Other Bikes » The old vs the new

This is an interesting video comparing the mid-1970's Honda CB360T with the latest 2020 Honda CB300R: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlbkAhCNvik

It is indeed Ryan. I enjoy his channel no end.

Grandpa got it right? I rode one of those CB360's in my last year of HS and the fall of my freshman year in college..........

I ain't no GrandPa

Zitat von wessie im Beitrag #5

---

Zitat von Mr. 36654 im Beitrag #4

---

Grandpa got it right? I rode one of those CB360's in my last year of HS and the fall of my freshman year in college..........

I ain't no GrandPa

---

{mode RK}

ok boomer

{/RK}

---

I have a friend who worked in a local Honda shop during the 1970's and he said that he was familiar with the Honda 350, the 360 and the later 400 Hawk. He told me that the 360 was the worst of the bunch. It was not nearly as reliable as the old 350 and also not as fast. He says that Honda went back to the drawing board after the 360T came out and introduced the 400 Hawk, which was a big improvement over the previous models. It was more reliable, smoother and faster than the 350 or 360 bikes.

The cam chain tensioner was crap. It would fail and the valves would get bent. Honda issued a recall in late 1978 or so, but that was after mine failed.

In light of that, I've never owned another Honda MC or car.

Cost a guy some money when he's pinching pennies and you'll loose a customer for life.

I agree with just about none of his opinions in this video.

1) The argument that the price of beginner bikes is the reason young people don't buy motorcycles is silly. Who buys new for their first bike? There are many other reasons why kids aren't getting into motorcycles.
2) The argument that selling 1970s tech for $3K in 2020 would be a successful strategy is beyond ridiculous.
3) 1970s brake technology is scary. What manufacturer in 2020 would put their name on a bike that can't stop in the wet and stops poorly in the dry? Why would anyone want them to?

I love vintage bikes. The second bike I owned was a '76 R90S that I bought in 1995. It was my only bike for many years and I enjoyed riding it all over the Southwest. I still think the motor/frame/ergo balance on the bike is one of the best ever. But, the brakes (double ported discs, single pot calipers) were scary. They would make a crazy whizzy noise and bring you to a halt, but not quickly and not in the rain. When I bought a '96 VFR a few years later, I was amazed at the brakes and I barely rode the 90S again. My first bike with ABS was a K13S. The brakes were a revelation and I haven't looked back.

BTW, retail on m 90S in '76 would be around $22K in today's dollars.

With all those loose customers flying around, I guess they must lose some of them as well?

Zitat von Yoda im Beitrag #10

---

With all those loose customers flying around, I guess they must lose some of them as well?

---

Zitat von TriangleRider im Beitrag #9

---

I agree with just about none of his opinions in this video.

1) The argument that the price of beginner bikes is the reason young people don't buy motorcycles is silly. Who buys new for their first bike? There are many other reasons why kids aren't getting into motorcycles.
2) The argument that selling 1970s tech for $3K in 2020 would be a successful strategy is beyond ridiculous.
3) 1970s brake technology is scary. What manufacturer in 2020 would put their name on a bike that can't stop in the wet and stops poorly in the dry? Why would anyone want them to?

I love vintage bikes. The second bike I owned was a '76 R90S that I bought in 1995. It was my only bike for many years and I enjoyed riding it all over the Southwest. I still think the motor/frame/ergo balance on the bike is one of the best ever. But, the brakes (double ported discs, single pot calipers) were scary. They would make a crazy whizzy noise and bring you to a halt, but not quickly and not in the rain. When I bought a '96 VFR a few years later, I was amazed at the brakes and I barely rode the 90S again. My first bike with ABS was a K13S. The brakes were a revelation and I haven't looked back.

BTW, retail on m 90S in '76 would be around $22K in today's dollars.

---

Royal Enfield has made a lot of sales in Indian by selling a 1952 design for almost 70 years. This is their final year of selling the Bullet 500 single, but that is only due to the latest Euro 5 and BS6 emission regulations. However, they are still making the 350 single for the Indian market, but it really had to be strangled to meet BS6. As near as I can tell, there had not been much improvement in performance between the 1950 RE singles and the current versions, based upon my reading of period road tests and from riding a 2011 model for the past 8K miles. It is still just as slow as it ever was.

Personally, I wonder how I survived my first "street bike". It was an MT 250. Drum brakes front and back. I bought it used for $300. I knew nothing about motorcycles at the time. To say she was rode hard and put away wet before I bought her second hand would be generous. She was treated much worse than that before I got her. Somehow I rod it for a year and a half, never crashed and developed a love so deep that I still ride 42 year later and can't imagine the day when I can't. The difference between now and then is we didn't know any better because there really wasn't better. As the article points out, time and tech advancements have given us much better bikes. Still, better bikes are cheaper than better health care so I feel like he had a valid point.

Zitat von Davidnapo im Beitrag #14

---

Personally, I wonder how I survived my first "street bike". It was an MT 250. Drum brakes front and back. I bought it used for $300. I knew nothing about motorcycles at the time. To say she was rode hard and put away wet before I bought her second hand would be generous. She was treated much worse than that before I got her. Somehow I rod it for a year and a half, never crashed and developed a love so deep that I still ride 42 year later and can't imagine the day when I can't. The difference between now and then is we didn't know any better because there really wasn't better. As the article points out, time and tech advancements have given us much better bikes. Still, better bikes are cheaper than better health care so I feel like he had a valid point.

---