Author Topic: C5 & "competition" (Read 4183 times)

Land Surveyor · « **on:** September 02, 2009, 04:17:43 PM »

Just got the newsletter and it contained an article about "competition" for the C5 in the form of a little machine from SYM in Taiwan. From what I have gotten from the scooter types and my own observation, SYM makes a very nice product. In fact, they used to produce stuff for Honda, both the cycle and automotive divisions. I have seen this little bike only in pictures but expect the quality to be good.

It is not, however, competition for an RE. I say this not as an admirer of REs generally (which I am) but because of the wide disparity in their displacements.

I see this as an alternative for someone who likes the retro styling but finds the C5 to be too big for their needs.

r80rt · « **Reply #1 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:20:30 PM »

C5 Ain't got no competition

ace.cafe · « **Reply #2 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:29:48 PM »

I think this one from Sym is a pretty decent looking little runabout, in the vein of a Honda CB125.

It could be a fun little bike for the beach or at a little resort community or something like that.

UncleErnie · « **Reply #3 on:** September 02, 2009, 04:43:29 PM »

if there's going to be any competition, I would think it would be the Suzuki TU250X.
Haven't ridden one, but it looks pretty nice.

Alaroyal · « **Reply #4 on:** September 02, 2009, 05:29:33 PM »

Looks like that SYM has some pretty nice features; a generous size tank, a Tach and Speedo, chrome F and R fenders, disc brake up front, big seat, progressively wound springs with reservoir shocks.

What does one cost, I wonder?

t120rbullet · « **Reply #5 on:** September 02, 2009, 07:22:27 PM »

Quote from: r80rt on September 02, 2009, 04:20:30 PM

C5 Ain't got no competition

I agree but would have to widen it a bit, RE got's no competition.
That Sym and the TU 250 are cool little bikes and might look good enough for everyday mundane tasks in an effort to keep the miles down on the Bullet. But if you really want to drink upstream from the herd it would have to be a Bullet.
CJ

Rusty · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2009, 06:26:54 AM »

Quote from: t120rbullet on September 02, 2009, 07:22:27 PM

I agree but would have to widen it a bit, RE got's no competition.

Exactly that's why I bought one. Try slogging out of corners on any other reasonable sized single and then go pick up the pieces of the drive chain.

hoppyre · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2009, 06:32:01 AM »

Quote from: UncleErnie on September 02, 2009, 04:43:29 PM

if there's going to be any competition, I would think it would be the Suzuki TU250X.
Haven't ridden one, but it looks pretty nice.

I just bought a TU250X a while back, just loved the looks of it. Runs smooth, rides good, handles good, GREAT gas mileage, even has a good seat ( for Suzuki ). But, it doesn't have the character of an Enfield!!!!!

Lmundy · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2009, 09:24:39 AM »

I agree that the Enfields have an “authenticity” that these other bikes don’t, because of their unique history of being continuously in third-world production since I was a baby. We’ve all seen “retro-bikes” come and go – the Honda GB500, the Kawasaki W650. They were not sales successes. We’re on the third or fourth reincarnation of Indian, at least the third version of Norton, Excelsior-Henderson is dead (again). Triumph, which has the strongest “memory lane” brand, is producing Bonnevilles that have only “styling cues” in common with the 60’s models, and for that reason I’ve not been all that tempted to buy one even though I understand they are perfectly nice and reliable. Enfield is my only and unique opportunity to buy a bike that has been in continuous production since the 50’s and still looks like it, but has now been modernized in function so that it’s not just a curiosity in the garage. It’s “authentic” in a way nothing else is.

Which leads me to my plan to save General Motors, which got tossed in their trashcan. GM is the exclusive owner of the design of the ’57 Chevy. If they brought it back “for real,” I’d go without food to buy one, and so would 100,000 other boomers. By “for real” I mean exactly as it appeared in 1957, body panels interchangeable with the originals, bench seats, the whole shebang. Sure, it would have disc brakes and airbags and catalysts, but otherwise give me the real, original look, not like the SSR’s and HHR’s and quasi-pony cars and PT Cruisers Detroit has churned out that are just “impressions” of classics. The Ford Sunliner. The Hemi Cuda. I wouldn’t care if they had the four-banger from their cheapest econobox, I’d want one.

That’s why I’m awaiting delivery of my Enfield C-5. And every time I park it somewhere and collect a couple gearhead boomers, I will give them a sales pitch. If we can get 10,000 UCE’s on the road in this country, there will be a healthier aftermarket, we’ll be able to get parts until the world ends, the fine people in Minnesota who made this all possible will be better rewarded, and GM will maybe stop throwing away my letters.

