135 mph XLCH?

[ducbsa]

In a letter to the editor, the writer claimed that a CW road test in the '60's timed a stock XLCH at 135 mph. Is that true? Seems pretty fast to me.

[carlo]

I saw that letter too.<BR>
<BR>
Not bloody likely, is all I can say.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
April, 1965, Road test XLH. Top speed after 1/2 mile run; 98 mph. <BR>
<BR>
Maximum speed possible in 4th gear; 116 mph.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
April, 1968, Road test, XLH, top spped (actual) 114.31 mph. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
November, 1969, Road test, XLCH. Top speed at 6800RPM; 112.48<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
October, 1970, (for comparison) "tuned" sportster, built by Jerry Branch, best run top speed; 119.84 mph.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
December, 1969 (another "for comparison") Norton Production Racer, top speed 131 mph. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
There are probably a few tests that I haven't seen. I didn't look<BR>
through my entire collection, but I seriously doubt they ever tested a<BR>
sportster that topped out at 135.<BR>
<BR>
Well, ok, there was one. I've already put all the magazines back, and<BR>
don't feel like digging it out now, so I can't quote what month and<BR>
year it was, but another bike built by Jerry Branch. An all out<BR>
dragster, Avon slick, no suspension, lay down seat and all. <BR>
<BR>
Top speed of 141 mph. They didn't test that one though, they just wrote a story about it.<BR>

[Honda919Rider]

<div>There was an XR750 that tested at 135MPH - maybe that is it?</div>

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>Honda919Rider wrote:<br><div>There was an XR750 that tested at 135MPH - maybe that is it?</div><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><hr>Honda919Rider wrote:<br><div>There was an XR750 that tested at 135MPH - maybe that is it?</div><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>Wouln'ta been in the 60's if that's what it was.<br><br>uh-oh! Our new software converts posts to html on the front end just like &quot;ideal&quot; &quot;science&quot; did! That's one of my biggest complaints about the &quot;old&quot; new software!

[carlo]

Well, user settings got transferred, that's good. However, Albert looks a bit ragged in his &quot;shrink-to-fit&quot; form.<br>I guess it's time to get out that one you cleaned up for me Steve!

[Honda919Rider]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>carlo wrote:<br>Well, user settings got transferred, that's good. However, Albert looks a bit ragged in his &quot;shrink-to-fit&quot; form.<br>I guess it's time to get out that one you cleaned up for me Steve!<br><hr></div></blockquote><br><div>Funny you say that.</div><div> </div><div>I was looking for a picture of him with the cigar so I could add that for you.</div><div> </div><div>Just a few minutes before I read this . . . . . .</div><div> </div><div>Have we entered the twilight zone!</div></div>

[850-Combat]

<div><font size="4">I never remember Sportsters as at all quick, but then I started riding on the street in the early 70's. </font></div><div><font size="4"></font> </div><div><font size="4">If you go back to the mid 60's there really wasn't anything that would run with them. Not until the Commando in '68 and the CB 750 and H1 in '69.</font></div><div><font size="4"></font> </div><div><font size="4">Sportsters were hurt by encroaching noise regs more than most as well.</font></div>

[carlo]

Paul, according to the road tests, there were several bikes during the 60's that were competetive with the Sportsters.<br>These included the Royal Enfield Interceptors, Norton Atlas, Bonneville, BSA Lightning.<br>I once had a chance to spend a weekend riding around on a mid 70's 1000ccc Sportster. A friend of mine who had a Honda 450 went along. The Sportster was a lot of fun to ride, but it wasn't really any faster or quicker than that Honda.

