruising speed and passing power.
I was also drawn to the Scout 60 for the old-made-new-again appeal. It's my first and only bike for now, and when I get the chance to cruise, I'm enjoying it much more than driving helped in no small part due to the cost of fuel lately. It may not be the best on the road, or an original Scout, but it's all I asked of it for an entry into riding.
Moto Guzzi V7 is a modern bike with heritage.
It’s the style that draws people to them. Enjoy what you enjoy is bottom line. There is merit in aesthetics for both styles, different strokes for different folks.
I agree! but for someone like me with a short inseam I have to stick with cruisers due to the low seat height. I just can't reach the ground on many of the newer bikes like adventure and sport bikes.
They are also comfortable and easy to ride.
@@genegoodwin8925 agree completely with inseam issues. I wish the manufacturers would do a retro (late 60’s early mid 70’s) style dual purpose/enduro. One that didn’t require a ladder to get on lol. At 62 not as flexible as I once was
I was somewhat frustrated with the beginning of the video but when you hit the Ducati analogy you totally made your point. Great video, and I agree 100%!
Enjoying my Katana--I'm stuck in the 80s (with 150 hp)
I love the katanas! The new ones are even pretty cool 👌
After not riding for the last 36 years or so, at the age of 78 I have bought an Interceptor 650 on the 1st of November and have just finished running in at 2,000 km. My last bike was a Suzuki 1100 gsx e which before they brought out the katanas. The Interceptor has plenty of get-ups and goes when you twist the throttle. The biggest surprise was how heavy it is, 2017kg. My Suzuki was 253 kg and I don't remember it feeling heavy, might be age though. I had a 650 triumph trophy tr6 in the early 70s and it was about 173kg in comparison to the Interceptor. I bought a 900cc honda new when the came out and traded it back straight away for the new Suzuki, I like a bike to have the old-fashioned sit-up style and hated the clip-on bars. The 1100 GSX E was the best bike, easy to handle, no powerband so to speak, you could be in top gear sitting on the 60km speed limit and turn it on and it would accelerate hard all the way to 190 km an hour before wind resistance started to make its presence felt. I never had to drop back gear with a pillion on to pass a car ever. The Royal Enfield 650 Interceptor is a great bike, what's not to like! Low price, abs brakes, eft ignition, disk brakes, 3-year warranty, 3-year roadside assist, and 12 months rego. As for why riders like them it's because a lot of riders don't want to be perched and crouched over like a racer especially in the cities.
I'm OLD so you'll have to excuse me. I grew up riding motorcycles in the 60's so retro motorcycles represent the motorcycles I knew way back then. They were simple machines, usually a side by side twin cylinder of small engine size. Honda's largest back then was a 300cc Dream or a 305cc scrambler. The fuel was fed by gravity, not electric fuel pumps and EFI wasn't even thought of back them for motorcycles. No ABS or driving modes, they were very crude to say the least, but it was fun transportation.
I think most of the manufactures today are just targeting old riders like me. I don't think somebody twenty years younger who grew up with sport bikes would be the least interested in a retro bike. Retro to them would be the earlier sport bikes. Retro does sell, that's why HD and Indian are there. But the Japanese bike makers have already rode that ride and are returning to more modern bikes with all the bells and whistles and some of them are wonderful motorcycles, but old people like me hardy ever give them a second look. I may be different, I love all motorcycles, the Honda 300 single cylinder is a neat bike. I do like the Royal Enfields, the 650 twins, Himalayan and the Meteor. And I really like the Kawasaki W 800. I've owned many motorcycles since I started riding in 1964 but I had to go to trike a couple of years ago due to my wife's health issues. (she always rides with me) I checked out different three wheeled machines but I found the Harley Davidsons handles much better than the others so now I own a HD Tri-GLide. Please don't hate me for that.
I have a friend who owns 47 motorcycles, mostly old Triumphs and BSA's some completely restored and they are beautiful motorcycles.
I'm with you - also old. I believe that the maker of the video, bart, is about 35 years too young to appreciate and understand the attractions of, say, a Bonneville T120.
I’m only 17 and i have to disagree, i admire actual retro motorcycles very much they’re gorgeous
@@rexisretro Good for you, maybe you are like me and love ALL motorcycles for what they are. It's just that some fit me and my age better than others.
Dude, not everyone wants a bike that looks like a transformer or an insect.
