For Kevin - Assessment and Opinions

[PaulF]

Kevin,

I'm probably going to piss off a few people but let me make two statements.

My opinion, after viewing the pics, is that the UCE motor is an abomination. It goes against everything I bought my Bullet for and purists know exactly what I mean, so there's no need for me to elaborate. I also think its kind of foolish to use technology like fuel injection and retain ancient solid tappets. I can spend a tad more money and by a Japper that will smoke it all day long and have a bigger dealer and parts network. I had foregone all those considerations and plunked down my money, instead, for an RE, because the Bullet is a Bullet and there is no other like it - until it becomes a UJM lookalike.

HOWEVER, if the factory shrank the UCE bore, made it a twin and printed "750 INTERCEPTOR" on the side covers, with reproduction Smith gauges, ammeter in the headlight nacelle, and pea shooter silencers, dripping with chrome,  I WOULD BUY ONE TOMORROW and I think they would fly off the shelves as it were.

So, with RE seemingly undergoing this rapid evolution, first the AVL, now the UCE, has there been any talk of a twin? The US market could use it.

Thanks
Paul

[t120rbullet]

The UCE has hydraulic lifters.
It sounds and runs just like the older ones and the sound is where the market is in India.

95% of RE's market is India and a twin would be a failure there.
I don't think they will ever make a twin until their home market calls for it.
As far as a Jap bike smoking it I don't think India will care, it's the sound that sells them there.

[PaulF]

Well, then it's a moot point.

Nevermind.

[StL_Stadtroller]

Personally, I'll stand by my previous opinion, and confirmed by my test ride of the shop UCE bike this past weekend:
The UCE setup will be an awesome bike on it's own merits.  However,
I feel that it should *not* be called a "Bullet".

it's a totally new bike. Let's not tarnish the name of the old, and hold back the reputation of the new with the Bullet name.

[Eamon]

Personally, I'll stand by my previous opinion, and confirmed by my test ride of the shop UCE bike this past weekend:
The UCE setup will be an awesome bike on it's own merits.  However,
I feel that it should *not* be called a "Bullet".

it's a totally new bike. Let's not tarnish the name of the old, and hold back the reputation of the new with the Bullet name.

Naturally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but I think they'd be foolish NOT to call it a Bullet.  The name Bullet is wrapped up in their name/brand recognition.  I think that as long as the basic platform looks like a Bullet, it has a long stroke single in the 350-500 cc range, and has the sound, then it should be called a Bullet.   

Eamon

[Eamon]

Kevin,

I'm probably going to piss off a few people but let me make two statements.

My opinion, after viewing the pics, is that the UCE motor is an abomination.....
.......................
HOWEVER, if the factory shrank the UCE bore, made it a twin and printed "750 INTERCEPTOR" on the side covers, with reproduction Smith gauges, ammeter in the headlight nacelle, and pea shooter silencers, dripping with chrome,  I WOULD BUY ONE TOMORROW and I think they would fly off the shelves as it were.

I'm not at all pissed off, but I don't understand your vitriol about the new UCE Bullet engine being an abomination when you follow it with your second statement.  By your own reasoning, why wouldn't the new Interceptor also be an abomination?  Besides, you've already got a classic Bullet - no one's taking it away from you just because they came up with a more modern motor.

Eamon

[StL_Stadtroller]

Personally, I'll stand by my previous opinion, and confirmed by my test ride of the shop UCE bike this past weekend:
The UCE setup will be an awesome bike on it's own merits.  However,
I feel that it should *not* be called a "Bullet".

it's a totally new bike. Let's not tarnish the name of the old, and hold back the reputation of the new with the Bullet name.

Naturally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but I think they'd be foolish NOT to call it a Bullet.  The name Bullet is wrapped up in their name/brand recognition. 

Precisely.  Recognition wich to the masses - is an impression of an old, tinkery, noisy, leaky, unreliable copy of a British marque.
The new UCE is none of the above. So why label it with the name of something generally recognised as such?

