Letters

LETTERS

ALL SHOOK UP

I have just figured up that I have spent over $21 on motorcycle magazines during the past 14 months, not counting special orders for back issues and the annuals, etc. Worse yet, I’ve plunged at least $2100 in buying three different bikes in the past 15 months — not counting the insurance and other trimmings — and I still don’t have the right bike for me.

I think you could have saved me much of this. Admittedly, you have the best road-test reports of any of the magazines and I have reread them to the point of memorization, but don’t you think that your leadership in this field is firmly enough established that you can afford to do us a favor and take off the rose-colored glasses when reporting on an advertiser’s machine?

Please let me hasten to follow this complaint with the admission that your competitors wear even darker glasses.

Most bikes are all quite suitable for around town and even short city expressways, but don’t you agree that almost all cyclists have ’way in the back of their minds a dream about an extended trip someday? But how many will take it after they find out how beat they can be after half a day in the saddle? Just one article from you, bravely pointing out what bikes (or type of bike) to avoid and which to choose for comfortable long-distance traveling, would help and would save the novice much money, much discomfort, and might even keep him in the sport.

I’ve decided that the most fatiguing thing is vibration. But search as I will, I can find no warnings written to the prospective buyer about this — much less any criticism of vibration in a particular bike. No doubt many competition riders take pride in their masochism, but are they representative of the greater market?

After spending the aforementioned $21, plus seeking information from experts in the publishing field, I find I have belatedly learned more from teenagers passing the time of day in front of cycle shops. Understandably, they are not risking an advertiser’s wrath. But should it be this way?

For 15 months I have dreamed of riding all the way to Mecca (California) and I considered myself in darned good shape for a 40-year-old, having paddled a canoe for 500 miles in ten days just a couple of years ago. But now I don’t know.

I think you could point out to your readers some things that won’t even necessitate the mentioning of a brand name, such as the advantages in long-distance touring of a vibration-free (or nearly free) bike, soft seat and suspension, padded grips, touring handlebars, two-stroke vs. four-stroke, single vs. twin cylinders, opposed vs. vertical twins, tire size, etc. You would know better than I because I’m still learning the hard way — and still making mistakes. I just bought the “most acclaimed” big bike to come out of Japan in the last couple of years (due to price, availability of dealers, performance figures and electric starter) and it turned out to be the most vibratin’, fatiguing thing I’ve ever been on.

Did you say take a test ride first? Yeah! What dealer wants an unbroken bike run at 70 mph? They all feel fine at 30 mph. Besides, they want to sell ’em still crated . . . and can!

Now Sir, in all good conscience, you know that some bikes are head-and-shoulders above others, and it isn’t doing the readers a favor pretending you didn’t notice. For example, there is supposed to be only one well-known bike (all right, a BMW, but you can edit that out) that will not require more frequent overhauling than an automobile. Pointing this out would help get the rest to follow. And I can’t buy this thing about helping a reader choose a bike is like helping him to choose a wife, because you do not have to be specific about a make. Instead, you could say this or that type is best for this or that purpose, and type “A” would be miserable if used for purpose “B.”

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. Knowing of your love for the “sport” bike, I don’t know if you can find sympathy for my problem. But there are more of us than you think and our girlfriends are even more concerned than we are — when riding double.

W. J. WATERMAN San Antonio, Tex.

(Continued on page 26)

We find it difficult to believe that you have read CYCLE WORLD road tests as closely as you claim, and that you are still under the impression the advertising dollar has influence on what is written about the motorcycle. Naturally, we do not ride the bike across the continent during the test; but if the seat is hard, the bars uncomfortable, or if the engine vibrates, it is criticized. Whether a two or four-stroke is better for touring depends on the individual completely. We have, on many occasions, pointed out the remarkable smoothness of some two-strokes. However, a great deal of people still prefer four cycle engines. Then too, vibration tolerance varies from one individual to another, and what one rider may consider objectionable, would be completely satisfactory for long distance touring. It looks to us like those teenagers are better at digging information out of road tests. -Ed.

MORE INDIAN HISTORY

I have just read with interest the letter from Mr. James Rezak in the March, 1967 issue, concerning the now-defunct Indian Company. There are several inaccuracies in this historical account that I wish to clarify.

