What do you consider a restored motorcycle?

I have always considered restoring a motorcycle as bringing it back to original condition. However, I have seen many listings stating the motorcycle has been restored, but it has been heavily modified, (pod filters, 4 - 1 exhaust, Corbon seat, ...). The bike may have been brought back to great cosmetic and mechanical condition, but no where near original.

Restomod in automotive lingo.

Restored means to as new or better than new condition, anything else is either modified, butchered or botched. just saying.

There several levels of restoration. A mechanical restoration, puts efforts on getting the machine in good running condition. Then you can do custom or street level restoration, this it adding or changing custom parts and personalized items. Then the Concourse restoration, that is every nut, bolt, factory marker paint is correct or corrected back to the appearance and mechanical condition of the day it was build.

Restomod lingo would fall into the same category as custom or street level.

Rat rod is more art and talent to put items together that do not belong together. More effort on keeping older parts alive and running safely than anything else. Some guys just hate to see old parts die, so some talented guy started the rat rod movement.

Just my opinions.

To me restored means just that - restored to original condition. Since the word "restore" implies returning something to it's original condition the idea of "restoring" something to a condition that did not originally exist seems impossible. I'm not saying that some rough bikes that have later been modified and fixed up to a condition that is really great are crap simply because they were not "restored" - some such bikes are really, really nice. I'm just saying they should be described as modified, updated, improved, or whatever rather than restored. Ed

I shake my head at the guy that does a complete restoration, soup to nuts, then sets the odometer back to zero. Total b.s., and it runs rampid in the Z1 community.

My Z1's show their original miles. It's a badge of honour!

I try to make a restoration visually as close to original as I can make it. But I will take advantage of technology where it makes sense in areas like electronic ignition, roller bearings, etc. Some things are just not possible to restore, such as the anodized brake master cylinders on Z1 brakes. I've seen a couple of examples with mixed results, but myself I have used black paint.

Despite the non showroom items I consider my bikes to be restored. Would I enter them in a show? No, because I ride them.

Without writing a book:
re·store
/rəˈstôr/
- repair or renovate (a building, work of art, vehicle, etc.) so as to return it to its original condition.

Restore(d) has become a near-meaningless buzzword in the context of our scoots.

Consider that the chrome on a Z1 shows linishing marks (rims), is thin and, with the exception of the large washer under the stem nut without copper underlayment (fenders/head nuts, rear brake/shift/kickstart levers). We have yet to find any chrome plater that will re-plate without the copper layer, leaving the linishing marks visible. That results in a better-than-new chrome finish.

Many restoration attempts result in aluminum that is far too polished, becoming an over-restored to mirror finish that while pretty, is not correct.

Odd striping, paint colors off, paint sheen wrong, modern bolts that lack the identifying marks of the OEM fasteners. Original Stanley Japanese bulbs. Clear coated levers.

Really, too many examples to list of incorrect restoration processes that look nice but aren't a 'return to original condition'. It's a deep, deep rabbit hole.

One reason we're not attempting a "restoration" of The Wounded Z is because it was an original, unmolested barn find. We're doing a deep clean/refurb, leaving as much of the original finishes as possible regardless of condition, but cleaned of 36 yrs. of barn crud, refinishing only where rust & corrosion forced the issue. A 'survivor'. It'll be a correct-at-a-glance daily rider as-is or, a platform that is mechanically a 98+% OEM correct bike as a starting place for someone who wishes to do a 'restoration'. A deep-cleaned, 'unrestored' original.

A look in many enthusiasts' collections and museums will reveal unrestored-original bikes that are blessed with rust pits, flaking paint, and other cosmetic challenges. But, they retain the OEM running gear and finishes, down to decades-old OEM flat tires. Not at all restored, but extremely valuable in spite of the patina of age because they're original.

There's all levels of supposed "restoration". Almost none, are.

Good Ridin'
slmjim & Z1BEBE

What difference does it make how someone else describes a restoration? use your own definition, then buy the thing or not. sellers misrepresent what they have all the time to maximize the price, including the so-called reputable auction houses.

The term "restoration" has many different meanings depending upon the owner. I have run into this issue a lot when dealing with old firearms. Take for example the guy that finds a very nice old M-1 Garand and he decides to "restore" it to period correct condition. So he takes out several parts of the rifle only to replace them with correct "dated" parts. Now that rifle may have been through several government rebuilds and had the original parts replaced as a matter of safety or use. So this owner spends untold dollars changing the rifle back to what he hopes is "as issued" condition, but truth be told it will NEVER be in as issued condition no matter what is done to it and he has once again altered the rifle. Once it leaves the factory that option is gone...forever! One change and it's over.....

