|
Nearly every Harley-Davidson which passes me at close quarters has a loud crackly exhaust note. Do they conform to UK noise regulations?
|
Its normal for many HD owners to fit a loud pipe, and keep the legal one for their MOT. They can be in trouble if pulled over by police.
Even with the standard exhaust they're pretty noisy - part of the characteristic of such huge V-twins.
|
It's the sound of Heaven, just like a V8 Scania ticking over ready to roll:)
Just enjoy it!
Pat
|
I also enjoy it (but don't own one).
PS. I seem to recall the 'potato potato potato' sound is trademarked
|
Bit like the old Vincents, it fires once at every telegraph pole:)
Pat
|
I've never heard a Vincent that sounded like a HD. Thank heavens.
|
I didn't say it did, I was describing the slow, thudding sound in a way other bikers understand.
Pat
|
A mate of mine at work who's been a a biker all his life doesn't like Harleys, due to their build quality and over inflated price. He's got a Suzuki Intruder thats sounds good with an aftermarket exhaust, but it doesn't have that lovely off beat sound of a Harley, which he explained was due to the firing order, and Harley have a 'patent' on it, no other manufacturers can use it. Is this right, any bikers out there?
Theres one that goes past at work. It's loud, and when he backs off, there's a lovely whistle, sounds like modified induction. Great bike.
Last edited by: corax on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 10:54
|
|
At least the Vincent can shift - not like HDs which seem to plod:) Perhaps thats what thy're designed for. tinyurl.com/32vjywr
|
>>I was describing the slow, thudding sound in a way other bikers understand.<<
Just to set the record straight - I was 'another biker', although not now, more's the pity.
And I fully understand the impression of slow revving, having been on the pillion of a Vincent Black Shadow at an indicated 120mph (how many others here can say that?) when, indeed, all I could hear from the bike was the rear cylinder. NTV 761, where are you now? Actually, I've just answered my own question - I looked on the DVLA database and it's still there! First registered 1951, last on the road, apparently, 1997. And - surprise, surprise - it's still black!
|
>> Bit like the old Vincents, it fires once at every telegraph pole:)
>>
I think you'll find that was the Panther - it had a single cylinder long stroke engine.
It wasn't particularly fast but developed a lot of torque and was popular among sidecar enthusiasts.
|
|
In an emperor's clothes moment, British bikes were rubbish. The industry deserved all it got. (Modern Triumphs are not included in this truism)
|
>> In an emperor's clothes moment, British bikes were rubbish.
The problem was that they were made in the old days (your point about "Modern Triumphs"), so weren't technologically advanced - the technologh wasn't available for the price; there was no very significant advance by manufacturers for *ages*; this complacency allowed their demise; by the time they were second-hand and a bit, they'd been abused by greebos bashing screwdrivers in between gasket faces, etc.; lots of things. *Worldwide* - we didn't have a monopoly on it - there was rubbish produced, until when - the early '60s? Then that was that for much if not all of British motorcycle production.
|
|
You're right and the wonderfully innovative Japanese came along.
|
|
OK. What was their major advance in engine design?
|
|
Reliability and oil tight engines.
|
|
Reliability and oil tight engines are consequences of the design advance (that and the lack of abuse by (most) greebos who were scared of touching them) - but what was the advance? Anyone?
|
|
That was enough FT in the end the consumers voted with their feet and bought into the Japanese experience - Bikes that could stand all winter and start in the spring with no prep above an oil check. BIkes that would run faultlessly and actually evolved year on model year instead of standing stagnating and trying to cash in on a glorious past. Bikes that used properly designed components and if there was a design flaw there was a fix and a re-design. British bikes were poorly designed, developed and produced.
|
>>but what was the advance? Anyone?>>
Advanced, or at least in comparison to the brits contemporary, design, tighter manufacturing tolerances, better integration of components, excellent production QC ... ...
|
|
You seem to mistake my comments on design for statements that "British bikes are best". I have not heard such stuff in a couple of decades. So you don't know either?
|
>> British bikes were poorly designed, developed and produced.