Royal Enfield are the oldest motorcycle company in continuous production, so they aren't emulating anyone; they just are being consistent. I own a RE GT650 and my previous bike was a a 1970 T120 Bonnie so I know the category well. Both are 100mph+ bikes, but the GT650 handles better, stops better and is far more reliable. With a bit of dieting it now only weighs 8kg more than the '70 T120. What's not to like? Not everyone wants a pointless 200hp bike... how fast can you go on a naked bike on a public road before you become just another Yammie-Noob-style hood ornament.
Completely disagree. Motorcycles went too superbike focused which are fun sure. Most fun on a track day though. A new moto guzzi v7 or t100 has around 60bhp and you can ride it all day. The brand new Royal enfield meteor 350 has 30bhp but is the most comfortable bike ever in my opinion. Perfect for getting out on a sunny day for a few hours. The roads are only going to get busier, more degraded. Real world bikes are coming back.
One of the best bikes I've owned was my Norton 750 Commando. I have no doubt that it would kick the arse of a modern retro performance wise. However, handling, brakes, emissions and reliability would be no contest whatsoever.
As someone who owns a Moto Guzzi V7iii, your argument is ON POINT. There is literally no reason why old school design can’t evolve. Granted, I’m in love with this bike, it is amazing, but after some time, the torquey, low power engine just feels slow. I am going to eventually move to their Griso 8v or their new Mandello V100 for that reason. They are making attempts to build on their heritage while still reminding everyone that said heritage WAS RACING AND INNOVATION.
I own the same bike.
I had a Suzuki Vanvan for a year and ride it around town, then bought the V7. Feels pretty fast to me lol.
I guess everything is relative.
Correction, the Kawasaki W1, 2 and 3 were specifically sourced from a BSA design that they had acquired a licence to produce through a takeover, not an attempt to build a Bonneville knockoff.
They were fantastic, better carbs and all metric, but dealers were scarce in the late sixties.
You can't directly compare the old gross hp numbers to modern SAE hp.
There are several reasons the weight has gone up over time: Emissions certainly but also the addition of starter motors, starter motor drive mechanisms and larger batteries to power the starter motors. Balancer shafts and their drive mechanisms. Also the engines are far more robust now. Those old classics couldn't sustain freeway speeds in excess of 70mph without tearing themselves apart, but the modern retro can because the engine components are beefier in design.
The sad part is the lack of use of modern materials in the modern retro. Frames and cycle parts could be made far lighter using composites or even aluminium alloys.
I mean they could make carbon frames, but then nobody would buy it because too expensive ;) ... they always have to watch at the selling price, because otherwise there is always a bike with similar specs with a lower price tag... the only company that does not give a shit about this is Harley...
@@urbanstreet_4282 You get what you pay for with harley and will get it back when you sell it !
@@andrewslagle1974 If resell-price is something that is important for you: then yes. But honestly: if you are thinking about reselling a bike before you buy it, it is maybe the wrong decision from the beginning....
I love that you’d used that gal and her W650 from a The Mighty Garage video. I’ve switched from looking for an Int650 and am now seriously searching for a W650 with low-ish miles. IDK , they just seem more solid than the Interceptor. More of what I want. Less plastic. I really like the RE option and have been torn (like , the only reason I want the W650 over the W800 is the kickstart option)but I’m pretty settled on the W … unless something too good comes along.
pretty narrow viewpoint, all I heard was "fast, quick, performance" sometimes it's just how the bike makes you feel.
If classic and modern is what you want and couldn’t care less for things like Power to weight ratio (though Here I think it was talked about as a comparison between old and new models) just buy a Guzzi. Had a Griso, rode a 1200 sport, V7 II/III and the new 850. Lovely and reliable machines.
A very thoughtful video.
You have recognised (many do not) that the bikes being emulated were performance machines in the day, not retro cruisers.... They were also very modern. This was before Honda invented the UJM and suddenly made them look old.
I am in the "cynical about retro" camp, but I see their place in the current market.
To my mind, it was Italy that kept the British bike tradition going after Triumph Meridan became a sad Victorian backstreet workshop and even Norton kept churning out the 850 Commando as if nothing had changed.
Moto Guzzi was almost British on character, as was Laverda. Even Ducati had something British going on, if you could afford one.
I do believe the current retro trend is more about seeing oneself reflected in a shop window while popping out for a latte. But that isn't a crime.
None of these retro bikes will offer half the visceral thrill of a 1980s Guzzi or Laverda. That is the true retro buzz. Good video.
