The phone just rang... (Triumph project)
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Aham Brahmasmi on 15 Mar 2010 08:40 On Mar 14, 4:45 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...(a)example.invalid> wrote: > -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul Where will three wheels take Sean? To a padded cell?
From: Aham Brahmasmi on 15 Mar 2010 08:43 On Mar 14, 9:58 pm, Sean_Q_ <no.s...(a)no.spam> wrote: > Just a minor question... how do I get the motor out of > the donor bike... and into the Dnepr's frame? (Drop the oil pan > for more clearance?) I guess I'll find out when the time comes. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
From: TOG on 15 Mar 2010 09:00 On 15 Mar, 12:06, Aham Brahmasmi <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 4:56 am, "Self-styled Authority on Almost Everything" > <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> theorized: > > > The cruiser versions (America, Speedmaster) have the 270 degree cranks > > (ostensibly to endow them with a V-twin feel) and much less power - > > about 60bhp. > > > The Scrambler has the weediest engine of the lot at 58bhp, and also - > > inexplicably - has the 270 degree crank. It really needs more power, > > and the 360 degree crank. As it stands... well, you know why I dislike > > it. > > You make it sound like crankshaft arrangement affects the horsepower > output, instead of vibration. No, it doesn't. Fascinating to see just who cannot construe properly. > > I challenge you to defend your thesis, by any means, fair or pikey. It's not my thesis. It's your misinterpretation of it. Welcome to the Kalgary Klub :-)
From: TOG on 15 Mar 2010 09:12 On 15 Mar, 12:33, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...(a)example.invalid> wrote: > My recollection is that the (at least in the U.S.) 'original' 600 (/7) > ended production with 1977 model year, and the R65 (smaller frame, > wheels, different motor) began with the 1978 model year, late in the > year. Yes. The first R65s had relatively heavy flywheels and ATE brake calipers. Then in 1981? 1982? I'll refrain from quoting an exact model year this time :-) - they lopped something like 40lbs off the weight, found another few bhp and went to Brembo brakes. And those R65s were stonkingly good machines. I tested one in '82 or '83: took it to France, in midwinter. As you say, they had different engines from the older airheads. Shorter stroke cranks, which meant the engines were slightly narrower. The other airheads shared a 70.6mm stroke and only the bore sizes differed. And the R45/65 series had a different, smaller frame too. Then, as you again correctly say, they brought back the R65 in Monolever form and that was a slug, because they just slung the smaller lump into an R80 chassis. I tested one of these as well, in 1986 or 1987 and thought it was a very disappointing bike.
From: Aham Brahmasmi on 15 Mar 2010 09:54
On Mar 15, 6:00 am, "Pouring gasoline on the fire, Neil Murray" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> sneered: > On 15 Mar, 12:06, Aham Brahmasmi <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I challenge you to defend your thesis, by any means, fair or pikey. > > It's not my thesis. It's your misinterpretation of it. Hey, you're the "professional journalist" in the room. Try making your statements perfectly clear to those who might be confused by them. > Welcome to the Kalgary Klub :-) Hey! Leave Mr. Binns out of this. You should take lessons from him on how to be a proper gentleman. |