[hacksaw]

<div>your wrong carlo.</div>

[gashford]

<div>Well, from personal experience, going down I-5 in 1970 when it was still not very crowded, I noticed my 140MPH speedometer was pegged. We were passing cars like they were going backwards. Oh, I forgot to mention that my passenger was punching me in the ribs to slow down. It still seemed to want to go faster. That was a 1970 XLCH. Accounting for the usual speedometer error, how fast do you think I was going?</div>

[hacksaw]

<div>beats me. what people here constantly forget- how fast a bike goes and how quick a bike is are 2 different things. almost any bike can be geared to hit speeds in excess of factory trim.</div><div> </div><div>however, the notion that somehow CB450's out dragged 900 ironheads is absurd.</div>

[Monkeyshines]

<div></div><div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>hacksaw wrote:<br><div> </div><div>however, the notion that somehow CB450's out dragged 900 ironheads is absurd.</div><br><hr></div></blockquote>I don't think Carlo said the 450 &quot;out dragged&quot; the 900, just that it was close. It would be an interesting match though. Anyone have the figures? I seem to recall the cb750 being quicker(and faster) than the Sporty, but not by that much. I don't see how the cb450 could keep up, but I could be wrong, sportys aren't that quick. I remember a guy on a BMW staying pretty close to my cb750. I think a supposedly inferior or smaller bike staying on your heels is more humbling than a loss to a theoretical even match or better machine.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Monkeyshines on <span class="date_text">03-25-2007</span><span class="time_text">09:35 AM</span></p>

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>hacksaw wrote:<br><div>beats me. what people here constantly forget- how fast a bike goes and how quick a bike is are 2 different things. almost any bike can be geared to hit speeds in excess of factory trim.</div><div></div><div>however, the notion that somehow CB450's out dragged 900 ironheads is absurd.</div><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>I didn't say the Honda out-dragged the Sportster. I said the Honda <b>seemed to be</b> as fast as the Sportster.<br>I wasn't able to pull away from the Honda, and on the one occasion I remember when we had a chance to really get it on, both bikes were running together until we ran out of road and had to shut down.<br><br>It was a 1974 AMF 1000cc Sportster.<br><br>And as for any stock Sportster pegging a 140 mph speedometer(two up), all I can say is that's got to be a very optimistic speedometer on that bike.<br><br>BTW, anything over 90 will have you passing cars like they're standing still.

[carlo]

Ok, I've got some CW certified numbers here.<br><br>It appears that there are Sportsters, and then there are Sportsters.<br>I may be able to dig up information indicating that there are also Honda 450's and then there are Honda 450's, since my recollection of the first road test I ever saw for one of those indicated 13.2 seconds or thereabout for a quarter mile sprint on one of those.<br><br>Anyhow, submitted for your approval:<br><br>April 1965, Sportster XLH<br>top speed recorded was 98 mph<br>Standing 1/4 mile was 15.5 sec at 84 mph.<br><br>April 1968 (I'll have to check, I wonder if they always tested Sportsters in Aptil?)<br>top speed recorded 114.31<br>standing 1/4 mile 13.86 sec. at 98.68 mph<br><br>An advertisement for the Honda 450 in the same issue claims top speed of 112 mph and quarter mile time of the 13.2 seconds that I remembered.<br><br>However, the Honda 450 road test in September of 1965 gave:<br>top[ speed 102 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 15.2 sec. at 85 mph<br>just a hair better than the Sportster tested the same year. (and a fair amount worse than the Sportster tested 3 years later.<br><br>Ok, here's a Honda 450 road test from May 1968<br><br>top speed 111.1 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 14.43 sec. at 90.27 mph<br><br>So, if we use the best two results for those bikes, I think my claim that the Sportster and the Honda were closely matched for real-world riding was accurate.<br>Even if both bikes happened to be in exactly the same state of tune as the bikes tested by CW in 1968, a simple thing such as who cranked the throttle open first, how close to redline (or over it) each rider was willing to go, etc. would easily neutralise any possible advantage that one bike might have over the other.<br>And it's safe to assume that neither bike happened to put out exacctly the same power characteristics as the tested bikes, one could have been a very weak example, while the other one might have been just a bit better than it's peers.<br>For all I know, if we'd actually tested the bikes side-by-side at a real dragstrip with timing lights, and all the rest, that 1970 Honda 450 might have dusted the 1974 AMF Sportster.<br><br>BTW, while perusing the covers of the 1968 and 1969 issues of CW for a road test article about the Honda, I came across a road test for the Series II 1969 Royal Enfield Interceptor.<br><br>Sort of a letdown.<br>Top speed, 103.2 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 14.82 sec. at 87.01 mph.<br>Both the 1968 Sportster, and the 1968 Honda 450 would have left it behind.