I'll take that as an "I don't know", then. Rather a facile comment, anyway - a bit like saying "What's best, a Mazda Carol or a new Vauxhall Astra?".
|
Well I do know - I know I wouldn't have touched British bikes of that era with a barge pole - because they were badly built, stuck in the past design wise - whereas a similar aged Honda was properly put together and was continually modified until they got better. When I started with bikes in the 80s you had choices, choose a communist built Triumph Bonneville which was a primitive,badly built heap of crap - granted it was lighter than any Japanese equivalent thus a comfort to you when you had to push it home or buy a Honda 750 which worked out of the box and carried on working without having to tinker with it. My last Japanese bike could be parked in the garage come the winter and happily re-start with no fuss come the spring.....
The lights went off in every British bike factory one by one.......why because the Germans and the Japanese and God help us the Italians were building better made and designed machines. It's only when Hinkley Triumphs came along with modern work processes, design principles and properly made components that they became world class - and finally, finally they have now got a model I would jump ship for - and from conversations I have with friends I'm not the only one.
Why did the Japanese dominate the motorcycling world ? Simple because they built properly made, properly designed machinery and they were better than us - can you ever imagine a British company managing to make a Honda C90 and then manage to sell them and support them - people didn't buy them because they had an evocative name or history they bought them because they worked......
|
|
So FT - turning this argument on its head - tell me of one motorcycle made in Britain (except the non Meriden Triumphs) that would have sold across the world based on engineering and build quality ? I repeat my assertion - up until the latest Triumphs British bikes were badly made rubbish and the world was no poorer for losing them.
|
The Japanese gave us electric starters as standard equipment. When Norton reluctantly decided they had better copy them in a vain attempt to stay afloat they put one on the Commando. It was so pathetic the bike still had to be kicked into life when cold, the starter wouldn't do it.
And in my book an engine that would run without shaking your fillings out is a technological advance.
|
|
Are you saying that the major advance in engine design brought about by the Japanese was the introduction of the starter motor? The starter motor is not part of engine design, it's an adjunct to it.
|
I think the design of the British bikes was just about OK, but the execution was dreadful.
The Japanese bikes we saw here in the late 60s and early 70s were not particularly technologically advanced, but they worked well.
Gaskets are a good example, I doubt the Japanese ones were more advanced then ours, but theirs were oil-tight and ours leaked.
Robin mentioned self-starters.
The Japanese ones worked and were fitted to larger and smaller capacity bikes.
The British ones barely worked and were fitted only as an extra to big bikes.
And the Honda 90 step-through - they conquered the world with that.
|
>> Gaskets are a good example, I doubt the Japanese ones were more advanced then ours,
>> but theirs were oil-tight and ours leaked.
"Gaskets" themselves were similar - however, with your comment here you are getting close to the important engine design advance alluded to. Well done! Keep going?
|
>> So FT - turning this argument on its head - tell me of one motorcycle
>> made in Britain (except the non Meriden Triumphs) that would have sold across the world
>> based on engineering and build quality ? I repeat my assertion - up until the
>> latest Triumphs British bikes were badly made rubbish and the world was no poorer for
>> losing them.
You've repeatedly missed the point made in my psot of Thu 2 Dec 10 13:39.
If you want to hear about "one motorcycle made in Britain hat would have sold across the world based on engineering and build quality", you could pick several that actually *did* sell, and sell very well - Nortons, Triumphs, and BSAs leading a huge export market - I think it motorcycles were the third-largest export market we had, although I may be (slightly) corrected. However, that was in the early '50s.
Your "assertion" that "up until the latest Triumphs British bikes were badly made rubbish and the world was no poorer for losing them" is drivel - unless, as I suspect, you are trying to compare antiquated machines with more modern designs on a 1:1 basis, which is patently daft.
|
Nortons, Triumphs, and BSAs leading a huge export market - I think it motorcycles were the third-largest export market we had, although I may be (slightly) corrected. However, that was in the early '50s.
