An Age Question

[fhilliard]

I have a simple question for Costa; how old is Neil Graham? I have a reason for asking it too that's actually quite interesting. But first I need his age.

[Uwe W.]

The only person who might be inclined to indulge you with an answer is Neil.

[Ancient Priest]

Age is a human construct, like beauty (or the absence of same). If I ask my dog how old he is, he will look at me like 'I thought you had more brains than to ask that'.

And you have made, how many? one post? (Count them: one...)

Who are you? What are you all about? What are you selling? Did your grade nine teacher tell you to go find a really original project to waste your life with?

Tell us what kind of a motorcycle you would be the owner of if a shitload of lottery money fell out of the sky. That will be your second post. And you will be welcome.

[Swervin]

Safely to say he is between 1 and 100, the rest is a crap shoot.

[fhilliard]

My reason for asking the age question is that there's a difference between theory and practice. Let me be more specific. In his answer to my letter in the current edition, Neil says:

I don't believe that Bar's Vincent was poorly prepared. Indeed it was a tight, well-behaved machine—for its time. It's important to remember that as technology marches on it reshapes our idea of what "good" is.

That's the argument I'm quibbling with; the idea that standards are relative rather than absolute. If the most expensive sports-touring machine of the 1950's can be described as having "a noticeable flex between the axles" and that spirited riding on it produced "a slight vagueness" riders of that era must have a) had a very low expectations and b) the bikes they rode must have been pretty flimsy.

This would certainly make sense to anyone born a generation later who might have experienced the evil handling of, say, a Mach III or a CBX, as his first high performance bike. Certainly anything later would have been an improvement.

This would also be the case for anyone sampling a classic bike fifty years on. The reason for this is that it's impossible today to replicate the exact factory parts, assembly techniques, lubricants, seals, and torque figures (pixie dust if you will) that were used on production models at the time; and here I'm talking from experience.

I purchased a brand new Triumph T-110 in 1959 and a nearly new DBD34GS BSA Gold Star in 1961 and I can tell you they were as tight and accurate in handling as a brand new TL1000S purchased in 2001. I never once felt a hinge in the middle, or vagueness in direction, or indeed any problem with them in vigorous use on the open road, with or without passengers and baggage.

Braking? You could easily lock up the front brakes on either bike and make the front tire howl in protest. Anyone who thinks disc brakes invented braking hasn't ridden a fresh drum-braked clubman's racer.

So, to get back to the Vincent. It's a very tough bike to get sorted out right because of the unique design and proprietary parts. However, we know from riders from the 50's Vincents had a reputation as a very good, high-speed, long-distance touring mount.

If you think all those folks had low standards, fine. But I think their standards were just fine. What's changed aren't the standards; what's changed are the bikes to be tested.

OK, I'll go back into my cave now.

[TimP]

Dear Caveman Fhilliard, Come back out! This is the most interesting post we've had here for some time, and despite the cryptic way you started (the answer to which, I have it on good authority, is 29. No, wait, 39. Crap. Younger than you if you could legally by a T-110 in 1959, but old enough and sufficiently experienced to warrant my trust. For what that's worth.) we can have some fun here.

I think we should bracket this discussion within the understanding of a couple of fundamental truths. 1. Great reputations result when the comparative qualities of a given example stand out as markedly superior to the competition of the time. 2. Time marches on.

So, Neil's objective determination that the performance of a well-prepared machine from a distant past might not stand up to its modern equivalent is entirely credible, and is in no way either insulting to the producers or fans of the older design or indicative of a lack of care or preparation in the example being tested. I have no doubt that machines from quality manufacturers are always state-of-the-art upon release, whenever that release may have occurred, or else they won't survive in the market long enough to garner their reputation.

But if you're trying to tell me that a 50-year old bike, featuring brakes, engine and chassis (let alone materials, engineering and manufacturing processes) of the time should not be perceived today as a bit long-in-the-tooth merely because it was so good back then, then I find that difficult to accept.

Standards are flexible, expectations do grow over time and the performance envelope gets stretched far beyond what the makers of "Old Bike Brand X" could ever have imagined. If the result is we're somewhat underwhelmed when we trot out that great old stallion and subjectively compare it to the latest comparable, well, that's to be expected.

So, Yes, the standards have changed, dragged along by the phenomenal engineering and material advances of modern progress. Yes, the bikes have clearly changed. What hasn't changed is we still expect the best from those claiming top-of-the-heap status.


