What is a Cafe Racer......discuss.

[DrJ]

I'm with you guys about USD forks and monoshocks on old bikes. Just like aluminum block crate motors and CNC machined wheels on 32 Fords. Just doesn't work for me. But I still can't stand 17 inch wheels on old bikes that came with 18 inch wheels. They always look top heavy. But I seem to be alone on this one.

 

[joeyputt]

Brothers lets discuss the modern suspension setup a little more, I started a new thread out of respect for Brother Beachcombers thread here.

 

[beachcomber]

I knew we'd get some thought - ful / provoking responses - thanx all.

Swagger - spot on for "my" #1 category - the Traditional Brit Bike Cafe Racer 1960 - 1967 [approx.]

Yes Manxes, 7R', G50's etc. were the factory "over the counter" race bikes [ Clubmans ] that we mere mortals could never afford [ well, unlikely to ]. Later watered down versions appeared at a more economical price - Gold Stars, CSR's and the like.

You COULD make your ES2 / Model 50 Norton look similar to a Manx [ engine apart ], or even take an old BSA B31 / 33 and "Goldie 'ise " it. Me, I preferred to stuff a Triumph engine in them ! However, the point is this - as Hoof correctly states - we tried to make our bikes look as much as possible to the Road Racers of the time - except we used them to ride to and from the Caff's - Hence - Cafe Racer.

We seem to be getting a concensus that maybe my original #1 and #2 definitions are pretty well there.

Roadrash - yes march to your own tune buddy. When I first met Carroll Shelby [ to do business ] I had long Red hair [ as now, but more blonde with age ]. At first glance his eyes went up to the heavens - even though the Desch jacket I was wearing was probably more expensive than his whole outfit!
Anyway after an hour or two of verbal fencing back and forth, he eventually came to realise I wasn't a hooligan and in fact knew what I was talking about. He must have mellowed to me as some 8 years later he asked me to represent his Transplant Trust in the UK and act as European Liaison Officer.

Now that I am officially retired, my appearance is pretty well as my avatar [ 2 years old ] - most days with Kilt.

JoeyP - no foul, I asked for all inputs and yours is as valuable as anyone's.

On that point - SOME amalgams of old style engines / bikes with USD forks and the like work well - visually. But that "style" [ Specials? ] is far more subjective as there are no preset specifications. I think each of these would be viewed and judged on it's merits and engineering detailing.

For instance, I don't think that here in the UK we could produce something like that - as a mass interest - as we don't have the DNA for it. Maybe not adventurous enough?

Hoof my maun - continue with the Irish accent - forget Cockney, it's vastly overused [ badly ] anyway.

 

[Makr]

I have always used time period parts for most of my projects, but I am going with inverted forks and modified steering angle on my latest.


I am building it for me and I dont give a rats ass what anyone else thinks.


And I think that is what building motorcycles is all about.

 

[scm]

But I still can't stand 17 inch wheels on old bikes that came with 18 inch wheels.
They always look top heavy. But I seem to be alone on this one.

You're not!

Best regards
Sven

 

[RoadRash]

For me, personally, there has to be a line that's walked: I have no problem with modern suspension on vintage bikes, or just modern parts, in general, but whatever you are doing, it has to IMPROVE the performance of the machine, AND the original styling and lines of the bike should remain relatively intact. That bike that Hoof posted, with the green rims, you can hardly make out the original BIKE in it!

What good is modernizing a classic if it makes it handle worse?, and it no longer looks like a vintage bike? Wasn't the original thing Cafe Racers were trying to do was IMPROVE their rides?

 

[Swagger]

I don't really have a problem with modern bits on an old bike, and I have a difficult time pegging one with being any more ill handing than the original.
Take USD forks for instance. They are generally lighter than the skinny spaghetti forks on the old bikes. Not only that but the valving is far superior to damper rod performance.

So what if the stock geometry is kept?!
Considering them as a pure upgrade over the stock forks, then you're still upgrading the front end, less unsprung weight, far less deflection under load etc. Calling them out for being setup for a lighter bike is kinda silly as well, no offense intended. If one has considered dialing in the spindly stock pogos, why would the same fellow NOT decide to rework the USDs to suit his bike build? Stating that it must be so is akin to stating that the moon is indeed made of green cheese.

As for the rear end....well, I can kinda see that. Often due to the frame layout, the significantly longer monoshock swingarms can look pretty odd sticking out from the back of a bike. The bike Bill posted looks unfinished, perhaps there's some hope for it yet, though I do think it looks awfully long. Were it me, I'd go with an upgraded dual shock swingarm on a dual shock bike unless you can tuck the newer mono rear end under sufficiently to not look like a rolling wiener dog.

