Forum

[Dennis C]

Back in the 50s and 60s when these bikes where made in the UK, the spotty yoofs would ride them flat out everywhere, dad would hang a big sidecars on his and fill it with wife and kids, they could stand it then year after year. Any problems now are more likely due to poor manufacture/materials than design.

[Norm]

And very poor assembly by people who just didn't care

[Thack]

Don't really agree, Dennis. For one thing, thrashing it round the lanes is nothing like dialling 75mph on the clock and leaving it there for an hour, like you can do today. For another, most of the guys from that generation will happily regale you with stories of blowups and rebuilds. I know a few myself.

[simon]

ah Leon it isn't incapable its just that you don't want to make it cry. My 350 has done an indicated 70 and that is with a lathe calibrated proper chronometric speedo. If your bike will only do 55 it just says that you are a caring and fine fellow however brutal bastards like myself will keep turning the handle

[Dennis C]

To be honest Thack I really don't care a jot whether you agree or not.

There will always be stories of breakdowns and blow ups on bikes from any era, I had a 350 Bullet in the early 60s which I used to wring it's neck on the road with valve float in every gear, then on the weekends I would ride to scrambles or grass track events remove the lights and race it, all with no breakdowns or blow ups, try that an an Indian 350 and see how long it lasts.That is as far as I go on this discussion with you as I have no intention of getting into another argument.

[Presto]

The different stories about the reliability or unreliability of Bullets and what speed you can expect them safely to do is all part of the problem – and it’s a problem that can apply to both UK made and Indian made bikes. There is a built-in inconsistency. This was obvious from the earliest road tests on these bikes (1950s) and has continued ever since. Some are ‘quick’, some are ‘slow’, some go for ever, some frequently fail. (That’s before we start on state of tune, condition of maintenance, riding ability, and all the other factors that have an influence on whether your engine keeps going or doesn’t). This sort of variability isn’t unique to Enfields, it was a common feature on bikes from many British makers, with only a very few achieving anything like the consistency we have come to expect from the overwhelming majority of bikes being sold today.

[apparently lucky eddie]

...And not only Brit bikes either, I had some comically unreliable Suzukis (usually big ends and always brakes)and Kawasakis (plugs big ends and handling) in the 70's and the quality of Honda chrome was hilarious, far worse than anything out of India. And as for Eyetie electrics - better tie a torch to the handlebars! There's going to be good and bad in all makes, my Enfields have always been superbly reliable but boy! Have they got slower and slower over the years. I could n't imagine my last one doing 70 unless it was off of a cliff.

[Thack]

Dennis C writes: "To be honest Thack I really don't care a jot whether you agree or not.



That is as far as I go on this discussion with you as I have no intention of getting into another argument."



Hey, steady on old chap - we don't have to fall out just because we have a different opinion, do we? There's a big difference between an argument and a discussion. I thought this was a discussion.

[apparently lucky eddie]

Right then ladies, handbags at six paces! (I can't believe I have n't been flamed yet for saying just how appalling and cheap 'n' nasty yamakawahondukis were in the old days)

[Norm]

Eddie, we all know the early Jappers weren't the best, but they lifted their game very quickly as opposed to the Indians who just continued producing the same crap for ever, when it was well known they could have built a much better motor but they just didn't care.