I think there's plenty of us on this forum who are of an age that we can remember those bikes of the 60's, 70's and 80's that are now fetching very high prices on the open market. I'm thinking of bikes like the Yamaha RD400, the Kawasaki Z1 and Z900 derivatives, the early Kawasaki 2 stroke triples, the Honda CBX - 6 and of course the CB750/4. This being a Triumph forum, it wouldn't be right if I didn't mention the original Triumph Trident 750/3 and the Triumph parallel twins from the 60's and 70's too. There are many more of course, so apologies if I haven't mentioned one of your particular favourites. Having been lucky to have owned a few of those machines myself back in the day, I think part of the popularity is that it's a blast from the past, perhaps even a hedge against inflation by buying such a bike, having Sunday afternoon fun on it and then knowing (hopefully) it won't lose money and may even increase in value should you wish to sell it at a later date. However is it a practical option to buy a bike (lets say a Kawasaki Z1 900) for upwards of £15,000 and just ride it on a weekend? Perhaps you wouldn't want to ride it much at all in case of accident and we all know spares are getting increasingly hard to find for older bikes. Would it be more sense to buy a new Kawasaki Z900RS for much less money with handling and brakes etc. that would wipe the floor with the 70's machine? I've got my 80's Honda NS400, and its a hoot to ride (although I doubt Greta Thunberg would approve) and with a bit of luck it won't depreciate in value, but I have owned other 'older' bikes and the handling and in particular braking performance is very poor when compared to modern bikes. My Triumph Thruxton 900 was a brilliant bike IMO, it handled well, the engine was strong and didn't leak oil. Quite a few people came up to me when it was parked up made admiring comments and thought it was a machine from the 1960's. Frankly I don't know why I sold it. So what do you think? Is it better to buy a modern retro machine with the looks of a classic bike from an earlier era or better to buy the real thing? I don't think there's a right and wrong answer here, everyone has their own opinion and viewpoint, but I thought it would be interesting to hear what the members here have to say on the subject.
For me, 100%. If you can get a bike that looks like your favourite classic from a bygone age, but which wipes the floor with it in every aspect of performance, comfort, reliability, etc why on earth wouldn’t you? Well, I did, anyway.
It depends what you want the bike for. I'd love a true classic but it wouldn't be for doing big miles! You also need knowledge with a true classic as you will inevitably spend time on the spanners. I like to go long distances and high performance gives me that buzz! But as a second bike... thats an itch I would like to scratch!
I really love the idea of buying a real classic just for pottering on round B roads on sunny days - but I completely lack the knowledge and skill needed to keep it in fine fettle. I also enjoy longer and faster days out and commute almost exclusively by bike in the spring / summer months which just wouldn't be practical at all on an expensive and potentially unreliable classic, so it would always have to be a second bike for me rather than my sole steed. At 19 years old, my Honda is just entering classic territory but is modern enough for me to feel comfortable using it in the same way as my Street Triple - and it is not costly to maintain, plus parts for it are readily available. I see the appeal of modern bikes with retro styling for cost, performance, reliability but the looks you want absolutely - especially if it was going to be your sole bike.
I would happily have an original but only on the understanding that it was rebuilt and maintained by @darkman
Su n me sold our modern 1200 speed twins last year as we hardly rode them in the three years we had them, we tend to ride our classics more these days
As you say John there is no right or wrong answer. I have a Z900RS, my modern classic and a 700 Tracer which I tour on. Waiting in the wings, I have a 1971 CB250, partially rebuilt. So you could say I've got a full set, sort of. I've had the CB250 since 2016 so it's what you would call a stalled project but I do hope to get it back on the road one day. It would be ideal for pottering about on during those sunny sunday afternoons.
Maybe I'm slightly too young but for me my early bike loves were Japanese not classic British. I fancied a British plodder but just couldn't bring myself to like the styling on some (certain mudguards look shocking, 5TA bathtub is it?) or the brakes/handling etc. I settled for a street twin after a dealer test ride as that had, for me, a certain quirkiness over a t120 or a speed twin (1200). This ticks the box in terms of plodder and comfort for the wife plus gives a more sedate day out say over the 765rs. My response above however doesn't answer your investment perspective...... I have a similar dilemma as the stocks and shares ISA isn't achieving a lot and I feel, possibly foolishly, that the 2 stroke 250 I have my eye on would do more, in more than one sense of the word! Somebody advise, or talk me out of it?
