Letters
LETTERS
ASTHMA AND THE AMA
After reading “The Scene” (CW, Feb. ’69), I got an impulse to write to you. First of all, I would like to criticize the AMA because it has done very little for the American motorcyclist, in general, and especially the racer. As long as it’s been in existence, it’s accomplished the least of any organization I know of.
Fm not a member of the AMA, but I know a few guys who are. They are very dissatisfied with AMA rules. The ruling of 750 side-valve over 500 overhead valve should be more like 750-cc over 650-cc, I think, because 500s don’t do that well against KRs, but 650s should. But wow! —that ruling change forTT racing! 750-cc overhead or flathead is something else! Flatheads have a hard time breathing, you know.
What I really want to say is, why don’t you start a motorcycle association? With this great, prosperous, and excellent magazine you publish, you shouldn’t have that much of a money problem.
I think it would be a smart move, for you, and every motorcycle racer in the country. Why? Because when it comesto consideration of rules of competition, chassis, types of machinery, etc., you people think with open minds and clear heads-exactly the opposite of the AMA and their officials (a la last year’s Daytona qualifying times). I think this would make your magazine and company even more prosperous.
Needless to say, you’d have gobs of applications upon public notice of your new organization. So what if the AMA goes down the tube?!
RONBROUHARD Maple Valley, Wash.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, but we prefer to continue producing the best motorcycle magazine in the world. The 750/5 00 rule was bad only if you had a 500 and didn’t want to spend money. We didn’t hear any unfair words about the ruling when Harley was losing. The side-valve does breathe hard. In fact, we understand they are so asthmatic doctors will not ride them. —Ed.
HARLEY FAN FINKED OUT
Having been an avid reader of your magazine for many years, I would like to take this opportunity to commend you on the splendid coverage in 1968; I hope 1969 will be as good, if not better, and that, like a good wine, your magazine will grow better with age.
There are, however, a couple of points that I would like to take up with you. First of all, your attitude toward HarleyDavidson. I realize that it is extremely difficult to be thoroughly unprejudiced toward any one brand and to treat all equally. Still, for reasons (which one probably could justify) your magazine has placed Harley-Davidson in a class which could be compared to a state of old age. Whenever Harley is mentioned in your issue, it is most often in reflection on a past era when Harley was the only motorcycle; in fact, most of your reflections on Harley’s past sound like a eulogy, with comments such as “That was when men were men and motorcycles were motorcycles.” Honestly you make Harley sound as though it were a doddering old man being led to the grave, having no further significance in the world. Every once in a great while you break down and do a article on a Harley, to the tune of “Stars and Stripes Forever” which so uplifts the Harley that sometimes it seems as though you are doing the article just to please your Harley-Davidson readers who at times scream for blood. A little more constructive criticism, please.
I did enjoy your article on the Rapido in 1 968. By the way, did you notice the changes in the `69 models? The newer models have changed so much that the `68 and `69 are almost two entirely different motorcycles. The chintzy con trol levers are gone; the wheelbase has been lengthened two inches. I think you should look over the new models, espe cially the MLS.
(Continued on page 16)
Continued from page 14
J.W. REAM Terre Haute, md.
CYCLE WORLD did not do an article on the Rapido during 1968. Nor has CYCLE WORLD ever done an article to please any manufacturer. I can only conclude that your glue pot ran dry before the final message if you think CYCLE WORLD ever said a HarleyDavidson was THE motorcycle. There is a possibility that you are writing to the wrong magazine, and that your glue pot is not empty, after all. —Ed.
JUST NOT TRUE
K. R. Hawkes (CW, Dec. ’68) raises the question of my omiting Joe Craig’s name from the story on the AJS, since he feels that Craig had a great deal to do with the development of the “Porcupine.” In my extensive research on this article, I failed to uncover any information that Craig had anything to do with the Porcupine racer, a fact that was verified by company representatives in correspondence. The booklet, “British MC Engines,” by Iliffe Press and available through Clymer, covers the Porcupine design under Chief of the Racing Department, Matt Wright.
Hawkes also states that Craig returned to Norton in 1949, and that the Norton was faster than the AJS Twin. This is just not true. In the June 12, 1947, issue of the British magazine Motor Cycling, Craig is listed as the man in charge of the Norton racing shop, and in the July 31 issue he is interviewed as such. And then in the book Postmasters of Speed, Harold Daniell tells about having his revs raised into the danger zone by getting a “tow” from Les Graham on the AJS. Les led the Senior TT that year into the last lap by nearly one mph, but did retire when his magneto failed. Graham did win the 1949 World 500-cc Championship, though, and his Twin was miles an hour faster than the Nortons.
In 1950, the AJS was still much faster, with Ted Frend clocking 126.8 on the Sulby Mile and Graham clocking 116.13 on the 2-mile stretch to the Highlander. It is true that the Norton beat the AJS in 1950, but this was due to riders such as Geoff Duke and Artie Bell plus far superior roadability. You may check the speeds quoted in the book A Million Miles of Racing.
