Forum

[gnasher]

Well Barry i have no idea what you have been looking at if you think the indian bullets are better than the Redditch items, as has been said the latest ones are a lot better than they used to be but generally the castings are terrible and the tolerances are miles out so bad that our hosts cannot guarantee the fitment of parts, you will no doubt be aware that the redditch works sent over all of their worn out tooling to start production in India while they re tooled to start production of the 56 on models
which may explain some of the reason, yes british bikes we're not perfect no bikes wherever they are produced are but the engineering of the main components was certainly of a higher standard as was the metal used.

[stinkwheel]

Although there was also the workforce to take into account. It seems to me that for all their historic deficiencies in materials, machining and execution, the Indians take a real pride in their product. As opposed to a unionised British workforce spending as much time knowing what their jobsworth as actually building motorcycles.

Some of the things are also due to the locality. For example, one thin coat of paint over bare steel is probably sufficient corrosion protection in Chennai.

British manufacturing QC anecdote time.

A local mechanic recounted a story of a Triumph stag being brought to him with a worn out tyre only 200 miles from new (as in the whole car had only done 200 miles). They tweaked the tracking, fitted a new tyre and sent him on his way. A week later, he was back again with a bald tyre. They got it on the level floor and chalked/plumbed it up and found it was impossible to set the tracking. the whole thing was on the piss. He called triumph. They asked for the chassis number. There was silence for a while then someone came on the phone and explained.

Apparently, someone had run into the chassis jig in the factory with a forklift and bent it. They could have fixed it but fixing a jig was a machine shop job, not a chassis shop job and the machine shop said they were too busy to deal with it. The chassis shop wouldn't touch it because the machine shop would have downed tools so they just kept making bent cars for a few days until the jig was fixed. They'd noted down the chassis numbers of the bent cars but had sold them anyway.

Second anecdote. A friend bought a brand new BSA starfire. It seized on his way home from the shop. Further investigation revealed it hadn't had some of critical oilways drilled. It had been running on assembly oil. They worked out it would have gone past at least three people during assembly who could/should have noticed this.

Britain. The country who brought you the Monday Morning Special...

[Wheaters]

A good friend of mine in the 1970s was a civil engineer and did so well he was soon offered a promotion and a brand new company car. He wasn't pleased to discover the car was a metallic beige Morris Marina with bright orange deckchair striped seats.

The builders on the his site visits thought it hilarious. Thankfully he didn't have to suffer long because the back axle seized solid after a couple of weeks. British Leyland quality control obviously thought diff oil was an optional extra.

As far as Royal Enfield go, the UK bikes used to be known as "Royal Oilfields" due to the mess they left on the floor. However, my Indian home market 2004, 350 Bullet is completely oil tight.

[barry.amon]

Hi, My first bike was a Honda C95 Benly 150cc twin. it was only 4years old, very unreliable, spares were non existent and what was available were difficult to get and I was off the road all summer trying to get a condensor. My long suffering father drove me to all the main Honda dealers with no luck. Finally my friend go one from Pride and Clarkes where the stores guy said it was the same as a C90! My next bike was a 30yr old BSA M20 I could get any spare off the shelf at the local shop and it was dead reliable. Personally I have never had any problem with enfields, but I think a lot depends on how you treat them! Vince

Yes I agree with that people these days are so used to performance machines that they forget modern day enfields are unsofisticated air cooled 500cc pushrod engines of bygone days, they are not fast in fact the handbook specifies do not exceed 70mph solo and 55mph with a pillion for the 500 bullet, the object of this bike is leasurely motorcycle riding, and as an old non sofisticated machine it needs constant TLC unlike modern Jap bikes and its no Gold Star which some owners seem to think it can be converted to!!!, if you dont want to tinker and you want performance better than a modern 125cc I suggest nobody should buy an Enfield, or look at the Hitchcock engine upgrades and do the job properly, respect the bike for what it is and the price it costs and I am sure it will give long valuable service.

[barry.amon]

A good friend of mine in the 1970s was a civil engineer and did so well he was soon offered a promotion and a brand new company car. He wasn't pleased to discover the car was a metallic beige Morris Marina with bright orange deckchair striped seats.

The builders on the his site visits thought it hilarious. Thankfully he didn't have to suffer long because the back axle seized solid after a couple of weeks. British Leyland quality control obviously thought diff oil was an optional extra.

As far as Royal Enfield go, the UK bikes used to be known as "Royal Oilfields" due to the mess they left on the floor. However, my Indian home market 2004, 350 Bullet is completely oil tight.

