For those who like old Motorcycles.

[PatB]

Hopefully this may be of interest to you all.

My Triumph T100T Daytona the twin carb higher compression 500. This was my bike from 17 until I sold it in my late twenties. Now wish I hadn't now it was so much fun to ride.

 

 

IMG_20171027_214626.jpg

 

You'll notice that it has forks from a T140. The single leading shoe original was not really man enough to stop a 100+ mile a hour bike. This first was a bit hairy as it could lock up the front wheel. The 140 was heavier than the 500.

 

Nice. As well as The Amazing Brakeless Commando, MrsB had a 1966 T90 (with T100 top end conversion) when we got together and which I borrowed for a while when I was rewiring my Suzuki GSX550. Lovely little bike, although I was really a bit big for it, unit 350/500 Triumphs being the petite things that they are. Went very well as long as you were prepared to rev it hard and put up with the resulting vibration. I eventually realised that my eyeballs probably wouldn't fall out and started to regard the inability to hold a cigarette after a good thrash as being an aid to giving up rather than a problem . The big bolts holding the back half of the frame on had a distressing tendency to slacken off. Come to think of it, pretty much everything had a tendency to slacken off. Still loved it though. In its native habitat of winding B and unimproved A-roads I still haven't come across much that could touch it for sheer fun riding involvement.

[N15class]

Yes the 500 was petite, most of my mates etc had 250s from the land of the rising sun which were much bigger. As you say brilliant fun and the windier the road the better. Best bike I had, and I had about 20 British ones in all as they were cheep as chips.

It's one of two I which I still had. Rocker box covers, clutch, and scavenge pipe on mine were the most likely bits to come loose.

[Judge Dread]

Some time ago I posted here a photo of myself riding a Vincent Series D "Black Prince". The machine belonged to a friend of mine who asked me to look after it whilst he was in Germany with the R.E.M.E. He had explained that he could not get insurance and he wanted me to care for this machine for the next five years, "There are two catches" he said, "One, it's in pieces and two it's in Aldershot!". We where in Hull by the way. It took me two years to assemble this jigsaw puzzle with no picture but I did manage it and here I am on a carpark just across the road from my house.

 

As you can see from what was is not the greatest photo (taken by my 12 year old daughter) this machine has no fairings and so I suppose it's value would be reduced but that subject brings me to the reason of this second posting. I've just seen a for sale advert in a current motorcycle magazine for a Series D Vincent with fairings, at £113,000.

As we say in Yorkshire, "How Much?"

Edited October 30, 2017 by Judge Dread

[peter220950]

This 750 Suzuki was at a recent show I visited, it looked like the owner had more time on his hands than was good for his health! He reckoned he did actually use it on dry days, it having done 400 odd miles this year, though it then took another two days to clean when he came home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also mentioned that he believed it owed him around £16k at the moment, and that didn't include his time. Perhaps O gauge isn't that expensive.

 

Peter

[New Haven Neil]

Over restored.  They didn't come out of the factory like that, but it's his so he can do what he likes with it!

 

Illegal number plate and  a nice twin disc conversion on view too!

 

The comment a while about balancing a 50p on the Norton Rotary brought back a memory of doing that with a little Honda VT250 V twin - but you could rev it to 10,000 and it still didn't fall over.  Stunning little bike, I'd love another, but I weigh about twice what I did back then......may kill the performance rather!

[Coppercap]

Lots of "show ponies" go round many of the shows (in the back of a van or on a trailer) hoovering up the prizes, awarded by judges that like lots of bling, while others don't get a look in. Some of these bikes don't appear to do any more miles than the few to the MoT station and back each year ("used regularly" - yeah, like once a year.). Ones like that Suzy Kettle are in an over-restored condition, which, while all very pretty, isn't really representative of what they looked like even when new. Some owners get carried away on their projects. In reality Jap paint was thin, and only applied where it showed, and was often flaking off brand new bikes soon after they left the showroom. Chrome wasn't the triple layer "show chrome", just something that looked OK for a while, like until the first winter. Engine cases were rarely polished like that either. I can understand why owners don't want to use restored bikes like this if they've spent so much money on them ("It'll deteriorate it.") but if they don't get used they are just ornaments, not motorcycles. I'm in a couple of bike clubs, and this isn't just my personal opinion - there's quite a lot of others think this way too.

It's a bit like finishing your GWR 61XX fully lined, with polished cylinder covers, rods, wheel centres and rims, black paint all shiny, polished cab beading and buffers etc - not really representative of what they were really like.

[Coppercap]

Over restored. They didn't come out of the factory like that, but it's his so he can do what he likes with it!

 

Illegal number plate and a nice twin disc conversion on view too!

 

The comment a while about balancing a 50p on the Norton Rotary brought back a memory of doing that with a little Honda VT250 V twin - but you could rev it to 10,000 and it still didn't fall over. Stunning little bike, I'd love another, but I weigh about twice what I did back then......may kill the performance rather!

