old technology

Depends on the diesel and what I wanted the bike for I guess.
For a really serious multi-month beat-the-snot out of it trip
I might take a look at one of those milspec KLRs or better yet
a diesel boxer.

I put 250,000K on a four wheel diesel and would have put more if
a mechanic hadn't managed to kill it. (left the ground strap off,
cleverly routing the headlights back to battery through the glow
plugs.)

Ideally, you should be able to roll it end over end down a hill, drop
it in a creek at the bottom, fish it out, patch it with tape then ride
it until you replace the $100 worth of parts you broke off.

 

Just spent a holiday weekend riding and camping.

 

How about this, then: Yo Mama was a Catholic version of Bob Nixon!

(That should pretty much cover all the bases.)

Kindest regards, etc.

 

Heh - that was just in there to make sure that I knew you read the whole
post. Too many lamebrains on Usenet these days read 2 paragraphs then
assume they know what the rest of it says.

You can cock up a purely mechanical system by making it way too complex
if you want to do it that way, it isn't necessary to introduce a lot of
modern
electronics.

You can also make newer technology simpler than older technology if you
want to. However, at least in vehicles, the manufacturers don't seem to
want
to do it that way. If there's a more complicated and less simple way of
doing
things, they choose the more complicated way.

I think a lot of it is the old NIH problem. A lot of the elegant and simple
technological solutions are patented. The foreign vehicle manufacturers,
particularly
the Japanese, go ballistic when they have to pay a license fee for a
patented
idea, espically if the patent is held by an American engineer or company.
So
they will reengineer the system and make it 10 times more complex and twice
as expensive just to avoid acknowledging that someone out there might have
been a bit more smart and clever than they are, even when the license fees
are pennies.

Ah, I see, you just like playing devils advocate.

Seriously, if that is so, why let your VW's rot in the garage? Drive them
with your head held high and ignore the rasberries from the eco-freaks
that don't understand anything.

Ted

 

Why don't you list some specific apples-to-apples comparisons
here? I'm sure we would be interested in seeing what new modern bikes
you think are more reliable than an older 20 year old bike.

I would also love to know what modern brake designs are better than 20
year old dual-disk front and single disk rear brakes as were available on
many 1986 models. You couldn't possibly mean ABS?

And I am also interested to know how more power than what is needed to
propel a cruiser down the road at 80Mph is better for the job of just riding
along looking at the scenery. Did 1986 motorcycles only have a top speed
of 50Mph? Or maybe it is that you think getting a ticket for going 120Mph
in a 65Mph zone is better than getting a ticket for going 90Mph in a 65 Mph
zone?

And I'm also very interested in this stiffer frame, better suspension issue.
I
didn't know that 1986 motorcycles all had frames that you could bend with
your hands! And how does a better suspension help out someone who has
a perfectly comfortable ride on their 1986 era motorcycle. Oh I get it,
that
upright riding position characteristic of the UJM's of the 80's is a lot
more
uncomfortable for long trips than a modern lean-over-the-gas-tank position
of a modern sport bike. Got it!!

Ted

 

I've owned a 1986 Rebel 450, a 2002 Nighthawk 750 and currently ride a
2001 CBR600F4i.

Let me tell ya the F4i is superior to the other bikes in all ways.
Better brakes, better handling, better lights and electrics, fuel
injection is a BIG improvement.

They are all Hondas, so none ever broke down but they all needed some
repairs (brake shoes, new clutch on the Rebel, tires).

I won't be riding any 80s bikes again (well I do still ride the 70s
dirt bikes on occassion).

Bryan

 

I highly disagree! High mileage engines are the norm rather than the
exception these days. It is because of "high tech" such as fuel
injection, better oils, more efficient cooling ect- all "high tech".

Does anyone remember "back in the day" when a hundred thousand miles
on a car was pretty much unheard of? Nobody ran a bike 50,000 miles.

See what I mean?

 

Well, let's see... Pretty much any modern bike, and pretty much any 20
year old bike. I've owned an '85 Nighthawk 650, '86 VFR 700, '97 VFR
750, and now a '00 Daytona. And I've ridden (on the racetrack) a '96
ZX-6R, '03 SV650, and '04 CBR600RR. So I can say with some certainty
that modern bikes are MUCH more reliable and more fun to ride than 20
year old bikes. Or even 10 year old bikes.

