Here in India, price advertised is called an Ex-showroom price. Usually, the actual price is always 50% of more higher Like a bike would be advertised as being only 650 USD but would actually be more than 950
The sad fact is that we will never have any "new motorcycles" without a paradigm shit. We've hit the wall of physics for machines based on the current model. We can only get incremental design at this point.
And that is why we should go backwards. Build old bike designs, simple designs. The only change needs to be, make them reliable. And it is not at all difficult to make a simple design reliable.
I really like the idea of "reversed" brake and clutch levers. Standard levers have your longest fingers on the shortest part of the lever and you can't even reach the long part of the lever with your pinky finger. Two finger braking is the standard. How cool would it be to have the longest fingers on the longest part of the lever (with the most leverage) and the shorter fingers on the lever at all! Controllability could be increased an awesome amount. Of course, I've never ridden a bike with such levers.
Have to think about it. I bought a new truck but it has a rotary dial instead of gearshift lever. I'll be reaching for that gearshift lever forever. It might take some getting used to different levers and I hope I don't do something stupid in the meantime.
You have those on bycicles. Pinching can be avoided by making a curve design, but you can't do anything about scrapping. I guess you can easily break a normal lever anyway, so don't think it's a big problem
I feel like your fingers could get caught in the "hook" in the case of a crash with this. I've seen a couple of custom bikes with levers like this though. Check out the H2 chopper shadetree surgeon made a video of
@@chE3z1 The H2 chopper is great! No pussy electric start, either. There is a simple way to get a feel for reversed levers. Stand on the left side of your bike (presuming that is where the kickstand and clutch are). Pull in the clutch with your left hand. Now pull in the clutch with your RIGHT hand. Notice how the longest fingers have the most leverage. You can do the same on the other side. You can decide if the fingers you keep wrapped around the throttle "get in the way".
I can't stand all the fake crap on Triumph Bonnevilles. Carbs, cooling fins, air intakes etc, etc. Then they plaster the Union Jack all over it and pretend it's not a Thailand build. Yuck.
Tbh, as far as adventure bikes go... "Its a street bikes time tested rilable core, with more off road worthy posture and suspension" is what ADV riders are praying to get.
and the engine tuned to be more grunty at low rpms. That's how the genre was born, with the R 80 g/s. BMW took an existing engine (2 valves boxer) and fit it into a different frame, with longer suspension. et voilà, a star is born. It only happens sometimes that the engine is designed from scratch, and that's part of the heritage argument. I'm thinking of the Aprilia v4s and RXV/SXV, the first Honda gl 1000 four boxer, the BMW K series, and the Ducati V4.
What you and 99.99% of other enthusiasts don't realize is the Horsepower itself is a bogus spec. The number they are showing you is the PEAK power. A 600cc repli-racer may make more peak power than a HD, but that doesn't mean it makes more TOTAL power across its rev range. So if your riding consists of holding the throttle WFO and banging off the rev limiter, then the repli-racer is for you. If being able to pull a couple adults and luggage up to 80 mph quickly, smoothly and comfortably, then maybe it's really the HD engine you seek. Torque is even worse. The general motorcycling public is completely clueless about this. Engines make power. FTR, horsepower is simply a unit of measure of power. It could be measured in Watts or PS or whatever you like. When you power rotational gear sets, the power is broken into two components: torque & rpm. Torque IS NOT something you feel at low rpm that magically turns into HP at higher rpm. The engine's power is converted to torque & rpm at the rear wheel in various ratios via the gear box. In first gear, you may get 10 torques and 1 rpm. In sixth gear, you may get 1 torque & 10 rpms. There are no free lunches. Your engine is your engine. You can gear it to make more power to pull heavy weight from a stop (1st gear), but you do it at the expense of rpm. Thus, you're not using the high power engine to go fast. You can put it in sixth gear and use that peak power to get lots of revs. Since you will have already attained a lot of momentum, you won't need much torque to continue to accelerate. The torque you're being quoted is a dyno calculation of the power at the rear wheel divided by the ENGINE rpm (not the rear wheel rpm). It is a bastardized way of approximating the torque at the crank of the engine (useless information unless you make gear boxes for a living). They take the peak value, send it to marketing, who put it on spec sheets so people on the internet can say "Mine makes more!"
@Alfred Wedmore Yes it does work like that. Say one bike makes 1 hp @ 1 rpm and 2 hp @ 2 rpm. The total power across the range would be 3 hp. The peak hp would be 2 hp. If another bike with a high output engine comes along and makes 0.5 hp @ 1 rpm, 1.5 hp @ 2 rpm and 2.5 hp @ 3 rpm, then the total power across its range would be 4.5 hp. It would have peak power of 2.5 hp. You are looking at torque at the crank backwards. Gas has no torque. It burns and converts energy at some rate. That is power. When the piston shoves the lever on the crank, it creates a torque on the crank. So that torque is a function of the power of the fuel and the distance of the lever from the crank. If you have a machine that makes perfectly linear power, then it will have a perfectly flat torque curve (assuming it needs to turn a handle). Jet engines have to turn turbines around a rod too, but you will never hear pilots talking about their "torque." Acceleration is force/mass, but you need to think about it a little harder. If you're riding your bicycle down a hill, does it take more or less force on the pedals to make it accelerate vs going uphill in the same gear?
@Alfred Wedmore Now that I thought about that force part, you have a point. I should have said the motorcycle had attained velocity and not said that it had attained momentum, though theoretically both are true.
@Alfred Wedmore Good is relative. They are very good IF you're riding on a track where you can keep the engine in its power band. They yeah, they generally suck on the street where you can't. My point is simply that riders are feeling acceleration as the roll on the throttle. No one says "it accelerates nicely." Instead, the bastardize engineering lingo with stupid shit like "it feels as it has many torques." But with enough leverage (gearing) you can make a peaky 600 put a lot of torque to the ground. Look at the huge sprockets that stunters put on their rear wheel. It reduces their top speed, but increases torque at the rear wheel so they can pull wheelies easier. Nothing changed about their engines. The engine provided power throughout the range the same way it always did. The GEARING changed it from low torque/high speed to high torque/low speed at the rear wheel for the stunter. And thank you for your service. Physics teachers rock!
@Alfred Wedmore I almost did that years ago with a Kawasaki 2 stroke 750. Tried the bike and opened the throttle at 2000 rpm. It didn't do much till it got on the pipes at about 7 or 8000. Took off like a rocket and it was all I could do to hang on, I think the front tire got a bit off the ground. Betcha that electric bike is even worse.
I think the major reason for the fewer platform bikes is, those unique bikes just don't make that much money. They might sell a lot, or even sell out in some cases, but the profit margins aren't big enough to justify a large number of those unique bikes. The majority of the bikes require much less R&D, sell better, and make them the money need to fund those unique bike projects.
@8:40 it's actually beneficial for the buyer. Instead of getting a new engine with unknown fails, you're getting to buy an older engine with modern technology. Take the case of the z900. The engine was present since the 2000s, perfected to modern emission standards which is also reliable and has good performance compared to competition. Also investing in a new engine seems useless since we've reached the last phase of ic engine
The Z900 engine is a sleeved down version of the 1043cc engine first seen in the 2010 Z1000. The Z750, Z800 and older Z1000s used a reworked ZX9 engine. Anyway, developing a brand new engine is a costly affair and a well designed engine can easily serve in various models for 10+ years.