If you mean the numberplate is illegal because it's silver on black - over 40-year old vehicles can now be re-registered as historic and then qualify for nil road tax and also 'black and white' numberplates. They also (most, but not all) qualify for not requiring an MoT test. Edited October 28, 2017 by Coppercap

[BernardTPM]

Worse than illegal - they're anachronistic! Makes rivet counters foam at the mouth

Edited October 29, 2017 by BernardTPM

[New Haven Neil]

If you mean the numberplate is illegal because it's silver on black - over 40-year old vehicles can now be re-registered as historic and then qualify for nil road tax and also 'black and white' numberplates. They also (most, but not all) qualify for not requiring an MoT test.

 

Didn't know that - but I don't live in the UK now!  Used to be 1972.  We can have black plates from 1990, but it's hell getting the manufacturers to believe us!

[peter220950]

It seems to be an obsession about cleaning, rather than restoration, the bolts had all been replaced with highly polished stainless rather than chrome, but it was shiny!

 

There were some proper bikes there as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As well as a couple that just needed that bit of TLC

 

 

 

Not really sure if these two fit in this thread or not,

 

 

 

 

 

Peter

[Coppercap]

Worse than illegal - they're anachronistic! Makles rivet counters foam at the mouth

Legal and anachronistic. It looks all wrong and a P-reg bike could not have had one from new. Mind, the people with more money than sense on their brand new Hardly-Ablesons seem to get away with having illegal silver on black plates - but then they've probably only put them on because they can polish up the shiny bits.

[The Blue Streak]

Peter, thanks for showing us those, a nice cross selection on show. From old Ariels to 2 stroke 500 Yamahas (I would have killed for one of those or the RG 500 Suzuki in my youth, but it's very probable the bikes would may well have killed Me with their lightswitch power delivery )

 

I did have a little Froth over the Norton's, I have always had a soft spot for them despite their shortcomings (We liked to describe it as charm).

 

As for the Suzi 750, I for one can appreciate the idea that it may be over restored in the eyes of Many. It may have well transcended the functional and become a piece of Art. Personally I would rather ride it regularly and once you get to the stage that it looks like that, you'd be terrified of putting a Mark on it.

 

I have to admit that it sure is pretty and I can Appreciate the work that has gone into it, a real labour of love. It's a bit like Model trains, if we all followed the same path, it would be a very boring hobby

 

Cheers Gents, have a good Sunday !

[sandwich station]

it having done 400 odd miles this year,

 

Does a 2 stroke no good to be sitting around and not ridden and how come he's got a black number plate? I think the last registration that you can use then is K or L, certainly not P.

[PatB]

It's a bit odd looking at that Kettle. Back in the not-so-very-long-ago when I started riding, 70s Japanese bikes in general were mostly just cheap hacks, and 2-strokes in particular could often be had for the value of the fuel in the tank and the remaining road tax. Well, maybe not quite, but, unless you wanted something like a shiny Z1, it was a cheapish way of going quite fast.

 

And, of course, there were the legions of tiddlers. My mind, frankly, boggles to see the amount of money and effort poured into ghastly things like Yamaha YB100s, Suzuki GP100s, assorted small Hondas and the like to make them shiny again. Sure, they were useful and fun in their day but, in any objective sense, they were a bit rubbish really, with all the faults attributed to them by Coppercap and a few more besides. I suppose their main (not inconsiderable) virtues were that they were neither BSA Bantams nor Villiers powered .

[sandwich station]

It's a bit odd looking at that Kettle. Back in the not-so-very-long-ago when I started riding, 70s Japanese bikes in general were mostly just cheap hacks, and 2-strokes in particular could often be had for the value of the fuel in the tank and the remaining road tax. Well, maybe not quite, but, unless you wanted something like a shiny Z1, it was a cheapish way of going quite fast.

 

And, of course, there were the legions of tiddlers. My mind, frankly, boggles to see the amount of money and effort poured into ghastly things like Yamaha YB100s, Suzuki GP100s, assorted small Hondas and the like to make them shiny again. Sure, they were useful and fun in their day but, in any objective sense, they were a bit rubbish really, with all the faults attributed to them by Coppercap and a few more besides. I suppose their main (not inconsiderable) virtues were that they were neither BSA Bantams nor Villiers powered .

 

Well I think that comes down to the individual really, if they had one when they were younger, then I see no problems with them spending money on a restoration.

 

 I don't seem to remember the Jap bikes being that much of a problem doing the 70's. If anything it was the British bikes that were troublesome, or at least what was left of them.

[Coppercap]

Does a 2 stroke no good to be sitting around and not ridden and how come he's got a black number plate? I think the last registration that you can use then is K or L, certainly not P.

See my post #132

[sandwich station]

See my post #132

 

That's a stupid law if correct.