The design may be the same (a disk brake), but it has been refined over
time. My '86 VFR had really crappy, wooden-feeling brakes. Modern
brakes, with 4 or more pistons per caliper, radial mountings, one pad
per piston, and radial master cylinders are awesome. More power, more
feel. And that matters on the street as much as on the racetrack.
Modern brakes are also more reliable. Old sliding-pin, 2-piston (or
even 1-piston) calipers would seize, lose power, and warp disks after a
single winter. 4 pistons per caliper hold up much better.

It's not only the top speed that matters, but how fast you can get
there. And how the power is delivered. I'd prefer a bike with 100hp
than with 50hp, and I've ridden both. I don't ride cruisers, so I can't
help you there.

Pretty much. My '85 Nighthawk had a very spindly frame that you could
feel flexing in turns and over bumps. It would wallow in turns like a
pig in mud. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Modern bikes feel much
more "together" and solid. I don't know what you ride, but ride a 20
year old bike back to back with a modern one down a twisty road at a
decent pace, and you WILL feel the difference (I'm talking about modern
bikes, not cruisers).

Better suspension helps by making the ride more comfortable and helping
the bike handle better while turning, accelerating, and braking. Better
feedback, better handling, better comfort.

You know that there are modern bikes with an upright seating position,
right?

-Gniewko

 

Good one, except you didn't insult my dog or threaten "to ride cricles
around me". HEHE.

Bryan

 

When exactly was that ? My '88 R100GS has better than
130,000 on it. I'm trying to remember a vehicle I didn't run
to 100,000. What should I be comparing it to ?

 

Nothing if they can take off mirrors!

 

I dunno. After tasting the Rocket I think a Detroit Diesel inline
cruiser would make for a fun ride. With an eight foot stack in the
back complete with tinkling rain flapper.

And it would permanently end to all those cheesy journos "steamroller
torque" analogies.

 

http://tinyurl.com/4vpjn

 

ROFL!

 

This is my 1981 Kawasaki GPZ 550.

http://users.adelphia.net/~kowfeathers/316.JPG

I bought it new in 1981 and for six years raced it on several tracks on
the east coast. It did four 6-hour endurance races and several shorter
ones, plus a dozen weekends of sprint racing each year. During that
time, and for years after, it was also ridden on the street. There
were times when I rode it to the track to race. It never broke or gave
any problems. Many new bikes couldn't come close to matching that
reliability.

When I retired it I could still finish in the top five out of 45 bikes,
competing against newer bikes with liquid cooling and four valves per
cylinder. The times I was turning then would still be fast enough to
win the novice 600 class today. Admittedly I am not a novice, but the
bike *is* 25 years old.

The GPZ had 1-piston sliding-pin calipers. They never seized, lost
power, or warped disks. The stock metallic pads worked fine wet or dry
and lasted for two years of racing before changing. Still has the
original brake lines. Yes they require a firm grip on the lever. I
like it that way. Less chance of accidentally using too much brake.

Sounds like your problem is that you ride Hondas ;-) A friend of mine
got a new 750 Interceptor to race the year they came out. It had
2-piston sliding-pin calipers that just didn't seem to work right. I
watched the calipers flex as he worked the lever while stopped, and
figured out that the flexing bent the sliding pins, preventing them
from sliding properly.

Like I said, your problem is you ride Hondas ;-) If you look at that
picture of the GPZ you will find that it is being raced with the OEM
stock twin shocks. Read the question again. Ted asked why new
suspensions are better if the old set-up worked fine for the rider's
intended use?

 

I'm talking "back in the day" as in the 60's or before......

 

Obviously, you have more scheckels with which to buy toys than I do... :-(

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/paul1cart/my_photos

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

 

And back in that day, I was driving slant six dodge taxis with
way better than 100,000 on them. Plenty of boxer twins from
that era still on the road, and at that time you could still find
WWII surplus beezers and Harleys in pretty good shape.

Better go back a few days further.

 

My "back in the day" bike was a Honda CL350 that I bought at 4000 miles
and ran up and down the Pacific Coast states. Returning from LA, the
bike decided that 50 mph was as fast as it would take me and when I
returned to Pacifica, took it to the dealer, who told me that at 17,000
miles I had reached its natural life span and should say goodbye to it.
With some reluctance, I took his advice.

By contrast, my 1982 Virago is a young 24000 miles. My guess is that
the improvement to durability took place in the latter 1970s.

Rich, Urban Biker