dream bike?



Status
Not open for further replies.
"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I love the original V-Max too. I got over 130 clocked by a 'Vette; with
a
> modified Trident Triple. The scary thing about that is that the Brit bikes
lock
> upright at speed due to gyroscopic design.

Goddamm.
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Steve Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah; tough to get "rings" to behave that aren't round! But now that
four
> > strokes can run 1000cc, they don't need the valve area they did then.
They
> > can already make more power than they do, but have enough tire issues as
it
> > is. Rideability and tire life are the priorities.
>
> Oddly, they seem to have had no more tire troubles than the 500s did recently, in spite of the
> massive increase in hp.
>
> > Back when Honda dreamed up the NR500, they were limited to the same
500cc as
> > the 2-strokes and 4 cylinders max. So they basically made a "cheater"
V8
> > and dialed up the revs to nosebleed level. Only way they could hope to
get
> > close to a 500cc 2-stroke.
>
> If you want nosebleed rpm levels, check out the mid '60s 50cc twins
that
> Honda raced - those ran up around 22,000 rpm, with bursts up to 23,500 (iirc). I had seen at least
> one source that said the 50s could get up into the 26,000 range, but that was the only one who
> said that, so it seems doubtful.

Actually the twin 50's and the 5 cyclinder 125 was redlined at 28,000 rpm and they generally shifted
at 26,000. The company wanted them to shift at 22,000 but there was no way that they could be
competitive at that because it gave a power band entirely too narrow even with the 12 speed
transmissions.

When I raced at Orange County a couple of times, Grant was riding the Suzuki 50 twin and the
transmission was about twice the size of the motor. I could (JUST) keep up with him on my factory
Honda 125 twin.
 
An RC211V...with lights and turn signals and all the other stuff to make it street legal... painted
in the Repsol colors.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually the twin 50's and the 5 cyclinder 125 was redlined at 28,000 rpm and they generally
> shifted at 26,000. The company wanted them to shift at 22,000 but there was no way that they could
> be competitive at that because it gave a power band entirely too narrow even with the 12 speed
> transmissions.

There were a couple of books on the '59-67 Honda racing efforts that I'd seen a few years ago,
and I vaguely remembered the 50 at least turning that fast. But when I searched online to confirm
what I remembered, all but one site showed the rpm being in the 22-23,000 range. So I'm starting
to lean back toward 28k being the right number. But I don't remember them ever having more than
nine speed trannies. The funny thing on the '64 RC114 (the
50) was the front brakes - basically just like a bicycle, calipers grabbing on the rim. Of course,
with the bike only weighing 50 kilos and Taveri about the same, they didn't really need super
strong brakes.

> When I raced at Orange County a couple of times, Grant was riding the Suzuki 50 twin and the
> transmission was about twice the size of the motor. I could (JUST) keep up with him on my factory
> Honda 125 twin.

A guy I used to work for had at least three of the customer versions of the 50 (CR110), a couple
of the 125s (CR93) and one or possibly two of the CR72s (250). Might have been a CR71 (the 305
that was intended for the 350 class) in there, too. Sorry to be so nebulous on the quantities, it
was a while ago and keeping track of -his- inventory of half done bikes and piles of parts isn't
something I need (or have time) to do... But he did have the spare engine and a bunch of parts
(no frame, though) from the '59 Honda RC142 effort at the Isle of Man. Just out of curiosity,
what was your 125?

--
tanx, Howard

"We're not laughing -at- you, we're laughing -with- you..) "But... I'm not
laughing???" Happiness

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Actually the twin 50's and the 5 cyclinder 125 was redlined at 28,000
rpm
> > and they generally shifted at 26,000. The company wanted them to shift
at
> > 22,000 but there was no way that they could be competitive at that
because
> > it gave a power band entirely too narrow even with the 12 speed transmissions.
>
> There were a couple of books on the '59-67 Honda racing efforts that
I'd
> seen a few years ago, and I vaguely remembered the 50 at least turning
that
> fast. But when I searched online to confirm what I remembered, all but one site showed the rpm
> being in the 22-23,000 range. So I'm starting to lean back toward 28k being the right number. But
> I don't remember them ever having more than nine speed trannies. The funny thing on the '64 RC114
(the
> 50) was the front brakes - basically just like a bicycle, calipers
grabbing
> on the rim. Of course, with the bike only weighing 50 kilos and Taveri about the same, they didn't
> really need super strong brakes.

I can remember the factory rider of the 5 cyclinder saying that they could go as high as 28,000 but
at 28,200 the cranks broke. These sorts of figures were probably correct since they told me that my
cranks would sieze at 14,500 and that is EXACTLY what they did. Three times.

> > When I raced at Orange County a couple of times, Grant was riding the
Suzuki
> > 50 twin and the transmission was about twice the size of the motor. I
could
> > (JUST) keep up with him on my factory Honda 125 twin.
>
> A guy I used to work for had at least three of the customer versions of the 50 (CR110), a
> couple of the 125s (CR93) and one or possibly two of the CR72s (250). Might have been a CR71
> (the 305 that was intended for the 350 class) in there, too. Sorry to be so nebulous on the
> quantities, it was a while ago and keeping track of -his- inventory of half done bikes and
piles
> of parts isn't something I need (or have time) to do... But he did have
the
> spare engine and a bunch of parts (no frame, though) from the '59 Honda RC142 effort at the Isle
> of Man. Just out of curiosity, what was your 125?

CR93 from Johnny Honda. Bootleg version.

I had to get my parts through Great Britain. Did you work for that shop in Richmond? I seem to
remember that he was trying to sell me all of those bikes.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can remember the factory rider of the 5 cyclinder saying that they could go as high as 28,000
> but at 28,200 the cranks broke. These sorts of figures were probably correct since they told me
> that my cranks would sieze at 14,500 and that is EXACTLY what they did. Three times.

The guy I worked for who had all those bikes knew Luigi Taveri and Jim Redmond, and they told him
there wasn't much of a margin of error on those engines, rpm-wise.

> CR93 from Johnny Honda. Bootleg version.
>
> I had to get my parts through Great Britain. Did you work for that shop in Richmond? I seem to
> remember that he was trying to sell me all of those bikes.

The guy I worked for is in Redwood City. He still has most, if not all of them. He was trying to
hustle a couple of the CR110s and CR93s.

--
tanx, Howard

"We're not laughing -at- you, we're laughing -with- you..) "But... I'm not
laughing???" Happiness

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
>
> >Goddamm.
> >
> >

> >
>
> The new ones are good, but I still have this nasty memory of basically hanging off the right side
> fighting the bars on my '69 BSA Lightning at about 85 to get around a corner. It just kept
> wanting to come upright and go straight. They were fun bikes and the Trident held a landspeed
> record for a while but not so good at fast bendy stuff. Bill C

That's funny you should say so. While I don't know the reputations of the BSAs, the Japanese really
took over from the Brits in motorcycles starting with the engines; the britbike handling was
generally regarded as superior until near the end of their era (early 70s?).

Of course, the general "doesn't leak, doesn't break" thing the Japanese had going for them was worth
a lot for both handling and acceleration.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.