[Coppercap]

See my post #132

That's a stupid law if correct.

Do you think I'm making it up then? There had been lots of discussion on it before the laws were changed a month or so ago. Previously, pre-1960 vehicles no longer required an MoT test. Edited October 29, 2017 by Coppercap

[rockershovel]

My understanding https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles http://www.historicvehicles.org.uk/hvg3.php is that vehicles constructed or registered before 31/12/76 are now exempt from MoT, and that this is a “rolling” 40 year exemption which will move forward annually along the same lines as the 25 year Road Tax exemption Check the DVLA website on New Years Day, I suppose.

 

So now I don’t need an MoT for this

 

 

1976 1000cc Sportster, which is just as well really considering its somewhat notional brakes...

[rockershovel]

Regarding number plates on restored machines, I notice that many restorers dispense with the old “bacon slicer” front number plates, which were no longer required from about 1975?

 

Present regs appear to be that they are optional on pre-2001 machines only https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/rules-number-plates

 

I can’t find anything which says that old-style Silver-on-Black plates are legal, although I’ve seen a number of restored machines so fitted and no one seems to worry about it. Like those modern machines with number plates hidden under the seat...

[Dunsignalling]

Regarding number plates on restored machines, I notice that many restorers dispense with the old “bacon slicer” front number plates, which were no longer required from about 1975?

 

Present regs appear to be that they are optional on pre-2001 machines only https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/rules-number-plates

 

I can’t find anything which says that old-style Silver-on-Black plates are legal, although I’ve seen a number of restored machines so fitted and no one seems to worry about it. Like those modern machines with number plates hidden under the seat...

AFAIK silver-on-black plates are only legal on vehicles registered up to the end of 1972, so anything after an 'L' reg. isn't kosher.

 

Not quite sure how that applies to older machines re-registered later than that on "age related" plates, though. Presumably you can't tell.

 

John

Edited October 29, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[New Haven Neil]

AFAIK silver-on-black plates are only legal on vehicles registered up to the end of 1972, so anything after an 'L' reg. isn't kosher.

 

Not quite sure how that applies to older machines re-registered later than that on "age related" plates, though. Presumably you can't tell.

 

John

 

IIRC you can't make a vehicle appear 'newer' on a more recent registration?  The black plates query was answered earlier after  queried it too.

[rockershovel]

I would assume that granting an age-related plate constituted official recognition of the age of the vehicle? The wording is “constructed, or first registered” which are two different things.

 

That said, the DVLA aren’t particularly consistent about awarding age-related numbers. That blue Sportster has an N registration, which is 1974, and it definitely isn’t a 1974 model (1976 engine and frame numbers and the very distinctive, short-lived “crossover” gearchange). Perhaps N was the nearest year available, because giving it a later 1977 reg would certainly contradict the requirement that a vehicle not appear newer.

 

There’s a Harley WLC round our way that was first registered in the late 1980s, having been imported from Eastern Europe. It has an age-related number and old-style number plates, and has been regularly MoT’d and ridden in that form for many years.

Edited October 29, 2017 by rockershovel

[PatB]

I've no problem in principle with anyone restoring rubbish. I'm just puzzled as to why, when a similar amount of time and effort could deliver a similar result on something half decent. Japanese tiddlers aren't/weren't rubbish because they were Japanese but because they were cheap bikes cheaply built from cheap materials. Like every small/commuter bike since the beginning of time regardless of origin. The Japanese, however, were such good engineers that they could get away with shaving material quality and quantity to the bone and still sell a bike which worked for long enough. Their big bikes were by no means immune from this either, but it seemed less universal.

[rockershovel]

I've no problem in principle with anyone restoring rubbish. I'm just puzzled as to why, when a similar amount of time and effort could deliver a similar result on something half decent. Japanese tiddlers aren't/weren't rubbish because they were Japanese but because they were cheap bikes cheaply built from cheap materials. Like every small/commuter bike since the beginning of time regardless of origin. The Japanese, however, were such good engineers that they could get away with shaving material quality and quantity to the bone and still sell a bike which worked for long enough. Their big bikes were by no means immune from this either, but it seemed less universal.

The dear old Bantam was only any good because the Germans designed the original bike! Looking at what the Czechs and East Germans developed from the same beginnings, it’s hard to feel that BSA ever really cared about the later versions.

 

The BSA C15 was a really good bike in its day, they are STILL occasionally seen on the Grasstrack scene and have loyal followings in pre-75 Grasstrack, pre-65 mx and classic trials.

 

But by the early 60s, they were simply not good enough. BSA disposed of their trusty A7 and A10 models and built the troublesome A50 and A65, then Kawasaki showed what the A10 Gold Flash COULD have been... I was always a fan of the A10 650cc, much better handling than the Triumph Twins with its all-welded, double-loop frame (although the forks weren’t much good)