Please educate me on older (1970's era) Triumph Motorcycles.

[jweave]

You might know this guy Stuart Rust.  One of the more knowledgeable guys when it comes to old Triumphs.  Give him a call. Or check out his website. 

http://rustrestoreonline.com/

[junior varsity]

I do! I hang out with Stuart quite a bit, and am headed over there tomorrow. He quite enjoys playin' on my Monster on occasion. I keep trying to add fancy nonsense to it, break something, and have him show me the error of my ways.

I'm going to pick his brain until he kicks me out likely, but I wanted to make sure I had a fair set of questions to start with first.

[justinrhenry]

you don't need to buy a 70s Triumph.  Some of the bikes they make today look almost exactly the way they've always looked.  So buy yourself a 2009 Bonneville and tell everyone it's a 1970.  Most people won't know the difference. 

[geeka]

I have owned quite a few British bikes singles and twins (one triple) unit and pre unit triumphs.  My last two were1978 T140v 750cc oil in frame.  I rode mine to work this morning.  All the bulbs points and other lectrics etc are original and working.  Not as slick as a new bike. disc brakes use the same rotor front and rear and stop you in about a week when wet.  Easy to work on, deglazed this clutch this weekend.  Mine is almost completely original, I was going to make a cafe' racer from it but its too original so it lives on with the patina of age.  Starts first kick.  I preferred the handling of the OIF over some other Triumphs Ive owned.  I am not sure how much longer I will keep this one (six years now) if it stays I will probably install a hydraulic clutch, for those out there that complain about heavy clutches on their Monsters Try a 30 year old Triumph.  I didn't mention how cheap these are to run, parts are available at good prices my last set of brake pads were $15, not too expensive to buy either.  Hope this helps. [moto]

[junior varsity]

I've heard the #1 modification is to get rid of the points ignition with the upgrade and it apparently is a direct swap.

[Langanobob]

I've heard the #1 modification is to get rid of the points ignition with the upgrade and it apparently is a direct swap.

There used to be two types, Lucas Rita and Boyer Bransden (sp?).  The Boyer is better, it's what I use and I'm not sure if Lucas still makes theirs.  You have to find a spot to mount the electronic control box but it's only about the size of a cigarette pack and the the pickup coils mount inside the timing cover where the points used to go.  It is pretty much a direct swap.   The other upgrade to go along with the ignition module is a set of Dyna coils.  Those two mods made a huge difference; ran better, idled better and started better.

[Raziel]

[redial]

love triumphs, love nortons,

but my first old horse might have to be

[junior varsity]

mine would be a Vincent, however, I cannot seem to find one for a reasonable sum of money to tinker with.

[Langanobob]

Had a couple more unsolicited opinions:

I've run the Amal carbs and never had a real  problem and never changed them for Mikuni's like many do, or did.   Keeping them sync'd was sometimes a chore and the slides would occasionally get sticky but not enough of a problem to inspire action.   Maybe the Mikuni's will get a little more HP, but what's the point.  And, I kind of like the ritual of pressing the "tickler" button.

The single carb versions don't seem to be as desirable, but...they are only a few mph faster at the top end and have measurably more low end torque, which you'll be using a lot more than the top end.  All else being equal I wouldn't pass up a single carb'd Triumph for simplicity's sake alone.  I even seriously considered converting my Bonneville to a single carb.

The older models didn't come with an oil filter.  Not sure when the filters were first installed, maybe with the OIF bikes.  I was aghast at not having an oil filter and installed one and promptly ran into oil feed issues, since the pumps were not designed for the additional filter backpressure.  So, I took the filter off and I really never had any problems.  Change the oil regularly.  Sure, you will get more wear than if there was a filter, but it's not likely you'll be riding it a lot of miles anyway.  And the motor will still last a long time even without a filter.  The guy Rust, who I don't know,  may have worthwhile input on filters.

The brakes aren't good by modern standards, but they aren't all that bad.  Properly adjusted, and assuming you won't be trying to run canyons at speed, they're adequate.  Just ride it with the respect due to a 40 year old machine.

I think if you want to bad enough you can install an o-ring chain but you have to do some grinding on the cases to allow for the extra chain width.  I chickened out and still use a conventional chain.

The crankshaft has an oil passage that also acts as a centrifuge, collecting sludge.  Given enough miles, the sludge buildup will block oil flow to the rod bearings.  If you get a bike with an unknown history, it's a very good idea to go through the motor.  Personally I found the motor to be very interesting to work on.

The lighting definitely needs upgrading, if it's not already upgraded.  As I recall, almost all Britbikes of the era used physically interchangeable alternators and higher output alternators from Nortons were a direct replacement.  Lighting switches need to be upgraded also.  The brake light on mine is still a POS and I could probably make a better one from a clothespin.

It took me awhile to get it the way I wanted it, but once it was there I rode it regularly for years without a problem.

[cduarte]

a great resource for owners and riders of old brit bikes is the Brit-Iron mailing list, which has the following home page: http://www.brit-iron.org/ I was a member there for several years and met many great people, learned a lot and was able to contribute some as well. At the time I had a 1968 Norton Commando that I resurrected from scratch. I put over 10,000 miles on that bike and had a lot of fun with it. BTW, I only had a couple of parts fall off in that time and it only stranded me once, due to a malfunctioning brake switch. It was a very nice handling bike, but starting it took a toll on my knees so I finally sold it to a friend. BTW, IMO the commandos are a lot more desirable machine than the triumphs and are far more comfortable to ride due to the rubber mounted motor.

[Langanobob]

BTW, IMO the commandos are a lot more desirable machine than the triumphs and are far more comfortable to ride due to the rubber mounted motor.

I have to agree with you there, and I used to covet owning a Norton, not to replace the Triumph but in addition to it.  But Norton's aren't as readily available and prices are higher.

[LA]

I've heard the #1 modification is to get rid of the points ignition with the upgrade and it apparently is a direct swap.

I put a Boyer ignation on my 75 850 MK III Norton, a new set of trans bushings and then put 80,000 mi. on it. If the Boyer is still avaliable, I'd do it first.  The bike still runs great.

Really, I've always held the Nortons a step higher than the Triumphs.  Why anybody would put a Triumph engine in a Norton frame is beyond me.

I've never seen a Triumph twin go really fast, but I have seen a  well preped 750 Norton lap Charlotte Motor Speedway at over 140 MPH (in 1975) pulling two stroke triple Kaws. and 900 Z1's etc. and Green frame 750 Ducatis.

Now that 1000 cc Triumph triple that Big "D" used to race was another story. That was a stout muther******.

LA

[NorDog]

I hate it when the smoke gets out.