To this end I'm setting an '82 XS650 up with a complete '01 R1 front end (with matching wheel and brakes) and a TBD box section dual shock swinger out back(+2" for front end weighting), along with a nice 17" alloy rim there too, modern performance tires and spiffy in all ways too.
If someone has an issue with it....well...tough titty, it's my bike ya whiner!

As to the original intent of this post, I'm still of the mind that trying to nail down a set definition for what was really a mindset rather than a model is going to be really hard. I still prefer the term 'Special' as it allows some latitude while still indicating the unique nature of the build. A 'Period Special' would be something equipped with 'period' gear, evincing a nostalgic reverence, 'Modern Special', 'Track Influenced'...'Racetrack Regugee'...

whatever, I call'm motorcycles.
(and I don't like green cheese)

 

[Swapmeet Louie]

I'm with you guys about USD forks and monoshocks on old bikes. Just like aluminum block crate motors and CNC machined wheels on 32 Fords. Just doesn't work for me. But I still can't stand 17 inch wheels on old bikes that came with 18 inch wheels. They always look top heavy. But I seem to be alone on this one.

No yer not...

 

[Hoofhearted]

Funny you should say "special" Swagger. Way back when thats what they were called. I never heard a Triton called a cafe. It was always called a special. A long time friend in Ireland would greet me with "Hows that old Norton of yours". When i stuck the Weslake in it the greeting changed to "Hows that old special of yours". The club he and I were members of ran a kilo sprint twice a year. At that time in Ireland you had to pre-enter a meet. No entries taken on the day. And a program was printed. I entered my Norton/Weslake in the 500 vintage class as a Norton/Weslake. Owen was in charge of the entries and the program. When I got my program at tech I noticed I was entered on a "500 Special". As far as Owen was concerned if it didn't have a Norton in it it wan't a Norton! And it damn well wasn't going to be entered as a Norton!!

P.S. Dr. J you certainly aren't alone on your thoughts on wheel size. But if you go way back to the 70s you'll find that Peter Williams was racing an Arter (I believe) Matchless G50 with as they were described in magazines of the times "arillery wheels". So I guess if someone shwed up with a featherbed with mags on it (assuming they were 18") an arguement could be made that they are period.

 

[Swagger]

Ha! Makes sense to meas the 'heart' of the machine would be it's engine....

 

[Swapmeet Louie]

I don't think a cafe racer is a bike, nor a brand, or anything tangible anymore. Maybe @ one time it was...? I don't know? I wasn't even born yet when the term was created. But, I do know that in my 20 yrs of tinkering. It has become a term used loosely to sum up one persons vision, and inspiration. Solely giving them direction for a build.

It's a Word

Though I can understand where you fella's that were there are coming from. I get equally protective of the terms bobber, and chopper. Because in my eyes one does not describe the other. On the other hand, today, maybe it does...?

I'm with Swagger... From here on out, they're Specials. haha

Somebody should name their next project their "special purpose" < any body thats seen The Jerk will understand.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Years ago all Indy 500 cars were referred to as specials. Usually the sponsors name i.e. Belond Special, Bear Muffler Special, etc. Personally any bike built by someone is a special.

 

[Swagger]

Sure 'feels' right to me....

 

[midnightcafe]

I don't really have a problem with modern bits on an old bike, and I have a difficult time pegging one with being any more ill handing than the original.
Take USD forks for instance. They are generally lighter than the skinny spaghetti forks on the old bikes. Not only that but the valving is far superior to damper rod performance.

So what if the stock geometry is kept?!
Considering them as a pure upgrade over the stock forks, then you're still upgrading the front end, less unsprung weight, far less deflection under load etc. Calling them out for being setup for a lighter bike is kinda silly as well, no offense intended. If one has considered dialing in the spindly stock pogos, why would the same fellow NOT decide to rework the USDs to suit his bike build? Stating that it must be so is akin to stating that the moon is indeed made of green cheese.

As for the rear end....well, I can kinda see that. Often due to the frame layout, the significantly longer monoshock swingarms can look pretty odd sticking out from the back of a bike. The bike Bill posted looks unfinished, perhaps there's some hope for it yet, though I do think it looks awfully long. Were it me, I'd go with an upgraded dual shock swingarm on a dual shock bike unless you can tuck the newer mono rear end under sufficiently to not look like a rolling wiener dog.

To this end I'm setting an '82 XS650 up with a complete '01 R1 front end (with matching wheel and brakes) and a TBD box section dual shock swinger out back(+2" for front end weighting), along with a nice 17" alloy rim there too, modern performance tires and spiffy in all ways too.
If someone has an issue with it....well...tough titty, it's my bike ya whiner!

