Why bad handling reputation?

Shovel Jockey

Shovel Jockey

Piano Tuna
Messages
218
Reaction score
15
Points
18
Location
Upstate South Carolina mountains, (Moonshiner 28)
Granted, I've only owned a few motorcycles; 1969 BSA Royal Star, 1975 Suzuki T500 Titan and a 2004 Royal Enfield Bullet. All three of these bikes seemed to handle fine. The XS650 in many reviews are said to be real bad handlers,even dangerous. i don't see a lot of difference in say my 78 and the 75 Suzuki. What's the big problem?
 
The early bikes 70-72 had some nasty habits, been there experienced them.
In 73ish they beefed up the frames, improved the forks a bunch and (I think) increased the rake a bit, the early stem was pretty steep and if everything wasn't up to snuff tank slappers would catch the unwary. Just a reread a 79 Cycle world article and they gave it good grades. The narrowness of the engine allowing high lean angles was extensively compared to the UJMs of the time, and even boxers. Basically period tires started sliding before metal started dragging. And I hate to break it to you :D but your stable is not exactly a bunch of great handlers. For sane street riding, the XS650 does just fine.
 
The best you know is the best you've ridden. The XS is probably on par with the rest of what you've ridden, probably a notch above the Royal Enfield and the 500 Titan (at least the one my brother had)
These bikes have a relatively light sprung, skinny front fork set, and can get wallowy when pressured. Same goes for the rear swingarm, which is light weight, under reinforced, and often has worn bushings that make the rear hit every turn differently. If you tighten up what you have, and spring it for your weight, you will feel a difference. If you go ride something semi modern, with a more rigid fork and swingarm and radial tires, you will be blown away. If you simply respect the bike for what it is and it's limitations, and ride it within them, it's a grand old piece. Many journalists have a tendicy to compare every bike to the most awesome thing they have ever ridden. Truly bad motorcycles are out there. This is not one of them.
 
gggGary said:
The early bikes 70-72 had some nasty habits, been there experienced them.
In 73ish they beefed up the frames, improved the forks a bunch and (I think) increased the rake a bit, the early stem was pretty steep and if everything wasn't up to snuff tank slappers would catch the unwary. Just a reread a 79 Cycle world article and they gave it good grades. The narrowness of the engine allowing high lean angles was extensively compared to the UJMs of the time, and even boxers. Basically period tires started sliding before metal started dragging. And I hate to break it to you :D but your stable is not exactly a bunch of great handlers. For sane street riding, the XS650 does just fine.
Click to expand...
WHAT YOU TALKING 'BOUT WILLIS! My stable, although this was 30 plus years ago except for the Enfield, handled just...just..well you're right. Those solid pegs on that BSA nearly sent me off these N. Carolina mountain roads more than once:yikes:
 
While I know for a fact there are some great riders who are members of this forum I do not consider myself a great rider even though I've got about 40 years under my belt. Seems that now that I'm finally smart enough to understand the science of great riding I no longer have the physical attributes to be a great rider. That and the fact that I actually believe these things can and will kill me if I do something stupid.

Most of us will never be great riders but that's okay because these bikes are better than most of us can ride them. And yes, like gggGary said, the factory tires on these bikes were crap. Even the cheapest new $59 Chi%$& tires are better than the Daytons that came on these bikes new or the Carisiles that came new on my '78 Superglide or the Bridgestones that came new on my first Honda.

And you've got to remember, a lot of those motorcycle journalists are or were racers who know how to take a bike to the edge and have done it a lot. (Or they've been to racing schools.) Their comparisons are not only to great bikes like jd750ace pointed out but also to full out racing machines. Dem guys is jaded.

PS. I owned a 500 BSA for about a hour before it threw a rod on US 29 in Greensboro and I left it there.
 
Last edited:
My characterization of the Royal Star and the XS as a cut above the others reflects the fact that both frames did make it onto the race track, although I think I remember the Royal Star frame was modified for the Gold Star, but that all happened before I was born.
 
gggGary is right. After 72 things improved greatly. My very first motorcycle was a 72 XS, and the 79 XS I ride now is a vast improvement handling wise. My 79 will keep with with the average sport bike fairly well in the twistys, only on the straights do they just motor away.

DLD1
 
Enough BS. The stock XS650 of any year had a poor reputation for handling because it was top-heavy, had lousy damping front and rear, and was, like most Jap bikes of the period, grossly overweight. Girling shocks and forks were much superior to the OEM stuff from Kayaba and Showa, and by the time Yamaha was through packing on the weight, the XS650 was over 70 pounds heavier than a Triumph Bonneville.

