Feedback
FEEDBACK
Readers are invited to have their say about motorcycles they own or have owned. Anything is fair game: performance, handling, reliability, service, parts availability, funkiness, lovability, you name it. Suggestions: be objective, be fair, no wildly emotional but ill-founded invectives; include useful facts like miles on odometer, time owned, model year, special equipment and accessories bought, etc.
AN ERROR CORRECTED
In your Jan. `72 issue you carried an article (Technical Report) with refer ence to the new Pabatco Reed Valve Kit. Your article, while quite correct for the most part, contains one error. You noted near the end of the article that the reed valve kit would work on the two-bolt Ace cylinder. This is not correct! The external port area on the Ace 100 cylinder is insufficient to accommodate the reed manifold and the required expanding of the cylinder port area to mate-up with the reed valve manifold.
I tried to fit the reed kit to my Ace 100 with disastrous results. I purchased all of the necessary items for the installation and gave the cylinder, piston and a copy of the Pabatco instructions to a local machinist. In one week’s time he completed the work and returned the cylinder and piston machined to the Pabatco specifications. Only one problem: since the Ace 100 has a smaller external port area the necessary enlarging of the port resulted in the utilization of all of the external port area against which the manifold must press in order to seal properly.
In short, the manifold will not seal against the newly machined cylinder because the Ace 100 cylinder has less material surrounding the inlet port than does the Super Rat (the cylinder for which the Pabatco kit was designed and intended). This ran into quite a bit of money ($75 machine shop time not to mention the parts necessary, larger carburetor, the Reed Kit, and a different air cleaner assembly). My expenses came to around $150 granting that the machinist overcharged me on the work he did. I was left with a disassembled bike, bills for $150 and a bunch of parts that were useless.
I dashed off a letter to Pabatco and soon received a phone call from their Oregon office. The gentleman explained^ that the Reed Valve Kit will only worl^^ on the Super Rat cylinder or the Hodaka Racing cylinder (also a four-bolt pattern).
He said that Pabatco was very sorry for any misunderstanding and stated that he was sending me a racing cylinder with all the necessary porting and machine work done and a new reed valve kit.
In my estimation this represents outstanding company behavior. The reliability of the Hodaka is matched only by the reliability and cooperative understanding of Pabatco, the little bike’s importers and distributors. My many thanks to Pabatco for their assistance in my dilemma.
James F. Harrison Philadelphia, PA.
A SPORTSTER IN EUROPE
In March ’71,1 took possession of a ’71 XLCH Sportster here in Germany. During 8000 miles of riding, the following defects/malfunctions have occurred: Oil pressure light inoperative, spark plug wires fell out of coil three times in two weeks, lower oil tank bracket being “notched” by rear chain, leaking fork seals, leaking front and rear rocker covers, lower oil tank bracket broke twice, one front fender bracket broke, continuous breaking of rear sprocket rivets, horn wire broke at connector, broken chain guard due to chain contacting guard, baffle broke loose in the one-piece muffler, two shattered retaining plates for clutch releasing disc, broken kick starter return spring, broken Tach/Speedometer bracket, broken support bracket for muffler, broken crankcase breather tube, excessive oil consumption due to broken piston pin snapring scoring cylinder wall, and leak from rocker arm pivot stud.
(Continued on page 20)
Continued from page 16
In addition to the above, the rear tire tread separated from the casing while doing 100 mph on the Autobahn. The taillight, license plate and bracket were destroyed as a result. Goodyear did not back up its warranty in this case. They claim that heat generated as a result of a nail caused the failure.
Some people claim that American bikes are not made for European roads. I tend to agree.
Christian Skribanowitz APO, N.Y.
BSA REBUTTAL
This letter is written in particular to the article in the section of “Feedback,” page 26, March 1972 issue.
The article was written by a Neal Sager, Böblingen, Germany. I would like to break down each of the problems incurred and fairly defend each because I own a 1971 BSA Lightning with 4100 miles on it. It has all of the original equipment intact and is in excellent condition. I also work in a BSA shop.
1) Gas tank splitting. Maybe the rubber cushions were missing. It could be factory fault or maybe a mechanic forgot to put them back on.
2) The clutch burned out. If the shop would have checked, the springs are different on the clutch, being weaker ones than on earlier models, but can be replaced with the earlier springs. This cures the clutch problem.
3) Coil burned out. Again it could be factory fault, but the wire could have been changed incorrectly by a mechanic or set-up man.
4) Zener diode burned out. There is a service bulletin on how to service the Zener diode by putting silicone or equivalent between it and the mount to keep it from shorting out.