Exactly FT - but they got stuck in the fifties and that was the whole problem - they failed to capitalise on their success by peddling the same junk trading on past glories.
Why is my assertion drivel - it was exactly what happened - the Japanese bought out decently made bikes that the British had no hope of competing with. Have you ever ridden a British bike from that era ?
|
>> Why is my assertion drivel
Because you say in one breath that British motorcycles of that era were badly made rubbish, and yet admit that they were sold in huge amounts in the domestic and export markets.
You cannot compare machinery as you are comparing it - or, if you *can*, then my previous mention of comparing of a Mazda Carol to a new Vauxhall Astra is valid - which it is certainly *not*!
|
nd yet admit that they were sold in huge amounts in the domestic and export markets.
In the the fifties yes - why was that ? - because Germany and Japan's infrastructure wasn't in a position to compete - they had been bombed to smithereens in the 40s. Britain's infrastructure wasn't damaged to anywhere near the same degree, but despite the head-start the UK had we still failed to capitalise on it. By 1969 when the CB750 was first imported, they had a chance to emulate and copy (just like the Japanese did in the fifties and sixties) but no, we produced outdated rubbish which eventually no-one wanted in any market including the UK's. By the mid-seventies when the CB250 and the 400/4 came to the UK - it was without huge investment too late - by the time I took to bikes British built bikes were a very sad shadow of what they used to be....I remember going to a multi-franchise dealer, he had rows of unsold Bonnevilles rusting and dripping oil - and these were the new ones. The last Triumphs were the best we could do but no-one wanted them. Japanese could build oil-tight reliable motors that could run in the dark and rain with no ill-effects, try doing that on a British 1970s bike if you could find one !
|
|
Have you ever ridden a British bike FT ?
|
...that could run in the dark and rain with no ill-effects...
And that was another thing, 12 volt electrics with lights that did more than glow in the dark.
|
>> >> Why is my assertion drivel
>>
>> Because you say in one breath that British motorcycles of that era were badly made
>> rubbish, and yet admit that they were sold in huge amounts in the domestic and
>> export markets.
They sold in huge amounts because there wasn't anything better at the time was there? They had a large share of the market. People were willing to put up with oil leaks because they wanted to 'hit the road', and have fun in the fifties. But they didn't develop and improve to keep their market position.
|
>>
>> They sold in huge amounts because there wasn't anything better at the time was
>> there?
>>
Exactly.
In fact there was very little competition there at all. As soon as people had a choice British bikes were dumped virtually overnight.
And as for starters being a technological advance, it doesn't matter how many decades they had previously been around for, if they had not been used on motorcycles then fitting them was a technological advance.
|
....and of top of that fitting one that actually works every time without having to thrash it with a spanner was progress.
Just thinking about this after the last exchange - we have a Kawasaki ER6-F in the garage - it's a test passing/pottering for me and the missus - A 650cc parallel twin - exactly what the British bike industry could have produced if they had had the ability. Technologically adept and above all reliable....if only that had a BSA badge on it eh ?