Now is the time for RE/Eicher to turn a new page in brand reputation and recognition in North America!

[Jon]

Lets have a quick look at the history of the Bullet. It began as a range of three
models in the 1930's, sporting 250,350 and 500 singles. Post-war the name
was used on a 350 single from 1949 which shared similar design elements but
was by no means identical to the pre-war bikes,this is the model that spawned
the Indian Bullet,it was joined by a 500 in 1952.This could be termed the first
re-design. The next major change was in 1956 when the Bullet got a new
chassis and a bit more power, second redesign. A really major change for
1962 when the UNIT Bullet arrived based on the 250 Crusader,third redesign.
Then we have the AVL fourth redesign and now the UCE the latest redesign.

My question to the originator of the thread is which one is the "REAL" Bullet?
Singling (no pun intended) one particular model out as a favourite is fine as is
voicing ones opinion but I would like to know what a "purist" is and what they know
that the rest of us don't.?

Critiscising Enfield for using the time honoured name is like criticising Ford for
re-using the Mustang name or Chevvy for the Camaro. By this logic even if Enfield
developed a twin based on the UCE they couldn't call it an "Interceptor" because
it wouldn't be the same as a "real" one as defined by the purists amonst us.

Personally I would be quite happy to add any of the Bullet models to my stable
but will probably wait until I can afford a UCE.....unless anyone has a cheap
basket case iron barrel out there!

Regards a definately impure enthusiast

[Eamon]

Personally, I'll stand by my previous opinion, and confirmed by my test ride of the shop UCE bike this past weekend:
The UCE setup will be an awesome bike on it's own merits.  However,
I feel that it should *not* be called a "Bullet".

it's a totally new bike. Let's not tarnish the name of the old, and hold back the reputation of the new with the Bullet name.

Naturally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but I think they'd be foolish NOT to call it a Bullet.  The name Bullet is wrapped up in their name/brand recognition. 

Precisely.  Recognition wich to the masses - is an impression of an old, tinkery, noisy, leaky, unreliable copy of a British marque.
The new UCE is none of the above. So why label it with the name of something generally recognised as such?

Now is the time for RE/Eicher to turn a new page in brand reputation and recognition in North America!

I don't agree with the premise that the Bullet name is universally associated with "an old, tinkery, noisy, leaky, unreliable copy of a British marque."  I think it's just as commonly (and maybe more widely, at least in my experience) thought of as simply a classic styled thumper - especially with younger people.  Who knows, though?  I guess time will tell...

Eamon

[PhilJ]

Thanks Jon,

You saved me a lot of typing, well said. But i was going to use the "Every thiong after the 1954 Corvette wasn't a Corvette" tack. 

[HRAB]

They just don't make 'em like they used to!

[Kevin Mahoney]

I think this thread will go back and forth like this for years. I enjoy it both pro and con. For what it is worth, the factory's code name has been the "C-5" and they told me yesterday the new official name is "Bullet Classic 500". This should engender some good conversation. The naming conventions at the factory can be confusing at times (to us, not to them)  and do not always reflect precisely what we call them here. The new bike will definitely be  Bullet like when you see.  Since it is the first totally new product in so many years and REM has put so much into it I would have liked a sexier name, but........

[Jon]

My personal preference for the name of the UCE would have been Crusader
or Continental as these hark back to unit construction RE singles of yore, not
that Bullet isn't a perfectly acceptable name given it's provenance. If you want
a sexier name ( to be fair the Bullet in general is rather more matronly than
hotty, none the worse for that) you could keep the Bullet geneology and call it
the Fury. For those too young to know the Fury was Enfields attempt to
build a Goldie beater,on a good day it got close but did have a distressing
tendancy to dump it's guts all over the landscape if used hard with the stock
big-end.

[luoma]

I think they could keep the Bullet name and still give it another one. Lets look at what we've got now:
Bullet Clasic
Bullet Delux
Bullet Military
Bullet Electra

If the new one had a chrome tank ad upswept pipe, it could be a Bullet Interceptor. ie an Interceptor-type layout on a Bullet platform.