5) Fork seals blew. They may have leaked. I don’t know how a seal can blow out!! A service bulletin has been sent to all dealers about new seals that prevent leaking. They have been avail able for four months.
(Continued on page 22)
Continued from page 20
6) Horn mount broke. They did break-one for Neal Sager!!
7) Primary chain stretched. The owner's manual tells how to check and tighten the primary chain. Also, the correct amount of oil in the primary case helps out, too.
8) Valve train and cam on last leg. Impossible! I have as of yet to see a BSA cam wear completely out. The valves and guides may wear out after 30,000 to 40,000 miles. Same for the cam after 80,000 miles! A good grade of oil works wonders.
9) Blows out oil. A good grade of oil does work good. I have personally found two brands of oil that would not stay in my Lightning.
10) Bad gas mileage. The shop should check carburetion jetting. Our bikes are rejetted if needed after the first 500 miles.
If the instrument lights were missing and the bike looked as bad as described, I would not have bought it. I find it hard to believe this bike was actually sold by a BSA dealer.
Don Carroccia Potts Motorcycle Co. Pueblo, Cob.
Our only comment here, Don, is that you are privileged to have direct access to service material relating to the bike you own. If, for example, missing cushions caused Sager’s gas tank to split, how can you rightfully expect him to know the cushions were missing? The same comment applies to most of your points.
It is right for a consumer to expect that a machine, made to provide transportation, has been assembled properly for that purpose. If anyone can buy the machine without having to specially qualify, then the machine has to be just as ready to carry grandma around as it does Sager.
The old doctrine of “Caveat Emptor, ” or buyer beware, has long since gone by the wayside. If you expect the average roadrider to completely tear down his new bike and reassemble it properly just after new purchase, then you’d better close your doors. You’ll not be in business much longer anyway.— Ed.
KAWASAKI DEFENDED
In answer to F.C. Jordan of Houston, Texas, I can only say blame your dealer and not Kawasaki.
As Service Manager for a dealer which sells four brands of tikes, I have experienced no trouble with warranty claims to Kawasaki, and with the exception of the West Coast dock strike, any part not in stock would arrive overnight from our Distributor if the problem warranted a call to our area Service Rep.
(Continued on page 24)
Continued from page 22
Often the problem has been cured at no cost to the customer, even though his bike was out of warranty.
This is not to say that a customer who enters the service department badmouthing the product, the dealer and the service personnel will get preferential treatment. But a customer with a reasonable complaint, reasonably presented, will get response from Kawasaki faster than most other brands.
Dennis Walsh
Omaha, Neb.
FOIBLES AND QUIBBLES
This is a very interesting section and I thoroughly enjoy hearing of others’ experiences. A.R. Johnson’s piece (Sept. ’71) was apparently well done; he expresses himself well and uses some interesting words—“ingesting, manifest testimony, frequency of occurrence data” among others. However, if his facts are correct as presented, a portion of the related experiences are in doubt, in my mind, at least.
Since returning to motorcycles after riding 1945-54, I have had the following new machines: 1966 6T Triumph, 1968 Suzuki 500, 1969 BMW R 69 US and my present one, a 1971 Suzuki 500 Titan. It is my experience with these machines that raises some questions.
These people claim to ride 75-80 mph on freeways and 70-75 mph on two lane roads, conditions permitting. Yet the only bike that evidently needed new tires was the Moto Guzzi which evidently replaced a rear tire at 8600 with the front still on (apparently) at 14,000. The BMW R 75/5 still has both tires on at 11,5 14.
I rode the 1966 Triumph about 5800 miles and the ’68 Suzuki about 6000 with tires in both instances approaching replacement. The BMW had a rear tire replaced at 6800-7000 miles (being illegal in New York state) and the front tire replaced at 7800 miles. By 13,000 plus miles when I sold it, the rear tire was again nearing replacement. While people may view tire wear and life through different eyes, my riding companion, with a 1966 305 Yamaha, experiences similar tire life—6000-7500 miles. The 1971 Suzuki now has 6500 miles and the rear tire will have to be replaced in another 500-1000 miles. The 1966 Triumph had Avons, the 1968 Suzuki had Inouz, 1969 BMW had Metzler and the Dunlop K 70; and the 1971 Suzuki has Bridgestone. The Yamaha rider has had original equipment tires, brand name forgotten as well as Pirelli and Dunlop K70 both Japanese and British. My point is that this particular “Feedback” column was, I think, somewhat built up by the author if viewed in context to their introduction. Perhaps it is the nature of bike riders to “guild the lily” to a degree, but I feel that you might caution your younger readers to examine these comments with some degree of question.