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>Monkeyshines wrote:<br><div></div><div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>hacksaw wrote:<br><div></div><div>however, the notion that somehow CB450's out dragged 900 ironheads is absurd.</div><br><hr></div></blockquote>I don't think Carlo said the 450 &quot;out dragged&quot; the 900, just that it was close. It would be an interesting match though. Anyone have the figures? I seem to recall the cb750 being quicker(and faster) than the Sporty, but not by that much. I don't see how the cb450 could keep up, but I could be wrong, sportys aren't that quick. I remember a guy on a BMW staying pretty close to my cb750. I think a supposedly inferior or smaller bike staying on your heels is more humbling than a loss to a theoretical even match or better machine.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Message Edited by Monkeyshines on <span class="date_text">03-25-2007</span><span class="time_text">09:35 AM</span></p><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>The thing is that magazine road tests only indicate the capabilities of the machine, and in particular only the one they tested, which may or may not have had some special preparation by the distributor prior to delivery to the magazine for testing.<br><br>It should be common knowledge that for any given make/model of car or motorcycle, there will be a fairly wide range of performance specs between different examples of that make/model.<br>I remember reading an article about Phil Irving, where he said the only difference between a Black Shadow and A Rapide was that the Shadows were built with parts that were carefully selected, while the Rapides were built with parts just pulled from the bin.<br>In other words; the Shadow was simply a blueprinted Rapide.<br>If my friend with the 1970 Honda had happened to get one of the lucky examples that came out of the factory with all the parts matching perfectly, and properly assembled, it may well have been a faster, quicker bike than a 1974 1000cc AMF Sportster, which was unfortunate to have been assembled indifferently, out of slightly mismatched parts. (or maybe the 1000cc Sportsters were considerably slower than their 900cc predecissors?)<br><br>Add to this the facts of real-world riding. Traffic is the great equaliser. Unless someone is completely nuts (no fear?), everyone has to wait for a safe opportunity to pass slower traffic. That gives the guys on the slower bikes a chance to catch up. If the guy on the slower bike happens to snatch the passing opportunity first, the faster bike will be playing catch up. Curves are another one. Just because someone has a faster, better handling bike doesn't mean that equates to being faster in the real world. As Dick Mann said; &quot;It's better to ride a slow bike fast, than it is to ride a fast bike slow&quot;.<br>I can site many examples of bikes that are supposed to be slower, being able to stay with, or even pull away from bikes that are faster.<br>I've embarrassed a few people with my 1965 R69S who were riding bikes that they thought should have left me far behind.

[850-Combat]

<div>A guy I worked with bought a new '79 sportster shortly after I bought my new leftover '76 RD 400. We raced a number of times, in acceleration and also top end. The RD won every time. Top end was interesting, because he would be pretty far back from a dead stop but as we approached 90 or so he would catch me. If I layed down on the tank, the RD would just barely creep away from the Sporty. This was before the heads and chambers were installed on the RD.</div><div> </div><div>The Sportster had tons more roll-on power and the ability to pull strongly in top gear from about any speed which of course the RD didn't have. Any time you roll off the throttle, 2 downshifts minimum were needed.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>I didn't care about that though. I still beat him. After a couple years, he even admitted it.</div><div> </div><div>The '79 Sporty used the frame and pipes from the Cafe Racer, but in chrome for the pipes. He loved that bike.</div><div> </div><div>Carlo, I think I have that RE test you mention. I would like to see the '65 test where the bike was suposedly quick. Mine was no quicker than my '70 lightning. It was a lot smoother, more comfortable, and better looking though.</div><div> </div><div>As to Hondas claim to 13.2 in the quarter, well, that was never going to happen. Suzuki claimed 13.2 for the Titan and 13.8 for the 315cc Raider. Never happened either. Advertisements had a lot of idle boasting in performance claims back then.Now they don't usually quote performance statistics. I only know of one test where a CB 750 or Sportster broke into the 12's, and thats the '70 Cycle comparison. CB 750 with a slick, The Sportster was ported and had oversized valves.</div>