Mmmmmm the real thing you say.....I have a 2020 T100....to me its the real thing not sure what you mean by real thing.....my bike is real I don't imagine I own it. The present range of Triumph bikes are all off shoots from Triumph bike from when Triumph bikes were quite basic but Triumph just like other manufactures continually change/update there machine....some say thats progress others maybe think differently. ie a 1970 Triumph Bonnie is different to a 1959 Bonnie.....and a 1979 bonnie is different to a 1970 bonnie....but using your term which is the real thing. To me....if triumph call there bike a Bonnie....no mater what year produced its a Bonnie. To me a Bonnie is a certain style and that style is in line with my idea of how a motorcycle should look. I hate the look of most all look the same bikes with sticky up back ends but lots seem to love em....each to there own. I think only you can tell your self what bike you want or need. Until a few years before I bought the currant Bonnie I did really fancy a 60s Bonnie.....love basic stuff....I also own a 1969 BSA which is my first every bike...its keeps me busy with the spanners.....but at 70 I am no where near as keen at spannering..... thats why I moved toward the current watercooled Bonnies....it looks like I want a bike to look....way more power than I need.....and I dont need to mess with it to much.
I've had many bikes in my 63 years. I've gotten tired of always wrenching on the older bikes but I do have fond memories of them. I do enjoy my new Bonnie though because I don't have to wrench on it much, just ride and enjoy it. If I work on it now it's just maintenance or adding accessories. I sold my last bike (bmw) because it was always having problems and I spent more time working on it than riding it. So no more old bikes for me.
I didn't mean to offend anyone by suggesting their modern retro bike wasn't real. Of course they are and as I alluded to, in most cases they outperform and are far more reliable than the originals. They are however marketed to appeal to an audience whom either had an 'original' if I can call them that or just like the styling of a bygone era. You could argue therefore that they 'ape' the originals. As I mentioned, I parted company with my 900 Thruxton last year and it was a really good bike, reliable, fun to ride and IMO looked great. I have bought several older (original?) bikes over the last few years, a Yamaha RD200, a Honda CB550, a Honda VF1000R and a Yamaha FZR1000 Genesis. I bought them as winter projects to keep me occupied and then sold them after riding them around the following summer. If you add in your time working on them of course, I doubt anyone makes money by 'doing up' an old bike, but I found it fun and I wouldn't discount doing another one, but like Woodtickgreg, I'm getting older (read stiffer and less agile) now and the prospect of spending several hours on a cold winter day or evening on my knees working on an old bike doesn't have the appeal it once did.
An interesting question. My early years biking were mostly on "original" British bikes, mostly BSAs as they were all I could afford. In the 1980's I did a ground up nut and bolt restoration on a 1954 BSA A10 and once finished it was better than when it left the factory. BUT... having invested so much time and money in it I then got obsessed with trying to keep it in concourse condition. So moving to the here and now, the "originals" are lovely to own, but rarely do you make money on them if you do the restoring yourself, especially if yiu pay someone else to do the spannering. With the old Brit stuff it's a nice part of the biking world, yiu need to be able to maintain and fix it yourself unless you have deep pockets. With the Jap stuff from the 70's and 80's they're more reliable but you still need to know what you're doing. As for the "modern" versions I get the Z1000RS, it looks like the bike it's based on and to some extent the BMW R9t as unlike all the others they're actually made by the same "original" company. The rest are IMO just satisfying a nostalgic demand supplying a modern bike they've produced that looks like something we either owned or lusted after in our yoof but couldn't afford that has no direct lineage to the original bikes they ape. There's nothing wrong with that and I would have one of the new Nortons if I had a spare wad of cash the wife didn't know about
So what year did the Bonnie cease being original in your opinion. And suppose you could say....when did Triumph cease being original?.....could it be when BSA took them over? Or maybe re the Bonnie seeing the Bonnie name was born in 1959.....maybe they were only original for a year....two maybe?
My view it's not specific to the Bonnie but Triumph as a whole and would be when Triumph Engineering went bust and John Bloor founded Triumph Motorcycles in 1983 and gained the rights to use the Triumph name.
Sorry Nick I just don't understand you. I've re-read my post and I'm sure I didn't use the words "real thing" yet you have quoted my post.
For me the modern Bonnie should have evolved more, incorporating a mono shock, upside down forks and radial calipers. The bigger engines and fuel injection are welcome upgrades but not enough in my humble opinion and the Speed Twin 1200 would be great with a single sided swingarm. The Kawasaki Z900RS got it right without compromising the retro look.
To me the "real thing" is a bike that was built with the modern technology of the period. The modern retros are purposely built with twin shocks etc. and styled to look like old bikes, not knocking them, I've owned a few, and they are great! (Except the scrambler 1200, it was a horrible bike)! A modern bike built with modern technology would be a street or speed triple, or a tiger.
Not sure about the mono shock as that would be quite a departure looks-wise, but totally with you on the other two. Four pot callipers would be nice too, at leat on the 1200’s.
I dunno, I love my new Bonnie. If I wanted more I would have bought something else. I think the new Bonnie's are done right. What small things that are not right can be upgraded as needed by the owner. There is no perfect bike! But my modern Bonnie is perfect for me.