Correct in every respect, about time I gained some support for a good motorcycle, I believe the new Unit motor will prove to be excellent and for a pushrod engine technically first class with all the new engineering now used in the factory, India prides itself in its manufacture watch this space Enfields are hear to stay !!! my favorite bike of times gone was a 1968 unit bonneville, when triumph first produced the unit engine people were very concerned that the unit bonni would be low in power , having owned both pre and unit construction, the unit was faster had a faster gear change and a lighter clutch, handled better and I wish I had it now!! the number was SCG136G, wonder is it still around?

[barry.amon]

Well Barry i have no idea what you have been looking at if you think the indian bullets are better than the Redditch items, as has been said the latest ones are a lot better than they used to be but generally the castings are terrible and the tolerances are miles out so bad that our hosts cannot guarantee the fitment of parts, you will no doubt be aware that the redditch works sent over all of their worn out tooling to start production in India while they re tooled to start production of the 56 on models
which may explain some of the reason, yes british bikes we're not perfect no bikes wherever they are produced are but the engineering of the main components was certainly of a higher standard as was the metal used.

Ok with this in mind why did Royal Enfields of the late 50s and 60s have such a poor following and incredably bad name at the time? does Royal Oil field spring to mind? sales of Royal Enfields in the 60s was crap and caused the demise of the company, they were unreliable, had major engineering defects in gearboxes, cranks and engine casings and were notorious for miss match parts, no change there then!! take a real look at the unit construction engine now produced then get back to me.

[gnasher]

Barry i think the new unit engine seems a good 'un although there have been a few well documented disasters and i am delighted to see royal enfield producing better and better bikes, yes some Enfields of the 60's suffered with oil leaks due mainly to bad and ham fisted maintenance by their owners, if looked after they were as good if not better than most of the motorcycle industry of the time,
i have been riding Royal Enfields for over 50 years and can tell you that they have always had a strong following, the demise of the company was not caused by bad sales they could not make enough 750's to satisfy the market and all the younger riders lusted after the continental gt which also had good sales, Royal Enfield were a family run company with everyone taking great pride in their work but when they were taken over by E & H P Smith who were asset strippers, the company was broken up and sold of in bits, Anyone interested should read one of the excellent books on the Redditch factory.

[barry.amon]

Ok but I was selling bikes in the late 60s and early 70s and believe me we avoided anything Enfield at the time, the GT continental was a nice looking bike but they were renown for gearbox faults, the 700 meteor decided it didnt need oil and threw it out of every orifice it had, the intercepter was marginally better but like the meteor the brakes were rubbish and the handling wasnt much to be desired, people were not queing up for these bikes, they all suffered oiling up spark plugs which became very anoying at the time because of poor crank scavaging ect.

[barry.amon]

my first motorbike on the road was an arial arrow sports (golden arrow) what a load of crap that was, I spent more time pushing it to try and start it, in the wet because the coils were under the dummy tank and got wet it stopped, the kick start and gear change were on crappy multi splines which rounded off in time, the engine ran on a 20 to1 oil mix, any poor sod following me copped a total smoke out ! enfields were not the only brit bikes I owned that were crap, I have owned many motorbikes, I am a motorbike person through and through, I never did much with cars, have never been without a motorbike since the age of 14 yes 14, I was banned from driving before I had a license for riding a 600 norton combo round the local housing estate with a plank on the sidecar chassis ,fine a pound for each of the 23 offences i was charged with and banned foe 12 months 8 months before I was 16 and able to get a licence !! I am now close to 70 have a harley fat boy and recently bought my first enfield bullet and I am impressed with it, two years ago I sold my last KTM exc having had two of these, in my life I have ridden trials owning several trials bikes, I had a 250 and a 360 husky for scrambling, a 250 moto guzzi in a Reynolds spine frame for road racing, I have had 2 rickman matesses just to name a small selection of my motorbikes, triumph,bsa,norton,aerial,matchless,ajs and others, I have owned most models in there range, my point to you is I do remember how bad the british motorcycle in all makes really were but at the time I loved them all and still do even with there bad engineering and quirky faults, the reason I dont own an old classic now is because I have owned most of them at some point and I look at classic bikes like gold stars which sell for silly money, I had 2 both 500 DBD 34s one cost me £80 the other £150 and I really cant bring myself to value them at anymore than I paid for them.
I am impressed with my new enfield and the fact that its made in india is of little interest to me, it has a better pedigree than my harley and has been in constant production for over 80 years, think about it and support Royal Enfield as a motorcycle with a purpose to enjoy leisurely two wheel fun.

[Jamesy]

Tell you what.All problems aside with the iron barrels.When they worked they were a joy to ride and put a big smile on my face