Same thing with motor vehicles. I know guys that spend enormous amounts of moola restoring, as they say, a car to bring it back to "as issued" condition. But wait! It's had changes made has it not? It may have even been painted and the factory paint removed to put brand new shiny paint on, but it isn't original and never will be. Parts have been replaced and perhaps other things were done like vapor blasting and powder coating all of which were not done by the factory. So when it's all done you are left with a so called restored vehicle that looks brand new, but is it really? How about the guy who restores his Z-1 and puts different bearings in the steering head? Is it restored, re-furbished or re-built? Does it qualify as "like new" or "as issued"?

So for my two cents worth I like the term re-built or re-furbished instead of restored. I like patina on a vehicle. Patina can tell you a lot about the history of an item. Why try to make a bike look brand new when it will never be brand new again? A car or a bike or a firearm can really only be new once. Does a 100 point vintage car or bike look nice? Absolutely, but it's a figment of someone's imagination to claim it is like new. That's a description that can only be used once. I would also add that when I had my gauges restored I had the option of "zeroing" the odometer, leaving it where it was at 7500 miles, or setting anywhere I wanted. Well after being lied to on how many miles the bike had on it when I bought it, as I knew from evidence that the bike had at least 19,000 miles on it, I elected to go with "0" miles. It just made the most sense to me and avoided all confusion over how many miles the bike really has on it. Truth is, I don't know how many miles the bike has on it, but I know how many miles have been put on it since I re-built it.

I once had the opportunity here in Milwaukee of going to two different bike shows during one of the Harley Anniversary events. One was an open show that allowed almost anything in and the other show was "vintage" original condition only. No restorations allowed. Guess which show had the most attendance? There is something almost magical about looking at a car or motorcycle that is in its original condition. One of my life's high points was being granted access to the Harley-Davidson archives long before the Harley Museum opened up. Quite literally they had at least one motorcycle on the floor from every year of production except the very first years. Talk about a place of enchantment that was it. My life was laid out right in front of my eyes starting with the bike made in 1951 that was on display. The bikes were all original including the tires. If they were flat so be it. The place even smelled of old oil and machinery. Some people can't appreciate "old stuff", but I most certainly do and I am not talking about this "rat-rod" craze going around. Want to break my heart? Chop a '32 Ford roof. That will break my heart because you can never take it back to what it once was.....
Rick H.

You guys almost make me want to change the title on my project thread

For me, pretty much everything falls into four categories: survivor (the wounded z), mod (café racer, tracker, ...), resto-mod and resto.
I consider a restoration to be anything that has had the engine rebuilt and been properly cleaned up (very little patina) and is as close as practical to the original style. If it's not going to be ridden - shame on you - then it should be all original or reproduction parts. If you're going to ride it, then I would still consider it a restoration if it gets modern shocks etc. (in or close to period-correct or original style).
Holding it up to my own standards, my 750 falls short on the exhaust. I'm OK with the engine paint as it was a colour scheme used on other 750's - that pretty much shows you my way of thinking.

My 2c.

Edit: I do agree with keeping the original mileage if it is accurate. In Rick's case, zeroing the miles makes sense. I considered it as well as the speedo gear was toast and the speedo hadn't been working for who knows how long. In the end I left it - mostly because I didn't want to mess with anything in the gauges unless it was necessary.

There. is no right or wrong on restorations. It will never be factory again. When your tank is rusted and you reseal it it is not original but it holds fuel so it doesn't catch on fire when you ride it. NOS new old stock is nice if you are building a concourse show bike if you got the cash. The return on investment on a Japanese bike just isn't there yet. Not knocking a great batch of bikes just stateing financial facts. A friend of mine has old bikes from the 20s and 30s with original paint handgrips etc but when he was racing a 1916 Indian on the cross country race the Cannonball he had to make some engine parts because they were not availableno matter how much cash you got. So I don"t presume to know, all I want to do is ride a safe and reliable Kz from the old days and rub 45 years off my old ass. To all of you younger riders "Old Man Diatribe coming up" just make sure you rebuild master and slave cylinders with DOT 5, new tires reguardless how the sidewalls look, and a tank that won't start pouring gasoline all over a hot engine. bad memories I don't restore I just make them rideable and trip worthy Good luck Be safe And have fun . I am just expressing my opinions.

Just Have Fun