The R18 is as close to its prototype as is legally allowed But the winner of protoHype is the Indian FTR the bike they FINALLY barfed out was American wannabe of a Ducati and not a street tracker at all and NOW they’ve switched the 19” front for a 17” Roland Sands made something beautiful
I'm not into heritage bike or whatever heritage labeled or styled bike. Owning an original old bike and buying a new old-styled one is different and for some reason, it is just better to keep the old one running healthy. That's the true heritage
This channel is really great man, I remember seeing one of your videos before last motorcycle season ended - then totally forgot about it until now, and I realized how many awesome well made videos are on this channel. Easy sub!
The Yamaha VMAX falls into the same category as the Triumph Rocket 3. Everything about it is unique to itself especially the engine and styling. You could even say that it has some heritage having been produced since 1985.
On the heritage front, I believe that royal enfield claim 120 years of continuous production, which a lot of other companies who have a similar age cannot equal, for example BSA which is as old but stopped building motorcycles in 1973 and have just announced the new BSA gold star.
They claim "Since 1901" but that's not 100% true. The company has made bikes that long, but started as a British company (the British Co went out in the 70s) and the current Indian company wasn't formed until the 50s to build Royal Enfield bikes under license using RE tooling. That said, they've made the Bullet, unchanged, pretty much continually for eons.
@@SpartanD63 The Indian Royal Enfield factory was founded by the British Royal Enfield company to manufacture bikes for the Indian Military. When the British company closed the Indian company continued and later bought the full Royal Enfield name, so they can claim to be in continuous production.
@@johnbrereton5229 That's true, but what I was getting at is that their production doesn't go back to 1901 as they claim, even though the company technically does. So technically yes, "Since 1901" but also technically no.
@@SpartanD63 The original company that built the factory in India in 1956 could trace its beginnings all the way back to the 1850s in England. So the Indian factory was built by the original Royal Rnfield company in 1956 and supplied with all the patterns and machinery from the older 1955 British designed Bullett. They even sent British staff out to train the Indian staff and get the factory up and running. So in fact it is a continuation, but just from a new factory, many companies move to new factories as their businesses expand or contract. The new BSA concern on the other hand, has no connection with the original BSA company at all, apart from the name. So I think Royal Enfield can claim to be in continuous production, but if you don't agree, that fine, we are all allowed to have an opinion.
@Alfred Wedmore Though they are building a new BSA factory not far from BSAs original one in Birmingham England. Once they start to manufacture there it will indeed be BSAs rebirth.
Regarding your heritage issue, you're looking at Triumph wrong. Completely wrong. It's incredible that in modern times, John Bloor was able to create what is essentially a brand new motorcycle company and manufacture top quality bikes at high volume. Triumph competes with BMW, Ducati and the big 4 Japanese brands and, as you said, the company was dead. Considering how capital intensive motorcycle manufacturing is, it should be celebrated.
Triumph is an exception. I personally think triumph's fit and finish is better than it's Japanese and German counterparts. Although the point stands for Indian, Jawa, BSA, Hasqvarna, etc. They were essentially dead and don't justify their "heritage" tag.
@@VicariousxD I might agree on Triumph vs. the Japanese brands. I had a 2018 Tiger 1200 and sold it to buy a 2020 BMW R1250RS. In terms of fit and finish, the Triumph was close but the BMW wins. The BMW also wins on dealer and aftermarket support.
Imagine the increase of teething problems if every bike had a unique new develloped motor. My zr7 from 2000 has a motor originating from the seventies. 30 years to get the all naggles and weak sports out.
One thing that maybe you may add that motorcycle manufacturers use to deceive people is the motorcycle's claimed weight. Many manufactures list the motorcycle weight as Dry weight....Ok maybe it's not that important for many but who does ride their motorcycles without fuel? to me is an excuse to hide their embarrassment at how heavy some motorcycles are today.
thing is, you never know what dry weight means. Is it with or without oil, with or without brake fluid, with or without the battery, with or without tires? Imo the listed weight should include everything needed to ride the bike, apart form any fuel. That way manufacturers wouldn't put small tanks on bikes just to get the weight down. If you want a lighter bike you can always just fill the tank up only half way.
All Harley press bikes are ringers. Perfectly balanced and blueprinted engines with perfect cylinder heads that are ported and polished, performance cams, efi tunes that are not epa certified etc.
Unfortunately, like most everything else we are presented with, it’s mostly bullshit. We live in a time where “perception management”, marketing, or straight up propaganda is king. It isn’t confined just to the world of motorcycles, it’s everywhere, all the time, and about pretty much everything.
WRT using the same platform for multiple motorcycles, I think it depends on how this is executed. For example, Royal Enfield builds two bikes, soon to be three, from its J series engine platform: the Meteor 350, the Classic 350, and soon to be the Hunter 350. They share the same engine, frame, and brakes, but that's where the similarities end; they use different wheels, panels, etc. to have their own, unique look and character. That is to say that they're three distinct motorcycles. You know what? They're ALL great bikes! I own a Meteor 350, and I love it! I love it so much (especially that sweet, gem of an engine!) that, when the Classic 350 comes out, I intend to buy one of those too. The Classic has an 18" vs 17" rear wheel, and the wheels are spoked on most of the Classic 350 versions, not cast as the Meteor's wheels are. Based on Indian reviews (the bike has rolled out in India and will be coming to Europe and the US in spring), the Classic 350 is a great bike too, but because of the changes it has vs. the Meteor, it has its own, unique look and character. Even so, it still has the same, great little motor found in the Meteor. The RE Hunter 350 isn't out yet, though it's forthcoming in India. There's no word on whether it's coming to Europe or the US. It's a nice looking bike too, but rather than go for the late 70s-early 80s cruiser aesthetic of the Meteor, it looks more like a small, late 70s-early 80s standard; it looks good, but in a different way. If it came to the US, I'd be tempted to buy one. Why not? It looks good, and it has that SWEET GEM of an engine in it! Royal Enfield has done the same with their 650 twins. They take the same great engine, wheels, brakes, and frame, yet they created two great, yet distinct, bikes from that platform. You have the cafe racer Continental GT, which features a single seat, clip-ons, and a sporty riding position; OTOH, you have the Interceptor 650 (INT650 in the US) which is more of a standard. You have two cool bikes, each with their own unique look and character, sharing a great, common foundation. There's another example from years ago that comes to mind: the Kawasaki ZX-11 and the later ZRX1100. At one time in the late 80s-early 90s, the ZX-11 was the FASTEST production bike on the planet! Even in today's world, it would be no slouch. So, when Kawasaki announced that it would take the ZX-11's powerplant, retune it more for torque and midrange grunt, and put it in the sweet naked ZRX1100 Eddie Lawson replica, I was stoked! I eventually bought a used one a few years later, and I had fun with it. I didn't care that it borrowed its engine from the ZX-11; in fact, for me, it was a selling point. SO! I have no problem with a motorcycle company using a common platform to build two or more motorcycles. Done right, it can be a boon to both the company and the rider. For the company, they can spread out development costs more, which reduces their costs. They can also share good, common parts; that's good for business. For the rider, it's good because known quantities are being used in the critical places, e.g. the engine, frame, and/or brakes, while giving a unique look and character at the same time. It also means that I'll have an easier time getting parts when it's time to replace them. As a rider, if a motorcycle company is using a great engine in another product, I find that attractive; it makes me more inclined to buy the new bike, as it has a known quantity that I already like. So yeah, I get your gripes about many other points, especially the heritage thing. However, I don't have a problem with a company building more than one bike on a common platform. If the core parts (i.e. the frame, brakes, and engine) are good, then it's a win-win for both the company and the rider. Great bikes can be built and sold, yet they have their own unique look and character. As a rider, I like that! Those are my thoughts...
