Boxerworks.com

daz wrote: ...does that mean my /5 has interchangeable wheels as well?

Well, the hub castings are the same, just no splines and an added axle bushing in the front.

Motometer speedos and tachs.

The only time they are accurate is when they are at 0.

Triple clamp top plate. Regardless of its engineering virtues those thin top nuts are a PITA as is having to remove handlebars etc to take the tubes out. Hiding the handlebar nuts under the plate makes it even more of a #%!?# job but at least it looks neat.

Good enough whine?

In the interest of equity,

what about design blunders from other brands of that period?

Mal S7 wrote:In the interest of equity,

what about design blunders from other brands of that period?

There were other bikes besides airheads back then?

Umm there was in 77 a GS750.
No design blunders there though.

Kawasaki Z1 in the early 70's: no blunders in the motor - it was superb. Bottom end and tranny could handle easily double the HP in drag motors.

The entire chassis qualifies as a blunder though.

Guys, you are talking about bikes that are now 30 years old.

Back in the day you bought a BMW because it had:

Reliability
Good electrics with lights and indicators that worked
Half decent brakes
Half decent handling
good finish


You could ride it round the world, without too many modifications and it would survive the journey.

Try that on a Norton

Hmm, a few posts pointing out that airheads were the best bikes of the period. From my perspective I agree, and said as much. But I don't think airheads of that period need to be put on a pedestal. You don't need to put a fine lady on a pedestal to enjoy her company. And for that matter a lady doesn't have to be the finest to enjoy her company.

And the faults? Well, are they not faults? Could they have been done better, even in a competitive environment?

I've owned Brit bikes that have way more faults than BMW airheads. I have some now, though needing work and not in active service. Their faults don't negate my enjoyment of Brit bikes. There's nothing like the sound and response of a vertical twin or lusty thumper. And if they didn't have faults I would enjoy them more. That's why I'm into BMW airheads. The pleasure to faults ratio is highest of any other bikes of the period (in my opinion). But many of the faults could and even should have been done better.


Ken, hugging my airheads in Oklahoma

Major Softie wrote:Kawasaki Z1 in the early 70's: no blunders in the motor - it was superb. Bottom end and tranny could handle easily double the HP in drag motors.

The entire chassis qualifies as a blunder though.

I followed a new Triumph Bonneville with a new Z900 in the mid 70's. What a contrast, the engine was magnincent by the standards of the day and a joy to work on although the only thing I ever had to do was the shims on buckets valve clearances which in itself was an introduction to precision engineering.

The chassis wasn't as bad as all that but at 160lbs heavier than the Triumph the Z900 was never going to be as good. Remarkable that those early Z's used such skinny tires, the same 3.25 and 4.00 sizes as an airhead.

For comparisons I always think Ted Simons round the world experiences with a Triumph 500 and an R80GS says it all. The Tiger 100's engine needed any number of rebuilds while the BMW's engine survived pretty much the whole the trip. There can't be another 30 odd year old bike that's as easy to own.