Want to know what's changed the most? The ratio of rider competence to machine capability. I don't know too many contemporary riders who know what their front tires howl like at or beyond the limits of braking. The limits are just too high and the risks too great for such experimentation. I'll take your word that a locked-up T-110 front wheel slides and howls; 1950's rubber could well have behaved the way you suggest. But try making the front tire of a TL1000S sing like that and I imagine you'll be distracted by other sounds very, very quickly...

[Uwe W.]

Want to know what's changed the most? The ratio of rider competence to machine capability. I don't know too many contemporary riders who know what their front tires howl like at or beyond the limits of braking. The limits are just too high and the risks too great for such experimentation. I'll take your word that a locked-up T-110 front wheel slides and howls; 1950's rubber could well have behaved the way you suggest. But try making the front tire of a TL1000S sing like that and I imagine you'll be distracted by other sounds very, very quickly...

Good points made by all. The motorcycles of my youth (which were not the same as those for Mr. Hilliard) represented in their day the high watermark of technology. At the time I thought them to be extremely well performing machines, mostly because I was comparing them to the models they had eclipsed. Now I look back and think they were horrible. Why? Because the standard by which we judge a machine's performance evolves along with the latest and greatest models rolling off the production line. The suggestion that we judge a machine's performance based on past standards would involve comparing it to other machine's from that era, and speaks little about the real question about the effect of time on a modern design.

Tim, while I typically find myself in simpatico with your comments, I disagree with your paragraph above. I've heard all kinds of non-musical offerings from my tires and remained upright. I think the problem is that not enough riders are experimenting with the braking capability of their machines. More people should be out on an empty parking lot and practising extreme braking. By slowly increasing braking force with every pass, you'll be able to safely see what your bike and its rider are capable of.

[YellowDuck]

Hmmm...not an expert on this stuff, but I am going to side with Tim in this debate, just for fun.

A modern sportbike on modern sport tires on good asphalt may well endo before the tire makes the characteristic howling sound. I practice hard braking quite a bit - not just in parking lots, but also on the road, from speeds above 100 kph (CHECK BEHIND MYSELF FIRST) - I feel like I need to do that if I expect to consider myself competent to ride safely at those speeds.

My impression is that it is very possible to flip the bike back over front at almost any speed, once the forward weight transfer is complete, if you grap too much brake. Not willing to test this hypothesis, but Steve Rapp showed that it is certainly possible on race tires, when he came up on his teammate too quickly braking for the first corner of a SBK race, and jammed his brake lever against the other bike's tail piece. Poor Ducati, tumbled many times and flew to bits. Rapp jumped on the spare bike for the restart....

http://impactarmor.homestead.com/thecrash.html

Anyway, after all of this braking practice in recent years, I don't remember hearing the tire howling much, at least not like what they used to do back in the 1980s. Maybe I just can't hear it over the sound of my heart pounding in my ears.

[fhilliard]

Geeze, where to start. I think I'll pull this quote from Tim:

But if you're trying to tell me that a 50-year old bike, featuring brakes, engine and chassis (let alone materials, engineering and manufacturing processes) of the time should not be perceived today as a bit long-in-the-tooth merely because it was so good back then, then I find that difficult to accept.

Standards are flexible, expectations do grow over time and the performance envelope gets stretched far beyond what the makers of "Old Bike Brand X" could ever have imagined. If the result is we're somewhat underwhelmed when we trot out that great old stallion and subjectively compare it to the latest comparable, well, that's to be expected.
Let me take these two paragraphs one at a time. I'm not saying a restored classic shouldn't be criticized today; I'm saying when it was new it met the same kind of usability standards a bike does today; namely that its handling, braking and acceleration had to be both sharp and dependable to satisfy the average motorcycle buyer.

Now the second paragraph. While I agree with you, capabilities of motorcycles have increased and expectations have expanded; they have done so from a much higher baseline than you give the early manufacturers credit for.

British and Italian sports bikes in the 1950's did not wiggle in corners; they did not develop high speed wobbles, they did not go loosey-goosey over whoop-de-doos. I know you're having a hard time believing this, but they ran like a train over good roads and bad, deep into bumpy corners, leaned over in reverse-camber curves, under hard acceleration and panic braking. Why was this? They ran this way because their riders would have complained long and loud if they hadn't.

