THE CLASSIC DEBATE (cont)

Seeing my old CB750 looking so good in the pages of RC132 triggered the usual feelings of‘oh my, why did I sell it?’, but reading Paul’s comments about Jerry’s adoration of the model in the late 1960s made me realise something about the wider classic experience. I reckon the reason we all have such diverging views about particular classic machines is often linked to our personal experiences of those machines when they were current models.

For me, the lure of the CB750 was always the recognition of its place in history rather than the riding experience, which I found pretty unremarkable. By the time I bought my first superbike (1975) I felt the Honda was already old hat and I never owned one at all until the 21st century dawned. By contrast, it sounds like Jerry was a huge fan so he probably gets more of a kick out of riding it than I ever did.

A bike which really divides opinion is the BSA Starfire / Barracuda. In 1969 I was a schoolboy with my nose eagerly pressed against the local dealer’s window, dreaming of securing my parents’permission to buy one at sixteen (it never happened). Many years later I owned one and was not disappointed despite having become accustomed to bigger bikes by then. 85mph flat out and an exhaust beat like a heavy machine gun; I loved it. However I fully understand those for whom memories of past blow-ups mean they wouldn’t touch another one with a barge pole.

Consider the Z1 and its successor, the Z1000. For everyday classic riding the later bike matches its predecessor in every way for probably half the price. So why do we hanker for the Z1? Because in its day we all wanted one, whereas the 1000 was seen as a disappointment – a slower, sanitised replacement for the bike that established Kawasaki’s four-stroke credentials.

And finally, how about the Norton Commando? Highly regarded from Bude to Scotland, but not by me I’m afraid. Having endured a traumatic summer of constant mechanical problems with a one-year-old, 3000 mile example back in the 1970s, I just can’t bring myself to buy another even after all this time!

Martyn Roberts, member 1546

As many will attest, I am no fan of Jap machinery. Never owned one. Haven’t needed to.

It was with wry amusement and distinctly remembering the period described in Paul Miles’‘The Last Battle’that I read the‘comparison evaluation’of the BSA triple and the Oriental interloper, knowing it would trot out the same old stuff. And it did.

If you’ve got this far, I anticipate some already risen hackles on many. If so, consider this: The Big Issue, for many, was the handling. An important facet of any performance motorcycle for sure and, I would suggest, what set the Rocket 3 apart from the CB750; in essence, the A75 Rocket 3 handled beautifully, the CB750 Honda did not. Anyone who rode both these motorcycles at the time immediately got it. ‘It handles beautifully’ the article states about the BSA. Quite. ‘The CB750 feels a little flustered by comparison.’ Oh come on, tell it how it is! ‘Flustered’? Yeah, right. The cycle part of [the] motorcycle is found a little wanting and ‘at higher speeds’ the Honda‘feels a bit flappy’. ‘Flappy’? What does that word mean? I’d use a different adjective. ‘A double cradle, vaguely featherbed-esque frame suggested handling confidence’ – suggested being the word! A featherbed did handle; the CB750 Honda did not.

Why is it that the BSA’s faults are laid bare but the Honda’s are glossed over? At least BSA did not feel the need to quote optimistic bhp figures.

When the sparkling plastic fantastics first appeared, sure they were fast. They were sophisticated, clean, oil tight, reliable, easy to prod (a button) into life. On the face of it then, ideal? Until, that is, corners and wet roads came into play. So much for the vaunted‘total approach to manufacture’.

In this supposed Last Battle, I notice that the Mk1 (not‘series 1’) Rocket 3’s lines and‘clashing angles’ are now apparently adopted by‘modern machine’designers. Why not state ‘BSA got it right. Right back in 1968?’ Hardly a last battle then, surely.

Oh, and the word ‘superbike’ was actually coined for the Triumph Trident and BSA Rocket 3.

Tony Page, member 7 Tony makes some interesting and, sadly, predictable points, coming as they do from somebody who was there at the time and yet doesn’t have time for Japanese machinery of any description. Me? I was too young to ride back then, so based my article on the bikes as I found them today. Both were as near stock condition as you’re likely to find and both sported modern rubber, a crucial difference from the period tests, especially with Japanese machinery.

I was writing from the perspective of a current rider using a classic motorcycle on a public road and there wasn’t enough of a difference between the handling of the two machines to raise one on a pedestal, while condemning the other to the gutter of sporting bikes. I seem to recall Tony once (still?) owned a special framed triple, perhaps a Rob North. Surely, if the stock British bike frame was so very much the superior of the Japanese machine, there would have been no need for such a product? Indeed, why did Mr Page feel it necessary to have one at all? The inferior-handling Honda also won the Daytona 200, I think, but I’m old, perhaps my memory is playing tricks.

If the Honda was so terrible in the all-important handling category, why did it manage to outsell the triples by a ratio of 75:1 and hasten the demise of the UK bike industry? Perhaps it was a combination of sublime engineering, reliability, performance and price, with acceptable handling once the owner had carried out the complicated task of adjusting the rear shock absorbers and changing the tyres for something not made from nylon. Bikes are allowed to be fun, after all and stiff set-ups don’t always gel with a classic rider on a classic motorcycle.

If the one-eyed critic allows himself the luxury of reading the whole article, I even go on record as saying that I’d prefer to own the BSA!

Old bikes, eh?

Paul Miles, member 2147