[Monkeyshines]

<div>Good stuff guys. Carlo, you made some excellent points about particular bike differentials and conditions.</div><div> </div><div>850, yeah, claims by manufacturers hardly ever play out, many by the media either. I remember PeeWee Gleason doing a lot of stuff no one was going to be able to replicate. In 1982 Pee-Wee Gleason took V65 Magna to Orange County Raceway and pulled out a 10.92 1/4-mile, making the V65 America's fastest production street machine, inspiring the ad &quot;Bad News Travels Fast.&quot;</div><div> </div><div>I often wonder about the bikes provided to the mags, and if they've been tuned &quot;just so&quot; or if they're just pulled from warehouse stock.</div><div> </div><div>Speaking of odd race match's, I completely smoked a Sportster chopper with my '78 Honda XL500(HRC engine performance package; cam, pipe, carb/aircleaner). The words and excuses that came out of his mouth at the next light, oh my. I let him get the jump the second time, blew by him in a wheelie and never saw him again, I think he turned off. I have to admit, it surprised me too.</div><div> </div>

[UncleErnie]

<div></div><div>My one claim to fame was a rollon with my conversion. On the freeway, it looks like a stock R60. When he caught up later, I bragged it was 400cc over stock. </div><div> </div><div>That reminds me of a true story;</div><div>A guy was racing around the mountains on his Ducati, and after a bit he hears a whining sound building. Eventually, a stinky little Honda 400/4 passes him on the inside of a sweeper- no problem. This irritates the Duc rider and he speeds up. He's starting to sweat and scare himself in some of the tighter stuff, yet he can only just manage to keep up. Finally, the road opens up! He pours it on and lays on the tank to FINALLY come up next to what appears to be a stock, mid-'70s Honda 400. The rider who is only wearing an old Bell 3/4 looks over and yells, &quot;How do I get this out of second?!&quot;</div><p>Message Edited by UncleErnie on <span class="date_text">03-25-2007</span><span class="time_text">12:39 PM</span></p>

[carlo]

Well, in the case of the two numbers I quoted for Sporsters it's a good bet that the Harley shop or distributor that CW got their test bikes from just gave them one from inventory for the 1965 test, and that the local Harley dealers remembered the results from that one when they asked for a 1968 model to test.<br>They might have handed that one over to Jerry Branch for a &quot;tune-up&quot; that made sure it was as good as a Stock XLH could possibly be when it was tested.<br><br>You ought to read a description of what Jerry Branch had to do to the KR engines before they were ready for the track.

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>UncleErnie wrote:<br><div></div><div>My one claim to fame was a rollon with my conversion. On the freeway, it looks like a stock R60. When he caught up later, I bragged it was 400cc over stock.</div><div></div><div>That reminds me of a true story;</div><div>A guy was racing around the mountains on his Ducati, and after a bit he hears a whining sound building. Eventually, a stinky little Honda 400/4 passes him on the inside of a sweeper- no problem. This irritates the Duc rider and he speeds up. He's starting to sweat and scare himself in some of the tighter stuff, yet he can only just manage to keep up. Finally, the road opens up! He pours it on and lays on the tank to FINALLY come up next to what appears to be a stock, mid-'70s Honda 400. The rider who is only wearing an old Bell 3/4 looks over and yells, &quot;How do I get this out of second?!&quot;</div><p>Message Edited by UncleErnie on <span class="date_text">03-25-2007</span><span class="time_text">12:39 PM</span></p><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>You sure that's not one of those oft-repeated &quot;legends&quot;? I like the story, but the punchline sounds a bit too much like the same punchline I've heard in similar stories.<br>I've only ridden a Honda 400/4 once, and I was very impressed with how it handled though.