As to the original intent of this post, I'm still of the mind that trying to nail down a set definition for what was really a mindset rather than a model is going to be really hard. I still prefer the term 'Special' as it allows some latitude while still indicating the unique nature of the build. A 'Period Special' would be something equipped with 'period' gear, evincing a nostalgic reverence, 'Modern Special', 'Track Influenced'...'Racetrack Regugee'...

whatever, I call'm motorcycles.
(and I don't like green cheese)

Cut up my argument however you like, I’m just trying to point out that a slight change in steering geometry has a huge affect on handling. Also pointing out that it’s harder to retrofit the suspension on a vintage than to think of it as a mere bolt on job.


A stock motorcycle handles best with its stock steering geometry. You wouldn’t recommend sliding the forks 2 or 4 inches up the triples trees, would you? Adapting USD forks is similar to this in which you’re radically changing the steering geometry, and adjusting the suspension will only get you so far. Going with an aftermarket front end that gets you close to the stock steering geometry would be nice. If you’re like Makr and you’re able to modify the steering head layout to compensate for the change, even better. Take into account that not too many USD forks allow adjustment to compression, rebound, preload and damping, and your decisions become limited.


That said I’d love to build a resto-mod Suzuki GS with GSX-R forks and subframe (many examples on The GS Resources forum), but maybe a few years down the road. When done right, they can beat the snot out of a stocker!

 

[Swagger]

You seem to have both taken offense AND agreed AND done so with excessively broad statements.
Umm...ok....

Be happy, don't worry, stick to your skinny forks and such. Fine and dandy with me.
I'll pass you one the outside.....

 

[Hoofhearted]

I had to go search. This is Tom Ater's Matchless G50, ridden by Peter Williams, at the 1970 TT. The wheels look like Lesters. It might make for an interesting conversation if you were to show up wit a pair fitted to a Triton or something similar.

"Beat the snot out of a stocker". LOL!!! That was the whole idea!

 

[midnightcafe]

You seem to have both taken offense AND agreed AND done so with excessively broad statements.
Umm...ok....

Be happy, don't worry, stick to your skinny forks and such. Fine and dandy with me.
I'll pass you one the outside.....

am i being broad ??? ? I just reiterated my main point- when done right, they're great. But it takes more effort than just a simple bolt on job. I've seen good examples, and I've seen bad- more often the latter. No offense taken, I just think you missed my main point, which was vague in my first statement. enough dribble drabble about this though

 

[JA-Moo]

A stock motorcycle handles best with its stock steering geometry. You wouldn’t recommend sliding the forks 2 or 4 inches up the triples trees, would you?

I would have to disgree on this point, at least on most of the late 60's and mid 70's Japanese bikes. They figured out the HP thing but handling was still almost a decade away. The steering was "lazy", or the suspension was so bad they wobbled all over the place when pushed hard. I had spent a few years in the mid 90's testing and re-testing all sorts of set ups on my Kawi triples. (my specialty) And found some "numbers" that other guys also ended up with other makes. If the rake doesn't get too "steep" right around 100mm of trail, a wheelbase close to 54" and getting the weight bias close to 50/50 as possible will give a very nice handling bike. I ended up shorten my swinger 2", dropping the front 1/2" inch (from 19 to 18" rim, and less steering effort) and lacking up the back almost 4"s with longer shocks and extenders. Vast improment with the handling.

Each case is different, but the "magic numbers" seem to work well in the general sense.

And back to the thread, I agree with the cafe' as a streetbike built as close to a race bike as possible, anything not totally necessary, removed, and mods to get the rider "out of the wind" for top speed. The genre does change through the years, as the bikes "the kids salivated over" change. The Kawi triples where the rage when I was "of that age". So they are my focus of my "cafe' builds. Just as the Triumphs, Bsa's and Norton's were of the generation before.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Some of the early HP Jap bike had more HP than the frame could handle. Having raced some of them the Z1 in particular. On slower corners when you put the power on you could watch the the steering head visibly flex. It wasn't so much a case of bad frame geometry as it was the inability of the frame to retain the geometry in a proper relationship. Too much weight and too skinny tubing bent by committee.

Its known that a certain amount of frame flex, in the right direction, is good. I'd love to learn more about what Yamaha and Honda are doing with their GP bikes in regards to frame flex.

I'm not an engineer and I would be nervous about altering frame geometry unless I had a pretty good idea as to what i was doing.

 

[beachcomber]

Hey Hoof,

Triumph INVENTED the flexi frame back in the 50's / 60's !

Even then they couldn't handle the massive 30-40bhp[?] - that's why the powerplants ended up in Norton and BSA frames.

They were known as "Hinge frame triumphs" - hinged in the nmiddle.

I had a pal with a well tuned Bonnie engine in an old T110 frame - and brave though he was - he always had to back off on long sweepers for fear of the back end overtaking the front.

JA-Moo - I think you have encapsulated the very point I was originally making [ last para ], inasmuch as the genre is continually evolving.

However, there have been some [ will be some ] excellent and diverse points of view along the way.