DLD1, if you're staying with modern sporting iron in the twisties, you're outriding the guys behind the bars. You're keeping up in spite of your machine, not because of it.
 
grizld1 said:
DLD1, if you're staying with modern sporting iron in the twisties, you're outriding the guys behind the bars. You're keeping up in spite of your machine, not because of it.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was thinking. Good riders make riding twisties look easy.
Like Bill I'm not a great rider. I have the 80 XS and I have modern sportbike too.I ride the XS daily and ride the triumph for fun, on weekends. And there is no way my XS handles as good as the daytona.
 
Last edited:
grizld1 and I am Carbon,
That's pretty much true. Most of the guys out there are mediocre riders at best. Most of them only go fast in a straight line. My last bike was 97 Ducati, and the difference in handling is huge. What I've realized is that the XS is more fun, because It requires much more skill to ride quickly. But I stand by the fact that the 79XS is much better than the 72.
 
Yes the 79 is a better configuration for sure.
and I agree with you I luv riding my XS..
But they aint sportbikes they are family and my is here to stay.
 
Notice that video is not in these united states. I believe that is a CBR400R, not a 600, but that don't matter. That dude impresses me more than any turd running down the highway on the back wheel. I have run my SV through the cones at a couple of rides. the local motor officers will set up the handling course, and you pay to ride, with proceeds going to charity. It's addictive to try to ride the course clean and fast, but at 10 bucks a crack, I'll take a stack of solo cups and some small rocks in an abandoned warehouse parking lot. You can find layouts, with dimensions online. When you do it with 3 or 4 friends, you can giggle your ass off at them, until it's your turn. Great practice, for sure, and not near enough people have any clue how far they can lean thier bikes.
 
My '78 Triumph vs. my '77 XS650.

The Triumph has a better/stiffer frame, lighter weight carried lower, good stock swingarm bushings, the front axle is held in the lower legs better for stiffness, the steering bearings are better, shocks are gas Grilings, K81 Dunlops (state of the art in the 70's) and in a bit of magic the single heavy flywheel is in line with the tires unlike the 4 wheels across the XS650 engine.

I've addressed some of the XS650's deficiencies and I love the bike but I had to put in the work to come close to a stock Bonnevile. I can easily see why a moto journalist testing both new bikes would gush over the XS engine and the Triumph's handling.

Tom
 
I am Carbon said:
Yes the 79 is a better configuration for sure.
and I agree with you I luv riding my XS..
But they aint sportbikes they are family and my is here to stay.
Click to expand...

Very impressive low speed handling. My buddies and I used to ride our bikes on a very small local Go Kart track for giggles. Very similar riding style. It's a lot of fun. I haven't done it in a long time.
Yeah, my XS doesn't hold a candle to my old Duc, but I love riding the XS.

DLD1
 
I don't think anyone here is saying a stock XS650 is a sport bike. but after 72 they are not evil, are solid after the 35mm forks were adapted, with minor upgrades can perform quite well on the street. I am no ACE road racer but I did do some WERA A Superbike racing back in the day on a CB900F rode Norton commandos and recently have owned an FZ1 and a Bandit 1200. I doubt my XS650 could keep up with even my 1100 Shadow Aero, but it's a nice combo of good looks, comfortable size, easy to ride at 60 for an hour or two and you get to rev and use the power band to make time in the twisties. Pretty much stock with the chassis bearings and bushings in good shape, it isn't going to drag big chunks of steel, get into death wobbles or spit you off unexpectedly. A lot more than can be said about some other bikes of that era or even some current models.

Remember for most riders no matter what happens, keep looking at the road ahead where you WANT the bike to go, and the odds are VERY good the bike will go there.
The converse applies as well look out at the ditch and there you will go. I remain amazed at how long it took me to figure that out and how easy it still is to look at that damned ditch.
 
gggGary,
So, so true about looking where you want to go. This was a lesson I learned in the 70s SCCA Road Racing.
 
Didn't mean to imply that the XS650 doesn't have the potential to handle well (I wouldn't own one if it didn't), but it takes some money, time, and know-how. jd750ace, I also have a Zook SV650 in the barn, '03 nekkid model--another price-point suspension, but Race-Tech valves and springs in front, an Ohlins double-clicker in back, a pair of Pirelli Diablo Stradas, and some dial-in time straightened things out.
 
Back
Top