[UncleErnie]

<div>...sorry. I can't hear you- there's a banana in my ear.</div><div> </div><div>&quot;Hey! Do you know your monkey has his tail in my beer?!&quot;</div><div>No... but hum a few bars, maybe I can fake it.</div><div> </div><div>&quot;Ya know, we don't get many Kangaroos in here...&quot;</div><div>Well- at THESE prices, I can see why!</div><div> </div><div>Rev, Robert to his son and accomanying gathering every Thanksgiving;</div><div>&quot;Why ruin a good story for a few facts.&quot;</div><div> </div><div>Mr Carlo, I hold you and this entire august group in the highest regard and would NEVER retell an accounting I was told after the fact without at least considering witnessing it with my own eyes. If that were in ANY way possible.</div><div> </div>

[ducbsa]

<div></div><div>Carlo says:</div><div>&quot;I remember reading an article about Phil Irving, where he said the only difference between a Black Shadow and A Rapide was that the Shadows were built with parts that were carefully selected, while the Rapides were built with parts just pulled from the bin.<br>In other words; the Shadow was simply a blueprinted Rapide.&quot;</div><div> </div><div>From what I have read, this is correct and they benefited from selected cams that had long durations, due to manufacturing variances. They also had 1-1/8&quot; carbs vs. 1-1/16&quot;, which doesn't seem like a lot bigger.</div>

[850-Combat]

<div></div><div>Are you sure the bike had anything to do with it?<br></div><blockquote><div><hr>carlo wrote:<br><br><blockquote><hr><br><br>I've embarrassed a few people with my 1965 R69S<br><hr></blockquote></div></blockquote><p> </p><p>Just kidding</p><div><br></div><div></div>

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>850-Combat wrote:<br><div></div><div>Are you sure the bike had anything to do with it?<br></div><blockquote><div><hr>carlo wrote:<br><br><blockquote><hr><br><br>I've embarrassed a few people with my 1965 R69S<br><hr></blockquote></div></blockquote><p></p><p>Just kidding</p><div><br></div><div></div><br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>Well, it's embarrassed me on more than a few occasions, so yeh, could be the bike had something to do with it!

[Monkeyshines]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr></div><div>carlo wrote:</div><div> </div><div><br>Ok, I've got some CW certified numbers here.<br><br>April 1965, Sportster XLH<br>top speed recorded was 98 mph<br>Standing 1/4 mile was 15.5 sec at 84 mph.<br><br>April 1968 (I'll have to check, I wonder if they always tested Sportsters in Aptil?)<br>top speed recorded 114.31<br>standing 1/4 mile 13.86 sec. at 98.68 mph<br><br>An advertisement for the Honda 450 in the same issue claims top speed of 112 mph and quarter mile time of the 13.2 seconds that I remembered.<br><br>However, the Honda 450 road test in September of 1965 gave:<br>top[ speed 102 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 15.2 sec. at 85 mph<br>just a hair better than the Sportster tested the same year. (and a fair amount worse than the Sportster tested 3 years later.<br><br>Ok, here's a Honda 450 road test from May 1968<br><br>top speed 111.1 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 14.43 sec. at 90.27 mph<br><br><hr></div><div> </div><div>Sobering numbers. I'm amazed at how fast that 450 is. <em>And</em> they were affordable, comfortable, and reliable. A true pocket rocket. Honda really was an amazing force in those days. Fun times.</div></blockquote></div>

[Monkeyshines]

<div><blockquote><div><hr></div><div>carlo wrote:</div><div> </div><div><br>Ok, I've got some CW certified numbers here.<br><br>April 1965, Sportster XLH<br>top speed recorded was 98 mph<br>Standing 1/4 mile was 15.5 sec at 84 mph.<br><br>April 1968 (I'll have to check, I wonder if they always tested Sportsters in Aptil?)<br>top speed recorded 114.31<br>standing 1/4 mile 13.86 sec. at 98.68 mph<br><br>An advertisement for the Honda 450 in the same issue claims top speed of 112 mph and quarter mile time of the 13.2 seconds that I remembered.<br><br>However, the Honda 450 road test in September of 1965 gave:<br>top[ speed 102 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 15.2 sec. at 85 mph<br>just a hair better than the Sportster tested the same year. (and a fair amount worse than the Sportster tested 3 years later.<br><br>Ok, here's a Honda 450 road test from May 1968<br><br>top speed 111.1 mph<br>standing 1/4 mile 14.43 sec. at 90.27 mph<br><br><hr></div><div> </div><div>Sobering numbers. I'm amazed at how fast that 450 is. <em>And</em> they were affordable, comfortable, and reliable. A true pocket rocket. Honda really was an amazing force in those days. Fun times.</div></blockquote></div>