|
|
PU, with all due respect, your start in motorcycling in the 80's, was 20-25 years after the heyday of British bikes. I'd not expect oil tightness from a 25 year old Lexus, never mind a simple, cheap form of transport. So, your thesis that all British bikes were of poor quality is based on neglected and mangled examples. Japanese machines were better in some ways, especially their engines, but not in all ways. Handling especially. Honda apart, they also tended to suffer from lack of durability in the finish: chrome of the peeling variety, frame paint flashed on to steel. But then, they weren't meant to be long-lived. As for parallel twins, the Kawasaki W650 twin is being replaced by an 800cc version. Apart from NSU inspired camshaft drive (nice!) and the balancer shaft, it's very much in the mould of older British twins. Light, not warp-speed capability, flickable. Shame Lanchesters idea was never picked up by British bike makers, but some preferred to spend "their" money on gold Rolls Royces. Rather similar to the Freds of this financial paradise and bonus culture:)
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 20:28
|
|
The industry destroyed itself in the 60s and 70s - I can't comment on non Honda products as that was my preferred brand in through the 80s to the late nineties and then went to a workhorse Kawasaki which was well built in a different way to the Hondas I knew - I totally agree with your first sentence but the industry could not get away with selling that stuff in the early seventies - it was over (well at least until John Bloor re-invented it)....I can still see that awful new Bonneville - it may have handled better than any Japanese bike, but that was no comfort.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 20:50
|
The biggest market in motorcycles in the early 1960's wasn't the Vincents and Gold Stars; it was the cheap ride-to-work hacks like the BSA Bantam. That's where the Japanese scored, with the introduction of the Honda 50. Quiet, easy to start and ride, durable, and reasonably cheap. No more fiddling with two-stroke oil, due to the four-stroke engine; horizontally split crankcases reduced oil leaks. Indicators as standard, and furthermore the lights actually worked. Keep it for ten years, throw it away and buy a new one; the difference being that whilst the rest of the bike might have been clapped out the engine would continue to run.
Once they'd conquered that market, the rest was a doddle.
I appreciate Norton ES2's comments about older Brit bikes not being a satisfactory yardstick, but for many years I ran older Japanese bikes of similar vintage as hacks, mainly Honda CD175's. They were virtually indestructible, something even the most die-hard Brit-bike fan could not say of the Triumph 3TA, an example of which I owned at the same time, and which in terms of performance and braking, if not handling, was pretty similar.
Interesting to note that John Bloor used Japanese manufacturing methods and technology when he set up the new Triumph factory. And there was one other thing the Japanese didn't have to contend with of course; Tony Benn!
|
|
Exactly - Bloor wasn't too proud to copy, which is what Honda and the others did. The new Triumph Tiger is a coming of age bike, totally modern and very, very competitive and linked to a "heritage" name which still counts (despite best efforts to wreck it). I've always known they were good and now I actually want one.....We not only destroyed our own industry but we took an American brand with us....
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 21:23
|
|
The Honda Cub referred to by Harleyman is, in it's 50, 70 and 90cc guises the best selling motor vehicle of all time.
|
|
There were a load of these Honda step throughs in Greece this summer - I did fantasise about buying one an riding it home....would have been quite happy to do it as well on a 90 - oil change, check the tyres and chain and away, not many bikes that you'd trust to do that on..
|
|
Excellent machines, especially compared with the likes of the Ariel Pixie and BSA Beagle, which I confess to have tried, in their so-called prime. The Honda was vastly better, even though it was a drippy "step-thru". I agree the British industry went to pieces and deservedly so, but it wasn't technology lack as such. More lack of capital, drive and overall direction. The Japanese economy was more highly geared - they took far greater risks and were and are heavily indebted. But strangely they relied on UK technology for some things - measuring (bore honing etc) instruments were UK made by Taylor Hobson. So, it's not that the UK couldn't, more they couldn't see the need. The Govt gave little lead, unlike Japan where Govt., financiers and industry shared goals. But then they had a recent defeat, whereas we thought we'd won the war. Resting on laurels is perhaps the epitaph for the UK bike industry.
|
whereas we thought we'd won the war. Resting on laurels is perhaps the epitaph for the UK bike industry.
We turned down the opportunity to "own" V/W after the war, the bloke from BMC said it would never catch on - you either cry or laugh don't you ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 22:14
|
Going back to the subject of Harleys having loud exhaust notes; there is no longer a definitve noise level for a motorcycle (or as far as I know any other) MOT test, at least in terms of a finite decibel limit.
Below is the reason for rejection, from the VOSA manual;
"A silencer that is in such a condition or is of such a type that the noise emitted is clearly in excess of that which would be produced by a similar machine fitted with a standard silencer in average condition."