Land Surveyor · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2009, 10:43:24 AM »

Back in my younger days, I had a serious desire for a thumper and was really wanting, and never got, a Yamaha SR500. Although well liked by some, it, like many other nice Japanese retros, never caught fire with the public and was only cherished by the proverbial faithful few. A shame, really.

What we have with the C5 is an authentic provenance with, we hope, the level of reliability of the Japanese bikes. Only time will tell but it looks good so far.

In my personal opinion, automotive design apexed with the 1967 Chevrolet Impala hardtop. Essentially a pony car with a real back seat. As much as want my grandad's 67 Camaro back, I believe I'd go for the Impala or Caprice first.

Lmundy · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2009, 01:29:09 PM »

When it comes to reliving memories and the whole “retro” thing, my generation is the luckiest ever. When my parents were my age, “retro” was a hand-crank telephone, kerosene lamps, a Model T – great curiosities and museum pieces, but functionless in their lives, just stuff to look at. We get Royal Enfields, that will actually take us places and wait faithfully as a dog in the garage for our next ride in the country. What will be “retro” for my kids, when they’re my age? CD Players? The GSX-R? The Toyota Prius? Yuck.

ace.cafe · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2009, 01:50:09 PM »

I spent my whole life on twins or multis, and I always wondered about these strange people who wanted old singles. I couldn't figure out why, so I just thought they were weird.
Now that I've owned a Bullet, I know why they liked them, and how it's totally different than what outsiders think it is.

It's a very interesting part of motorcycling. One of the best parts, in fact.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:17:41 PM »

As far as a single (pun intended) goes, my feelings are out there on every single (pun intended) one of my posts on every single (pun intended) topic I touch. And these are:

"Long live the Bullets and those who ride them!"

SeattleJim · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2009, 03:49:14 PM »

No competition in this household; the TU250 and Enfield seem to get along just fine but then it has only been here 3 days so we'll see.

The TU250 revs quicker and has excellent handling. The Enfield definitely has more character. Both are great for around town.

r80rt · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2009, 04:13:06 PM »

Nice pair of bikes ya got there!

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #15 on:** September 06, 2009, 05:58:23 PM »

Good for you, Br. Jim!!!

WKinNJ · « **Reply #16 on:** September 12, 2009, 10:10:06 AM »

Quote from: Lmundy on September 03, 2009, 09:24:39 AM

.. Triumph, which has the strongest “memory lane” brand, is producing Bonnevilles that have only “styling cues” in common with the 60’s models, and for that reason I’ve not been all that tempted to buy one even though I understand they are perfectly nice and reliable....

As one who has ridden both 60s Triumphs and currently owns a 2001 Bonnie. The "new" Bonneville's share more than “styling cues” with the 60s models. Triumph did a great job in creating a bike that looks and feels like its predecessor.

r80rt · « **Reply #17 on:** September 12, 2009, 11:36:07 AM »

Quote from: WKinNJ on September 12, 2009, 10:10:06 AM

As one who has ridden both 60s Triumphs and currently owns a 2001 Bonnie. The "new" Bonneville's share more than “styling cues” with the 60s models. Triumph did a great job in creating a bike that looks and feels like its predecessor.

Yes they did.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #18 on:** September 12, 2009, 03:17:35 PM »

"As one who has ridden both 60s Triumphs and currently owns a 2001 Bonnie. The "new" Bonneville's share more than “styling cues” with the 60s models. Triumph did a great job in creating a bike that looks and feels like its predecessor." WKinNJ

"Yes they did." r80rt

Brs. WK and Dannie, I agree with you with the exception of the two notable differences that follow:

1. The much heavier weight of the Hinckley Bonneville.
2. The fact that the Hinckley Bonneville feels as though it needs a 6th gear.

P.S. I used to own a 2001 and a 2005 Hinckley Bonneville.

r80rt · « **Reply #19 on:** September 12, 2009, 06:02:52 PM »

Yeah it's heavier, and bigger overall, I went up a tooth on the front to get a higher ratio on mine. I still think selling it to get a C5 was one of my better idea's

ace.cafe · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:52:20 AM »

The Triumph and Guzzi, etc, are fine, and they are better suited to interstate highway use.
But, there's just something about the Royal Enfield that those other bikes can't match.

Here's my story, and I've told it here before.