[RonnnM]

<div></div><div>My 74 cb 450 would do 105 and no more,and the front end felt light at that speed.My 75 cb750 would do 112+ ,the bike had a little more ,but I didnt feel up to it, even though the front end felt solid(50 MPH feels too fast now)-RonM</div><p>Message Edited by RonnnM on <span class="date_text">03-27-2007</span><span class="time_text">12:00 AM</span></p>

[hacksaw]

<div></div><div> </div><div>its a proven fact that et's and top end recording vary wildly from place to place. people still run ironheads at the drags. people still got rid of japper 450's and bought CH's as fast as they could scrape up the dough.</div><div>lets not even mention putting your girlfriend on the back, the 450 slowed considerably with extra weight. not that any girls chose a 450 guy over riding on a CH.</div><div>carlo, you keep trying to dig through old stuff (which is commendable for the most part) trying to re invent the wheel. the cb450 was a nice enuff standard for those whos budget allowed more than a 350/360. but they were never much but top heavy vibrating slugs. most who bought them quickly went for inline fours or nortons, etc. heck, even the vintage class racing they get beat by 350's. thats f you find anyone racing one.</div><div> </div><div>the bottom line is the xlch was the class ride of that era. variations on the theme that are still with us today. conversely i got a front end and a complete cm450 motor (the improved twin that took the place of the cb450/500) an 1982, that i cant seem to give away. we just sold a 1979 XL engine alone for 800.00.</div><div> </div><div>so prattle your moldy stats all ya want. proof is in the market demand.</div><p>Message Edited by hacksaw on <span class="date_text">03-27-2007</span><span class="time_text">01:17 PM</span></p>

[Buelligan]

<div>I know it's apples and organges, but my carburetted 1203cc Buell Cyclone (the standard model with upright seating, btw) can do 135mph before the rev limiter kicks in, totally stock. </div><div> </div>

[Buelligan]

<div><div>I know it's apples and oranges, but my carburetted 1203cc Buell Cyclone (the standard model with upright seating, btw) can do 135mph before the rev limiter kicks in, totally stock. </div><div> </div></div>

[Monkeyshines]

<div></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div><hr>hacksaw wrote:<br><div></div><div> </div><div>so prattle your moldy stats all ya want. proof is in the market demand.</div><p></p><hr></div></blockquote><div>I'm curious how many of the Hondas compared to the CH's were sold in those years.</div><div> </div><div>Funny, Edsels are in big demand these days.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><br> </div><div></div>

[mikethebike1]

When I had my 73 XLH back in 74/75 the 750 Tridents could not get away from it. The bike had straight pipes, Bendix carb (the stock carb). Bill Sharp in Charleston SC had a Trident and we would race down Hwy 17 to John's Island and all over the island and the bikes were dead even. STOCK CB 750 ser mostly the same...Z-1's on the other hand.

[hacksaw]

<div>thanks for posting that info. its always nice to have some real world reports.</div>

[hacksaw]

<div>its likely safe to say that 10s of thousands of iron head sportsters were sold over what may have been imported by honda of cb450 models. certainly even if year by year statistics were a dead heat, how many have valid registrations today?</div><div> </div><div>the continual stretch of some posters to find ways to try and cut down harley-davidson is actually becoming absurdly comical.</div>