I do research my stories extensively and do recognize that errors can creep in, but the record shows in this case that Joe Craig had little to do with the Porcupine and that the AJS Twin had more power than the Norton Single. Michael Kirk, writing in Motor Cycle, June 17, 1954, issue, states the AJS was good for 145 mph that year, compared with the Norton’s 138-mph speed, even though the Single had a fairing and the Twin did not! Enough said.
GEOFFREY WOOD Boise, Idaho
THE BEST
Because I currently am stationed in Viet Nam with the U. S. Marines, keeping up with news from home is difficult to say the least—especially news about motorcycling. Usually the only newsmakers concerning cycles are the outlaws or death notices. I find your outstanding magazine the finest source of all cycle happenings. From racing, road tests, travel and production reports, your publication truly has something for everyone.
The column Legislation Forum is the best and only way I have found to keep up with the latest motorcycle laws which are constantly being made. I believe the members of the Metropolitan Cycle Association (CW, Oct. ’68) deserve much credit and appreciation for their fight in New York for a change in parking regulations. Their patience and good conduct is a credit to all motorcyclists in promoting a good name and reputation. Keep up the fight.
Our people are here in Viet Nam to keep the privilege of being able to change the laws for the better—peacefully! All too often, violence comes too quickly.
I have one year to decide on which motorcycle I will buy when I return to America. Keep up the road tests, as they are all I have to go by.
CPL. D. V. HARSHEY FPO, San Francisco, Calif.
THE BEAST
I now am stationed in Germany, and your magazine is my connection with the motorcycle scene at home.
Being from California, I am most interested in your views and those of others on the current laws and acts that would pertain to us.
I am lucky to have a CO who is tolerant on the ownership of motorcycles. (It is up to your CO in the army whether you can own a bike or not.) So I now ride a 250-cc DKW with sidecar. For a 1953, it is in mint condition. This is true partially because it was owned by the German police for many years.
I have enclosed a picture of it that you may print if you’d like. Your readers may never have seen a beast such as this.
SP/4 WADE C. SNYDER APO, New York, N. Y.
RELEASING COMPRESSION
Man, the AMA really blew it when it banned compression releases. When I heard about this, it just burned me up—so much, in fact, that I didn’t even take the time to renew my membership. I really feel for Sammy Tanner and his 350-cc Yamaha. Poor Sammy! Already faced with machines twice the size of his own, he must now continue the battle without the invaluable compression release. Doesn’t the AMA realize that this could be dangerous? I mean, when Sammy is doing 100 mph down the front straight, and chops the throttle for the upcoming turn, there is little braking effect without the compression release.
(Continued on page 24)
Continued from page 17
I think the reason for this new rule is that the Triumph Cub and Harley Sprint aren’t winning quite as much as they did two or three years ago. The AMA, realizing that it couldn’t possibly ban two-strokes from racing (just wait, maybe someday it WILL!), did the next best thing. The AMA simply removed its primary weapon of defense. Maybe after about 10 of our top riders are killed, those idiots in Columbus will realize their mistake, and let us use compression releases again. Next thing you know, they’ll be banning reed valves and expansion chambers. Long live the ringding! PHIL KUYKENDALL Statesville, N. C.
The newly formed AMA Competition Congress now has removed the ban on compression releases.— Ed.
SUPPORTS CW'S STAND
Congratulations for taking a stand against the idiocy the AMA has been perpetuating over the years. These people represent a monopoly which favors special interest groups and discriminates against certain individuals and brands of motorcycles.
Maybe, in time, enough red-blooded dealers and riders will let it be known to the AMA how things should be with the sport of motorcycle competition in this country. A good way to start would be to give more support to groups which sponsor international competition.
By the way, one of our local riders (No. 25, Novice) received a suspension from the AMA by Tom Clark for competing at the AAMRR road races in Indiana in September. This is in the best interest of motorcycling?
KENNETH BEYER Rogers, Ark.
GOOD WORDS FROM JAPAN
This simply is a letter of thanks to CYCLE WORLD for the job you are doing in behalf of motorcycling. Particularly I wish to applaud your answer to John C. Harris and his Roanoke Jaycees, especially on the points about automobile safety. It is no more illogical to require automobile drivers to wear helmets than it is to ask it of motorcyclists. It seems most people could care less about laws that don’t directly concern them. If automobile drivers (all of us?) suddenly were forced to obey such mandatory laws, perhaps the injustice could then be seen by everyone.
Being stationed in Japan, I had the privilege of seeing the Tokyo Motor Show. It was everything you said, highlighted by the enthusiasm of the Japanese people.
TOMMY L. WEEKLEY Tachikawa AB, Japan