Obviously this gives the tester a reasonable amount of leeway in deciding what is and is not acceptable. The tester is permitted to add an advisory to the effect that the pipes are loud, but may still pass them if the rest of the system is in good order. It follows that one has to be selective when choosing ones MOT tester! ;-)
It should be noted that stock H-D systems are designed to comply with noise regulations worldwide, including many countries where noise limits are even stricter than ours. They also have the effect of strangling engine output to what many riders consider is an unnecessary degree.
As an aside, when I asked a local MOT tester for his opinion on louder aftermarket pipes for H-D's, his reply was, "Compulsory!" You will not be surprised to know that he owns one.
|
|
89db at the ride past I think I read somewhere.
|
>> 89db at the ride past I think I read somewhere.
>>
Think you'll find that's in C & U regulations, it's not to be found in the MOT manual.
|
>> PU, with all due respect, your start in motorcycling in the 80's, was 20-25 years
>> after the heyday of British bikes. I'd not expect oil tightness from a 25 year
>> old Lexus, never mind a simple, cheap form of transport. So, your thesis that all
>> British bikes were of poor quality is based on neglected and mangled examples.
This is, to some small extent, my point, which has given PU and others a "Whoosh!". Perhaps someone would think about my point of comparing an old Japanese car with a modern Euro one. There's actually no comparison. That's the point. They can't be compared because they are decades apart in time. To say that all out-of-date machinery is/was "crap" is stupididy.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 22:04
|
Perhaps someone would think about my point of comparing an old Japanese car with
>> a modern Euro one. There's actually no comparison. That's the point. They can't be compared
>> because they are decades apart in time. To say that all out-of-date machinery is/was "crap"
>> is stupididy.
>>
To an extent, the comparison which you describe IS a valid one, because there can be no doubt that Japanese manufacturing processes begat the reliable European cars which we take for granted today.
Even given their recent troubles, many people still view Toyota as the epitome of reliable motoring; Honda perhaps even more so.
|
>> >> Perhaps someone would think about my point of comparing an old Japanese car
>> >> with a modern Euro one. There's actually no comparison. That's the point. They
>> >> can't be compared because they are decades apart in time. To say that all
>> >> out-of-date machinery is/was "crap" is stupididy.
>>
>> To an extent, the comparison which you describe IS a valid one, because there can
>> be no doubt that Japanese manufacturing processes begat the reliable European cars
>> which we take for granted today.
So what? That does not address the point that PU said older things are "crap". I assume you have a Harley Davidson machine, which probably based on an old design. Do you agree it's fair to say it's "crap"? In this context you should, should you not!
|
>>
>> So what? That does not address the point that PU said older things are "crap".
>> I assume you have a Harley Davidson machine, which probably based on an old design.
>> Do you agree it's fair to say it's "crap"? In this context you should, should
>> you not!
>>
I am fortunate enough to own two Harley Sportsters; one a 1972 model, the other made in 2005. Whilst there are very few parts which inter-fit, the styling and performance are remarkably similar; see pic below.
tinyurl.com/ygby5mk
In terms of handling, braking, overall reliability, ease of starting and long-distance comfort, the newer model wins hands down. In terms of sheer balls-out thrills, acceleration at traffic light GP's, noise, styling, fun and that indefinable quality of a good motorcycle, "soul", give me the old 'un any day.
But neither of them are crap. It's not as clear-cut as either you or PU think.
|
|
But Harley D had its share of problems the later/latest bikes are far far better than the bad old days of AMC both in build quality and engineering aren't they ?
|
>> But Harley D had its share of problems the later/latest bikes are far far better
>> than the bad old days of AMC both in build quality and engineering aren't they?
You are, *again*, trying to compare things which are around 50 years apart!
Do you say that a '50s XK120 is "crap" compared to a new XK-something? I shall be interested to hear.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Thu 2 Dec 10 at 22:48
|
>> You are, *again*, trying to compare things which are around 50 years apart!