In your 'not a new bike' section your showed the Triumph Trident 660 ... for sure that is definitely a completely new bike in every department - and a great one too 😀
Hi, I'm not sure that you are getting the idea of the "Prototype", this is what the designers & engineers "Can" build, there are no limits to this, but when a bike comes to production every department is involved & the laws of every country that it's going to be sold to have to be adhered to, that means the "Bean Counters" are in first, they along with sales/marketing see what price point they can charge for each market, then give a price that the bike has to be built too, this is where all those "Sexy Bits" get taken off, anything that is hard/expensive to manufacture is "Gone" & if any are kept then something else has to go, the "Shareholders" & more "Important" than the "Customers" every single thing is a "Compromise", almost every bike built by a major manufacturer today is built by "Commity" & a great many people on them don't even ride bikes, this is why there is so much shite on the market & why bikes are so expensive, the "Nanny Systems" shite doesn't help either, a lot of heavy, expensive useless shite that 90% will ever get used by "Proper" riders. So you see, you will pretty much never get the bike you see on the pedestal because that would never make them the profits they require. Nice vid, thanks. I love the Triumph with the "Bedazzle" on it to hide what it is, then some genius put its name on in big letters. Almost nothing is "New" because "New" is expensive, development costs money, & they don't want to spend it, they want to make it, so like you say, they just put a new dress on the pig & give it a different name, they are still selling plenty so they must be fooling somebody.
Using common parts, between different models isn't bad. It makes sense financially, helps with the speed of the production etc. As long as the models are differentiated enough, so that each model does what it is supposed to do.
What really annoy me is the fact that bikes are built for a non realistic rider weight. and thus the whole behavior of the bike is not suitable for the average rider. for example the T7 is suited for a rider up to 75 kilos. with tools, body protection gear, bike protection, you really need to weight 65 or less(because there is a limit for how much you can lift when off roading) , and I don't know any male adult that is not sick who weight like that... being setup to 75, means the SAG cannot be properly setup for you, the shocks will be damaged faster. so come on, bike manufacturers.. don't be cheap with the metal and adjust to a real size or supply the options to add better suspension at the store!
I actual prefer manufactures to strip back that stuff visually on their website - I’m willing to bet most aren’t going to leave those items there anyway so it’s nice to be able to see it in what may be closer to what your version will look like versus adding visual noise that’ll be scrapped in the end anyway.
How about taking reviewers out to some all expense paid spa for the weekend and going on an easy group ride and then all the reviewers jump on YT saying how great the bike is after their 6 hours in the seat. Or, reviewing an ADV bike that's not weighted down with all the stuff an ADV rider would carry and the reviewer say something like, yeah, you can certainly ride this bike around the world with no problems. Honesty and motorcycle marketing will never cross paths.
An other annoying habit among motorcycle manufacturers is the use of outsourced parts. When you buy a Triumph of Honda or Moto Guzzi, you would expect a motorcycle that is assembled with parts made by that same company. But in fact, it is mainly (and often ONLY) the engine and frame that are actually produced by that company. The rest (wheels, brakes, suspension, tires, electrics, lights, etc etc etc) are just purchased from OTHER companies. The worst cases in this regard are the smaller "boutique" brands that buy ALL components, incl engine, from (mainly) China, assemble them all, attach a sticker with a trendy brand name, and they are done! Of course, I also know that Brembo is better in making brakes and Ohlin is better in making suspensions than Triumph, Honda, and Moto Guzzi so in the end the arrangement is good for the buyer, but it still bothers me.
Something you missed that maybe is just bigger overseas is bikes with stuff like KTM brand but really its a Bajaj with a higher price all 400cc and below KTM and Husqvarna on road bikes are actually Bajaj with a nicer body and suspension. Also BMW 310 is a TVS
no advs are not modified street bikes at least not the ktm ones. according to one of the important guys who developed their adv models [except the little ones] they start development from a dirt bike frame and at the later stage they tune it to suit pavement duties as well.
on the spy shots, check out the 650 scrambler test bike from royal enfield. there’s a video from india if the guy doing the test ride getting fed up with the dude filming, it’s actually pretty funny. but certainly real footage!
HP is measured at the crank because that's the actual power produced. Power at the rear wheel figures varies quite a bit, there are factors like the age/condition of the transmission, clutch, chain, bearings and more; also outside temperature, type of engine oil, tire pressure, kind of gasoline and so on influence the result. You can put the same bike on different dynos and get varying results.
I don't mind the part sharing and platform based bikes. This makes them cheaper and more reliable. And by the time I get another bike they have refreshed their lineup so its new to me, I don't buy a new bike every year from the same manufacturer so it does not matter much to me if they keep doing the same thing for a few years. Also I like that bikes are allowed to say more constant in time unlike cars that need to meat new safety standers all the time.
When looking for a new bike I’d photoshop out the mirrors and license plate holder seeing the form unmuddied, if you will. Tail tidy’s and low profile mirrors/turn signals can make quite a difference.
@4:46 The most significant reason is money. @8:56 Engine development is one of the most expensive if not the most expensive endeveaour. @9:28 Yes, that is efficient but do you know what sucks, too? They rarely list the topspeed. @11:26 Not necessarily. Just give Ariel a try, lad.
Horse power has always been a bug bear of mine. I have ridden supposedly heavy old bikes that had big horse power that literally had rip your arms out of the sockets power and torque. Then ridden lighter modern bikes with similar horse powers and torque that just don't have the torque or horse power the old bikes had unless your revving the nuts off them. Gross weight carrying my current bike tells me in the hand book. My son and I are British lads and if wee are two up on it it is over weight. Then we did 2 weeks touring on it with all the gear a few times. It was then we'll over weight.
ah ,,, at last someone who thinks like me ,, this heritage bullshit is just that . royal enfield = good bike , but nothing like the original . kawasaki 900 rs same as 1970's = no way , the new one is water cooled , single exhaust , e.t.c. indian is just a polaris . triumph are water cooled thailand bikes . and as for bringing back b.s.a. ,,,, well that just shows how gullable people are ... its a mahindra with a radiator ;;;;; just call the bloody ugly thing that and stop the bullshit about how its british designed just because they bought a shed in england and said its their design centre ;;;;;
I've turned into a cynic. I expect deception and am surprised on rare occasions when I don't find it. On perfection: the quest for it is a waste of time. If you're into the quest, well, that's okay but you should accept things the way they or realize you're going to have to get involved and do the work to make it so. That said I love the videos with the vintage and retro bikes. Used to own some before they were retro. I almost bought a W800 but succumbed to practicality and bought a NC750X. I'll get some projects out of the way and I might do some collecting. So many bikes, so little time.