Riders in 1959 were just as picky and daring as they are today. We took risks. We were all doing the 'ton' with girls hanging on the back with no helmets. We knew the difference between a good handling bike and a bad one. We knew what was fast because we raced each other.

In fact, if you'll remember, the popular upgrade of the day was to dump a Bonneville engine into a Norton featherbed frame because the featherbed was better than the equivalent Triumph unit. When the Japanese bikes came out they were routinely beaten by lower powered European bikes with better frames. It's all there on the historical record if you'd like to check.

So, in a nutshell, we had good motors, solid frames, plenty of suspension travel, powerful brakes and in most cases, a wonderful sound. These bikes weren't just 'good for their times' they were good period; and would be today if we could find the same workers, the same foundrymen, the same fitters, the same parts manufacturers as they had then. Which we can't.

Twenty years after my first Goldie, I bought a second one and restored it from the ground up, using the best available NOS, remanufactured and aftermarket parts. We got the motor (bored, honed, new pistons, rings, etc. etc.) running like a top, but I was never able to get the suspension squared up. Try as my mechanic and I might, there was something missing; some touch the factory had that we didn't have.

Quality is quality. It's not a relative thing, it's an absolute thing. It's a mistake to think out fathers and grandfathers all put up with a load of bad handling, under powered, unreliable junk. If you'd ever had the chance to ride a new Triumph, coming 'up on the cam' at 75 mph, the distinctive Triumpet burble falling away behind you like music, you'd know what I mean.

You probably think distance has made my mind go mushy, nope. I remember this like it was yesterday.

[YellowDuck]

Passionately argued, but I'm not buying it. Back then you had "plenty of suspension travel", but damping forces that skyrocketed with shaft speeds because no one had invented blow off shims yet. You may have had "good motors", but they were hauling around damn heavy bikes, and doing it with maybe 40 hp or so. Powerul brakes? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it, and anyway they were acting through bias ply tires with the traction of shoe leather. Solid frames? Nope, heavy flexy frames and weedy forks to boot.

Sure, it all worked together in synchrony at some level of performance, but it was a very very low level of performance by today's standards, in EVERY measurable aspect.

I am not a fast rider. I have never been on a track. But if you would like to bring a bike from the early 60s running drum brakes and period rubber to a track day, I am confident that I can beat your times on any well setup GSXR built in the last 10 years. Or, maybe even on my 2006 Ducati Sport 1000, a sort of "vintage replica", but with 85 hp, a rigid frame, aftermarket fork cartridges, a Penske rear shock, and M3 tires, weighing barely 400 lbs wet.

[Rocking Couple]

We are still left interpreting your impressions of old vs new, fhilliard.
Or is the new, still the TL and your present day ride?
Are you sure you have been tapping that bike's full potential? Or not full, but lets say 85 to 90%?

I'm afraid I can't agree that bearing fitment (say, in a swing-arm or steering head) torque ratings of fasteners, spring rates, orificed shock valves etc etc cannot be duplicated today. Unless of course there aren't enough documented specs of that time era.
In today's world of computers and their amazing programs and processing power it actually gives us the ability to measure torsion and twist in the chassis, and we can even duplicate OEM specs over and over, even by merely being diligent in the order in which you torque a motor back into a frame if it is a stressed member. (just as one of a myriad of comparos) And, sometimes certain specs like that are on a gradual learning curve known only to insiders within a mgfr; only becoming public knowledge if a safety recall is involved, or whatever.

I agree with what Tim has said here:
"Standards are flexible, expectations do grow over time and the performance envelope gets stretched far beyond what the makers of "Old Bike Brand X" could ever have imagined. If the result is we're somewhat underwhelmed when we trot out that great old stallion and subjectively compare it to the latest comparable, well, that's to be expected."

So, fhilliard, could it be possible that as we age and become accustomed to newer tech, that our passionate memory of a bike from many many years ago and it's capabilities, are remembered more with a sentimental fondness that is measured on a completely different real world scale than from today?

[Rocking Couple]

But if you would like to bring a bike from the early 60s running drum brakes and period rubber to a track day, I am confident that I can beat your times on any well setup GSXR built in the last 10 years. Or, maybe even on my 2006 Ducati Sport 1000, a sort of "vintage replica", but with 85 hp, a rigid frame, aftermarket fork cartridges, a Penske rear shock, and M3 tires, weighing barely 400 lbs wet.