(Continued on page 28)
Continued from page 24
For example, the poor BMW rider in that group riding along at 75-80 and all the while anticipating a speed wobble? Can a group of six riders still maintain 70-75 mph down a two-lane road? Not in New York state they can’t normally, nor in Northern Pennsylvania. Two or three probably, but six? Does that Harley with the rear cylinder knock at 80 (prolonged periods?) still ride with these guys? You did question their comment that “all the new BMWs are so afflicted.” The whole article sounds to me that their experiences covered the normal cruising operation of cyclists that I have observed, which is in the 50-60 mph category, and far different than their introduction. It is possible that they ride in a Western state, but the pavement would appear to be very, very smooth and the freeways extremely well worn (new freeways are rough on tires).
My 1968 Suzuki 500 was a speed wobbler (at indicated 100 mph 6200 rpm), a gas burner and obnoxious intake roar (4000 rpm for about 200-300 miles would drive one out of his gourd).
The 1971 500 is a dream. Better handling (no wobbles, corners wonderfully), great brakes (you know you will always stop), good range on a tank of gas (150-185 miles), shifts from 5000 rpm and up really make my day, two up riding makes little difference (compared to the BMW) and lights are good. Some vibration at 3500 rpm cruising in 5th, but nothing loosens or blows or falls off (I got tired of tightening BMW motor mounts). Starting up on a hill is uncomfortable and revs build slowly at a start but all in all it is just a fun bike to have and to ride. No replacement parts to date (except two plugs). Routine maintainence is relatively easy; timing decarboning, carb adjustments, etc. and no shop expense has been necessary to date. There are just no flaws noticeable, that are that significant (contrast this with the above Feedback article referring to BMW clutch, ca'rbs, BSA clutch, carb and valve adjustments (3400 miles), the Honda 750 (frequent tuneups at 6800 miles, chain problems).
To digress for a moment, I call attention to Cycle Guide’s latest issue, Questions and Answers regarding an “inherent moderate speed wobble (wiggle) at 50 mph” which is evidently very common to the model (Honda 750). Really great for all those buyers, none of whom ever mention a deficiency that just should not be on any machine. Again Johnson’s Feedback comments compare the Honda as “manifest testimony to the power it produces” and then compares it to the Kaw 500. Three major moving parts, as compared to how many on the Honda? Tck, Tck, those four-stroke lovers will never give up.
Anyway, when I think I paid $1800 plus for that BMW (which had problems) as compared to two 500 Suzukis for the same price, I almost get sick. There are quicker machines and faster machines but none that give any greater peace of mind or more confidence on the highway, whether it is at 500 mph or 90 mph. I know the 500 will take that 25 mph curve at 50 mph indicated and still have 5 mph left before anything drags and 50 mph turns are good for 70-80 in most circumstances.
(Continued on page 30)
Continued from page 28
I do not like the way they omit chrome plating under the seat (what control) and the high-low-off headlight switch could be dangerous. However, by changing from the rubber bushed swing arm, and using a better steering head angle and better forks, Suzuki has perfected the best all around road bike that has yet been built. When we consider cost, cost of upkeep, handling, brakes, all around practicality (from the corner store to across the country) as well as a generous amount of performance, there is only one choice at the present time as far as I am concerned. The recent Suzuki ads indicate that they will probably replace this with a 3-cylinder machine and if they do, it will be one of the great errors of all time from the rider’s point of view.
My final comments are directed to the motorcycle magazine approach. I feel that the manner of writing has created the demand, or at least contributed to it, for the high performance 4-cyl. Hondas, 3-cyl. BSAs and Triumphs, Kawasaki Threes, etc. The results and disappointments are hinted at in the Johnson “Feedback” article and as far as road riders are concerned, are resulting in a group of high cost, high upkeep machines that require expertise that the average guy maintaining his own bike might not have, either through lack of knowledge or experience.
The other portion of areas that bike magazines fall down on, I think, are the everyday foibles of bikes. I never realized that Triumphs leak so much fork oil ’til I got one. Those Honda 750 owners never were aware that there is a possibility of a 50 mph wiggle. No one ever said that the BMW sidestand was unreliable on a $1800 bike, or that the ’68 Suzuki had wobbles and poor forks. It only comes out after a model has been in production for a couple of years, or better, that we find it was a dog. Witness your review of the ’70 Kawasaki 500 listing the corrections. That was nice to know, but perhaps a little late. Again I think we could do better in this respect and not be sold 100 percent on just about every new model that appears.