Touting horsepower on any bike built for the street is just a dick measuring contest. There are very few bikes on market that can’t vastly exceed the highest speed limits. HP is a measure of top end speed. Torque is a measure of get up and go. I’ll take high torque over high horsepower. Anyone that can’t have fun on a 100hp bike is likely a piss poor rider to begin with. And no, I’m not a Harley or V-twin guy.
If a company is revived 'decades' later and does not start off with the old model names because they don't want to remind you of the company that died ... what's your explanation for using that 'revived' company name in the first place? You hint at Triumph as one of these revived decades later firms. Yet Bloor (the house builder) bought the Triumph brand name at auction at Meriden - when it was wound up, He licensed Harris (not the frame builders now owned by RE(?)) to continue building Bonnevilles through the mid 80s. Then started up Triumph Hinkley production less than 10 years after the closure of Meriden. The bikes launched did use old Triumph names - not the Bonneville name but many others. And they were modern bikes (albeit UJM copies).So not quite someone digging through the past to grab a heritage brand with the purpose of inventing more heritage. Triumph does use its heritage nowadays. As does every bike company (apart maybe from Aprilia?). But along with modern stuff - Triumph's a motorbike company, not a museum or olde worlde craft workshop.
you seemed to answer your own question, regarding weight capacities & harley not releasing sad horsepower numbers.6 out of 10 harley riders weigh nearly as much as their bikes, so thats why harley engines make a ton of bottom end torque so they can get over 1000 lbs of bike & rider to move off the spot.if they tune the engines for high horsepower, the low end torque thats required will suffer greatly.its easier to haul a heavy person in a truck, than in a compact economy car. not being mean, its just a fact.
On your 1st point: How does seeing pictures of front licence plates help us Euro / American customers? Wouldn't rear plates in foreign colors alienate your inner patriot? There was a time when bikes got short rear fenders for looks, one black plastic extension, to meet west European standards and another one attached to that for Poland. I don't mail order bikes; I want to at least sit on them first.
Yeah gotta love how boring and plain the engine configurations have become and most bikes are just rehashed from their older versions, digging up old dirt and putting it on top of the pile kind of thing. If I'd ever open my own motorcycle company I'd want it to be honest about specs, be a bit more inventive and out of the box than the rest.
HORSEPOWER IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS TORQUE ON A CRUISER. I can pull out of an intersection with little effort in 4th gear. Try that on your 50-year-old Triumph. Be careful. Your sport bike bias is showing.
Motorcycle speed and horsepower have never meant anything to me, as long as it has the power to keep with where I intend to ride it. I actually tend to avoid high hp bikes. for me riding a motorcycle is all about the experience, which is why I prefer older bikes that have "character", something totally missing from new bikes. Harley just removed all the character from their bikes with the smooth quiet M8 engine. Might as well get a Goldwing. On the other hand, at 240 pounds, and as someone who likes to load a bike down with stuff and take off across the country on it, load capacity can make or break my decision to buy a certain bike. Honda has been using the same engines, or at least slight variations of those engines in most of their bikes for many years, and it was based on a CAR engine. But OTOH, a completely new motorcycle would be crazy expensive, and motorcycles are already insanely overpriced. The only company that I am aware of that is REALLY trying to push fake heritage is Indian. They even have "since 1901" printed on their engines. Excelsior-Henderson tried this and failed. Triumph was actually still a motorcycle company when John Bloor bought it. He bought the company, the old factory, the old bikes and parts, everything. Sadly, the new Triumphs never came close to being as wonderful as the old ones. As for Norton and BSA, yes they are reusing the names, but I'm not sure they are going to try to tie the new bikes to the heritage of the old ones. New versions of old motorcycle brands never live up to the bikes they were named after. And that includes Triumph. Instead of building the same bikes Triumph built back in the '60s and '70s, they built all new bikes that had nothing in common with the originals.
In your horse power rant you omitted bikes that hit their rev limiter in top gear, which seems ultra annoying to me, especially with reasonable capacity bikes bought for Germany. Why should I cruise the Autobahn any slower than flat out with less than 27hp? I have no issues with Harley Davidson not marketing hp. The local dealership seemed nudging me to do a test ride. And 25 years ago they told quite frankly: "If you are looking for something faster than your XV250, you are in the wrong place. Our bikes might be but we are selling them as something that feels better." Whatever their bikes might be, I couldn't imagine myself pushing(!) one into my garage, later a few years into retirement. Prototypes are artwork, thats all. I am quite fine with platform variation bikes. The only thing I am missing: Why don't they make them like pedal bikes in different frame heights? Every new bike with new engine will trigger worries: Am I spending all that money to play beta tester of some lemon? Knowing something worked for others in the past feels good and your mechanic is cheaper when doing a routine job once again. Lack of payload is really a shame! Government and consumer protection authorities should act against that. Tall guys need(!) bikes that can take their big women on camping vacations.
on the spy shots, check out the 650 scrambler test bike from royal enfield. there’s a video from india if the guy doing the test ride getting fed up with the dude filming, it’s actually pretty funny. but certainly real footage!
Almost never give true price of the bike.
" Dealer Prep"
"Transport fees"
Dealer markup
So a $6,500 bike becomes a $ 7,700 plus tax and license.
Here in India, price advertised is called an Ex-showroom price. Usually, the actual price is always 50% of more higher
Like a bike would be advertised as being only 650 USD but would actually be more than 950
I have a friend that refuses to pay those additional fees , He's had the dealers ( motorcycle and auto) absorb those all except his new Acura TLX
Right my 1290sas was listed for 19,995 paid like 23k after tax shipping and stuff
The sad fact is that we will never have any "new motorcycles" without a paradigm shit. We've hit the wall of physics for machines based on the current model. We can only get incremental design at this point.
Yeah I think you're right. It's nuts to that motorcycles we're making 200 hp back in like 2010. Not much has changed
And that is why we should go backwards. Build old bike designs, simple designs. The only change needs to be, make them reliable. And it is not at all difficult to make a simple design reliable.
also the statutory restrictions regarding CO2 emissions doesn't help.
I really like the idea of "reversed" brake and clutch levers. Standard levers have your longest fingers on the shortest part of the lever and you can't even reach the long part of the lever with your pinky finger. Two finger braking is the standard. How cool would it be to have the longest fingers on the longest part of the lever (with the most leverage) and the shorter fingers on the lever at all! Controllability could be increased an awesome amount. Of course, I've never ridden a bike with such levers.
With gloves on you would pinch some of your fingers when pulling the brake
Have to think about it. I bought a new truck but it has a rotary dial instead of gearshift lever. I'll be reaching for that gearshift lever forever. It might take some getting used to different levers and I hope I don't do something stupid in the meantime.