Its valid to compare things that are time distanced, sometimes the lack of progress is sufficient to warrant the term crap
|
>> But Harley D had its share of problems the later/latest bikes are far far better
>> than the bad old days of AMC both in build quality and engineering aren't they
>> ?
>>
I think you mean AMF (American Metal & Foundries) who owned H-D from the early 1960's through till 1985, when the management bought it back.
To answer your question, yes and no. Most of the problems from AMF days stemmed from poor quality control, combined with a restless and dissatisfied workforce and an outdated product line-up; very similar in fact to the American automotve industry, and of our own Britsh Leyland, of the same mid-1970's period. Most of them will have had the faults rebuilt out of them by now; I've owned at least five AMF Harleys over the last 20 years, and never had a problem with one.
The Evolution engine of 1985 is credited with saving the company; it was modern enough to be reliable and oil-tight, whilst still keeping the character of the old bikes. In 1999 H-D brought out the Twin-Cam, which is a much more "modern" design with balancer shafts and associated gubbins, which whilst reliable has not proved to be as durable, or rebuildable, in the long term, as its predecessor. It also revs higher, and lacks that "soul" which I described earlier. There have been issues with build quality in recent years, notably paint, chrome and bearings. IMO, modern Harleys are built down to a price rather than up to a standard. My current Sportster will probably be the most modern one I will ever buy; later ones have EFI and associated rubbish which make it impossible for me to work on them.
|
>> IMO, modern Harleys are built down to a price rather
>> than up to a standard.
Jeez, I'd hate to see the quality of a Harley built at a reasonable price then :-)
|
|
Well I see your point. I'll compromise at them being mainly crap :-) ! I really wanted a Bonneville in the 80s, I knew it had a pedigree, I knew it was lighter than the equivalent Japanese (say a CB750), I knew it handled better than a Honda - but I needed a bike I could ride without wondering whether it would start in the morning every morning because for a couple of years a bike was my sole means of transport and the only way I could guarantee that was to buy a Honda.... sadly I wasn't the only one...
|
>> >> >> Why is my assertion drivel
>> >>
>> >> Because you say in one breath that British motorcycles of that era were badly
>> >> made rubbish, and yet admit that they were sold in huge amounts in the
>> >> domestic and export markets.
>>
>> They sold in huge amounts because there wasn't anything better at the time was
>> there?
Thank you for that. You're right. So, as time goes on, better things arrive. Blindingly obvious, but not to some. Perhaps we should go back even further, and compare a flint knife with a bronze one with one of iron, to labour the point. These things are also far apart in terms of time and utility. I'm sure that you can think of others.
|
>> >> >> Because you say in one breath that British motorcycles of that era were
>> badly
>> >> >> made rubbish, and yet admit that they were sold in huge amounts in
>> the
>> >> >> domestic and export markets.
>> >>
>> >> They sold in huge amounts because there wasn't anything better at the time was
>> >> there?
It's also worth consdidering that British manufacturing during the 1950's was skewed towards export, and I think I'm right in saying that import tariffs were imposed upon foreign manchinery, which made them expensive for the average consumer. I remember reading a road test of an early Sportster which stated that it was considerably more expensive than comparable British bikes; nowadays, a "basic" 883 Sporty retails at £6,390, whilst the Triumph America, roughly similar in capacity, retails at £6599.
|
|
You're right....I have to say a I'd be tempted with an America as well. All in all Triumph have some damned attractive bikes - even the current Bonnerville...! ;-)
|
>> Have you ever ridden a British bike from that era ?
I have, even now, spent more years on a motorbike than I have in a car. I've had quite a number of old British machines, going back to the '30s in origin up until the late '60s, and quite a number of newer non-British ones. I stopped riding motorbikes about 12 years ago. I've still got a few, though.
|
|
Have you ridden one and a similar contemporary Japanese bike ?
|
Harley-Davidsons' loud exhaust note - Tigger
