Retro Bikes vs. The Real Deal

thenewcamus · Post by **thenewcamus** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:07 am

I'm just curious what everyones take is on all these retro bikes which seem to be getting more and more popular to produce? I have been thinking for a long time about picking up an old Euro bike ('50's - '70's BMW, Triumph or Ducati). I love the cafe style of the period, long tank low bars etc. My problem is: for the most part the originals are going for $5k to $10k depending on the specific model, and these new reproductions can be had for $8k to $12k. I'm torn, I would love to be part of the real vintage community and I genuinely enjoy working on bikes, but I doubt my abilities with some things, namely old euro electrical systems.

Should I buckle down and get what I really want and learn as I go along?

Or pick up another daily rider that I can easily care and feed?

[/img]

hirsty · Post by **hirsty** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:38 am

Same dilemma myself - I've been following all the cheap 70's Boxers on eBay UK for some time, and have recently been swayed by the Mk1 Moto Guzzi Le Mans 850... I'd like to get a grotty but running R-bike back up to scratch, or perhaps cafe-racer.

I previously had a '77 Goldwing GL1000 which I was never able to get running exactly right - it's frustrating (and can be expensive) but I really enjoyed making incremental improvements to it's running, whilst keeping it as original as possible.

I guess that if you have the space, budget, time to play with it & a modern bike on standby then you should go for it - if you're not able to get a spare part, or run out of weekend to fix something, then you're not bikeless.

Of the new retros, I've not ridden the Ducatis but they get great write-ups. I like the Triumph styling, but they're not powerful enough IMO - if you're going to go slow, may as well get a Royal Enfield (which are cheap too!) and do it properly...

Post by **iowabeakster** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:20 pm

I previously had a '77 Goldwing GL1000 which I was never able to get running exactly right - it's frustrating (and can be expensive) but I really enjoyed making incremental improvements to it's running, whilst keeping it as original as possible.

I just had to respond to this. This is describes my brother. Except he has a '75 Wing. Had it about 13 years. I put more miles on my R in one month than he has in put on his Wing in 13 years. Now he has his license again, I may soon have to make good on my promise to synch those carbs. The way that thing runs...I am not looking forward to it.

My 2 cents: If you want to play in the garage, get an old one. If you want to play on the road, get a new one.

Post by **jb44** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:54 pm

I agree with the advice of getting a new retro bike if you want to ride it regularly, an old one if you want to work on it.

Last month I test rode a new Triumph Bonneville T100 at the Honda Hoot. I liked it a lot. But then, I'm a slow, sight-seein' type of rider, not a road racer type.

Triumph recently increased the Bonnevilles's displacement to 865 cc. Still not comparable to the 1150R, but adequate.

jb

Arbee · Post by **Arbee** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:51 am

Kawasaki W650
New bike with old looks

hirsty · Post by **hirsty** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:27 am

iowabeakster wrote:... I may soon have to make good on my promise to synch those carbs. The way that thing runs...I am not looking forward to it.

My 2 cents: If you want to play in the garage, get an old one. If you want to play on the road, get a new one.

(you do know they have FOUR carbs to sync yeah?...)

Excellent! Glad it's not just me then... Mine had only 13K miles on it from new, and wasn't a bad bike at all (I'd wanted one since the guy over the road had one whilst I was a kid).

It didn't run right from the initial trip home on it, and sent me on a wild goose chase thru the carbs, coils, loom etc etc. As it was only running on the front pair of cylinders, it chucked so much unburned fuel out the back onto my drive that it killed a small tree that winter.

Got it fixed in the end, with some hands-on help from the owners club tech secretary, but only had a couple of rides out before I sold it on eBay to a Brit who was flying home from Greece and riding it back there! My R is the closest modern equivalent, and we get on much better overall.

See also: http://www.randakks.com/TechTips.htm#A

hirsty · Post by **hirsty** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:39 am

Josh - what is the silvery bike of the pair at the bottom of your opening post please?

I'd guess it's a modern Triumph Bonneville, but the back end looks a lot more 'sexy' than they do in the UK. It's probably indicators / wheels / exhaust / seat, lack of mudguard etc.

thenewcamus · Post by **thenewcamus** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:21 pm

I'm not sure actually, I pulled that pic off Google Images, but my guess is it's a new Bonnie with a custom brushed metal tank. We cant get that stock here in the colonies either.

ken k · Post by **ken k** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:39 pm

I love the new retro-styled Ducati GT 1000, especially the black and cream two-tone.

http://www.ducati.com/en/bikes/my2007/M ... CGT1000-07

ken k

earlier this summer a guy down the road was selling a Triumph Spitfire roadster (car not motorcycle). I researched them a bit and on the Triumph club website they said when you buy one of these old triumphs, you are not buying a car but rather a hobby. I would guess that the same goes for an old bike as well.

Brownw3 · Post by **Brownw3** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:16 am

Vintage bikes require huge amounts of care and feeding. If you think the price of a vintage bike is bad, wait until you start wanting that rebuilt tach or something. Ka-Ching. Bottom line is they require a real committment from owners.

On the other hand, you can get a triumph Thruxton or one of those righteous Ducatis and have a cool motorcycle, complete with working brakes!

Post by **Caroanbill** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:36 pm

Brownw3 wrote:Vintage bikes require huge amounts of care and feeding. If you think the price of a vintage bike is bad, wait until you start wanting that rebuilt tach or something. Ka-Ching. Bottom line is they require a real committment from owners.

You bet! A tale of two 75/5 s

#One is a pristine UK-spec bike with ~20,000miles. It has passed around my old club for 15 years, and non-one who owns it has been game to put miles on it. It gets a new battery with each new owner, and now has replica pipes (Staintune) after the originals finally rusted through. Its price appreciates with each sale - but it's ride/value ratio gets worse.

#Two is much loved and has been much ridden. It still has real charisma and gets a lot of admiration when it's running. The owner (my best mate) figures it owes him nothing. Not true. The amount of work and expense that bike has accrued over the past 20 years would have bought and serviced several new bikes. Despite all that, it doesn't appreciate. And, since it's an only bike and is unrideable for long-ish period while waiting for parts or geeting work done, Pete doesn't ride as much as he'd like. And he has trouble when he rides away from experienced service places.

.. If Pete had bought a reasonable early K series or a later (monoshock / nikasil / CDI) airhead he would be riding a cheap bike, with some cachet, that would pretty much owe him nothing, and the 75/5 could be left for 'atmosphere' runs and its ride/value ratio would be OK. He'd spend a lot less on bikes than he does now, and enjoy them a lot more.

Me, I love old bikes. But I like disc brakes with ABS, wider rubber, fuel injection and trouble-free rding a whole lot more. If I had space and cash, I have long since bought 75/5 #1 - looked at it a lot and ridden it less than once a month.