HPRE

Menu

Members Rides

keep walking


in
Members Rides

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 10:55:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length

 

Author Topic: difference in looks  (Read 17036 times)

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2008, 02:54:48 PM »
Kevin, I agree the older bikes did have a lot of tire "clearance' on the top, but the great big overhang on the new bikes at the back just really looks "awkward". When I was a kid my family didn't have much money, so I had to piece together pedal bikes from parts of all kinds. The 19" fender with 18" wheel looks like one of my piece together jobs. I used to get ragged on all the time until I just took the rear fender off. I swore I would never own a thing that looked pieced together again. Even the place where I took the picture from, said the over hang  of the fender at the rear was excessive and not attractive at all. If RE could go through all the money for a new engine, they could at least have spent a little more for a nice fitting rear fender for the 18" wheel. Espsecially when you consider the price increase.         Hutch
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 02:59:38 PM by hutch »
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Royal.Oilfield

  • Guest
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2008, 06:40:15 PM »
Isn't somebody aware that these bikes shown on the pics are unladen?!?
The fenders have to match the laden ride.
To get the desired look just mount them to the swing arm in a fixed position.

Johann

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2008, 10:12:07 PM »
Isn't somebody aware that these bikes shown on the pics are unladen?!?
The fenders have to match the laden ride.
To get the desired look just mount them to the swing arm in a fixed position.

Johann
Johann, I am talking about the overhang at the back of the fender, not the top. You could put an elephant on the seat and it would not change how far the fender is out away from the back of the tire. BIG gap from the tire being an 18" with a 19" fender. Check the picture I posted on the previous page. It seems you missed my point, while everyone else got what I was saying about the gap at the BACK of the fender. Even with the radial swing of the rear swingarm, that big gap will not disappear. It needs a 18" fender instaed of just slapping the old 19" on it. It's called asthetics.  Hutch
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 10:35:41 PM by hutch »
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Cabo Cruz

  • Papa Juan
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Karma: 0
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2008, 10:35:00 PM »
Johann, another way of putting is:

The pre-C5 bikes had a lot of air above the rear tire.  (This is fine with me, anyway.)

The C5 model seems (1) to have a lot of air behind the rear tire.

(1) We, at least I, have not seen a properly lit picture of the profile of the bike to categorically state that there is a lot of air behind the rear tire.
Long live the Bullets and those who ride them!

Keep the shiny side up, the boots on the pegs and best REgards,

Papa Juan

REA:    Member No. 119
BIKE:   2004 Royal Enfield Sixty-5
NAME: Perla

Kevin Mahoney

  • Administrator
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
  • Karma: 0
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2008, 10:39:45 PM »
I am focussing on the curvature of the fender in relation to the curvature of the tyre. Are others looking at something different?

Cabo Cruz

  • Papa Juan
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Karma: 0
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2008, 10:48:36 PM »
RE1, if you go to page 2, Reply #18 by Hutch you can see what some of us seem to think... that is, how far back the fender appears to be from the tire.
Long live the Bullets and those who ride them!

Keep the shiny side up, the boots on the pegs and best REgards,

Papa Juan

REA:    Member No. 119
BIKE:   2004 Royal Enfield Sixty-5
NAME: Perla

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2008, 10:50:26 PM »
I am focussing on the curvature of the fender in relation to the curvature of the tyre. Are others looking at something different?
Kevin, We are taking about how the fender is WAY behind the tire at the back. If the chain was stretched and the tire all the way to the end of adjustment rearward, the fender is still too far behind the tire, from being made for the larger 19" tire and rim.  The gentleman that took that picture and I "borrowed" even said the rear of the fender was not a good match from using the 19" fender with a 18" rim and tire. There was way to much room between the back of the tire and the fender. The three pictures you posted show it also, but are poorly lit. The last close up of the rear of the bike is the best, and you can see what I mean, and what others have noticed. since I brought it to their attention.  Sorry!!!! The front tire and fender looks great because they match size for size. I know it would cost more for RE to make different rear fender supports and different rear fender, but at least it would look as good as the front does, aand not look like a mismatch of parts.  In 1958 RE made the Meteor Minor 500cc  with smaller size tires than the Super Meteor 500cc. They also made smaller fenders front and rear to match the smaller tires.     Hutch
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 11:15:39 PM by hutch »
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Royal.Oilfield

  • Guest
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2008, 11:38:59 PM »
I played a bit with brightness and contrast to get a better view of the tire/fender relation.



IMHO the propotions are o.k..