I do like and ride modern bikes and have done for many years as they have progressed. I started riding in 1967 and loved Triumph bikes the most. I still have a 1966 model Triumph Tiger 100 (T100SS) which I have owned for many years. It is a beautiful bike and I love the fact that it creates interest wherever it is parked. On the reliability side you are right they were not good when thrashed but if maintained well and regularly and ridden sensibly they do give good service.
Well, I guess if you like the British bikes in the 60's. It Works for you. I myself started on Hondas or Yamaha's. The bike that started the death of the British bike was the CB750 in 1969. If you were after speed, the inline is the way to go
This has been said thousands of times, there are as many different reasons to ride a motorcycle as there are people who ride them. I'm 63 years old. I still like the music from the '70s and '80s better than anything popular today. My love for motorcycling began with '70s dirt bikes, before the Jap 4 even made purpose built motocross bikes. You had to take a DT and strip it down to bare frame and motor. Make it loud, fiddle with the carb, knobby tires. And my connection to motorcycles is much the same today. I like em minimalist, noisy, and fierce. I've ridden "retro" motorcycles ever since I turned to street riding - Yamaha XJ650 Seca, then a BMW R100, now a Moto Guzzi 1200 Sport - because they were highest in the character that appeals to me, that maxmizes my motorcycling experience. They aren't copies of anything, they just look like motorcycles - beautiful. With a minimum of suspension and fuel mods, they've all been fast, stable, and reliable. Anyone who has not read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance may not get it. Just ask anyone riding a Harley, or a bobber of any make. Why are manufacturers building retro models? Because people like them and people are buying them. It all comes down to soul.
i spent some time considering this question over the last two years or so, and i get what you are saying. i like the look of the old bikes, but ultimately i went with a modern design for safety, performance and re-sale value.
I just bought a 2021 speed twin and I have to say I have never ridden a bike that is this much fun. Pure pleasure. I can honestly sat that my relationship is suffering a bit because I am truly in love with this bike. It is a blast! Get one!
I'm pretty happy with my 2020 z900rs! 👍😀
That's a cool bike
Alternative viewpoint. Not to say you don't get it, more like... I see it differently.
See, the thing is these are "retro" only if you think of them as retro. Rather, I see them as the original motorcycle shape that never changed. Shape here means not just aesthetics, it is more about posture. Posture dominates feel.
Somewhere down the line, motorcycle companies started making their lineups based on racetrack parameters. But some of us couldn't care less about racetracks, so that whole diversion in design direction is pointless. The original design is more pillion-friendly. For an analogy, it would be ridiculous if car companies started turning their whole lineups into uncomfortable sports-cars and started referring to sedans as "retro". That's right, these are just the sedans of the motorcycle world; what's with all the wannabe MotoGP obsession? For another analogy, I like using a computer keyboard rather than a mobile touchscreen to type, not because I am old-fashioned or retro, but rather because it is more comfortable and works better. It is not about nostalgia, it is just the fact that the original design was better and I am not interested in motorsport.
All that said, there is one factor that makes me leave the original motorcycle shape and posture behind: Monoshocks! But then there are "best of both worlds" for that, like the BMW RNine T and some of Ducati's models. They manage to deliver the original comfort & posture while still using modern suspension technology and frame design.
I completely agree with your assessment. But but but…..in music, are variations on a theme, copycats? Are rock reworkings of country, or bluegrass classics copycats? I don’t think anyone thinks so. Is imitation not the highest form of flattery? That triumph/Kawasaki etc sell retro bikes that, let’s face it, are not sold for performance or features, but because of looks says something about the state of today’s motorcycle design. I personally would rather get an interceptor or a triumph speed twin way over anything Honda produces. I look at the cb500 and admire the engineering, and hate the design. For me, the motorcycle is something that I like to look at, and I don’t like looking at the ninja. Modern motorcycle design leaves me completely indifferent. Am I a hipster? Sure, whatever. If I am going to invest in a luxury item, I wants beauty and the retro designs to me were much more beautiful.
I agree with your sentiments. I wanted to post the *full quote* about imitation, because it changes everything.
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”- Oscar Wilde
It is an Interesting take, I have a vintage honda and love it. It feels so different than a modern bike and I like working on things. So the work and maintenance I have to do is part of having an old bike. I look at current triumphs and the Royal Enfields and people call them retro bikes. But I feel they should just be called standard bikes. They are a class of there own and keep the look similar to the beginning is no different than ford, chevy and other brands bring new takes on their sport cars but trying to keep them looking the same as they once did. Think of a triumph they have the specific look.
