RE: Triumph Bonnevilles? Show 'em off!

[Capo]

I won't point to a particular component or styling issue on any one modern retro, but to the overall issues of 1) bulk, and 2) engine beauty. If today's retros had the proportions of the originals, it would be great. But I don't think they ever will.

On point 1, motorcycle manufacturers haven't yet had to grapple with weight. Engines putting out as much horsepower as today's bikes do can move any sized bike, and generally, MpG isn't an issue for recreational motorcycle consumers. So there's not a big enough incentive to lighten bikes, yet. Add in modern components to handle speed, handling, and safety needs, and you get a hundred pounds or so of blubber.

Point 2, if you walk around any vintage motorbike, what stands out to me are the empty spaces. You can see 'through' the bike as the frame is spindly and the engine is markedly less cluttered....and usually far more beautiful...than any modern machine. Engineers and designers made the engine the champion of the bike. A Velocette single, a pre-unit Triumph twin, a round case Ducati, and yes, a Honda 4 750 Four...modern classic/ retro motors, and the frames in which they are placed, don't come close to the elegant and mechanical beauty of old stuff.

They never will. Times and rider expectations have changed. I applaud the bike manufacturers for what they are doing, but face it, it's primarily marketing, to people like us. 20 years from now, there will likely be a retro Ninja made to draw in the 50 year olds of that day...probably an electric motor, though.

[ClassicVW_imp]

To me, Triumph comes the closest to accurately capturing the look of their original model. This may be a bit unfair to our Hondas since Honda did not try to copy one prior model, but used a blended look, capturing the styling cues from a generation of bikes. Yes, we can nit-pick minor issues of the Triumph, but I feel that some are brought on by building a retro model that has to compete with modern bikes.

[NightRider_imp]

To me, Triumph comes the closest to accurately capturing the look of their original model. This may be a bit unfair to our Hondas since Honda did not try to copy one prior model, but used a blended look, capturing the styling cues from a generation of bikes. Yes, we can nit-pick minor issues of the Triumph, but I feel that some are brought on by building a retro model that has to compete with modern bikes.

Yup. And let's not forget how mechanically challenged the older Triumphs were/are. They leaked more oil than they burned.

[ClassicVW_imp]

To me, Triumph comes the closest to accurately capturing the look of their original model. This may be a bit unfair to our Hondas since Honda did not try to copy one prior model, but used a blended look, capturing the styling cues from a generation of bikes. Yes, we can nit-pick minor issues of the Triumph, but I feel that some are brought on by building a retro model that has to compete with modern bikes.

Yup. And let's not forget how mechanically challenged the older Triumphs were/are. They leaked more oil than they burned.

Yup. And let's not forget how mechanically challenged the older Triumphs were/are. They leaked more oil than they burned.
Oh yeah. Which is why I said they accurately captured "the look". Everyone's certainly glad they didn't capture the mechanicals or the electrics!

[rboe]

Headers in front of the oil filter is a non-starter. What we got is better.

Fenders, the old bikes had proper fenders, now the stylists have taken over and we have to buy fender extenders to protect the engine and headers. Not just Honda, everyone seems to be doing it.

While retro inline fours are cool (and Indian should to a inline 4 to match the old Indian), I'd like to see a redo of the GB500 with the 650 motor.

I'd love to see a redo of the old CB450 twin too. Today all the bikes (in the US) are just too darn big in the engine department. My personal pet peeve is that seats are way too low. Do mostly short people or inseam challenged folks buy motorcycles? A proper seat would be nice.

[DGShannon_imp]

Headers in front of the oil filter is a non-starter. What we got is better.

Fenders, the old bikes had proper fenders, now the stylists have taken over and we have to buy fender extenders to protect the engine and headers. Not just Honda, everyone seems to be doing it.

While retro inline fours are cool (and Indian should to a inline 4 to match the old Indian), I'd like to see a redo of the GB500 with the 650 motor.

I'd love to see a redo of the old CB450 twin too. Today all the bikes (in the US) are just too darn big in the engine department. My personal pet peeve is that seats are way too low. Do mostly short people or inseam challenged folks buy motorcycles? A proper seat would be nice.

I will second that. Also liked the Yamaha SRX6...

[NightRider_imp]

For me, the photo of Capos 1970 T120 illustrates why I think Honda was wise not to try to recreate any one specific design from the past. The look of the current Bonneville pales in comparison to the originals. The proportions just aren't right. The beautiful lines of that 1970 bike are lost in the new bikes with their bulbous tanks, oddly angled pipes and larger engines. The models sporting 17" wheels look worse to my eye than the T100s. Not because of the spokes, but because the size of the wheel/tire just throws the balance off that much more. Keep in mind that I consider the Triumphs of the late 60s to be some of the most beautiful bikes ever built. Simply awesome looking machines. So Triumph set their own design bar really high. I also happen to be pretty particular about stuff like this.

