Clutch doesn't Engage

It's also considered a desirable classic in Germany, although it was
sold there as a 'T5'. Someone else had registered the trademark
'Mustang' for a moped so Ford couldn't sell them as Mustangs...

Not to mention that they're big in Sweden (but most American vehicles
are, the wilder the better).

I'd love to have a '68 fastback or a Mercury Cougar of the same age but
I doubt Ann's parents would be too keen for my junk to clutter up their
pristine driveway.

You forget the early coke-bottle ones with the non-strangled engines.
And of course the original 56/57s Vettes.

That said, split-window with an unfeasibly large engine (did they do a
454 in those or do I have to fit that myself?) would suit sir nicely.

 

And that also sells beaucoup nostalgia vehicles, like Hinkley Triumphs
and Mini Coopers.

My CR-250M cost me $550, brand new, but three years old. They were
supposed to sell about about $1100 as I recall, but the Yamaha YZ-250,
with its superior monoshock suspension was far more popular.

 

When you restore it to where you should be getting,
for example, $5K out of a sale of it, and you only get
$4500 because your too stupid to put a 50 cent
switch back on, then correct, there is no value in restoring it.

With many things there is no value in doing them when you
only do a half-assed job. I'm surprised that
an "older" gentleman hasn't learned this - but I guess with some
people, no matter how old they get they never learn wisdom.

Ted

 

If you're talking about the Hinckley twins, I'd agree wholeheartedly.
They really aren't that good. The triples sell on their own merits.

ini Cooper? A hellishly competent car but yes, it sells because it looks
like an old Mini. If it were styled like, say, a VW Golf, I'm sure it
wouldn't have enjoyed half the success it has.

 

So you're valuing a 50 cent switch at 500 bucks? And you've changed your
'no value' claim to $4500.

Oh, I agree, I agree absolutely. I merely querying your perception of
value. And your arithmetic.

Well, we learn how to count.

 

Some are, yes. But I've noticed the classic off-road scene is much, much
bigger in the US than here.

 

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that by now you
practically can't ride off-road anywhere but the local quarry...

 

It very much depends - top of the range stuff can be very, very good. I
used to have a Bimota and the workmanship on that had several members
of UKRM drooling over it. OTOH some Italian bikes can be put together
in a semi-shoddy way which is then agravated by the numptyness of the
owner. Guzzis aside they can be a bit quirky and need specialist
attention, which isn't necessarily the local stealership.

The words "frying pan" and "fire" spring to mind.

 

*Lovely*

I've owned several, including the present Ducati. My Moto Guzzis of the
1980s were as reliable as you could wish for plus (IMHO) My 1000 Spada
was a better bike than its then competitor, the R100RS, in several key
categories (braking, handling, economy).

Italisn bikes definitely aren't "ride and forget" machines, in every
sense of the phrase. They're addictive. They do need more commitment on
the part of the owner. They can be reliable - my Duke has done 27,000
miles in the nine years I've owned it (OK, only 3,000 miles a year, but
I own other bikes) and has been as reliable as you could wish for.

Odd that Italian machinery doesn't command the same respect in the US as
it does in Europe, though.

 

Heh. Nothing has changed in the intervening 30 years, believe me.

 

James and D.O.T. were the first two Villers-engined British 2-strokes
seen in California in the 1960's.

Somebody entered a 200cc Greeves in a desert race in the 1960's and all
the Triumph
"desert sled" riders laughed until the Greeves won the hare and hounds
race.

If I had the space for a motorcycle collection just to look at, I might
own a Greeves, and give it the place of honor as "Ugliest Motorcycle In
The World."

The first time I ever saw a1967 Earles-forked MX-5 Greeves I coveted
it. It was sort of like seeing the ugliest English bulldog imaginable.
I wanted it because it was cobby and ugly, but I couldn't afford it at
the time. About six months later, I bought one of the first Yamaha DT-1
Single Enduros. It was a far better machine, but what did I know at the
time?

I raced the DT-1 in CMC moto-X races in when they started in 1969. A
guy at work listened to me talk about dirtbiking and desert racing and
motocrossing and he told me he would like to go desert riding with me.

So I had the chance to ride his Greeves and he had the chance to ride
my Yamaha.

I helped him get his Greeves running many times and towed him out of
the desert when it wouldn't start.

It really wasn't much good for the desert. It had far too much weight
on the front wheel and the handlebars were low European style bars so
he couldn't get his weight to the rear tire to skip over
whoop-de-doo's.

The damned chassis was twisted anyway, right where the steel backbone
was swedged into the aluminum I-beam in front of the engine.

That was a weird arrangement that makes no sense whatever to somebody
that knows why I-beams are built the way they are. It's to resist
bending with two parallel beams that have a shear web between them, and
there was NO bending load on that I-beam at all, the front end of the
engine just hung from it.

