Royal Enfield
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Regulator / Rectifier - Honda CBR1000F or ST1100 - AftermarketMelbourne???
Next: Advice on muffler for Yamaha TRX850
From: atec77 on 26 Jun 2008 01:11 iggle piggle wrote: > atec77 wrote: >> The Raven wrote: >>> Ok guys, I know the Royal Enfields from India aren't up to Japanese >>> quality etc but can anyone give me a fair and honest opinion of how >>> these bikes are? >>> >>> I can live with maintaining an 'old school' bike as I'm mechanically >>> competent but I wouldn't want a bike that's forever falling to bits >>> or needing constant maintenance. >>> >>> I can also live with the low power output as long as it's competent >>> at 100kph. >>> >>> Are these things suitable for larger riders (I'm tall and heavy but >>> no 'bubba')? >>> >>> So, what's the verdict on these bikes? It looks to suit my style and >>> a desire not to jump back on a fast bike. >>> >>> PS. I'm looking for a weekend bike and occaisonal daily rider. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Ride one , they can drag me over the limit and I hear with some >> tinkering respond well to the usual fiddling > > I owned on for four years :-( If you love doing your own spanner work > they're ideal. Dunno about current models but mine was very low > geared ( it was a 350) and ran out of speed about 90. > Piggle. I had the origional 350 , 500 and a 650 back in the days of being younger , tuned they were excellent , the Indian one I am familiar with and have ridden a little seems much the same , now it's old tech of course but they are very cheap to run and certainly wont over power the average rider .
From: iggle piggle on 26 Jun 2008 02:34 atec77 wrote: > iggle piggle wrote: >> atec77 wrote: >>> The Raven wrote: >>>> Ok guys, I know the Royal Enfields from India aren't up to Japanese >>>> quality etc but can anyone give me a fair and honest opinion of how >>>> these bikes are? >>>> >>>> I can live with maintaining an 'old school' bike as I'm mechanically >>>> competent but I wouldn't want a bike that's forever falling to bits >>>> or needing constant maintenance. >>>> >>>> I can also live with the low power output as long as it's competent >>>> at 100kph. >>>> >>>> Are these things suitable for larger riders (I'm tall and heavy but >>>> no 'bubba')? >>>> >>>> So, what's the verdict on these bikes? It looks to suit my style and >>>> a desire not to jump back on a fast bike. >>>> >>>> PS. I'm looking for a weekend bike and occaisonal daily rider. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Ride one , they can drag me over the limit and I hear with some >>> tinkering respond well to the usual fiddling >> >> I owned on for four years :-( If you love doing your own spanner work >> they're ideal. Dunno about current models but mine was very low >> geared ( it was a 350) and ran out of speed about 90. >> Piggle. > I had the origional 350 , 500 and a 650 back in the days of being > younger , tuned they were excellent , the Indian one I am familiar with > and have ridden a little seems much the same , now it's old tech of > course but they are very cheap to run and certainly wont over power the > average rider . there's heaps of parts available both from the UK and India to "improve" them. I fitted the "higher" comp. piston and a big Carb. the cams had been changed by a prev. owner. With a louder pipe I could keep up with most traffic away from the lights. Piggle.
From: The Raven on 26 Jun 2008 03:33 "JM" <jeffles(a)ntlworld.nospam.com> wrote in message news:jck5641cqm364nmhhe8lch81nfdbuiautv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:51:20 +1000, "The Raven" > <swilson150(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >>Ok guys, I know the Royal Enfields from India aren't up to Japanese >>quality >>etc but can anyone give me a fair and honest opinion of how these bikes >>are? >> >>I can live with maintaining an 'old school' bike as I'm mechanically >>competent but I wouldn't want a bike that's forever falling to bits or >>needing constant maintenance. >> >>I can also live with the low power output as long as it's competent at >>100kph. >> >>Are these things suitable for larger riders (I'm tall and heavy but no >>'bubba')? >> >>So, what's the verdict on these bikes? It looks to suit my style and a >>desire not to jump back on a fast bike. >> >>PS. I'm looking for a weekend bike and occaisonal daily rider. >> >>Regards >> >> >> > > Never owned one so this is hearsay: > > 1. pushrods are different lengths ( all of them) and they are variably > case hardened on the tips so if one wears you might have problems > getting the right one to fit. Worth knowing that but if the worst happens it'd probably be best to get some custom made, which shouldn't be that expensive. > 2. handles like a pregnant nun on a skateboard, c/o old tech > shocks/forks Saw a review which mentioned that BUT, then again, it is an old suspension design. > 3. too slow to actually get too badly out of shape as in 2. Could be a good thing depending on how you look at it. > 4. 