Those of you who have been around this forum for a while are familiar with the fact that I'm not too crazy about the look of the larger tank on the CB1100 deluxe. Same deal - the lines of the tank pass muster in some photos, but in others the curves just look bloated. I would be hard pressed to find a photo of that 1970 T120 that didn't look darn near perfect to me from almost any angle. Stunning machine.
Before I come across as being too hard on today's retro standards, I would add that I still find these designs more attractive than the alternatives. The Bonneville of today is still a more attractive bike to me than say the Daytona 675. Things just start to fall apart for me a bit when the comparison to the looks of the old bikes comes into play.

I'm not going to talk about oil. I was looking at my today retro, the CB1100 14 Standard, my "Black Beauty Edition" and thought I'd take up threadspace musing about about modern retros, a class of bike she well represents just as the new Bonnie and Yamaha and even the stunning Kawasaki W series do.

When you look at her close especially from the back and then along the unbroken line flowing from the top of her seat and onto her beautiful fuel tank and side covers, you realize she and her Delux sisters were sculpted into a form nothing like their older siblings, sculpted to a form that is both beautiful and functional, I think superior so to the CB750, and while that bike is beautiful, it's form is more functional than beautiful, a large CB360 with extra cylinders, which is not bad since that is beautiful bike but chunky beauty rather than a sculpted form of our new Cbs, they reminding us both of where they came from but also leaving much of that past behind in amazing and modern mechanics and electronics and also in a modern take, a modern form, a new CB that leaves the old behind for new roads, new rides and new memories.

I think more or less this is true of all of the new crop of modern retros, the Bonnie and the new Yamaha small displacement retro that is leaping out of showrooms for the past year or so. The new retros capture the essence of their ancestors while greeting us with a new soul in the machine.

[ChipBeck_imp]

For me, the photo of Capos 1970 T120 illustrates why I think Honda was wise not to try to recreate any one specific design from the past. The look of the current Bonneville pales in comparison to the originals. The proportions just aren't right. The beautiful lines of that 1970 bike are lost in the new bikes with their bulbous tanks, oddly angled pipes and larger engines. The models sporting 17" wheels look worse to my eye than the T100s. Not because of the spokes, but because the size of the wheel/tire just throws the balance off that much more. Keep in mind that I consider the Triumphs of the late 60s to be some of the most beautiful bikes ever built. Simply awesome looking machines. So Triumph set their own design bar really high. I also happen to be pretty particular about stuff like this.

Those of you who have been around this forum for a while are familiar with the fact that I'm not too crazy about the look of the larger tank on the CB1100 deluxe. Same deal - the lines of the tank pass muster in some photos, but in others the curves just look bloated. I would be hard pressed to find a photo of that 1970 T120 that didn't look darn near perfect to me from almost any angle. Stunning machine.
Before I come across as being too hard on today's retro standards, I would add that I still find these designs more attractive than the alternatives. The Bonneville of today is still a more attractive bike to me than say the Daytona 675. Things just start to fall apart for me a bit when the comparison to the looks of the old bikes comes into play.

Gentlemen,

This post from our Forum's Il Duce is spot on in my opinion. I had a Lucifer Orange modern Bonneville and that double kink in the exhaust pipes drove me crazy because it shouldn't be that way. I can't warm up to the Dlx tank either and would have swapped it out for the standard tank if I bought one. Putting 17" wheels on a Bonneville is like putting 50 series tires on a 1969 Mustang, it just looks wrong. On my '13 CB1100 I would change a few things. It needs the 6 speed transmission and the bare aluminum engine and wheels of the '14 Dlx, and the black tank of the '14 std. I am not a fan of blacked out bikes or cars because so much visual detail is lost. The big air cooled mill in the CB11 shows itself off best in bare aluminum and it's the best styling feature on this bike. It puts the "motor" back in motorcycle. The exhaust system on the '13 CB is ugly with the sloppy welds feeding into the round converter that funnels awkwardly into the silencer. The taillight and turn signals on the '13 bike are WAY to big too but that has been fixed on my bike.

Still, especially as my '13 is modded today, I think it is far more beautiful than the original CB750. IMO, only the CB400 is as pretty.