Several years ago, I went to the Atlanta Bike Expo and helped Tait man the Royal Enfield booth. This was before I got my current Bullet. I had alot of the parts for my other Bullet build, but it wasn't put together yet, and it still isn't.
But, I was contemplating the idea of a Hinckley Bonneville or something like that. The V7 Guzzi hadn't been introduced yet, at that time, so I couldn't look at it.

This was an opportunity for me to really get a close look at the Bullet, and all the other bikes from every other maker, all at one place. I could compare them closely.
I found that almost all the bikes from the major makers looked very plastic. Alot of the bikes that I lusted after, like the MV Agusta, didn't look as good in person as they did in the magazine glamour shots. They were nice, but not as nice as I thought they would be.
Anyway, I really spent some time at the Triumph booth, and of course I spent most of my time at the Enfield booth. I sat on both these bikes, and looked them over real close.
And my conclusion was that the red Deluxe Bullet that was in the Enfield booth looked like it should cost twice what the Triumph cost, but actually cost several thousand dollars less. The direct comparison was no contest in my mind.
Virtually everything was plastic on the Triumph, and everything was metal on the Bullet. There was almost no chrome on the Triumph, and the Bullet had gleaming chrome all over it. The Bullet engine looked vintage, but the Triumph engine didn't. It looked "retro", but not vintage.
After that day, my decision was made. I actually made the statement to Tait that I thought that the Bullet was the best looking bike at the show. And I think it was.

Not long after that, I bought my used black 2000 Bullet DeLuxe that I ride now.
And every day I like it better and better. I don't get tired of it.

So, unless interstate touring is your thing, I'd say that it's damn hard to beat a Royal Enfield for the overall motorcycling experience. And they're still less expensive than those other bikes are.

Take the UCE, for example. Either the G5 or C5.
The C5 is one of a kind. There's nothing else that comes even close to that. Nobody is producing a 50s looking bike, except RE. Even if it is a "retro", it's a real good looking retro. And it has all those nice modern features like E-start and EFI and 5-speed and unit construction and improved handling to go with those unique antique looks.
The G5 has all the same advantages in a 60s looking package, and offers a kickstarter. I don't know, but it might be the last kickstart bike left that you can buy.

So when I look at these bikes in comparison to the market, I think about how the RE bikes are actually great bargaiins at lower prices than "the competition", and how I think they are more bike for the money than the other bikes are. And I know that I'm not the only one that feels that way. I think RE has a good set of new models here, and they are going to be a force in the retro market that they are in.

r80rt · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:56:08 AM »

Can't argue with that!

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #22 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:36:35 PM »

Amen, Brs. Ace and Dannie! By the way, Tom, I was at that ATL show and stopped by the RE booth a couple of times. In addition to looking at the bikes, I wanted to meet Tait Bolton and visit with him for a bit. He was getting something to eat when Graciela, my wife, and I made our first stop by the booth. She and I, coincidentally, were hungry ourselves and left to get a bite to eat, also.

We went back to the RE booth some thirty minutes later and met and chatted with Tait and another fellow who was with him. So, as it turns out, I saw you and spoke with you twice on that Saturday afternoon! Now, this pleasent surprise is worth, at minimum and in honor of our chance meeting and that gorgeous red Deluxe, one Sunday: WOWZAA!!!

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:58:32 PM »

Quote from: r80rt on September 02, 2009, 04:20:30 PM

C5 Ain't got no competition

retro
soul
character
unique
simple
durability
collectable
no competition....I would agree. Nothing i would sell my Enfield for...

until now...
http://sovietsteeds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8849

r80rt · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:16:05 PM »

I've ridden a Ural solo and owned a Ural Tourist, not bad but I wouldn't trade my Enfield for two of them.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:28:14 PM »

Well, Br. Blue, I gotta ask:

Is that new Ural solo going to be a) overpriced, b) overweight and c) underpowered -- for its size and weight?

r80rt · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:41:59 PM »

I don't remember the price of the solo I tested, but it was over weight and underpowered.

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:44:26 PM »

Quote from: r80rt on September 13, 2009, 01:41:59 PM

I don't remember the price of the solo I tested, but it was over weight and underpowered.

This is a whole new solo. Shorter wheelbase, rear disc.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:47:20 PM »

Got specs?

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:49:10 PM »

Quote from: Cabo Cruz on September 13, 2009, 01:28:14 PM

Well, Br. Blue, I gotta ask:

Is that new Ural solo going to be a) overpriced, b) overweight and c) underpowered -- for its size and weight?

Apples and oranges.
yes, the price is about 1k high, but some think $6400++ for a single cylinder Enfield is high.

Owerweight? Steel weighs more than plastic.