Better not use the GSXR YD, that might be the very day the frame will crack badly enough to have you do a nasty off.

.....as the limits of accelerated technology are built to a price-point for profit, are explored..

[mrspock]

Age ? Hmmm , to me , its just some silly number on a calender that some person devised as a way to determine what level of growth we have attained . it is , or at least was at one time thought that the older one was , the richer , wiser , more mature said same person was , or at least is suppose to be . Conversly , the younger one was / or is , the chances are higher that they ( we ) are therefore less expereinced , stupider , less wise and generaly , know nothing .

Here is my take on ago . the calender tells me me one thing , my body ( or at least some parts ) feel like about 250 years old , my attitude and outlook on life is at about 25 .... I'm sticking with 25 as my age . ( ok , so i never said I passed math either :-) )


spock

[TimP]

I'm jumping back into the fray and coming down squarely on, um, MY side. Surprise, surprise. I'm straying a bit from the original point, but I think it's related.


I've heard all kinds of non-musical offerings from my tires and remained upright. I think the problem is that not enough riders are experimenting with the braking capability of their machines. More people should be out on an empty parking lot and practising extreme braking. By slowly increasing braking force with every pass, you'll be able to safely see what your bike and its rider are capable of.

Wishful thinking, Uwe! Sure, we can and should practise and become aware of our bike's limits in our own hands - and likely our capabilities would increase over time and in proportion to effort spent. However, even if you were to find a perfect piece of tarmac to do ever-increasing figure-eights (or whatever you deem an appropriate limit-finding technique) all that goes out the window next time you round a bend or enter an intersection only to find sand, oil, an inanimate object or, heaven forbid, an animate object with a greater need for caffeine from one of the coffee outlets on every Goddamned corner than for life itself, and all that training goes tits-up, you're down, and the tires' howling is replaced by your own.

Here's reality: Any bike ever made (Gixxer, Goldwing, Softail or 1959 T-110) rides on tires whose frictional limits - front or rear - can be reduced to zero by a) the momentary application of too much pressure on the lever - however applied, for whatever reason, and/or b) anything coming between them and the pavement. Result: loss of traction, potentially followed by subsequent losses too numerous to list here. So, riding anywhere near the limit requires accepting this risk and the potential losses. Therefore, there's a fine balance between getting the most out of your ride and the growing risk of disaster as you approach the physical performance limitations of the bike.

Insurance actuaries know all about this. They know that the implied performance of the bike affects its purchase selection, and they know the buyer is choosing in part based on his/her perceptions of his/her own capacity to extract this level of performance. The higher the implied performance, the greater the risk that performance will be sought on the street by the typical purchaser, so the higher the premiums. Most people ride somewhere in their personal comfort zone, which is different for each of us, and each person's zone ranges from tootling along without a care in the world to head-down charging - again, up to the limits of the comfort zone.

Should we each have full awareness of that zone so as to maximize our own safety AND our own enjoyment? Yes. Can we achieve a truer sense of our own capabilities and limitations through practice and by stretching our comfort zone? Absolutely. Should the upper end of that zone approach the current limits of bike performance? No, certainly not on the street. Go to a track if you want to test yourself, but "whoa les moteurs" rather than put others at risk. Thanks.


Hey! I think I just found a way to prove my point re. objective performance standards! To compare true levels of performance and establish any sort of objective performance ranking, just go to your friendly on-line insurance website and ask for a quotation. Are the top performing bikes from years past quoted as highly premium-wise as the current King Dicks? No. Has their performance diminished from when they were new? Also no. Ergo, they may have been good in their day, but their day is done. Still good bikes, though.

[fhilliard]

I'm happy to have kicked off this exchange because it's provoked some very interesting comments. Sadly, because it's impossible to replicate classic bikes in 'as new' condition, the argument about their performance and sporting potential can never be resolved. We'll just have to disagree.

I'm currently trying to solve the classic bike riddle by approaching it from a different direction; by taking a modern bike and returning it to a configuration common years ago. Just a couple more adjustments, and I'll bring it here for your inspection.

CU then.

[KZDon]

Quality is quality. It's not a relative thing, it's an absolute thing.



That makes no sense. Quality is an abstract and immeasurable concept. Persig, in a way paraphrasing Aristotle, said "quality is what you like."