You have those on bycicles. Pinching can be avoided by making a curve design, but you can't do anything about scrapping. I guess you can easily break a normal lever anyway, so don't think it's a big problem
I feel like your fingers could get caught in the "hook" in the case of a crash with this. I've seen a couple of custom bikes with levers like this though. Check out the H2 chopper shadetree surgeon made a video of
@@chE3z1 The H2 chopper is great! No pussy electric start, either. There is a simple way to get a feel for reversed levers. Stand on the left side of your bike (presuming that is where the kickstand and clutch are). Pull in the clutch with your left hand. Now pull in the clutch with your RIGHT hand. Notice how the longest fingers have the most leverage. You can do the same on the other side. You can decide if the fingers you keep wrapped around the throttle "get in the way".
I can't stand all the fake crap on Triumph Bonnevilles. Carbs, cooling fins, air intakes etc, etc. Then they plaster the Union Jack all over it and pretend it's not a Thailand build. Yuck.
Tbh, as far as adventure bikes go...
"Its a street bikes time tested rilable core, with more off road worthy posture and suspension" is what ADV riders are praying to get.
and the engine tuned to be more grunty at low rpms. That's how the genre was born, with the R 80 g/s.
BMW took an existing engine (2 valves boxer) and fit it into a different frame, with longer suspension. et voilà, a star is born.
It only happens sometimes that the engine is designed from scratch, and that's part of the heritage argument.
I'm thinking of the Aprilia v4s and RXV/SXV, the first Honda gl 1000 four boxer, the BMW K series, and the Ducati V4.
What you and 99.99% of other enthusiasts don't realize is the Horsepower itself is a bogus spec. The number they are showing you is the PEAK power. A 600cc repli-racer may make more peak power than a HD, but that doesn't mean it makes more TOTAL power across its rev range.
So if your riding consists of holding the throttle WFO and banging off the rev limiter, then the repli-racer is for you. If being able to pull a couple adults and luggage up to 80 mph quickly, smoothly and comfortably, then maybe it's really the HD engine you seek.
Torque is even worse. The general motorcycling public is completely clueless about this. Engines make power. FTR, horsepower is simply a unit of measure of power. It could be measured in Watts or PS or whatever you like. When you power rotational gear sets, the power is broken into two components: torque & rpm.
Torque IS NOT something you feel at low rpm that magically turns into HP at higher rpm. The engine's power is converted to torque & rpm at the rear wheel in various ratios via the gear box. In first gear, you may get 10 torques and 1 rpm. In sixth gear, you may get 1 torque & 10 rpms. There are no free lunches. Your engine is your engine. You can gear it to make more power to pull heavy weight from a stop (1st gear), but you do it at the expense of rpm. Thus, you're not using the high power engine to go fast. You can put it in sixth gear and use that peak power to get lots of revs. Since you will have already attained a lot of momentum, you won't need much torque to continue to accelerate.
The torque you're being quoted is a dyno calculation of the power at the rear wheel divided by the ENGINE rpm (not the rear wheel rpm). It is a bastardized way of approximating the torque at the crank of the engine (useless information unless you make gear boxes for a living). They take the peak value, send it to marketing, who put it on spec sheets so people on the internet can say "Mine makes more!"
@Alfred Wedmore Yes it does work like that. Say one bike makes 1 hp @ 1 rpm and 2 hp @ 2 rpm. The total power across the range would be 3 hp. The peak hp would be 2 hp.
If another bike with a high output engine comes along and makes 0.5 hp @ 1 rpm, 1.5 hp @ 2 rpm and 2.5 hp @ 3 rpm, then the total power across its range would be 4.5 hp. It would have peak power of 2.5 hp.
You are looking at torque at the crank backwards. Gas has no torque. It burns and converts energy at some rate. That is power. When the piston shoves the lever on the crank, it creates a torque on the crank. So that torque is a function of the power of the fuel and the distance of the lever from the crank.
If you have a machine that makes perfectly linear power, then it will have a perfectly flat torque curve (assuming it needs to turn a handle). Jet engines have to turn turbines around a rod too, but you will never hear pilots talking about their "torque."
Acceleration is force/mass, but you need to think about it a little harder. If you're riding your bicycle down a hill, does it take more or less force on the pedals to make it accelerate vs going uphill in the same gear?
@Alfred Wedmore Now that I thought about that force part, you have a point. I should have said the motorcycle had attained velocity and not said that it had attained momentum, though theoretically both are true.
@Alfred Wedmore Good is relative. They are very good IF you're riding on a track where you can keep the engine in its power band. They yeah, they generally suck on the street where you can't.
My point is simply that riders are feeling acceleration as the roll on the throttle. No one says "it accelerates nicely." Instead, the bastardize engineering lingo with stupid shit like "it feels as it has many torques."
But with enough leverage (gearing) you can make a peaky 600 put a lot of torque to the ground. Look at the huge sprockets that stunters put on their rear wheel. It reduces their top speed, but increases torque at the rear wheel so they can pull wheelies easier. Nothing changed about their engines. The engine provided power throughout the range the same way it always did. The GEARING changed it from low torque/high speed to high torque/low speed at the rear wheel for the stunter.
And thank you for your service. Physics teachers rock!
Throw an electric bike into the mix.
@Alfred Wedmore I almost did that years ago with a Kawasaki 2 stroke 750. Tried the bike and opened the throttle at 2000 rpm. It didn't do much till it got on the pipes at about 7 or 8000. Took off like a rocket and it was all I could do to hang on, I think the front tire got a bit off the ground. Betcha that electric bike is even worse.
I think the major reason for the fewer platform bikes is, those unique bikes just don't make that much money. They might sell a lot, or even sell out in some cases, but the profit margins aren't big enough to justify a large number of those unique bikes. The majority of the bikes require much less R&D, sell better, and make them the money need to fund those unique bike projects.
@8:40 it's actually beneficial for the buyer. Instead of getting a new engine with unknown fails, you're getting to buy an older engine with modern technology. Take the case of the z900. The engine was present since the 2000s, perfected to modern emission standards which is also reliable and has good performance compared to competition. Also investing in a new engine seems useless since we've reached the last phase of ic engine
Yeah it's true, I think it's how it's often presented but for sure you're right
@@bartmotorcycle ok, thanks for the reply
Ice will be with us as long as we are alive.
The Z900 engine is a sleeved down version of the 1043cc engine first seen in the 2010 Z1000.
The Z750, Z800 and older Z1000s used a reworked ZX9 engine.
Anyway, developing a brand new engine is a costly affair and a well designed engine can easily serve in various models for 10+ years.
The R18 is as close to its prototype as is legally allowed
But the winner of protoHype is the Indian FTR
the bike they FINALLY barfed out was American wannabe of a Ducati and not a street tracker at all and NOW they’ve switched the 19” front for a 17”
Roland Sands made something beautiful
I'm not into heritage bike or whatever heritage labeled or styled bike. Owning an original old bike and buying a new old-styled one is different and for some reason, it is just better to keep the old one running healthy. That's the true heritage
This channel is really great man, I remember seeing one of your videos before last motorcycle season ended - then totally forgot about it until now, and I realized how many awesome well made videos are on this channel. Easy sub!