Cheers, Johann

Cabo Cruz

  • Papa Juan
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Karma: 0
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2008, 11:51:59 PM »
I played a bit with brightness and contrast to get a better view of the tire/fender relation.



IMHO the propotions are o.k..

Cheers, Johann

Well, Johann, I thank you for sharing this massaged image; you might very well be correct; I'm going to stop assuming that there might be a problem with the looks of the C5's rear; it might, after all, be just what the doctor ordered; and, cheers right back at you, Johann!
Long live the Bullets and those who ride them!

Keep the shiny side up, the boots on the pegs and best REgards,

Papa Juan

REA:    Member No. 119
BIKE:   2004 Royal Enfield Sixty-5
NAME: Perla

LJRead

  • Guest
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2008, 01:16:12 AM »
Strange to say, I posted on this thread a day or two ago and now find the posting gone.

My points:

If one were to compare the new UCE engine with the engines of bikes of a retro nature of the past fifty years, it wouldn't seem that far out.  It isn't the same as the older R E engines, but it is fine in itself.

What bothers me a little is the scrunched up appearance of the new models.  Maybe the wheel size has something to do with it, but my feeling is that the older Classic types had a leaner, more thoroughbred look to them that I like better.  But that is just opinion...

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2008, 02:27:30 AM »
Strange to say, I posted on this thread a day or two ago and now find the posting gone.

My point

What bothers me a little is the scrunched up appearance of the new models.  Maybe the wheel size has something to do with it, but my feeling is that the older Classic types had a leaner, more thoroughbred look to them that I like better.  But that is just opinion...
I am glad someone else sees what I see. The scrunched look is from the small back tire mated to the large rear fender. It almost looks like the swingarm is to short for the rest of the frame, leaving the fender trailing way out behind the bike. A taller sidewall on the 18" tire would take care of it somewhat, but that would make it the same as having a 19' tire to begin with. I am quite sure when you see the bike in person, you will really be able to see how it just doesn't "fit" with the good looks of the rest of the bike.  Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 8512
  • Karma: 0
  • World leaders in racing or performance Bullets
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2008, 02:46:39 AM »
From the way it looks to me, when somebody sits on the bike, it will look fine.
I think it just looks funny because it's unladen.

My old Bullet's fender is way over the wheel when it's up on the centerstand.
Home of the ACE Fireball 535 Bullet,  Ace GP Hi-Lift Roller Rocker Head . Pistons, cams, etc. Highest performance Bullet engine mods available .  AVL mods. Redditch 700/750 Twin mods. UCE kit soon.

Please visit my new website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AcePerformanceBullets/info

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2008, 02:57:55 AM »
From the way it looks to me, when somebody sits on the bike, it will look fine.
I think it just looks funny because it's unladen.

My old Bullet's fender is way over the wheel when it's up on the centerstand.
Ace, we are talking space behind the tire, NOT above the tire.  Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

hutch

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 0
  • Til death do us part
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2008, 03:13:07 AM »
Kevin, I also have another question. Does the 19" wheeled bike and the 18" wheeled bike share the same front trans sprocket and rear sprocket. The reason I ask is a one inch shorter tire will travel close to 3"'s less , per revolution ,of the rear wheel down the road at the same RPM as the 19" wheel will. This means more RPM for the same speed as the 19" wheeled bike and less top speed on the 18" wheeled bike. I have built bikes and hot rods for years and have played with all kinds of gear ratio's and tire heights to get different performance. After 5 years of the people on the Suzuki Savage page saying it was impossible to change the bike from belt to chain drive, I had mine changed, in 2 months, by finding the sprockets off from other bikes to fit and all the ratios figured out for them for more accelleration, or more top end speed. I posted the how-to info on the Suzuki page and a lot of people changed to chain and love it. The 18" wheeled bike will need either a smaller rear, or larger front sprocket to perform the same as the 19" wheeled bike.   Hutch
You learn from your mistakes, and I have LEARNED a lot.

Blltrdr

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Karma: 0
  • cycle-delic music
Re: difference in looks
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2008, 03:21:20 AM »
 From the look of the pictures posted above it is very clear the tire fits the arc of the fender perfectly. The space behind the tire does seem somewhat excessive, but I think that would be far down on the list of reasons for buyers to nix the C5. Hutch's crusade against the look of this fender has gained little momentum and has a scrunch of merit, but still is a topic that is fun to talk about. I do think we need to see the stance of this bike with rider as someone mention previously.   

   
2003 Classic 500 5 spd
1992 Kawasaki ZG 1200 Voyager XII
1977 Yamaha XS 360-2D (Cafe Project)