Harold Culver Wurtsboro, N.Y.
We must admit the shortcomings of a road test program in which the testers can only be exposed to the machine for several weeks at a time. Within those limitations, our prime value to the reader is giving to him CYCLE WORLD’S uniformly measured specifications and performance data. When the facts are verifiable, or can be supported, we’ll also relate mechanical idiosyncrasies reported to us by a manufacturer’s service rep.
(Continued on page 32)
Continued from page 30
Still, three or four weeks will not reveal how much a bike is going to break-down for an owner who is going to have it for 5000 to 20,000 miles. A 5000-mile or 10,000-mile test has its own shortcomings: 1) you can’t complete these tests often enough to provide a broad enough selection of bikes to the readers before they buy them.
Assuming that you could provide a regular and comprehensive staff testing program for 5000 or 10,000 miles of ownership, there is yet another problem. Our 5000 miles is different than your 5000 miles. Chances are we’ll maintain the machine better than you will, because we have the facilities to do so, as well as a company budget to pay for repairs and close contact with distributors’ service departments.
In the end, we’ll get the same type of question from certain readers that we’ve been getting for years, “Why didn’t you tell your readers that the fork seals leaked, or that the rear fender cracked...etc...etc. ”
Our answer will be the same: “We didn’t tell you because it never happened. ”
As an alternative, we believe that “Feedback” is the best answer. Anyone reading CYCLE WORLD’S road tests should also keep a running file on Feedback, for as the column develops through time an immense storehouse of information will be readily available to the motorcycling public:
This includes reader-supplied information on the true value of warranties, service from dealers, and most valuable of all, recurrent patterns of information which can be used to develop intelligent guesses about the future of a type of machine.
We’re counting on people like you to make “Feedback” a useful service to other readers by sending us fair, accurate appraisals of the machines you have owned or now own.— Ed.
HONDA SUPER HAWK
I am presently the proud owner of a 1968 CB77 Honda Super Hawk. I am writing because my bike is one of the first touring bikes of the 60s and the last of a true breed around. I purchased my bike in August of 1969 and now the odometer reads 18,542 all safe but not so happy miles. I’ve had my bike through all kinds of road and street handling, including a trip that my buddy and I took to Wisconsin and Minnesota. I rode my Hawk and my buddy rode his ’67 305 Scrambler. Both bikes worked without a flaw but my mileage was only 30 miles per gallon.
(Continued on page 34)
I Continued from page 32
My owner’s manual said top speed is around 99 miles per hour but 90 is the top end on my cycle going downhill. The handling ability on this bike is excellent even through the tightest curves, but the suspension is too stiff and very uncomfortable during a long trip. One major problem I believe is that fourth gear is too low and on the road the engine strains very hard above 6000 rpm.
The quality control on this model is not as satisfactory as my older brother’s ’67 Hawk. At 10,000 miles my primary chain snapped when I was traveling about 65 mph on Interstate 80. It locked the rear tire and I just happened to pull in the clutch, and avoided dropping my gearbox the Honda dealer told me.
Other equipment and accessories I have put on or replaced have been: primary chain at 10,000; rear and front tires, chain and sprocket at 13,000; all new spokes in rear rim at 8000; new battery, chain guard and hand grips. But the most special accessory I acquired for my cycle was a BSA sissy bar which isn’t gaudy looking and adds a smart trim look to the rear of the bike.
I really enjoy my bike. I don’t see many cycles like mine and I feel very individualistic. Nothing could make me trade or sell my black Hawk because it’s a true classic in its own time.
Kirk Luchman Iowa City, Iowa
Senior Editor Hunt owned a 1963 CB77, which he purchased new. Most of your comments are in line with his own reactions. He owned his for 8000 miles and PA years.
Total replacement cost included the result of excessive rear tire wear with a new one needed at 4000 miles, and a broken throttle cable at 5500 miles. During the early part break-in period the Super Hawk developed excessive clutch slip, which was a common problem, but easily alleviated on warranty. Another common problem was spontaneous cracking of exhaust pipe retaining flange bolts-two of them broke on Hunt’s bike and had to be replaced.
The bike would not do much over 90 mph (CW’s ’64 testbike did 93 mph), so it is a shame that Honda joined with its competition of that era in making excessive claims. Ninety-three miles per hour for a 305cc machine is quite good; the 1971 CB 350, successor to the Super Hawk and bigger by 20cc, is 3 mph slower, although 1 sec. quicker in the quarter.— Ed. |Q]