The added expense of all the rider modes on these new bikes sucks.
The Yamaha VMAX falls into the same category as the Triumph Rocket 3. Everything about it is unique to itself especially the engine and styling. You could even say that it has some heritage having been produced since 1985.
VMAX RIP
That's marketing for you. This not only applies to motorcycle manufacturers, every company does it.
On the heritage front, I believe that royal enfield claim 120 years of continuous production, which a lot of other companies who have a similar age cannot equal, for example BSA which is as old but stopped building motorcycles in 1973 and have just announced the new BSA gold star.
They claim "Since 1901" but that's not 100% true. The company has made bikes that long, but started as a British company (the British Co went out in the 70s) and the current Indian company wasn't formed until the 50s to build Royal Enfield bikes under license using RE tooling.
That said, they've made the Bullet, unchanged, pretty much continually for eons.
@@SpartanD63
The Indian Royal Enfield factory was founded by the British Royal Enfield company to manufacture bikes for the Indian Military. When the British company closed the Indian company continued and later bought the full Royal Enfield name, so they can claim to be in continuous production.
@@johnbrereton5229 That's true, but what I was getting at is that their production doesn't go back to 1901 as they claim, even though the company technically does. So technically yes, "Since 1901" but also technically no.
@@SpartanD63
The original company that built the factory in India in 1956 could trace its beginnings all the way back to the 1850s in England. So the Indian factory was built by the original Royal Rnfield company in 1956 and supplied with all the patterns and machinery from the older 1955 British designed Bullett. They even sent British staff out to train the Indian staff and get the factory up and running. So in fact it is a continuation, but just from a new factory, many companies move to new factories as their businesses expand or contract.
The new BSA concern on the other hand, has no connection with the original BSA company at all, apart from the name.
So I think Royal Enfield can claim to be in continuous production, but if you don't agree, that fine, we are all allowed to have an opinion.
@Alfred Wedmore
Though they are building a new BSA factory not far from BSAs original one in Birmingham England. Once they start to manufacture there it will indeed be BSAs rebirth.
Regarding your heritage issue, you're looking at Triumph wrong. Completely wrong.
It's incredible that in modern times, John Bloor was able to create what is essentially a brand new motorcycle company and manufacture top quality bikes at high volume. Triumph competes with BMW, Ducati and the big 4 Japanese brands and, as you said, the company was dead. Considering how capital intensive motorcycle manufacturing is, it should be celebrated.
Triumph is an exception. I personally think triumph's fit and finish is better than it's Japanese and German counterparts. Although the point stands for Indian, Jawa, BSA, Hasqvarna, etc. They were essentially dead and don't justify their "heritage" tag.
@@VicariousxD I might agree on Triumph vs. the Japanese brands. I had a 2018 Tiger 1200 and sold it to buy a 2020 BMW R1250RS. In terms of fit and finish, the Triumph was close but the BMW wins. The BMW also wins on dealer and aftermarket support.
Imagine the increase of teething problems if every bike had a unique new develloped motor. My zr7 from 2000 has a motor originating from the seventies. 30 years to get the all naggles and weak sports out.
I believe the levers on the R18 are actually an accessory available for the bike so not completely false advertising
One thing that maybe you may add that motorcycle manufacturers use to deceive people is the motorcycle's claimed weight. Many manufactures list the motorcycle weight as Dry weight....Ok maybe it's not that important for many but who does ride their motorcycles without fuel? to me is an excuse to hide their embarrassment at how heavy some motorcycles are today.
thing is, you never know what dry weight means. Is it with or without oil, with or without brake fluid, with or without the battery, with or without tires? Imo the listed weight should include everything needed to ride the bike, apart form any fuel. That way manufacturers wouldn't put small tanks on bikes just to get the weight down. If you want a lighter bike you can always just fill the tank up only half way.
Dry weight versus actual wet weight.
What bothers me is how ugly modern motorcycles look. Like mishapen mutant insects out of 1950s horror flick. That or a plumber's nightmare.
All Harley press bikes are ringers. Perfectly balanced and blueprinted engines with perfect cylinder heads that are ported and polished, performance cams, efi tunes that are not epa certified etc.
Unfortunately, like most everything else we are presented with, it’s mostly bullshit. We live in a time where “perception management”, marketing, or straight up propaganda is king. It isn’t confined just to the world of motorcycles, it’s everywhere, all the time, and about pretty much everything.
WRT using the same platform for multiple motorcycles, I think it depends on how this is executed. For example, Royal Enfield builds two bikes, soon to be three, from its J series engine platform: the Meteor 350, the Classic 350, and soon to be the Hunter 350. They share the same engine, frame, and brakes, but that's where the similarities end; they use different wheels, panels, etc. to have their own, unique look and character. That is to say that they're three distinct motorcycles. You know what? They're ALL great bikes!
I own a Meteor 350, and I love it! I love it so much (especially that sweet, gem of an engine!) that, when the Classic 350 comes out, I intend to buy one of those too. The Classic has an 18" vs 17" rear wheel, and the wheels are spoked on most of the Classic 350 versions, not cast as the Meteor's wheels are. Based on Indian reviews (the bike has rolled out in India and will be coming to Europe and the US in spring), the Classic 350 is a great bike too, but because of the changes it has vs. the Meteor, it has its own, unique look and character. Even so, it still has the same, great little motor found in the Meteor.
The RE Hunter 350 isn't out yet, though it's forthcoming in India. There's no word on whether it's coming to Europe or the US. It's a nice looking bike too, but rather than go for the late 70s-early 80s cruiser aesthetic of the Meteor, it looks more like a small, late 70s-early 80s standard; it looks good, but in a different way. If it came to the US, I'd be tempted to buy one. Why not? It looks good, and it has that SWEET GEM of an engine in it!
Royal Enfield has done the same with their 650 twins. They take the same great engine, wheels, brakes, and frame, yet they created two great, yet distinct, bikes from that platform. You have the cafe racer Continental GT, which features a single seat, clip-ons, and a sporty riding position; OTOH, you have the Interceptor 650 (INT650 in the US) which is more of a standard. You have two cool bikes, each with their own unique look and character, sharing a great, common foundation.
There's another example from years ago that comes to mind: the Kawasaki ZX-11 and the later ZRX1100. At one time in the late 80s-early 90s, the ZX-11 was the FASTEST production bike on the planet! Even in today's world, it would be no slouch. So, when Kawasaki announced that it would take the ZX-11's powerplant, retune it more for torque and midrange grunt, and put it in the sweet naked ZRX1100 Eddie Lawson replica, I was stoked! I eventually bought a used one a few years later, and I had fun with it. I didn't care that it borrowed its engine from the ZX-11; in fact, for me, it was a selling point.