As for the respectful posting of opinions, both positive and negative, they should all be welcome here. Personal attacks or flaming have no place here, but when I put up threads on Chip Beck Spec mods, I get a lot of members who post that they don't like what I have done as it's not right for them or their tastes while others really liked what I did. I posted up to subject my work to respectful peer review with all comments, positive or negative, welcome. That's my take on that.

All the best.

Chip

[NightRider_imp]

What would I change about todays retro standards? More color choices. Standard fenders that are long enough to catch rain and mud off the front tire. Factory luggage options. Quick release fairing. Order from the factory option exactly like I want it.

[Guth_imp]

For me, the photo of Capos 1970 T120 illustrates why I think Honda was wise not to try to recreate any one specific design from the past. The look of the current Bonneville pales in comparison to the originals. The proportions just aren't right. The beautiful lines of that 1970 bike are lost in the new bikes with their bulbous tanks, oddly angled pipes and larger engines. The models sporting 17" wheels look worse to my eye than the T100s. Not because of the spokes, but because the size of the wheel/tire just throws the balance off that much more. Keep in mind that I consider the Triumphs of the late 60s to be some of the most beautiful bikes ever built. Simply awesome looking machines. So Triumph set their own design bar really high. I also happen to be pretty particular about stuff like this.

Those of you who have been around this forum for a while are familiar with the fact that I'm not too crazy about the look of the larger tank on the CB1100 deluxe. Same deal - the lines of the tank pass muster in some photos, but in others the curves just look bloated. I would be hard pressed to find a photo of that 1970 T120 that didn't look darn near perfect to me from almost any angle. Stunning machine.
Before I come across as being too hard on today's retro standards, I would add that I still find these designs more attractive than the alternatives. The Bonneville of today is still a more attractive bike to me than say the Daytona 675. Things just start to fall apart for me a bit when the comparison to the looks of the old bikes comes into play.

Gentlemen,

This post from our Forum's Il Duce is spot on in my opinion. I had a Lucifer Orange modern Bonneville and that double kink in the exhaust pipes drove me crazy because it shouldn't be that way. I can't warm up to the Dlx tank either and would have swapped it out for the standard tank if I bought one. Putting 17" wheels on a Bonneville is like putting 50 series tires on a 1969 Mustang, it just looks wrong. On my '13 CB1100 I would change a few things. It needs the 6 speed transmission and the bare aluminum engine and wheels of the '14 Dlx, and the black tank of the '14 std. I am not a fan of blacked out bikes or cars because so much visual detail is lost. The big air cooled mill in the CB11 shows itself off best in bare aluminum and it's the best styling feature on this bike. It puts the "motor" back in motorcycle. The exhaust system on the '13 CB is ugly with the sloppy welds feeding into the round converter that funnels awkwardly into the silencer. The taillight and turn signals on the '13 bike are WAY to big too but that has been fixed on my bike.

Still, especially as my '13 is modded today, I think it is far more beautiful than the original CB750. IMO, only the CB400 is as pretty.

As for the respectful posting of opinions, both positive and negative, they should all be welcome here. Personal attacks or flaming have no place here, but when I put up threads on Chip Beck Spec mods, I get a lot of members who post that they don't like what I have done as it's not right for them or their tastes while others really liked what I did. I posted up to subject my work to respectful peer review with all comments, positive or negative, welcome. That's my take on that.

All the best.

Chip

Thanks for that Chip.

It's certainly unrealistic to expect everyone on this forum to agree on everything. While I didn't attack or flame any individual, upon retrospect I could understand where my critical comments might be out of place in a thread started with the intent to praise the modern Bonneville. Which of course is why I pulled some of that content to use in starting this thread. Respectful criticism has its place. I've read plenty of less-than-respectful criticism of the CB1100 elsewhere on the web and it hasn't swayed my opinion of the bike. I would hope that modern Bonneville owners feel the same way about their rides regardless of my comments.

One thing I would say about the many of bikes from the 60's, and earlier is that they strike me as being much more organic in nature. In other words to me it appears that designers back then had a bit more leverage in calling for how a bike would look along with the individual systems and components and then figure out how to make it all work. Function following form to a degree. (Aside from the retro standards as a group, most of todays bikes strike me as pretty much the opposite.) Obviously todays bikes have made incredible strides in terms of performance gains. For me, they've just taken a few steps backwards in the looks department.

What would I change about todays retro standards? More color choices. Standard fenders that are long enough to catch rain and mud off the front tire. Factory luggage options. Quick release fairing. Order from the factory option exactly like I want it.

Good one — I think that might apply to almost all motorcycles available today.