Underpowered? Some might argue that a bike not able to cruise at 65 is underpowered. Only 45 hp, but even the nes Ural with sidecar can cruise at 65, this one should run all day at 75.

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:51:02 PM »

Quote from: Cabo Cruz on September 13, 2009, 01:47:20 PM

Got specs?

Just posted on the motherboard:

"For those who are interested in Ural solo:

Available February-March 2010. Considering assembly in the US.

MSRP: around $8000

Specs - read below. Please note: this is a prototype, specs may change.

Model name, paint scheme, trim details – open for suggestions.

Front forks – Marzocchi, 40mm
Front brake - Brembo, 4 pistons, full floating disk
Rear brake - Brembo 2 pistons
Rear shocks - Sachs
Gear box - 4-speed, no reverse
Final drive ratio - 3.89
Wheels - 18"
Tires – Heidenau K36

Seat height - 750mm (29.4”)
Dry weight - 210kg (460 lbs)

Estimated top speed - 90mph
Recommended cruising speed - 70 mph
Estimated fuel economy – 45 mpg
Estimated range – 250 miles

Ilya Khait
President, IMWA"

ace.cafe · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Cabo Cruz on September 13, 2009, 12:36:35 PM

Amen, Brs. Ace and Dannie! By the way, Tom, I was at that ATL show and stopped by the RE booth a couple of times. In addition to looking at the bikes, I wanted to meet Tait Bolton and visit with him for a bit. He was getting something to eat when Graciela, my wife, and I made our first stop by the booth. She and I, coincidentally, were hungry ourselves and left to get a bite to eat, also.

We went back to the RE booth some thirty minutes later and met and chatted with Tait and another fellow who was with him. So, as it turns out, I saw you and spoke with you twice on that Saturday afternoon! Now, this pleasent surprise is worth, at minimum and in honor of our chance meeting and that gorgeous red Deluxe, one Sunday: WOWZAA!!!

Papa Juan,
Well, how about that!!!???
I was eating lunch with Tait at the concession stand, when you missed us, and had to come back later.
The Bullet world is a pretty small world.

Yeah, I was that nut with Tait!
I hope I made a good impression.
I was trying to be on my best behavior!

I'm happy that we did meet back then, and we had no idea what the future was going to bring.

ace.cafe · « **Reply #32 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:23:44 PM »

Quote from: Blue Ridge Wheeltor on September 13, 2009, 01:51:02 PM

Just posted on the motherboard:

"For those who are interested in Ural solo:

Available February-March 2010. Considering assembly in the US.

MSRP: around $8000

Specs - read below. Please note: this is a prototype, specs may change.

Model name, paint scheme, trim details – open for suggestions.

Front forks – Marzocchi, 40mm
Front brake - Brembo, 4 pistons, full floating disk
Rear brake - Brembo 2 pistons
Rear shocks - Sachs
Gear box - 4-speed, no reverse
Final drive ratio - 3.89
Wheels - 18"
Tires – Heidenau K36

Seat height - 750mm (29.4”)
Dry weight - 210kg (460 lbs)

Estimated top speed - 90mph
Recommended cruising speed - 70 mph
Estimated fuel economy – 45 mpg
Estimated range – 250 miles

Ilya Khait
President, IMWA"

I think that a solo bike is something that could be good for Ural.

Not my cup of tea, but I'm sure that many will find it appealing.

exiledcarper · « **Reply #33 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:38:05 PM »

Ural already have a solo bike, the Wolf. It's a kind of chopper/custom style apparently inspired by the Russian Wolf motorcycle gang and their style of bike.
I'm thinking this new solo will most likely be a more standard kind of bike, much like a vintage Beemer.
Sounds like a winner, especially as ural have apparently made great strides in improving long time weaknesses, such as the charging system.

exiledcarper · « **Reply #34 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:53:57 PM »

Oops, I just looked back at page 2 and saw the link to the bike

. Looks like a decent standard styled bike, but have to agree that it's probably a bit overpriced and yes, I am one of those who thinks that the UCE is way overpriced too.
Every one seems to forget how cheap these bikes are in their home market. Desireable? Definitely, but at a VERY premium price for a very bsaic machine made very cheaply in a third world country. I'm sure I'll get slaughtered again, but that's the just the way I honestly see it.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #35 on:** September 13, 2009, 03:33:51 PM »

"Apples and oranges. yes, the price is about 1k high, but some think $6400++ for a single cylinder Enfield is high. Owerweight? Steel weighs more than plastic. Underpowered? Some might argue that a bike not able to cruise at 65 is underpowered. Only 45 hp, but even the nes Ural with sidecar can cruise at 65, this one should run all day at 75." BRW