[cyrusb]

The old iron barreled classics are not copies of classics, they are classics. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to find an 05  kicker. If they want to call those UCE stomach pumps Bullets , so be it, but we know what they are.

[doomed1]

The old iron barreled classics are not copies of classics, they are classics. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to find an 05  kicker. If they want to call those UCE stomach pumps Bullets , so be it, but we know what they are.

positive advancements in classic motorcycle design? IMO, the new cycle takes all the downsides of the old iron barrels and turns them into upsides, while keeping all the things that make REs great. fear or spite of technology only holds you back, so when when change comes to improve all that was poor, and leaves all that was good, to turn your nose at it is foolish.

it's everything that's great about a bullet and everything thats great about modern motorcycles all in one!

[prof_stack]

The old iron barreled classics are not copies of classics, they are classics. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to find an 05  kicker. If they want to call those UCE stomach pumps Bullets , so be it, but we know what they are.

positive advancements in classic motorcycle design? IMO, the new cycle takes all the downsides of the old iron barrels and turns them into upsides, while keeping all the things that make REs great. fear or spite of technology only holds you back, so when when change comes to improve all that was poor, and leaves all that was good, to turn your nose at it is foolish.

it's everything that's great about a bullet and everything thats great about modern motorcycles all in one!

+1

All things change.  In RE's case, definitely for the better.

[ace.cafe]

The old iron barreled classics are not copies of classics, they are classics. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to find an 05  kicker. If they want to call those UCE stomach pumps Bullets , so be it, but we know what they are.

Cyrus,
Is that an '05 KS-only with a 5-speed?

If it is, it is one of only a handful that are here in the US.

[ace.cafe]

The old iron barreled classics are not copies of classics, they are classics. And I'm glad I was lucky enough to find an 05  kicker. If they want to call those UCE stomach pumps Bullets , so be it, but we know what they are.

positive advancements in classic motorcycle design? IMO, the new cycle takes all the downsides of the old iron barrels and turns them into upsides, while keeping all the things that make REs great. fear or spite of technology only holds you back, so when when change comes to improve all that was poor, and leaves all that was good, to turn your nose at it is foolish.

it's everything that's great about a bullet and everything thats great about modern motorcycles all in one!

+1

All things change.  In RE's case, definitely for the better.

I'm with-holding judgment on that yet.

The reason being that the majority of the problems seen in the Classic Bullets and the Electra too, are not inherent design problems, but are problems with quality control of some parts and assembly.

This is not necessarily going to improve with the UCE, but we hope that it will.
No matter what the engine, if the quality control of parts and assembly is lacking, it is going to have problems.

IMO, this is what the India factory needs to address in a better way.

An iron barrel Classic Bullet that has a piston made and fitted to spec, and a true and properly fitted crank is capable of going 50k miles without engine failure. And we have owners of them right here on this forum.
Yes, it does have some top-speed limitations, and requires careful break-in, in the stock form as it comes from the factory.And proper tuning and maintenance by the owner play an important part. But clearly, the bike can be capable of long term reliability. It's the QC that is the problem, and that doesn't go away with just having a new engine design. They have to build it right, or problems are going to occur.

My 2 cents.

[prof_stack]

The reason being that the majority of the problems seen in the Classic Bullets and the Electra too, are not inherent design problems, but are problems with quality control of some parts and assembly.

This is not necessarily going to improve with the UCE, but we hope that it will.
No matter what the engine, if the quality control of parts and assembly is lacking, it is going to have problems.

IMO, this is what the India factory needs to address in a better way.

An iron barrel Classic Bullet that has a piston made and fitted to spec, and a true and properly fitted crank is capable of going 50k miles without engine failure. And we have owners of them right here on this forum.

Yes, it does have some top-speed limitations, and requires careful break-in, in the stock form as it comes from the factory.And proper tuning and maintenance by the owner play an important part. But clearly, the bike can be capable of long term reliability. It's the QC that is the problem, and that doesn't go away with just having a new engine design. They have to build it right, or problems are going to occur.