[Monkeyshines]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>mikethebike1 wrote:<br>When I had my 73 XLH back in 74/75 the 750 Tridents could not get away from it. The bike had straight pipes, Bendix carb (the stock carb). Bill Sharp in Charleston SC had a Trident and we would race down Hwy 17 to John's Island and all over the island and the bikes were dead even. STOCK CB 750 ser mostly the same...Z-1's on the other hand.<br><hr></div></blockquote><br><div>Z1's seemed <em>freaky</em> fast to me back then. And that howl !</div></div>

[carlo]

<br><blockquote><hr>mikethebike1 wrote:<br>When I had my 73 XLH back in 74/75 the 750 Tridents could not get away from it. The bike had straight pipes, Bendix carb (the stock carb). Bill Sharp in Charleston SC had a Trident and we would race down Hwy 17 to John's Island and all over the island and the bikes were dead even. STOCK CB 750 ser mostly the same...Z-1's on the other hand.<br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>One of the CW road tests of a Sportster that I quoted from recently had very dissappointing numbers in it.<br>Until they removed the mufflers and rejetted the carb. A major transformation.<br>Then, as now, Harleys respond better than any other make to being &quot;uncorked&quot;.

[Monkeyshines]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>carlo wrote:<br><br>Then, as now, Harleys respond better than any other make to being &quot;uncorked&quot;.<br><hr></div></blockquote>That's a fact.<br><div></div></div>

[mikethebike1]

Do you remember the Honda CBX? Back in Charleston during those days Stokes Honda also had the H-D shop out on Dorchester Rd. Eddie Stokes was showing-off one day on the CBX and bad-mouthing sportys. Well, Marion syle had an XLCH with 73cid, Crane heads, Andrews 'b' cam, long throat S&amp;S 45 carb and wide ratio gear box. They ran the bikes 3 times and the outcome ws always the same....74cid push-rod v-twin beat 6-cylinder double-overhead-cam, Montrosity.<br><br>And something ALL of you rice-rocket-riders should know....YOU are riding much more bike than you are rider. A lot of you can't ride all that well. When I lived on Paris Mountain I would meet some kid on a UJM who was going to show the Sporty ride how to do it. On the straights....no contest...105 hp R6 beats a 65 hp Sporty....but then the corners show-up and I'd park on their tail light. They douldn't believe it. When my son had a 2000 R6 we were coming back fro NC past Ceasars Head Stat Park and he was so far behind I could no longer see him so I pulled over at the park, he pulled up laughing.<br><br>&quot;Look at your rear tire, Dad. You're past the tread on the left side and riding up on the side-wall!&quot;<br><br>He was right. My left foot-peg is worn half-way through the length on the bottom side. Ducati 916 riders have turned around, chased me down because they couldn't believe you could lean an old Sporty THAT much without crashing.<br><br>So just remember there are those of us on Harleys who think you should lean the bike until you can kiss the ground. And YOU will look very silly not being able to beat an old guy on a 30 year old XLCH.

[UncleErnie]

<div>Steve, great story!</div><div>When I tell it, I'm changing the end; The old guy reached up and turned off his biike and watched the Z1 run right into the side of a wall and burst into flames.</div><div> </div><div>I used to do that with my '54 Chevey oainted a nice creamy yellow. Guys would come up next to me and rev their engines. So, I'd rev mine. The light would turn green and their rear ends would sometimes even be swaying back and forth as the tires would smoke and they'd be like a bat out of hell. I'd just sit there and chuckle. That engine didn't eeven have an oil filter on it!</div>

[carlo]