Br. Blue, I was not comparing the Ural solo to the Bullet when I asked the three questions above. But since you took that route... yes, "apples and oranges", indeed because:

a) You are comparing a twin to a single.
(In the last year, I sold a 2005 Hinckley Bonneville and a 2006 Ducati Monster. The performance of Perla did not in any way compare to that of either of the twins. She does handle better than the Bonneville. Conversely, she does not handle better than the Monster.)

b) "Owerweight? Steel weighs more than plastic."
(You, undoubtedly, were thinking of another -- or other -- motorcycle(s) besides the Bullet because, with the exception of the lights' lenses, there is no plastic on a Bullet. The Bonneville at a 461 lbs. claimed dry weight is, objectively speaking, overweight. It has a claimed 61 hp maximum. The Ural solo at a 460 lbs. claimed dry weight is, also objectively speaking, overweight. The claimed 45 hp figure does, objectively speaking, make the Ural underpowered. The Hinckley Bonneville at 61 hp, in contrast, is not underpowered.)

c) "Some might argue that a bike not able to cruise at 65 is underpowered."
(Here you seem to refer to the IB or AVL engines and not the UCE engine. This does not square because you used the "$6400++" price figure. So, you appear to be mixing the new UCE cost with the performance of an IB or AVL Bullet. In any case, Perla can, has and does cruise at 65 mph. For top speed, she broke 80 (GPS) mph. Her modifications, besides carrying a 160 lb. rider, are: 1) Approximately 30 lbs. off her claimed dry weight of 370 lbs.; 2) PAV off; 3) 34 mm carb.; 4) K&N filter; and 5) straight through header pipe and Goldstar muffler.

In any case, the (admiration and) purchase of a bike is, at minimum, 90% subjective. So, I encourage you, Br. Blue, to buy a new Ural solo and wish you the absolute best of times with it.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #36 on:** September 13, 2009, 03:38:02 PM »

"I'm happy that we did meet back then, and we had no idea what the future was going to bring." ace.cafe

Amen, Br. Ace!!!

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #37 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:42:03 PM »

The Ural is .09785 hp per lb. The Enfield is .0667. Seems like the Enfield is the one underpowered.

Cabo: I can understand your changing to the Enfield because your irding style may have changed, but surely you can't think the Enfield is a better put together or better value bike than the Ducati or triumph?

UncleErnie · « **Reply #38 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:51:23 PM »

Alllright. Let's put our big-boy pants on here. Both bikes are over-priced and underpowered. So? Talking about someone's bike is like talking about somone's wife.

For those of you who envy Blue Ridge Wheeltor's bikes and riding prowess on his BMW (named Apollo 11), here is a story written about him (name was changed) descibing his far-reaching circumfrances of mitigating circumstances;
http://w6rec.com/duane/bmw/boo.htm

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #39 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:53:47 PM »

You're supposed to help me get Cabo wound up! Poor sport.

ace.cafe · « **Reply #40 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:14:25 PM »

I really can't answer properly, because I'm a zealot, and my perception is skewed by the permanent vision of Enfield in front of my eyes.

However, I can say that I had a deposit down on a brand new Ducati 1000 Sport in bright yellow, that I retracted and didn't buy. That was after I saw the Bullet in the flesh at the Atlanta Bike Expo. And of course, after seeing that I liked it better than the Triumph too. And the Ducati really didn't look like the old vintage 750 Sport anyway, after recovering from the initial excitement, and realizing it was just basically a yellow Monster that said "Sport" on it.

But, I didn't want a brand new Bullet. That was the rub. I wanted one that had been around the block a bit. One that I could give some TLC to, because I have this need for that sort of thing. So it took a few months to find the 2000 Black Deluxe that I eventually bought.

I guess that's a long way around to saying that when I voted with my money, I picked a used Bullet, and not the Ducati or the Triumph.
Maybe it wasn't originally put together as well as a brand new Trump or Duc.
But it is now.
And I like it better, and that's what counts.

r80rt · « **Reply #41 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:28:20 PM »

I like all bikes of all types, sizes and shapes, including mopeds and scooters. I was riding a 05 Bonnie black thinking of getting a 620 monster. Then I saw the C5 and forgot everything else, it gives me everything I've always wanted in a bike and none of the crap I don't want. For me Royal Enfield got it 100% right,. Ride what makes you grin the most

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #42 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:45:03 PM »

"The Ural is .09785 hp per lb. The Enfield is .0667. Seems like the Enfield is the one underpowered." BRW

Well, Br Blue, here we go, again... I once more fail to understand the reason you went through the exercise of comparing the Ural to the Bullet. I remind you that I compare the Ural solo to the Hinckley Bonneville -- two twins -- and I am in no way trying to convince you to rate the Bullet better than the Ural. So, to this end, we can see that the HP to Weight Ratio of the Bonneville is .13232 hp/lb. versus .09785 hp/lb. for the Ural. This gives the Bonneville a rounded off advantage of 34% hp/lb. over the Ural.