In a more practical sense, quality is no more than the standard someone or some organization sets as a measure of the way a thing should be, or the way that person or organization would like that thing to be. And sometimes, there is no rationale for the standard.

One cannot say quality is absolute where, for example, quality is being defined as the tolerances to which that thing is made. Simply increasing a tolerance or decreasing a service limit would improve the quality, and all of a sudden quality is a flexible standard. Further, tolerances and service limits, as you know, are usually expressed in ranges. Not every Norton valve clearance is identical, but provided the guy on the line that day was paying attention, it was set within a certain range, and it met the quality standard as set.

Now, if those quality standards, of the day, were recorded, and the nature and type of materials are available, then something of the same quality and manufacturing standards can be manufactured again.

I think the reason your NOS vintage suspension never performed to the quality you had hoped for, or as you remembered, is first, a function of memory perfecting an image from the past, and second, the confluence of any number of intangible and unquantifiable elements that may have come in the form of, for example, the particular guy who set up the suspension on the original on the day it was made. And I promise you, the next identical bike off the line that he also set up, wasn't (identical).

Great thread, by the way.

[Neil Graham]

Gents,

Very impressive thoughts. If I hadn't ended the day with a drink to numb the mind I'd be tempted to chime in. You've galloped along with the idea wonderfully. And my age? I'm much, much younger than Uwe, who is 56.

[Ivor biggin]

Gents,

Very impressive thoughts. If I hadn't ended the day with a drink to numb the mind I'd be tempted to chime in.

It`s o.k. we can wait until tomorrow.:D
I.B.

[TimP]

I last checked this thread around 4 pm Friday. Neil said Uwe's 56 shortly after 6 pm. It's now a quarter past midnight and Uwe hasn't fired off the expected denial / correction / shot at Neil.

Is Uwe ok? Can somebody please check on him? Anyone hear any howling?

[Uwe W.]

I last checked this thread around 4 pm Friday. Neil said Uwe's 56 shortly after 6 pm. It's now a quarter past midnight and Uwe hasn't fired off the expected denial / correction / shot at Neil.

What's to deny? I am 56. Still, there was no need for Neil to mention it.

[TimP]

We've only met a couple of times, Uwe, but I find that hard to believe.

[Ancient Priest]

>and all that training goes tits-up, you're down, and the tires' howling is replaced by your own.<

Someone at CC should employ this guy to do some words for publication.

[Ancient Priest]

I happen to know that he is 29. But he is terrible bullshitter. He doesn't tell his wife how old he is. So we wil never actually know.

[Sidecar Bob]

I don't have significant experience with either vintage or modern bikes (mine are merely old), but I do know that if the changes that have been made in engine & chassis design, tire compound & tread, metalurgy & materials &c had not brought with them significant improvements over the previous products, then Urals would be superbikes.

While the machines you described were among the best for their day, they simply did not have the technology to produce the kind of machines we have today. The fact that you remember how good they were and the silly things you did on them does not make them the equals of modern machinery.

Why couldn't you bring your restoration's suspension up to the standard you remember? Simple: You remember it in the context of the time and in comparrison to other machines of the time, but by the time you tried the restoration you were used to much newer, more technicaly sophisticated machines deigned with a lot more understanding of what actually makes a bike handle better. Since it was so good the first time around but didn't come up to the standards you were now used to you concluded that you had missed something and the restored unit wasn't as good as the original.

This is a common situation. People listen to their old 45s and think "That's so muffled sounding, and listen to that hiss in the background. They sounded a lot better 30 years ago. I must need a better record player." when in fact the problem is in the medium.
Vinyl records loose the top octave (roughly everything over 10 Khz) after 50 to 100 plays (depending on the weight of the tonearm and the age of the stylus). Tiny air bubbles within the vinyl continue to migrate to the surface of the vinyl for some time, but most of them have become audible within the first year.
They sounded like that back then, but now you are used to hearing digitally remastered recordings which have the full frequency range and background noise that is lower than the hiss produced by the transistors in the amplifier so your standards have improved. Get over it. Put your 45s in the closet and enjoy a CD.

Remember things as they were and in the context of their time, but do not expect them to stand up to today's standards.

BTW: You wouldn't believe how easy it is to make a C-186 on the front of a sidecar outfit sing when you pull hard on the brake ;-)