Nothing says uncool like shorts and flip flops
totally agree. Flip flops have NO PLACE anywhere near a bike.
@@paulbilski9732 _India has left the chat._
I’ve been riding for fifty years. After I got off my buddy’s new Thruxton the first thought that came to mind was, “Wow. This is what the ‘73 Norton Commando 850 wanted to be when it grew up.” Still . . . in my muddled opinion, anything Suzuki uses its magical K5 lump in is as retro as I need.
I Just love the look of retro scramblers and cafe's and I cant be assed to deal with the unreliable poor handling and slow junk that most actual retros are so a retro's in reality are so a retro style bike with modern handling and reliability is a win/win for me. That said I would die a happy man if I could ride a Brough superior.
Maybe learn to take care of and maintain a motorcycle like men used to and it wouldn’t be unreliable. As for slow, my 95hp ‘78 XS1100E would leave (many) of these de-tuned retros choking in the dust
@@gtemnykh no it really wouldn't, not anything with a larger displacement anyway
It's just a fact that most modern bikes are not only more reliable, they have the brakes and handling to back up the power they have (which is another thing most actual old bikes lack) your Yamaha being a perfect example of this as they are well know for handling as well as a bag of shit with wheels and having inadequate brakes for it's power.
As for you're first point your barking up the wrong tree here (though people 100% need to learn at the minimum some basic maintenance skills, not that being a man has the slightest thing to do with it and it's frankly just a weird thing to bring up) not only did i grow up using lathes and the like at my fathers engineering company rebuilding as well as servicing bikes and cars I now work repairing and maintaining trains an locomotives.
@@axeami1354 look up the quarter mile on one of these retro remake CB1100s or even a 1200cc speed twin and get back to me. I’ve toured the continental US on old Japanese bikes including a coast to coast ride on a 76 XS500. If you’ve gone through them well they’re about as reliable as anything modern, with the benefit of being able to work on it yourself. But far and away the biggest thing is the feel of the old bikes. All of the retro remakes I’ve ridden feel contrived and sanitized.
I love modern and classic bikes. I have a Triumph T120 because I no longer have the time to tinker with cars or bikes. I just want it to work - which it does. Lovely bike.
It's the style and the lines! I've got two classic Hondas. 72 CB450K and a 75 CB550 Four. Love them, but they're not the best for daily use. For that i've owned several "modern" bikes i turned into retro bikes, but now i'm getting a Speed Twin.
I was waiting for this recent update. This is what it should have been from the start!
My current runaround is an XJR 1300
My 1977 KZ 900 still rides great, it's a beast, but I'd never want a 2022 copy. I don't expect a 1966 Chevelle to drive like my wife's 2018 CTSV.
Completely agree. My favourite bike is a Norton Commando MkIII 850. It is light, fast, handles brilliantly, has decent lights and even stops quite well. It looks gorgeous, as slim as a hungry whippet. To be honest if I wasn't so ancient with weak legs and dodgy knees I would have an earlier kickstart one with drum brakes. But at my age compromises have to be made. Foolishly I bought a nearly new Triumph T120 Black a year ago. Great lardy behemoth with loads of silly useless tech. Kept it about 3 months and sold at a huge loss.
My condolences. I think the speed twin is the way to go, powerful and light for the segment. Still a whopping 100 pounds more than my bike but hey...
@@bartmotorcycle The thing is Bart I live in Sussex, England. A land of narrow twisty single carriageway roads. So, I like a light nimble machine that you can have fun wringing its neck on these roads. Generally speaking I prefer a good set of drums to disk brakes. I hate and loathe computers near the things I ride/drive. I like simplicity. I like carburetors. I enjoy tinkering and servicing. My AJS Model 20 is probably only worth about £3500. It is an excellent little bike. The drum brakes work well. It doesn't leak oil. It doesn't vibrate badly. With an LED bulb the lights are OK. It is quite lusty and if I wring its neck I can get nearly 90 out of it. If I really chuck it around the handling does get a bit scary but that is at limits that are really beyond my riding anyway. The engine is beautifully flexible. It will pull from about 15mph in 3rd and 25 in top. Then I tell myself "this thing was made in 1957 and it is still to me a bloody good motorcycle"
Love sellers like you that unload bikes cheap.