It is true that poor management, several changes in ownership, etc., contributed to the eventual demise of the once-great name of Indian. Probably the introduction of the 220cc Arrow and 440cc Scout models in 1949, was the last straw for the Americanowned Indian Motorcycle Company. Soon after this, the British firm of Brockhouse, Ltd., of Southport, England, gained control of Indian. Starting in 1950, several British makes then commenced to be imported and distributed by the Indian Company, these machines being AJS, Matchless, Norton, Excelsior, Royal Enfield and Vincent. Manufacturing at the Springfield, Mass., Indian factory continued on, with the introduction of the 500cc Warrior model, and re-introduction of the V-twin, sidevalve “Chief” in 1951, now enlarged from 74 cubic-inches to 80 cubic-inches, and with telescopic forks, and other minor changes in an attempt to modernize this ancient design.

Indian, as a manufacturer, ceased after the 1953 model year, but marketing of the above British makes continued on through the 1954 model year. Commencing with the 1955 season, the name “Indian” again appeared on a gas tank, these machines being Royal Enfields with minor changes for the American market. The other British makes were dropped and no longer marketed by Indian. Vincent did cease motorcycle production after the 1955 model year.

Indian continued to market Royal Enfield-made machines through the 1959 model year. On the 1st of September, 1959, control of Indian passed on to Associated Motor Cycles, Ltd., manufacturers of AJS, Matchless, Norton, James and FrancisBarnett. So it can be seen that Brockhouse, Ltd., control of Indian in this country lasted for approximately 10 years. The Indian Company continued to exist after 1959, marketing in the USA the Matchless line of motorcycles. The AJS line was not imported by Indian during this time, although two James products were brought in, a 150cc scooter, and a 150cc lightweight, with AMC-made two-stroke engines. There is one ironical twist, however, that is interesting: when AMC took over control of Indian, there existed a separate contract with Royal Enfield for approximately 500 700cc “Chief” models that had to be honored. So during 1960 and 1961, Indian sold Matchless machines side-by-side with the 700cc Royal Enfield-made “Chief!” Starting in 1960, distribution of the Royal Enfield motorcycle reverted to independent distributors, under the true Royal Enfield name.

(Continued on page 28)

The AMC Group owned Indian for only three years, and then distribution of Matchless in this country was turned over to the Berliner Motor Corporation, of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, who continues to the present as the USA Matchless distributor. Apparently, rights to the Indian name still rest with AMC, or rather Norton-Matchless, Ltd., who have recently taken over from the now-defunct Associated Motor Cycles, Ltd., group in England. As close as I can tell, the last day of the Indian Company being in existence, was August 31, 1962.

To the best of my knowledge, FrancisBarnett machines were never imported by Indian during the 1950-1954 period. I am also not aware of any connection between Indian and the old flat-twin Zundapp KS601 model. The only similarities between the Vincent and the Royal Enfield that I can think of, was the common use of semi-unit construction of the engine and gearbox, chassis design and rear swingarms being not at all similar between the two makes. AJS (or Matchless) had nothing at all to do with the production of any Indian machines at any time. Brockhouse, Ltd., did for a few years from about 1951 to 1954, manufacture a side-valve 250cc single, called the Indian “Brave,” which was a colossal failure and I am sure the first and last attempt by Brockhouse to manufacture a motorcycle!

Of course, it is doubtful if any of the financial manipulations by the British in regards to the Indian Company will ever be widely known over here. But I think it can be safely said that both Brockhouse, Ltd., and AMC, Ltd., “caught quite a cold” owning Indian, and all of the foregoing hardly proved to be very profitable.

W. DEAN MURRAH

Wichita, Kans.

W. Dean Murrah gained his knowledge of the Indian company through long association with the brand, both as a rider and working for an Indian dealer and the Burbank distributing house during the period when the company was on its way out. — Ed.

FINISHED STUDYING

I read with great interest the principles put forth by Mr. Peter E. Wikoff in his article on page 100 of your May, 1967 issue. The principles looked so intriguing that I immediately decided to test them on the three machines available to me: a 1967 Bultaco Matador, a 1963 Velocette MSS, and a 1967 Dunstall-Norton Atlas. The results of the test performed on these three machines were quite interesting, and I thought that your readers, and particularly Mr. Wikoff, would be interested.