My 2 cents.

+1
I believe (and hope) that QC is going to be "job one" for Enfield on the UCE.  There are many people who have shied away from RE because of the niggling problems (see the post about the new Electra which "locked up").  I am one of these people who wants to believe. 

I received email telling me that NOT buying the new AVL this last summer was the best decision I ever made.  If RE can improve to Japanese or Harley quality (a real challenge) or even Moto Guzzi quality (a more reasonable goal) then sales will improve.

[Jon]

Have to agee that QC is probably the key but sometimes human nature and QC don't
always gel!

I don't quite understand the need to rubbish the new Bullet even if one prefers the old one. Especially as we haven't seen any roadtests or had a chance to see it in the metal


Also remember that RE in the UK went under because they didn't adapt to a changing
marketplace and didn't get new designs into production to take advantage of that
market. Enfield India are not making that mistake.

[birdmove]

   I can't speak to the AVL or the new UCE engines. So far, I'm happy to putt around on my iron-head. I broke it in right and its doing well. Since I only have one car in my family, I am commited to riding a motorcycle every day to work.Rain or shine (and lots of rain). I own two other motorcycles. My 2005 KLR650 has been a rock of reliability for me. I do ride the Bullet too, but don't take it when its raining.For one thing, I haven't ridden it in a downpour, and since it has points, I'm a little worried about moisture causing problems there. Also, I was surprised how easily oxidation happened on the aluminum parts. Engine cases, fork tubes etc. I found that stuff to be a bitch to clean off. Other than that, the Bullet is perfect for my short 15 mile round trip commute with speeds never exceeding 50 mph.

    jon

[Vince]

     Jon, use Simichrome and a buffing wheel to initially polish the cases. After that it is easy to touch up with Nevrdull.

[alwscout]

Well, I for one am sure glad FORD Motor Co. decided to make something besides a Model T......I reckon Royal Enfield is doing the right thing too.

Adam

[RAKe]

I've been thinking about the classic (restoration) versus retro (new) argument.  Anyone has to admit that the benefits of a classic ride are great, as long as riders do not have to deal with all the problems of classic design--primitive metallurgy, antiquated component engineering, and reduced dependability.  There is also a declining availability of classic parts, worsened by the compromised quality of those that remain (or are remanufactured).

With the new UCE, we (riders) will maintain the retro looks and design while also pacifying Fedzilla with reduced emissions.  We will also have more parts of higher quality available than if we were to go the classic route.  We will be able to spend more money on improvement and less on maintenance.  We will ride more, and the quality of our rides will be better.

Also, by purchasing an RE retro design over other, more expensive retro vehicles (such as the Harley I now ride), we are saving considerable cash.  The only logical choice is to purchase an advanced, but retro design such as that to be delivered by Royal Enfield's UCE next year.  Put me on the waiting list for a 2009 RE Classic Deluxe.

[taildraggin]

This is ridiculous.

RE must make changes to make emissions and noise requirements.  Period.  Kevin can, and has, explained why FI and hydro tappets are necessary.  They are forced to make these changes to be able to sell anything.They have a small market in EU/US and can't meet it with the old stuff.

The UCE reduces "cheap original" appeal, but they are forced to do it.

Model labelling?  Reality check; Indian Enfields are facsimiles. 

Enfield is not resting, not stunned, it's long dead; deceased, joined its maker decades ago.  An ex-motorcycle company.  No fresh cuttlefish will bring it 'round.

[Jon]

So just because a company is bought, sold and moves location it cannot produce
the same product, develop that product and produce new designs?

There is just as much continuity between the old UK based RE and the current
India based company if not more so than the old Meriden Triumph factory and the
current Triumph operation.

Nothing wrong with a company using it's heritage as an asset either,look at Harley.

[PhilJ]

So just because a company is bought, sold and moves location it cannot produce
the same product, develop that product and produce new designs?

