Letters
LETTERS
WRONG SILENCER
We had a call from our friends at Skyway. Boy, were they upset with us. Seems we called their silencer a J&R in the Bultaco Frontera vs. Pursang article. On top of that, the price was wrong; the Skyway silencer sells for $32.95.-Ed.
RIDE SOFTLY. . .
This is concerning Mr. Ferrer and his two bits worth for noise, Oct. ’75. Next month I will have completed my twoyear tour in England. During that time I have had only one close call, which could be considered partly my fault for not expecting the unexpected. Although my Norton is twice the size of Mr. Ferrer’s 360 Yamaha, I have rarely used its power to get out of a tight spot, butrather my brain to keep from getting into one, as do most cycle enthusiasts.
And about those kids, Mr. Ferrer, that’s the sound of life, one of the things that a motorcycle enthusiast realizes is more important than his machine’s noise, or lack thereof. But why is noise so socially unacceptable? Ask any doctor if you can’t figure it out for yourself, or try playing a Rolling Stones album at full volume through headphones. . .or do you?
Joe Alberth APO N.Y.
MOTORCYCLE EMISSIONS?
I read with intense interest your article on motorcycle emissions in the Nov. issue. I guess we all knew it was coming, but when and to what degree it was hard to say. For a number of years now I have been plagued with the poor driveability of late-model automobiles. My frustration has at times become so acute that over the years my mind has devised an untold number of mischevious schemes for getting back. Putting my personal vendettas aside, though, it would be hard to argue that some form of automobile emission control was not necessary. Considering the gargantuan displacement of the average American automobile and the sheer number of the things, the conclusion seems inescapable.
Conversely, without any real knowledge, it is hard for me to see how the motorcycle contributes in any significant way to the air pollution problem, whether it be two-stroke, four-stroke or Wankel. That is my point: we need facts, facts collected and evaluated by people knowledgeable in internalcombustion engine emissions and their effects on the environment. I am not a scientist: like the bureaucrats, I am not aware of all that must be considered, but somewhere, someone who knows has got to get the message across. Until intensive, extensive research is undertaken by professionals to establish the exact role the motorcycle plays as a polluter, I am going to fight tooth and nail against any proposals for motorcycle emission controls. To charge the industry and consumer millions for unnecessary emission control devices is just another step toward our apparent goal of economic suicide.
I would like to congratulate D. Randy Riggs on his article covering the Honda CB750F. I too am in love with the motorcycle and have spent many hours with my thoughts riding down a secluded country road. I only wish you guys had a job for me somewhere on your staff. You’re the best!
Roger A. Moskey Arlington, Va.
(Continued on page 14)
Continued from page 10
FREEDOM TO RESTRICT
I would like to comment on the letter signed Keith H. Smith in the October ’75 CYCLE WORLD. Mr. Smith has a right to express his own opinion (how wonderful that right is in the USA), but I do not agree with that particular view referring to the Playboy Club objecting to having its golf course used as a motorcycle speedway. I do not blame Playboy for taking any action necessary to stop it. Our country has had the abuse of some cycle riders for too long. . .and then, of course, there are also the dune buggy boys who have torn up the countryside and are now legally restricted by special police and dune buggy clubs who help with the policing. And 4wd machines are restricted all because of a few cowboys who have taken advantage of the rules that society (us) has set up.
Motorcycles are just now living down the bad image that was projected a few years ago. The spirit on the highways of almost all riders is really wonderfulmore like motor car touring was 40 or 50 years ago.
Yes, I ride. My son gave me a 1968 Triumph 650 Bonneville that I have ridden for two and a half years. I’m 64, so I ride with my 64-year-old reflexes; I do not pretend I’m 14 or 24. It’s wonderful.
Oh yes, and Keith’s statement: “a fine example of the hypocritical, forked-tongue approach we might expect from this phony world.” I do not agree with that statement. It’s a wonderful world that we live in. Not everyone in every other country has the wonderful opportunities we have here. Both Keith and I can ride our motorcycles all over the country. . .and it’s a big place.