1950's technology built by the Indians... how bad can it be? Looking on the bright side, it shouldn't be that hard to fix.....assuming not everything needs fixing. Hence me asking here. > 5. They get modern(ish) carbs and electrics (again built in India) The carbs are supposed to be quite modern....by comparison. Oh, and it has an alternator rather than a generator. > 6. Fuel efficiency to a degree, but if you're really pagan buy a horse > or a second hand Honda C90 Not fussed on the fuel economy as long as it's not running out the exhaust. > 7. They Keep On Going - well yes they do, mebbes not as well as some > but they will stand abuse (see Honda C90) I once fixed an old 80 engine that hadn't run for 10 years. Bike had been left on it's side in a paddock. Had it running in under a day. > 8. with an open-face and goggles you can pretend to be Lawrence of > Arabia/Steve McQueen/The Red Baron.... er, yeah, ok. I prefer full face helmets so as to avoid camel dung, sand, nasty Nazis, bugs and such... > I'd have one. > But then I like most bikes that are quirky, which is why I have a > Guzzi. Interesting, my alternative is a Duke. OK OK that's not a Guzzi but it's geographically similar. > Some bikes you can live with, some you have to learn to live with. Learning to live with a bike is one thing, having one force you to ride its' way is another. > Jeffles
From: iggle piggle on 26 Jun 2008 17:27 The Raven wrote: > "JM" <jeffles(a)ntlworld.nospam.com> wrote in message > news:jck5641cqm364nmhhe8lch81nfdbuiautv(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:51:20 +1000, "The Raven" >> <swilson150(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Ok guys, I know the Royal Enfields from India aren't up to Japanese >>> quality >>> etc but can anyone give me a fair and honest opinion of how these bikes >>> are? >>> >>> I can live with maintaining an 'old school' bike as I'm mechanically >>> competent but I wouldn't want a bike that's forever falling to bits or >>> needing constant maintenance. >>> >>> I can also live with the low power output as long as it's competent at >>> 100kph. >>> >>> Are these things suitable for larger riders (I'm tall and heavy but no >>> 'bubba')? >>> >>> So, what's the verdict on these bikes? It looks to suit my style and a >>> desire not to jump back on a fast bike. >>> >>> PS. I'm looking for a weekend bike and occaisonal daily rider. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >> Never owned one so this is hearsay: >> >> 1. pushrods are different lengths ( all of them) and they are variably >> case hardened on the tips so if one wears you might have problems >> getting the right one to fit. > > Worth knowing that but if the worst happens it'd probably be best to get > some custom made, which shouldn't be that expensive. > >> 2. handles like a pregnant nun on a skateboard, c/o old tech >> shocks/forks > > Saw a review which mentioned that BUT, then again, it is an old suspension > design. > >> 3. too slow to actually get too badly out of shape as in 2. > > Could be a good thing depending on how you look at it. > >> 4. 1950's technology built by the Indians... how bad can it be? > > Looking on the bright side, it shouldn't be that hard to fix.....assuming > not everything needs fixing. Hence me asking here. > >> 5. They get modern(ish) carbs and electrics (again built in India) > > The carbs are supposed to be quite modern....by comparison. Oh, and it has > an alternator rather than a generator. > >> 6. Fuel efficiency to a degree, but if you're really pagan buy a horse >> or a second hand Honda C90 > > Not fussed on the fuel economy as long as it's not running out the exhaust. > >> 7. They Keep On Going - well yes they do, mebbes not as well as some >> but they will stand abuse (see Honda C90) > > I once fixed an old 80 engine that hadn't run for 10 years. Bike had been > left on it's side in a paddock. Had it running in under a day. > >> 8. with an open-face and goggles you can pretend to be Lawrence of >> Arabia/Steve McQueen/The Red Baron.... er, yeah, ok. > > I prefer full face helmets so as to avoid camel dung, sand, nasty Nazis, > bugs and such... > >> I'd have one. >> But then I like most bikes that are quirky, which is why I have a >> Guzzi. > > Interesting, my alternative is a Duke. OK OK that's not a Guzzi but it's > geographically similar. > >> Some bikes you can live with, some you have to learn to live with. > > Learning to live with a bike is one thing, having one force you to ride its' > way is another. > >> Jeffles > > Owning one is not for introverts. most rides usually attract attention. People mostly had 3 responses. 1 Gee you've restored that really well. 2 Gee, how old is that 3 My father/grandfather used to ride one just like yours. Piggle.
From: AlexV on 1 Jul 2008 06:16
Did you use your mobile phone to reply to that post? Alex V > Hard to comment. depends if he knew wot he was buying. some people buy > wun > and expect to cruise all day at 100 KPH then forget about it till next > ride like most > Jap bikes. if you accept wot it is they are OK. early wuns had a > dubious reputation > but wot' z being sold now is (supposedly) of acceptable reliability. > Mine was a 1991. > Poncie |