The twisted chassis caused Geeves to go down the road like a puppy dog.
The front and rear wheels were never vertical at the same time. If the
machine hit a bump, it would shudder violently. My friend denied there
was anything wrong
with his Greeves and acted like I was jealous of it.

The Amal concentric carburetor would flood the engine and he could only
put the transmission into gear by letting the engine idle down.
Otherwise it would grind the gears horribly. So he would work him self
into a sweaty near-heart attack and get it started and try to put it
into gear, only to have it stall on him.

I finally loaned him an extra Mikuni carburetor to dry out so he could
see that the Mikuni worked far better than the Amal. He wound up
installing a 34mm Mikuni on the Greeves and bought an expansion chamber
with a smaller stinger to get more power.

And, he got the damned chassis straightened. But that didn't fix one of
the least endearing aspects of the Greeves' engine. The kick starter
lever was cleverly positioned so you would break your foot if you
kicked at it squarely. You had to angle
your foot on the kicker and risk having your foot slip off and you'd
get a nasty bruise on the inside of your calf. That was better than
kicking the Greeves squarely and breaking your toes against the
footpeg.

The later 1972 Greeves Griffin was more like an English Husqvarna. It
had a steel ring on the frame to hold the foot peg out of the way of
the kick starter. So, in a desert race, the rider would have to start
the engine, reach down and unhook the footpeg while standing on his
left foot, move his foot to the shift lever and kick the transmission
UP to first gear

By that time, I would be 100 feet away from the starting line, headed
for the smoke bomb on my Yamaha, which could be kick started while in
gear.

My friend made handlebar spacers so he could stand on the pegs while
riding through loose sand and over whoops.

But, he got rid of the MX-5 year later and bought an OSSA Silletto,
which was a far better machine, even if it wasn't up to the standards
of what Yamaha was doing in the evolution of the DT-1 into the YZ
series of motocrossers.

I rode his Stilletto and a DT-2 in the desert on the same day and there
was no question that the Japanese machine was better suited to rough
sandy desert.

I was riding my GT-750 one day and noticed that a guy had another
GT-750 for sale. He also had a Greeves MX-5. I asked him about the two
motorcycles, and indicated curiousity about the Greeves. He told me
that he would give it to me if I would buy the GT-750.

I turned the Greeves down, after remarking that it would make an
interesting stand for my mail box. But I already had another nearly
useless motorcycle. I had the original CR-250M Elsinore that wasn't
good for much.

 

thing is why should there be a "cut off" surely "vintage" or "classic"
should be a rolling definition?

 

It's an arbitrary definition to allow equal competition among brands
that competed in that era.

The mid-1970's saw such rapid suspension improvement that a model might
be the hot machine to own for only 6 months. So the arbitary line has
to be drawn for vintage motocrossers.

In vintage road racing, it would be about 1982 to 1985, the GSXR's came
out in 1986, revolutionizing production racing.

I know a guy who is class champion in the Vintage over 40 class in
roadracing.He rides an old CB-900F Honda. Of course it won't even begin
to do what a modern 600cc sportbike would do...

 

Jesus H Christ, you're full of crap.

 

I'm sorry; the what?

 

Ah yes, connected to the six most dangerous words in the English
Language - "there ought to be a law"...

Over here, the government sneakily closed vehicular access to the
majority of ancient rights of ways (which are mostly unpaved roads that
were either suitable for 4x4 vehicles or off-road bikes only) very
recently by suddenly closing the consultation which was used to
identify and register them, which was supposed to run for quite some
time still. There aren't that many unpaved roads and somesuch left in
England anyway (Wales has more of them, as has Scotland) so suddenly
you find yourself locked out of almost all of them.

Oh, and farmers who also run off-road events outside of farming season
stand to lose their subsidies...

 

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:15:41 +0100,

*Now* someone tells me.

....or the owner to be comitted. One ot the other!

Actually, when or if I eventually sell my TL, I'll probably replace it
with another Guzzi.

 

So what you're saying is this "Land of the Free" is nothing more than
rhetoric crap?

 

Not nice.

Here, there have been hassles when they've built motorways and decided
to compulsorily purchase adjoining land for motorway service stations.

The government pays whatever it thinks is a fair rate for agricultural
land, and then sells it to the service station operators for a massive
mark-up, because iut's now zoned as planning land and can be built on,
etc.

Needless to say the hapless farmer whose land has been grabbed doesn't
benefit.

At least, that was certainly the case in one m/way services I can think
of. It *may* have changed since.

 

I don't think it's changed much. Guy I used to work with way back was
living in his parent's house near the Mill. Dome site. The house (well,
the whole street) had been earmarked for compulsory purchase. The
amount of money they got after putting up a fight pretty much allowed
them to buy something in Turkey (his parents had emigrated from Turkey
back in the 60s or 70s) but not a similar property in London.