Steve, that'a a good story, and yes, you're right, you can make any of the mid-70's two-strokes perform the way they were intended almost as easily as a Harley.<br>Here's the difference; when you say &quot;uncork&quot; that term applies well to a Harley. The Sportster road test I'm thinking of (it's in this thread somewhere) showed the bike running very poorly. They removed the mufflers, rejetted the carb, and the bike was back where it should have been. The road test showed the weaker numbers because they only publish the figures produced by a bike in showroom stock condition.<br><br>The term &quot;uncork&quot; just does not apply to performance tuning a 2-stroke. If you just pull the mufflers off any 2-stroke, all you're going to get is a whole lot of raspy noise, and a whole lot less performance than it had with the mufflers.<br>2-strokes respond very well to careful tuning of the exhaust system, but they have got to have that expansion chamber. And if your expansion chamber configuration doesn't match the port timing, things can get worse rather than better. In addition, this kind of tuning generally only works for a very narrow range of RPM's. Outside of that range, and performance is usually pretty bad.<br>That's one of the reasons I never bothered to put expansion chambers on my own H1. The bike ran strong enough for me as it was, and I used it for commuting, touring, and weekend playing. I didn't want or need a peaky, noisy crotch rocket for riding to work.<br><br>I once had a chance to race with a guy who had exactly the same year of H1 as mine (1975, H1F) which had some expansion chambers on it.<br>My bike was said to be a particularly strong runner for a 1975 model, so I'm guessing that his bike with stock pipes was closer to average or below, but during our little race, both bikes were neck and neck right up to 100 mph. This result was obtained several times, so it wasn't a fluke. I probably outweighed the guy by about 50# btw.<br>My point is that you can't necessarily just stick expansion chambers on a two-stroke and expect it to be totally transformed. That might work in some cases, but expansion chambers usually have to be part of a package, all the parts of which need to work together to obtain any real benefit.

[Hackasaw]

<div>on the lil ricer vs the milwakee jackhammer.......</div><div> </div><div>what the lil ricers will do is <em>sustain....... without self destruction.......</em></div><div> </div><div>higher speeds than the big shakers</div><div> </div><div>I've seen and owned plenty of stock geared IH's that became very urgent with the harmonics at or before 70 mph</div><div> </div><div>at 100 you best not be planning on holding it there long</div><div> </div><div>however....... I have owned more than a couple CB350's and 450's that couldn't give two sheats if you pinned the throttle and held it for miles at 90+ mph</div><div> </div><div>that being said...... I do own a IH sporty that will easily sustain over 100 mph</div><div> </div><div>but it's got a big engine sprocket</div><div> </div><div>and a tiny rear wheel sprocket</div><div> </div><div>and I couldn't care less how fast or slow it was thru the 1/4 mile trap</div><div> </div><div> </div>

[Hackasaw]

<div></div><div>well a sportster and all other HD's comparison isn't apples and oranges</div><div> </div><div>the IH, for it's entire run suffered one basic design flaw</div><div> </div><div>overly large intake ports and very long rod to stroke ratios</div><div> </div><div>this is why uncorked they worked well as a drag engine are typically somewhat miserable for street use unless mild cams are fitted........ and then they prefer mufflers to help contend with the very significant intake reversion..... and/or other tuning of the intake tract to deal with these issues</div><div> </div><div>straight pipe IH's lose huge amounts of bottom end and midrange torque</div><div> </div><div>other HD engines of the same era did not have these same problems and if so, not nearly to the extent of the IH</div><div> </div><div>and it is interesting that modern sporties and buells put almost twice as many ponies to the back tire as the IH's did....... and with smaller or same sized intake ports......</div><div> </div><div>port velocity is a lesson many engine manufacturers did not catch onto for a pretty good while</div><div> </div><div>heck it even bit MB on the tail when they desmo'd a V8 Gran Prix engine</div><div> </div><div>such a shame..... that was one incredible work of art </div><div> </div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>carlo wrote:<br><br><blockquote><hr>mikethebike1 wrote:<br>When I had my 73 XLH back in 74/75 the 750 Tridents could not get away from it. The bike had straight pipes, Bendix carb (the stock carb). Bill Sharp in Charleston SC had a Trident and we would race down Hwy 17 to John's Island and all over the island and the bikes were dead even. STOCK CB 750 ser mostly the same...Z-1's on the other hand.<br><hr></blockquote><br><br><br>One of the CW road tests of a Sportster that I quoted from recently had very dissappointing numbers in it.<br>Until they removed the mufflers and rejetted the carb. A major transformation.<br>Then, as now, Harleys respond better than any other make to being &quot;uncorked&quot;.<br><hr></div></blockquote><br><div></div></div>

[UncleErnie]

<div>I tried to tell 'em that, but nobody listened.</div>