Had a similar run-in with a almost-new 01 Bonneville that I got for a song with a dirty carburetor. It was so smooth and refined and quiet it just bored me to tears. Missing the feel of a true classic twin.
i love my T140ES. the sounds, the vibrations...I cant stop smiling while riding my 750. the norton 850 is also sooooo funnn. why go retro, when you can go classic/vintage. I havent had issues with either, and i do keep up with maintenance more than I do with my KLR or victory kingpin. that way Im always riding.
This whole topic could be dismissed immediately if we all just bought (or restored) whatever bike we like, and forgot about what the next guy liked. If you need more zip than Steve McQueen, you can have it; if you're good with less, there're plenty of choices for you. There are old-looking bikes, new-looking bikes, beginners bikes, alien-insect-transformer bikes, WW I thumper bikes, Isle-of-Man-death-wish bikes, - just ride whatever you like. The more you worry about seeming cool to other bikers, the less cool you actually are; cuz what's _really_ cool in life is confidently making your own autonomous choices.
I approve this message
Harley Davidson survived by not straying to far from its roots, the modern sport bikes have their place, the verity of equipment out there, should suit almost everyone, not everyone understands motorcycling, some cannot tolerate other people’s taste,
Well with old bikes one aspect that really bothers me now is the safety. Abs is something I would wish if it can be incorporated in those old bikes, it increases your confidence in your ride a lot.
You all may be missing the point. The reason "Retro" bikes are so awesome is because they don't look like modern bikes which are freakin hideous!!! I mean damn, are you imagining you're in an Avatar movie or something riding on a giant wasp?
For me, my 78 Bonneville T140V does everything I want - it's quick enough for me, easy and comfortable to ride (as long as you don't want to go too far , too fast) simple to maintain and will never go down in value. The added bonus in the UK is that it is exempt from annual road tax and MOT test (vehicle inspection), and has lower insurance rates, as a classic. I'm also a retired mechanic with time on my hands, which helps.
The reasons retros have become so popular is that over that last 20 years we have pushed performance to the level of insanity. I'm 52, raced 3/4 liter bikes in the late 90's. 105-115 hp doing 140 miles an hour on the few tracks in the south east that had those straights. The liter bikes were even faster (on the straights). That is power so beyond normal road conditions it's scary and useless.The fun just got lost to the larger market. To find the market again we're going back to bikes that won't kill a new rider but still are sexy and quick. Pretty simple really. I've ridden some of the retros and like them. But if your gonna make a retro, hmm, 75-95 hp please ;-).
A couple comments on the RE Interceptor: first the power output is limited on purpose to 47 so it can be sold World Wide on an 'L' plate or bottom rung of a graduated licensing program. This makes them hugely popular within reach of many more riders...good marketing decision. Can you easily make more power...of course! They're actually fairly easy to get into the mid to high 50's which makes for a pretty sprightly ride while still being simple and reliable...for a modern machine.
The frame was designed by Harris and is very well done...great handling stock and again...easily improved as you progress as a rider. The weight is part of the desire to make them affordable so steel is used for durability and cost. It's not hard to get them down to about 415lbs just with exhaust cans (the stockers flow well but are very heavy) and anyone complaining about a mid 50 HP Interceptor being slow...the bike isn't...it's YOU. All of this..."I want 200 HP" is BS. You do realize that the bikes that offer this amount of power never really give it to you...yes? They all have traction control, wheelie and stability control and electronic throttles which won't come close to fully opening especially in the lower gears.
If you doubt this...look back at the development of the KTM Super Duke 1290. The test rider asked the engineers to program the bike so he had a true 1:1 throttle with no aids....they didn't want to do it because they said "you'll not be able to ride it". But he insisted and they reprogrammed one and he took it for a ride on the test track....and didn't make even a full lap. Came back and said "you were right...I can't ride it". Anything much over 125 actual HP is a REAL handful that will bite you unless you're very skilled. The RE Interceptor is a willing and friendly bike that can be thrashed on a back road where it isn't the limiting factor about how fast you are going...YOU are. Affordable, simple, strong and easily modified...what's not to like? There are 750 and 865 kits available if you want more but most people find a mildly modified 650 does the job just fine. The only place it's lacking is in big numbers you can brag about to your buddies. If you can ride...they'll have trouble catching you on a winding road where the union of bike and rider is much more important than how much raw power it makes.
I concur with your views, which is why I own both a 1968 Triumph Bonneville T120R and a 2019 Triumph Speed Twin.
My next motorcycle will be a retro Triumph Bonneville T100. And I won't have one to ride and one to fix.