There is just as much continuity between the old UK based RE and the current
India based company if not more so than the old Meriden Triumph factory and the
current Triumph operation.

Nothing wrong with a company using it's heritage as an asset either,look at Harley.

I thin what he's talking about is the changes are necessary to meet pollution requirements.

[taildraggin]

Yes.  Harley will be forced to do it, too...  (They all have FI now and already have about 25 years experience selling catalytic bikes in some countries.)

There is a charm to the Indian RE products.  Part of it is the old design, but they are adding something new that is different and fresh.  I don't understand why they do certain things, but they are interesting products (unlike their competition).

You've got to cut the cord sometime...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMJPm9iK7aI

 

[PaulF]

Kevin,

I'm probably going to piss off a few people but let me make two statements.

My opinion, after viewing the pics, is that the UCE motor is an abomination.....
.......................
HOWEVER, if the factory shrank the UCE bore, made it a twin and printed "750 INTERCEPTOR" on the side covers, with reproduction Smith gauges, ammeter in the headlight nacelle, and pea shooter silencers, dripping with chrome,  I WOULD BUY ONE TOMORROW and I think they would fly off the shelves as it were.

I'm not at all pissed off, but I don't understand your vitriol about the new UCE Bullet engine being an abomination when you follow it with your second statement.  By your own reasoning, why wouldn't the new Interceptor also be an abomination?  Besides, you've already got a classic Bullet - no one's taking it away from you just because they came up with a more modern motor.

Eamon

A revived twin, to me, would be entirely new animal. I hold the Bullet in high regard and am somewhat, alright, stubbornly purist. As I said before, if I wanted just another single-cylinder unit engine, I could buy one of Asian fare for around equal money. Owning a Bullet is almost as good as owning a Gold Star - with a warranty.
I could embrace a new twin as a radical departure from the Bullet. Apples and Oranges.

[Jon]

My reply to taildragin was actually aimed at his last two paragraphs but perhaps I mistook his meaning? I rather thought his point was that the Indian RE is not a "real"
RE something I would dispute.

If you go look at the last UK "Big Head" Bullet and the Crusader based unit Bullet
that suceeded it and stand them alongside the UCE you can see the continuity
in terms of appearance and styling and if you compare the engine layouts and
specs there are still similar features.

[Land Surveyor]

About the Meteor twin thing, I dunno about "flying off the shelves."  The new Bonneville doesn't seem to be doing so much flying.

Re: the performance vs. a Japanese bike thing.  I have debated that back and forth with myself regarding a HD Sportster.  I came to the conclusion that if I needed ultimate performance (I don't) I should just buy a Hayabusa and forget it.
But I don't need a bike that will smoke everything else on the road.  I need (more like want) something that will reach or somewhat exceed "the ton" and cruise the Interstate at 70mph or so.  That  doesn't require a superbike.  In the house of Suzuki, those requirements can be met with an SV650 for about the same price as the RE.  It does not, however, look remotely classic, to say the least.  It just depends on what you want.

[RAKe]

Is it built in India, as Bullets always have been?  To me, the term "Bullet" signifies "built in India".  A Royal Enfield built in India, regardless of anything else, is a "Bullet".  "Real" RE--that's a joke, right?  Ask the British troops who saved their ass with this particular piece of equipment.

[The Garbone]

OT- Rake,  love me the looks of a Warthog,  bad ass...   +1mojo

[RAKe]

Gary,  I also maintained the powerplants of F-5s, F-15s, F-16s, and YF-22s  (prototypes), but nothing will ever compare to those A-10s.  If it wasn't for politics, one squadron of those shitkickers could absolutely destroy the air force of the majority of our opponents.  (Most importantly, may God bless those who are fighting for our freedom in the Middle East--heroes, all of them!!).

[Cabo Cruz]

(Most importantly, may God bless those who are fighting for our freedom in the Middle East--heroes , all of them!!).

RAKe: Amen!

Papa Juan