"Cabo: I can understand your changing to the Enfield because your irding style may have changed, but surely you can't think the Enfield is a better put together or better value bike than the Ducati or triumph?" BRW

Well, Br. Blue, I either misrepresented my points or you misunderstood them. My statements did not overrated the Bullet or underrated the Bonneville or the Ducati. Several moons ago I noted in this forum that both the British and the Italian bikes were fine machines and that I was keeping Perla for subjective reasons. I have nothing but praise for the Bonneville and the Ducati. How can I best explain my logic for selling and not selling bikes? Let's try this: I like the two other bikes very much and I love Perla!

Now, does Perla have long legs? Not really! Did the two other bikes have the legs? Plenty and plenty! Do I have a very fine Bullet? You bet! Even though I really like the C5 and G5, do I want another single 500 cc bike. Well, I am not sure, frankly. What am I doing to find Perla a stable mate? I am looking at the Moto Guzzi V7 because a) I do like the performance of a twin, b) I like their longer legs and c) my riding style has not changed.

In closing, Br. Blue, I can assure you that I do not wish to turn this debate into the -- similarly subjective, emotional and personal -- political and religious debates that I habitually avoid. These lead us to make counterproductive, condescending statements like: "... but surely you can't think the Enfield is a better put together or better value bike than the Ducati or triumph?" For these reasons, I close (this post and debate) as I did in my earlier response: "In any case, the (admiration and) purchase of a bike is, at minimum, 90% subjective. So, I encourage you, Br. Blue, to buy a new Ural solo and wish you the absolute best of times with it."

Eamon · « **Reply #43 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:53:21 PM »

Quote from: Blue Ridge Wheeltor on September 13, 2009, 12:58:32 PM

retro
soul
character
unique
simple
durability
collectable
no competition....I would agree. Nothing i would sell my Enfield for...

until now...
http://sovietsteeds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8849

Hmm... I like it ok, but would like it a lot better if they just offered the Retro model in a solo again. I suppose I might like the one in those pictures better with fork tube covers or gaiters, and a tractor seat / rear rack combo. Still, if I was thinking about something bigger than my Bullet (like a Bonnie or Guzzi V7) I'd certainly consider it. I think I'd still prefer a C5, although a Ural Retro solo would be tempting!

Eamon

UncleErnie · « **Reply #44 on:** September 13, 2009, 10:12:34 PM »

Most dealers are sold out of this years models, but I don't think you can beat that V7 Classic for over-all performance and looks. It's a great bike. If i was looking for a new bike, that would be at the top of the list.

r80rt · « **Reply #45 on:** September 14, 2009, 07:10:13 AM »

Quote from: Blue Ridge Wheeltor on September 13, 2009, 01:44:26 PM

This is a whole new solo. Shorter wheelbase, rear disc.

Except for the disc brakes it looks just like the '95 solo I test rode. That was before the wolf or retro solo bikes. I liked it, but I didn't buy it because I knew I could get a used BMW R/75 cheaper, and that's what I did.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #46 on:** September 14, 2009, 08:55:05 AM »

"Most dealers are sold out of this years models, but I don't think you can beat that V7 Classic for over-all performance and looks. It's a great bike. If i was looking for a new bike, that would be at the top of the list." UncleErnie

Amen, Br. Ernie... and I'm reading riders' reports (not just magazine articles) about the V7... I read comments like, as I paraphrase: Don't let the specs (49 hp) fool you; in addition to the gobs of torque, this bike has easily broken the 90 mph mark... and, I haven't really pushed her yet because I'm barely beyond the break in process. So, at a claimed dry weight of 401 lbs., it is not an overweight motorcycle. The claimed 49 hp rating does not make the bike a speed demon. However, its HP to Weight Ratio is a respectable .1222%. I also read that it's a great handling bike.

Lastly, I have passed on the gallery information to my Jenny... again, I thank you for your gesture!

ace.cafe · « **Reply #47 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:40:13 AM »

Anybody been paying attention to the new Norton 961?
It's slated to be released this month at $18k.
Vertical twin with 85 hp and 65 ft-lbs of torque.
Weight is 414 pounds dry.
Made in England.
Rather expensive, but I think a decent newer version of the Commando, and more power than a Triumph Thruxton 952cc, and about equal to a Ducati Sport Classic 1000cc.
Because of the cost, I expect it will be primarily for the Norton aficionados who will pay more to have a Norton.