(Continued on page 30)

The tests were performed as stated by Mr. Wikoff, with a few exceptions. The area of town in which I live is not heavily populated, so I was hard put upon to find cars going the proper speeds for the tests at night. The first two days were spent in fruitless search of slow moving machinery. An alternative was then discovered; I work in a Primary Standards Laboratory and was able to secure the use of a small low-powered Helium-Neon gas laser (X — 6328A0), which I promptly mounted on the rear of the machine under test, and the laser was aimed in such a manner as to shine into the rider’s left eye via the mirror. None of the three machines had a battery, so it proved to be impossible to provide laser power supply power. The machines were therefore installed on my homebuilt dynamometer for testing, and the laser was mounted separately for rigidity. An additional advantage was obtained: two photoelectric sensors were mounted by tape on the mirror. This method allowed an “A quad B” output from the two photocells to be fed to an oscilloscope nearby, and the patterns could be observed on the scope and photographs taken, with no potential laser-burn risk to the rider’s left eyeball. The method also obviated the effect of wheel imbalance on the observed patterns. All data were taken over only one weekend.

The first test runs showed little correlation with the patterns of Mr. Wikoff. Upon further thought, it was noted that Mr. Wikoff’s data was interpreted by fourthorder analysis referenced to the first ionization level of iron. The three test machines each had aluminum pistons, so appropriate values were substituted into the equations, leading to the result that the mirror mount should be at 1.15 multiples of the stroke, rather than integral multiples. The patterns now related very well indeed to those of Mr. Wikoff.

Since the machines were on a dynamometer, the air viscosity did not affect the test performance, with the exception of carburetor jetting. However, no problems were encountered, and the Glen Factor was ignored.

As owners of Spanish two-strokes know, these wonderful machines run backwards quite well. The Bultaco was inadvertently started thusly on test #3. The remarkable thing is that all patterns also were reversed, i.e., right-hand Lissajous patterns became left-hand, cw precessions became ccw, and vertical up-and-down patterns became down-and-up. This result was mathematically, but not intuitively, obvious.

During the tests on the Dunstall-Norton, it was found that an equivalent of 58 mph was nowhere near 75 percent of top engine speed in first gear, so results are inconclusive. Also, this machine gave a proper pattern and was running so well that no attempt was made to make defects to observe on the scope.

(Continued on page 32)

The tests on the Velocette were quite successful, with the interesting result that the transmission running without oil gave the same pattern (but of different magnitude) as did the Bultaco with mud on the rear chain.

I believe that my results generally substantiate Mr. Wikoff’s conclusions, and that there is sufficient justification for a serious researcher to investigate the Wikoff principles more thoroughly.

SCHROEDINGER San Jose, California

SIDECAR FAN

I have just bought a copy of your excellent magazine and I must say how pleased I am to read a journal as enthusiastic about motorcycling as yours.

Here in England we have a lot of stodgy magazines which never seem to have anything new, year in, year out; what a difference I found when I started to read CYCLE WORLD, a fresh outlook on the best pastime in the world!

I have the January 1967 issue, and the article on sidecars is of special interest to me, as I am a great follower of this particular branch of road racing (if only you could see the way those riders fling their outfits around corners!). I was at Brands Hatch on that fateful day when Florian Camathias was so tragically killed. He was a real trier and many mourn his loss.

It is a real pity that Maurice Brierly is going to have to give up his record breaking. I know how hard it is to overcome the disability, and then to lose the chance of a world record, all for the sake of a few pounds, must be a real blow.

Well, once again, congratulations on producing a really excellent magazine, please carry on the good work — and let’s hope we can have a publication as good as yours over here one day.

H. M. WELLER Kingston on Thames Surrey, England

SHAFT DRIVE CLUB

I am trying to organize a Harley-Davidson Shaft Drive Owners club. This motorcycle was produced by H-D Motor Co. and called the XA 1000. They were built for the government in 1942 only. All were stamped ’42 models.

If anyone owns one of these XAs and would like to become a member contact me. Also, dealers who have parts, new or used, for the shaft drive model, send your price list.

For complete information contact Little’s Harley-Davidson Sales, 1605 - 12th St., Lynchburg, Va. 24501.

CARSON LITTLE Lynchburg, Va.