SO! I have no problem with a motorcycle company using a common platform to build two or more motorcycles. Done right, it can be a boon to both the company and the rider. For the company, they can spread out development costs more, which reduces their costs. They can also share good, common parts; that's good for business. For the rider, it's good because known quantities are being used in the critical places, e.g. the engine, frame, and/or brakes, while giving a unique look and character at the same time. It also means that I'll have an easier time getting parts when it's time to replace them. As a rider, if a motorcycle company is using a great engine in another product, I find that attractive; it makes me more inclined to buy the new bike, as it has a known quantity that I already like.
So yeah, I get your gripes about many other points, especially the heritage thing. However, I don't have a problem with a company building more than one bike on a common platform. If the core parts (i.e. the frame, brakes, and engine) are good, then it's a win-win for both the company and the rider. Great bikes can be built and sold, yet they have their own unique look and character. As a rider, I like that! Those are my thoughts...
In your 'not a new bike' section your showed the Triumph Trident 660 ... for sure that is definitely a completely new bike in every department - and a great one too 😀
Hi, I'm not sure that you are getting the idea of the "Prototype", this is what the designers & engineers "Can" build, there are no limits to this, but when a bike comes to production every department is involved & the laws of every country that it's going to be sold to have to be adhered to, that means the "Bean Counters" are in first, they along with sales/marketing see what price point they can charge for each market, then give a price that the bike has to be built too, this is where all those "Sexy Bits" get taken off, anything that is hard/expensive to manufacture is "Gone" & if any are kept then something else has to go, the "Shareholders" & more "Important" than the "Customers" every single thing is a "Compromise", almost every bike built by a major manufacturer today is built by "Commity" & a great many people on them don't even ride bikes, this is why there is so much shite on the market & why bikes are so expensive, the "Nanny Systems" shite doesn't help either, a lot of heavy, expensive useless shite that 90% will ever get used by "Proper" riders. So you see, you will pretty much never get the bike you see on the pedestal because that would never make them the profits they require. Nice vid, thanks. I love the Triumph with the "Bedazzle" on it to hide what it is, then some genius put its name on in big letters. Almost nothing is "New" because "New" is expensive, development costs money, & they don't want to spend it, they want to make it, so like you say, they just put a new dress on the pig & give it a different name, they are still selling plenty so they must be fooling somebody.
Totally agree with the final heritage part
Using common parts, between different models isn't bad. It makes sense financially, helps with the speed of the production etc. As long as the models are differentiated enough, so that each model does what it is supposed to do.
What really annoy me is the fact that bikes are built for a non realistic rider weight. and thus the whole behavior of the bike is not suitable for the average rider. for example the T7 is suited for a rider up to 75 kilos. with tools, body protection gear, bike protection, you really need to weight 65 or less(because there is a limit for how much you can lift when off roading) , and I don't know any male adult that is not sick who weight like that... being setup to 75, means the SAG cannot be properly setup for you, the shocks will be damaged faster. so come on, bike manufacturers.. don't be cheap with the metal and adjust to a real size or supply the options to add better suspension at the store!
I actual prefer manufactures to strip back that stuff visually on their website - I’m willing to bet most aren’t going to leave those items there anyway so it’s nice to be able to see it in what may be closer to what your version will look like versus adding visual noise that’ll be scrapped in the end anyway.
How about taking reviewers out to some all expense paid spa for the weekend and going on an easy group ride and then all the reviewers jump on YT saying how great the bike is after their 6 hours in the seat. Or, reviewing an ADV bike that's not weighted down with all the stuff an ADV rider would carry and the reviewer say something like, yeah, you can certainly ride this bike around the world with no problems. Honesty and motorcycle marketing will never cross paths.
Yes and who pays for those alcohol-fueled journo jollies? We do and I recon it adds hundreds to the ticket price. (Thanks for the interesting video)
With some of the new electrics: Announce a bike to come up soon, even take money deposits on line and years later still no bike.
Spoiler Alert... It's NOT just Motorcycle Companies... It's the 'Stealerships' that Sell them... 'Nuff said!!!... Good stuff thanks for posting.
All motorized vehicles are deceiving you. Just try to get work done for simple problems with your Honda.
An other annoying habit among motorcycle manufacturers is the use of outsourced parts. When you buy a Triumph of Honda or Moto Guzzi, you would expect a motorcycle that is assembled with parts made by that same company. But in fact, it is mainly (and often ONLY) the engine and frame that are actually produced by that company. The rest (wheels, brakes, suspension, tires, electrics, lights, etc etc etc) are just purchased from OTHER companies. The worst cases in this regard are the smaller "boutique" brands that buy ALL components, incl engine, from (mainly) China, assemble them all, attach a sticker with a trendy brand name, and they are done! Of course, I also know that Brembo is better in making brakes and Ohlin is better in making suspensions than Triumph, Honda, and Moto Guzzi so in the end the arrangement is good for the buyer, but it still bothers me.
a bike produced the way you would like to would cost ten times more
Something you missed that maybe is just bigger overseas is bikes with stuff like KTM brand but really its a Bajaj with a higher price all 400cc and below KTM and Husqvarna on road bikes are actually Bajaj with a nicer body and suspension. Also BMW 310 is a TVS
no advs are not modified street bikes at least not the ktm ones. according to one of the important guys who developed their adv models [except the little ones] they start development from a dirt bike frame and at the later stage they tune it to suit pavement duties as well.
The prototype thing happens in cars too. Prototypes are way more agressive and interesting than production.
on the spy shots, check out the 650 scrambler test bike from royal enfield. there’s a video from india if the guy doing the test ride getting fed up with the dude filming, it’s actually pretty funny. but certainly real footage!
HP is measured at the crank because that's the actual power produced. Power at the rear wheel figures varies quite a bit, there are factors like the age/condition of the transmission, clutch, chain, bearings and more; also outside temperature, type of engine oil, tire pressure, kind of gasoline and so on influence the result. You can put the same bike on different dynos and get varying results.
Heritage is cringe if it's not backed up by continuity of PROGRESSION
I don't mind the part sharing and platform based bikes. This makes them cheaper and more reliable. And by the time I get another bike they have refreshed their lineup so its new to me, I don't buy a new bike every year from the same manufacturer so it does not matter much to me if they keep doing the same thing for a few years. Also I like that bikes are allowed to say more constant in time unlike cars that need to meat new safety standers all the time.
Honestly, I'm glad yamaha put the cp2 engine, from the mt07, in an adventure package. Great engine.
When looking for a new bike I’d photoshop out the mirrors and license plate holder seeing the form unmuddied, if you will. Tail tidy’s and low profile mirrors/turn signals can make quite a difference.
@4:46 The most significant reason is money.
@8:56 Engine development is one of the most expensive if not the most expensive endeveaour.
@9:28 Yes, that is efficient but do you know what sucks, too? They rarely list the topspeed.
@11:26 Not necessarily. Just give Ariel a try, lad.
Horse power has always been a bug bear of mine. I have ridden supposedly heavy old bikes that had big horse power that literally had rip your arms out of the sockets power and torque. Then ridden lighter modern bikes with similar horse powers and torque that just don't have the torque or horse power the old bikes had unless your revving the nuts off them. Gross weight carrying my current bike tells me in the hand book. My son and I are British lads and if wee are two up on it it is over weight. Then we did 2 weeks touring on it with all the gear a few times. It was then we'll over weight.