Here's a pic

r80rt · « **Reply #48 on:** September 15, 2009, 10:22:22 AM »

I've been watching it for a couple of years, I hope they make it to the street.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #49 on:** September 15, 2009, 10:55:50 AM »

Yes, Br. Ace... I saw the (red, Kenny Dreer) prototype at the ATL Cycle World Motorcycle Show a few years back... it might have been that same year I met (and spoke with) you and Tait Bolton... it is an unbelievably gorgeous machine -- especially in the red color that resembles the red of the RE Deluxe model...

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #50 on:** September 15, 2009, 01:11:46 PM »

Br. Blue, I neglected to mention that, if I was a "hack driver" like you or a "hack of a driver" like Br. Ernie, I would undoubtedly own a Ural. I "really like" those rigs and "love" the Retro model. Do these statements give away my feelings about these rigs and the particular model I would own? The only change I would make to my Retro Ural, if I owned one, would be to paint it -- frame and all -- in the RE Deluxe red color.

P.S. I really wish I was headed north with our brother, BigDon!
As, you guys will find out, the moniker really fits this big and loving bear of a man!

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #51 on:** September 15, 2009, 05:41:19 PM »

Well Cabo, i hope Big Don can swim, because they are predicting rain all week.
Won't bother Uncle Festus though, he doesn't know when to come in out of the rain.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #52 on:** September 15, 2009, 05:47:06 PM »

Well Cabo, i hope Big Don can swim, because they are predicting rain all week.
Won't bother Uncle Festus though, he doesn't know when to come in out of the rain. BRW

UncleErnie · « **Reply #53 on:** September 15, 2009, 07:51:11 PM »

LJRead · « **Reply #54 on:** September 16, 2009, 02:00:01 AM »

All the Enfields are simple machines compared to the others mentioned above - only one cylinder for example. Can't get much simpler nor easier to work on. So that decides it for me, here in outer left field, where the nearest dealer is 1400 miles or so away.

I think my Machismo, with no electric starter, separate gear box, simple, easy to work on carb, beats even the UCE, for me, that is.

Now my new EV, when it is complete, will be even simpler and cheaper to own, though it does have three wheels.

Nice to like what you have and not be looking around all the time.

ROVERMAN · « **Reply #55 on:** September 16, 2009, 09:47:40 AM »

Maybe i can jump in here? I just bought a clean low mileage Kaw 440 LTD to supplement my 500 ES. Whilst it is a perfectly reasonable UJM it reinforces why i was drawn to the RE in the first place. The Enfield is, IMO, everything a bike needs to be and nothing more. I simply enjoy knowing that it will work and respond the same way every time i ride it,wether we are talking speed,handling, or whatever.Some people say "character", i say it is just sound basic design, build quality notwithstanding.I contemplated a new C5/G5 but for some reason i have yet to warm to it.
Cheers.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #56 on:** September 16, 2009, 09:53:22 AM »

"Nice to like what you have and not be looking around all the time." LJRead

Well, Br. Larry, you are correct. I sold other bikes to end up with the one I really like. Perla, as you know, is that stunningly beautiful, 2004 Sixty-5 I run around with! In fact, I am twice blessed when it comes to running with beauty for the longest time. You see, I have also been running around with a remarkable person who is a stunningly beautiful lady, also. Graciela and I celebrated 41 years of marriage on September 7... WOWZAA!!!

Having said all this about Perla and Graciela, I must confess that my wondering eyes do betray my passion for these two ladies and I do find myself "looking around all the time", brother... WOWZAA!!!

1Blackwolf1 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 17, 2009, 06:33:18 AM »

Many congratulations on your 41st anniversary. And may you and your two lovely ladies have many more. WOWZAA, WOWZAA, WOWZAA.

ace.cafe · « **Reply #58 on:** September 17, 2009, 06:54:38 AM »

Yes Papa Juan, blessings on your 41st anniversary!

LJRead · « **Reply #59 on:** September 17, 2009, 11:20:22 AM »

All of us I think wander a bit with our eyes and the ladies, I know I do, and my wife is amused by it, but doesn't take it personally. I suppose it would be the same with bikes, but there are few here for the eye to wander over, and, as Ace pointed out, seeing them in person is far different than photos in a magazine (same with women too! although there is a rich assemblage of beautiful young women here, flirtatious as anything)

That being said, the Bible has a suggestion to keep our eyes front and center to avoid trouble - good advice, no?

