TOPIC:

Dear Hardrock, As you may have noticed this is a community.

We all don't agree.

You seem to disagree with everyone.

Could you please state you opion and let it alone?

I personally think the short skirts are the results of much testing.

There have been vast improvments in materials that make it possible for radical designs that would not have worked years ago to be possible today.

I like the idea of a big bore and a short stroke.

By the way, What would be the piston speed be on a modern bike with a over square bore?

I don't know "nutin" compared to some of these members here but the good thing about that is if i read what they post i then have a insight to what they know and i can sit in my shop and basically build what they have because i kept my mouth shut and didn't question them and will have thier support.

You can only drag something through a fire so many times and then it is going to flame.

These posts are a good example. They take away from the technical and become a flame war.

We don't need no stinkin flame war.

May you have a wonderful day and be blessed. Roy

i got nothing against sportbikes, they go fast and handle well etc. but I can't imagine them going for 30+ years like these old bikes do. Like was said, in another 10 years I can't imagine too many early 90's sportbikes around, and sure they got beat up, but these old bikes got beat up just as much.

Riding around on the street on a flashy coloured plastic covered new sportbike is the equivalent of pimping it up in a souped up civic with an h22a and a spoiler. (kind of juvenile) Sure they are efficient, and fast, and handle well, but a 1967 merc cougar gt will get chicks horney too, and still be around when fast and the furious dvd's are in the bargain bin.

And not that I know anything, but after watching the youtube clips I mentioned in the OP I recall a few talking about some nikasil plated bores that need to be replated or something, I don't know, and these are NEW bikes...

skip to the end




I just figure with a taller piston like we have, we can run the "stroker" cranks that we basically all do, and although the con rods are moving in bigger circles the piston height keeps them running true, whereas with the short stroke new bikes they can run shorter pistons because the lateral movement will be less because the crank is the size of a pencil...but I guess like in the video even that logic fails

roy-b-boy-b wrote:

Dear Hardrock, As you may have noticed this is a community.

We all don't agree.

You seem to disagree with everyone.

Could you please state you opion and let it alone?

I personally think the short skirts are the results of much testing.

There have been vast improvments in materials that make it possible for radical designs that would not have worked years ago to be possible today.

I like the idea of a big bore and a short stroke.

By the way, What would be the piston speed be on a modern bike with a over square bore?

I don't know "nutin" compared to some of these members here but the good thing about that is if i read what they post i then have a insight to what they know and i can sit in my shop and basically build what they have because i kept my mouth shut and didn't question them and will have thier support.

You can only drag something through a fire so many times and then it is going to flame.

These posts are a good example. They take away from the technical and become a flame war.

We don't need no stinkin flame war.

May you have a wonderful day and be blessed. Roy

Very well put Roy, I could not have said it better.

9am53 wrote:

i got nothing against sportbikes, they go fast and handle well etc. but I can't imagine them going for 30+ years like these old bikes do. Like was said, in another 10 years I can't imagine too many early 90's sportbikes around, and sure they got beat up, but these old bikes got beat up just as much.

Riding around on the street on a flashy coloured plastic covered new sportbike is the equivalent of pimping it up in a souped up civic with an h22a and a spoiler. (kind of juvenile) Sure they are efficient, and fast, and handle well, but a 1967 merc cougar gt will get chicks horney too, and still be around when fast and the furious dvd's are in the bargain bin.

And not that I know anything, but after watching the youtube clips I mentioned in the OP I recall a few talking about some nikasil plated bores that need to be replated or something, I don't know, and these are NEW bikes...

I agree..If the sportbikes are such long lasting things, then where are all these parts for the USD front ends and fat tired KZ conversions coming from?? Alot of guys putting 5 - 10 yr old wheels etc on 30 yr old bikes that STILL run...

Fair enough I am going to step away. But I will promise when my buddies bikes turn 30K I will post leak down results .

Plumen for calling you, what would I have to say? I don't work at a bike shop, building my lil 650 is a hobby. I just don't believe you know what you are talking about when it comes to things from 1986 to present and you have never shown any proof to back your claims. But you do have some nice pictures...that you post repeatedly in every thread even slightly relevant.


Sorry, I don't mean to escalate... I will leave the thread now.

Where's the love machine.....

hardr0ck68 wrote:

For the most part these bikes are not collectors items(the z1's and some other odd exceptions excluded), they are junk... the real issue is no one makes parts for junk.

I still dont understand why you come to this site.

I feel its a compliment that the sportbikes of today evolved from the mighty Z1. I remember when the 83 Katana hit the streets with its space age design, then the sportbikes evolved into what they are today

I'm not a mechanic and I don't play one on tv or the interwebs . I have never taught mechanix. I like potatoes. But I have read quite a few articles about how these machines came to be and how they were over engineered. The term used is bulletproof. Here I have some expertise. They are not bulletproof! But they were engineered with concentration on longevity. Has technology surpassed them? Absofraggenlutely!! A stock 900 or 1000 or 650 even is a road running machine. Have people made them better? Yep! have people made them faster? Sure! Usually it comes at a cost tho. Can you go out and buy a machine that will run rings around it and tear it's wings off? Yep! If that is what you want do it. Just do it. Don't go hammering classic lovers. And you old fogys don't get your carbuncles a hurtin slapping the new machines around. One only has to look at some of these old bikes to know they have seen the four horsemen. Hell I have seen R1's that should be put down yesterday. Will there be R1's in 30 years that have 30 years of hard road on them. Who knows? Look me up in 30 years or should I say dig me up in 30 years. I have seen running CB360's. Love the one your with. I'm a pretty lucky old fart. I love looking at a nice classic and I love looking at the new spaceships. As for the dick fighting it's kind of pitiful don't you think? Oh yeah I like Asparagus too but it makes me have really stinky farts. Even the dog leaves the room. I will now leave the room....it's stinky.

i think another reason the newer engines can run shorter skirts is cause the cylinders are plated which allows them to be reliable.

Does anyone remember when ceramic cylinders were tried? Wonder how that came out of the kiln.

thompsonmx100 wrote:

i think another reason the newer engines can run shorter skirts is cause the cylinders are plated which allows them to be reliable.

chevy plated the bores on the origional zl-1 427 if i remember right in late 60s so they could run aluminum pistons in aluminum bores if i remember right on the bikes im guessing its more of a weight issue better check with superboy though,cuz im just full of shit ya know! come to think of it it might of been the pistons they plated,wheres superboy my memory is fading here!