The comment section has more physics than my entire physics syllabus at school. I wish i had you tube during my school days.
No it doesn't
ah ,,, at last someone who thinks like me ,, this heritage bullshit is just that . royal enfield = good bike , but nothing like the original . kawasaki 900 rs same as 1970's = no way , the new one is water cooled , single exhaust , e.t.c. indian is just a polaris . triumph are water cooled thailand bikes . and as for bringing back b.s.a. ,,,, well that just shows how gullable people are ... its a mahindra with a radiator ;;;;; just call the bloody ugly thing that and stop the bullshit about how its british designed just because they bought a shed in england and said its their design centre ;;;;;
Awesome Video Brother!!! Keep up the Good Work 👍😁
If something works, why change it?
Motorcycle manufacturers deceive or legal reasons ruin them
?
I've turned into a cynic. I expect deception and am surprised on rare occasions when I don't find it. On perfection: the quest for it is a waste of time. If you're into the quest, well, that's okay but you should accept things the way they or realize you're going to have to get involved and do the work to make it so.
That said I love the videos with the vintage and retro bikes. Used to own some before they were retro. I almost bought a W800 but succumbed to practicality and bought a NC750X. I'll get some projects out of the way and I might do some collecting.
So many bikes, so little time.
My second most favorite Motorcycle Channel in UA-cam...
What's the first one?
bhp isnt real and is irrelevant on an engine that wont far exceed 5252 rpm
great info,i like to see any bike in person for sure!
CO2 emissions from Motorcycles.
Touting horsepower on any bike built for the street is just a dick measuring contest. There are very few bikes on market that can’t vastly exceed the highest speed limits. HP is a measure of top end speed. Torque is a measure of get up and go. I’ll take high torque over high horsepower. Anyone that can’t have fun on a 100hp bike is likely a piss poor rider to begin with. And no, I’m not a Harley or V-twin guy.
Its because of the Covid situation. You gotta cut them some slack ...
If a company is revived 'decades' later and does not start off with the old model names because they don't want to remind you of the company that died ... what's your explanation for using that 'revived' company name in the first place?
You hint at Triumph as one of these revived decades later firms. Yet Bloor (the house builder) bought the Triumph brand name at auction at Meriden - when it was wound up, He licensed Harris (not the frame builders now owned by RE(?)) to continue building Bonnevilles through the mid 80s. Then started up Triumph Hinkley production less than 10 years after the closure of Meriden. The bikes launched did use old Triumph names - not the Bonneville name but many others. And they were modern bikes (albeit UJM copies).So not quite someone digging through the past to grab a heritage brand with the purpose of inventing more heritage. Triumph does use its heritage nowadays. As does every bike company (apart maybe from Aprilia?). But along with modern stuff - Triumph's a motorbike company, not a museum or olde worlde craft workshop.
It’s a brand ain’t it grand….🤮
I would like to see more retro electric bikes
Pretty much spot on all the way around, but in today's world it's kinda what we expect 😒
you seemed to answer your own question, regarding weight capacities & harley not releasing sad horsepower numbers.6 out of 10 harley riders weigh nearly as much as their bikes, so thats why harley engines make a ton of bottom end torque so they can get over 1000 lbs of bike & rider to move off the spot.if they tune the engines for high horsepower, the low end torque thats required will suffer greatly.its easier to haul a heavy person in a truck, than in a compact economy car. not being mean, its just a fact.
On your 1st point: How does seeing pictures of front licence plates help us Euro / American customers? Wouldn't rear plates in foreign colors alienate your inner patriot?
There was a time when bikes got short rear fenders for looks, one black plastic extension, to meet west European standards and another one attached to that for Poland.
I don't mail order bikes; I want to at least sit on them first.
Yeah gotta love how boring and plain the engine configurations have become and most bikes are just rehashed from their older versions, digging up old dirt and putting it on top of the pile kind of thing. If I'd ever open my own motorcycle company I'd want it to be honest about specs, be a bit more inventive and out of the box than the rest.
HORSEPOWER IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS TORQUE ON A CRUISER. I can pull out of an intersection with little effort in 4th gear. Try that on your 50-year-old Triumph. Be careful. Your sport bike bias is showing.
Motorcycle speed and horsepower have never meant anything to me, as long as it has the power to keep with where I intend to ride it. I actually tend to avoid high hp bikes. for me riding a motorcycle is all about the experience, which is why I prefer older bikes that have "character", something totally missing from new bikes. Harley just removed all the character from their bikes with the smooth quiet M8 engine. Might as well get a Goldwing. On the other hand, at 240 pounds, and as someone who likes to load a bike down with stuff and take off across the country on it, load capacity can make or break my decision to buy a certain bike. Honda has been using the same engines, or at least slight variations of those engines in most of their bikes for many years, and it was based on a CAR engine. But OTOH, a completely new motorcycle would be crazy expensive, and motorcycles are already insanely overpriced. The only company that I am aware of that is REALLY trying to push fake heritage is Indian. They even have "since 1901" printed on their engines. Excelsior-Henderson tried this and failed. Triumph was actually still a motorcycle company when John Bloor bought it. He bought the company, the old factory, the old bikes and parts, everything. Sadly, the new Triumphs never came close to being as wonderful as the old ones. As for Norton and BSA, yes they are reusing the names, but I'm not sure they are going to try to tie the new bikes to the heritage of the old ones. New versions of old motorcycle brands never live up to the bikes they were named after. And that includes Triumph. Instead of building the same bikes Triumph built back in the '60s and '70s, they built all new bikes that had nothing in common with the originals.
Yeah, horsepower is overrated. I can still cheat death easily with only 70hp.
nice movie I enjoyed watching - ride safe
Harley is not a performance bike WHO cares about horsepower on a harley. If your buying a sport or super bike HP is relevant.
In your horse power rant you omitted bikes that hit their rev limiter in top gear, which seems ultra annoying to me, especially with reasonable capacity bikes bought for Germany. Why should I cruise the Autobahn any slower than flat out with less than 27hp?
I have no issues with Harley Davidson not marketing hp. The local dealership seemed nudging me to do a test ride. And 25 years ago they told quite frankly: "If you are looking for something faster than your XV250, you are in the wrong place. Our bikes might be but we are selling them as something that feels better." Whatever their bikes might be, I couldn't imagine myself pushing(!) one into my garage, later a few years into retirement.
Prototypes are artwork, thats all. I am quite fine with platform variation bikes. The only thing I am missing: Why don't they make them like pedal bikes in different frame heights? Every new bike with new engine will trigger worries: Am I spending all that money to play beta tester of some lemon? Knowing something worked for others in the past feels good and your mechanic is cheaper when doing a routine job once again.
Lack of payload is really a shame! Government and consumer protection authorities should act against that. Tall guys need(!) bikes that can take their big women on camping vacations.
Duh
on the spy shots, check out the 650 scrambler test bike from royal enfield. there’s a video from india if the guy doing the test ride getting fed up with the dude filming, it’s actually pretty funny. but certainly real footage!