I'll be having my 28th anniversary in December, my wife, at 51 is still a 'looker'.

Chasfield · « **Reply #60 on:** September 17, 2009, 02:09:30 PM »

Another piece of two wheeled eye distraction.

http://www.ccmmotorcyclesuk.com/cr-40/index.php

I think the CCM guys really get it, regarding what a bike should be like and they make very good use of the Suzuki 400 single motor.

As you can see, this bike makes the UCE Bullet seem very reasonably priced but I reckon it would be a laugh a minute to ride.

r80rt · « **Reply #61 on:** September 17, 2009, 03:20:22 PM »

Man that would be a blast in the twisty's

LJRead · « **Reply #62 on:** September 17, 2009, 05:21:42 PM »

Any thoughts on air vs. liquid cooled engines?

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #63 on:** September 17, 2009, 05:35:46 PM »

Brs. Will and Ace, I thank for the wedding anniversary congratulations and the "WOWZAAs"!

Br. Larry, firstly, I congratulate you and Malia on your upcoming 28th wedding anniversary! Secondly, "... the Bible has a suggestion to keep our eyes front and center to avoid trouble - good advice, no?", you are correct. But...

bob bezin · « **Reply #64 on:** September 17, 2009, 06:42:02 PM »

Very nice, but i have a bullet.

Land Surveyor · « **Reply #65 on:** September 17, 2009, 10:19:33 PM »

Regarding air vs. liquid cooling, I have noticed that a number of manufacturers have produced modern, short-stroke, liquid cooled singles that turn some amazing rpms and seem to practically duplicate or surpass the performance of the similar displacement twins of yesteryear. Not necessarily fact, just my observation. BMW and Aprilia have a 650 single, for example. And I notice that most of these modern, CVT scooters, at least those with 200cc+ displacement, are mostlly liquid cooled and have amazing performance, especially when one considers their considerable weight.

I think liquid cooling is becoming more commonplace because they have leaned out engines so much in an effort to reduce pollution that they run hotter than before.

Blue Ridge Wheeltor · « **Reply #66 on:** September 18, 2009, 07:02:39 PM »

Here's a writeup on the Ural Solo. if they get the price down, and offer it in olive drab, it would be competition for the RE Military. Sound like it's great on the trails too.

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/positions/initialreport/uralST-lyt.html

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #67 on:** September 18, 2009, 08:35:42 PM »

Br. Blue, it sounds as though the Ural Solo is going places...

Land Surveyor · « **Reply #68 on:** September 19, 2009, 10:08:00 AM »

Blue Ridge Wheeltor: Thanks for that link. Very interesting.

Well, it brings up questions. Much more expensive than the RE, acceptable mileage and range. I kinda wish it had the sprung seats. Reminds me of an old Zundapp with off-road tires I once saw. Although I know this bike was originally designed back in the day when all roads were rough, can it really be as off-road capable as a thumper? It's about 50 pounds heavier than the RE. The only area where it seems to exceed the RE's reach would seem to be at high speeds on pavement. Wonder if the exhausts could be flipped up like the old Douglas trials bikes? I'm not downing it. I want it to be a sucess. Glad to have more variety in this hopefully sucessful retro market.

r80rt · « **Reply #69 on:** September 19, 2009, 10:46:56 AM »

When the Ural solo was first intoduced to the U.S. in the early 90's it didn't sell well, probaly because no one knew what it was. I think it will do better this time, the Ural Red star has a following in Europe. http://www.uralmotorbikes.info/ural_solo.htm
http://www.cossackmotorcycles.com/ural650.html

Chasfield · « **Reply #70 on:** September 20, 2009, 11:32:42 AM »

Dragging the thread back to the svelte CCM CR40 for a moment

The dry weight for that machine is 120kg, or 265 pounds

That is something to meditate upon.

Cabo Cruz · « **Reply #71 on:** September 20, 2009, 11:38:46 AM »

"Dragging the thread back to the svelte CCM CR40 for a moment

The dry weight for that machine is 120kg, or 265 pounds

That is something to meditate upon." Chasfield

Righto, old chap!!!

Chasfield · « **Reply #72 on:** September 20, 2009, 11:41:49 AM »

I wonder what you could get a Bullet down to if you threw away all non-essentials and went the light alloy route for everything else.

I bet sub 300 pounds would be easy,

Menu

Members Rides

NField Gear

Author Topic: C5 & "competition" (Read 4183 times)