I own a 2000 W650, a great looking retro 20 years ahead of its time. You can ride modern retro's thousands of miles with no breakdowns, oil leaks or bits falling off due to the vibrations. I also own a 1960 BSA 650, another great bike but with 60 year old bike limitations.
Me too! :) Spectacular bike! and the opportunities to make changes to it are enormous!
The W650 is the most honest/real “retro remake,” better than triumphs own attempts to bring the bonneville back as a overweight sanitized electric-blender smooth machine. The W650 even *looks* more like the 60s bonneville.
Are the old bikes really quicker? They had less power, a lot less torque, less gears…yeah I get less weight. I have a Street Twin which has more power, superior brakes, great suspension, sound, and looks great..25 lbs lighter than a T100. When you get tired of the bad brakes, suspension, and carbs of your original, check out the Street Twin. When you get tired of a bike falling off in power at 70+, get a Speed Twin. They are expensive…but they have such nicer components. These Modern Classics from Triumph are their best sellers. May not be the right bike for you, but more of us disagree and ride the new ones.
I had a triuph bonneville 70s, kick start, oilleak, bad brakes.....I also in the 80s a motoGuzzi... Recently I bought a Moto Guzzi v7 ii, the specs are identical to the original Bonneville, power, weight...and similar to my 80s MG.; The new bonnevile has nothing to do with the original,
If they would make them lighter, I'd be set. Sub 450lbs wet would be ok.
Give me an old XS650 Yamaha any day over an old Triumph. More dependable and fun to ride.
Your T100 looks like the one Ted Simon rode around the world. I had a TR7E back in the day. Great bike, when it wasn't leaking oil or making funny noises again, or bits falling off.
What about the Moto Guzzi V7?
My first bike was 1968 Bridgestone 350 GTR. Not a very popular bike but for six years was my transportation! It was ahead of its time with rotary disc valves to control the the air flow to the engine! The bike had 19 inch wheels which aided its stability at high speed speed. It was a two stroke with oil automatic injection. It was a true sleeper from a tire company. I understand only 9,000 we’re ever imported to the US. Oh! it was only $695.00 at Montgomery Ward. Lastly it had a six speed transmission. Except for spark plug fouling very reliable. Had 57,000 miles on the odometer when I went for a car.
I agree that modern bikes are heavy, but this video has absolutely no reference to torque, torque band, power band etc. Figures on paper are just a vague guide to a bike's real world performance. As for brakes and suspension, you can brag about how fast your bike is as you pick bits of your shattered drum brake out of the back of the car you just rear-ended. Also, I prefer a headlamp that illuminates beyond the front mudguard. Vintage bikes are a great hobby, but I wouldn't rely on one.
Ah that's the thing, modern bikes are LIGHT. Except for cruisers and modern classics, then they're like 100 pounds too heavy lol
I got my license at 15 back in 1972. I am now 64. And I can concur with what you say. I was somewhat lost on the points the nice channel guy is trying to make. But in away I can relive my past, but with a reliable bike.
NZ
Wow, watching this makes me appreciate my 2017 Honda CB1100EX even more than I did. With a 1140cc air and oil cooled transverse inline-four making 88.5hp / 68.5lb-ft in a 544lb wet package, it really does hold its head up high as Honda's premier retro/heritage bike.
I’ll take a bandit 1200’s carbureted 100+hp and 70ft lbs from the same displacement and air/oil cooling in a 485lb package any day…
@gtemnykh Bandits are cool and all, but they're not retro. Plus, if I want to go fast, I just ride my CB900F ('919' or '900 Hornet'); which makes more power than the Bandit or the CB1100EX, and in a much lighter package.
I know I am very late to this and I know you showed respect to Triumph for being the closest to maintaining the style, but (at risk of sounding like a fanboy) i think the spirit of the old Triumph is alive in their modern sport bikes and roadsters. Trident, street triples, modern Daytona, and the Rocket 3! Full transparency, I own a "baby Bonni", a Speed Twin 900. But you nailed it at the end of this video. The spirit of the retro bikes may be compromised, but the spirit of the brand is alive.
Modern Bonnis are for people like me. I wanted a fuel injected Bonneville that starts every time and makes me feel good to twist the grip. Im a smaller, city rider and 59 ftlbs can move 500 pounds plenty fast between stoplights. But man that 360 crank sounds gooooood.
The 360 crank on the old Triumphs.. before anyone jumps down my throat, I know my bike is 270 😅