I read CYCLE WORLD from cover to cover—from Fernando Belair to the Salem ad, not forgetting “Slipstream.”
Paul Kaniss Sr.
Palo Alto, Calif.
SCHICK, THE RACERS’ EDGE
Your article on Pete Schick in the November ’75 issue was great. It is very informative to know how an organization like Yamaha runs its racing department. Thanks for the excellent journalism.
John H. Jones Jr.
Macon, Ga.
NORTON FANATICS
Thank you for your informative article on the latest Norton 850. In Sept., 1975, I became the owner of a 1973 Norton 850 Roadster, and I ride it more than I drive my car. My 1975 Yamaha RD350B sits covered on the patio and I’m trying to get rid of it, with no takers.
(Continued on page 18)
Continued from page 14
You’re right, the Norton has personality, and, I might add, it has class and dignity. Whenever motorcycles are discussed and I proclaim that I have a Norton, only words of deepest respect are heard.
I got a sore leg before I learned how to start it, but now when I kick it it cranks up. It does leak about five or six drops of oil per day, but I don’t care, as that is part of owning that kind of bike. I keep it in my living room, parked in front of the TV.
Please urge the Norton manufacturers and labor force to patch up their differences and get back to business, because that Norton is just too groovy a bike to go out of production.
Tony Cozzetti Bellevue, Wash.
I really enjoyed your road test on the Norton 850 Interstate. It would be too bad to lose such a great machine over labor troubles. Although not quite as fast as the ’72 and ’73 versions, it is still an enviable road machine because of the fantastic torque the engine produces. And there is also a great deal of knowledge—and speed parts—around for Nortons today.
As of now, I am 17 years old and have only been interested in motorcycles for about a year, but one thing sure is clear to me: high performance street bikes are GONE. My favorite bike of the past is the Norton 750 Commando Roadster.
Bernard Bellew Hicksville, N.Y.
HELMET WAR RAGES
I have to be honest about this, I am not in favor of protective helmets for general street and road use. I have quite a list of reasons for this, probably none of which would convince anyone dedicated to the idea of last-resort armor, but this letter was stimulated by your mentioning the aural protection helmets provide. With wind noise you are, although you did not mention it, speaking of considerable speed (which, incidentally, can be arranged at quite moderate road speeds by a brisk head wind). Very few motorcyclists ride fast for extended periods; by observation I would say that most do not ride fast at all. There is very little riding done at speeds at which wind roar is a problem.
(Continued on page 22)
Continued from page 18
Being at present involved with a book dealing with motorcycling in this country in the pre-WWII decade, I am interviewing a considerable number of riders of that period, many of whom racked up fabulous mileages in the pre-helmet era. . .and for the most part their hearing is splendid, including my own. In 1949, for legal reasons, I had to come up with a figure for my motorcycling mileage up to that time; nobody was arguing when I quoted a conservative estimate approaching 250,000 miles, all of which was without protective headgear. That did not include racing mileages where a crash hat was worn (the Cromwell of that period had windshielded ear openings anyway). My wife objects to our having to wear helmets because it makes talking while riding difficult—you don’t do any of that anyway by the time you are up in the wind roar speeds. I object to this hearing restriction from the standpoint of safety, as I am far more interested in pre-last-resort salvation than I am in what might be called ultimate need.
Since I have gone this far, in an earlier issue, in an article on riding skills and techniques, it was said that in an emergency diversion to miss some obstacle, pothole or whatever, it was necessary to look where you were going and not at the reason for the deflection. This simply is not true! Within the tight time/space scheduling always in effect under such circumstances, the only meaningful and possible reference is X, and while the magnetic effect exists, the thesis that the machine follows the eyes is not only wrong, it is dangerous. In extreme diversions, in the process of the dodge, it can be necessary to take a look to see what in hell comes next, but in most cases the rider already knows this and his only dedication is to clear whatever it is by enough. A millimeter is enough.
George B. Barnes Detroit, Mich.
DEAR D. RANDY RIGGS:
Get a hiarcut (sic)! !
John H. Jones, Jr.
Macon Ga.
