Interesting 400 Four

Dan L wrote:

> TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
>
> > Ebay item 130136115194
> >
> > But if you look closely, you can see it's a late US model, with the
> > higher bars and forward mounted pegs[1]. (Other giveaways are the tail
> > light, indicators and side panels).
> >
> > Which makes it worth rather less than he's asking for it.
> >
> > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> > Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> > about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
>
> If it's a US model, shouldn't it have side amber reflectors?

Erm, I don't think so. UK ones did, on the forks, US bikes I've seen
have had red reflectors.

But this is *definitely* US spec.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

The Older Gentleman wrote:

> Dan L wrote:
>
> > TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
> >
> > > Ebay item 130136115194
> > >
> > > But if you look closely, you can see it's a late US model, with
> > > the higher bars and forward mounted pegs[1]. (Other giveaways are
> > > the tail light, indicators and side panels).
> > >
> > > Which makes it worth rather less than he's asking for it.
> > >
> > > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because
> > > the Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and
> > > complained about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> >
> > If it's a US model, shouldn't it have side amber reflectors?
>
> Erm, I don't think so. UK ones did, on the forks, US bikes I've seen
> have had red reflectors.
>
> But this is definitely US spec.

Heh, I'll definitely bow to your superior knowledge, but I have always
associated side reflectors with US bikes

--
Dan L

http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
>
> [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
>

Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
1 mph speed advantage flat out.

Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

Dan L wrote:

> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> > Dan L wrote:
> >
> > > TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ebay item 130136115194
> > > >
> > > > But if you look closely, you can see it's a late US model, with
> > > > the higher bars and forward mounted pegs[1]. (Other giveaways are
> > > > the tail light, indicators and side panels).
> > > >
> > > > Which makes it worth rather less than he's asking for it.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because
> > > > the Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and
> > > > complained about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> > >
> > > If it's a US model, shouldn't it have side amber reflectors?
> >
> > Erm, I don't think so. UK ones did, on the forks, US bikes I've seen
> > have had red reflectors.
> >
> > But this is definitely US spec.
>
> Heh, I'll definitely bow to your superior knowledge, but I have always
> associated side reflectors with US bikes

Me too. I dunno when they came in, though. Z1s had 'em and they
pre-dated the 400F. Maybe someone removed them?

But the utter giveaway on this one is the forward mounted footpegs and
gear lever - note there's no rearset linkage. That was only the US.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

wrote:

> TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
> >
> > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> > Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> > about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> >
>
> Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
> on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
> any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
> 1 mph speed advantage flat out.
>
> Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
> USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?

I refer you to TOG's comments ref: missing the point.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

SteveH wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
> > >
> > > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> > > Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> > > about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> > >
> >
> > Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
> > on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
> > any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
> > 1 mph speed advantage flat out.
> >
> > Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
> > USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?
>
> I refer you to TOG's comments ref: missing the point.

But what IS the point ?.
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

wrote:

> SteveH wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com,
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> > > > Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> > > > about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
> > > on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
> > > any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
> > > 1 mph speed advantage flat out.
> > >
> > > Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
> > > USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?
> >
> > I refer you to TOG's comments ref: missing the point.
>
> But what IS the point ?.

Here's a hint: They weren't a 'commutor bike'.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

wrote:

> TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
> >
> > [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
> > Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> > about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
> >
>
> Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
> on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
> any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
> 1 mph speed advantage flat out.
>
> Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
> USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?

Well, Steve has tried and failed to enlighten you, so I will have a go.

The 400F wasn't a commuter bike. It was a pure sports bike, and
originally sold as that. It was the first Honda four to handle and stop
well, and it went bloody fast for the era. A pocket superbike.

It was the first Japanese bike to have a decent sports riding position -
pegs set well back, so much so that the gear lever had to have a rearset
linkage, and a narrow flat bar. At anything over 70mph, the wind
relieved the pressure on your wrists, which wasn't bad anyway.

As for speed, on a relatively low-powered bike like this, the difference
between sit-up-high-and-wide and a sporty crouch is worth nearly 10mph,
not the 1mph that you seem to think.

Oh, and the riding postition also helped shift some weight to the front
of the bike, which is one reason why the 400 handled so bloody well
compared with the rearward weight-biased 250 and 360 twins, with which
it (effectively) shared a chassis.

The Yanks didn't like supersports bikes, not really. So after a year or
two of poor sales, for the US market, Honda fitted cowhorn bars and
forward mounted pegs.

This ruined the style, looks, comfort and (crucially) the handling of
the bike. And the Yanks still didn't buy it, anyway.

Ironically, now, original sporty 400 Fours are rather sought-after in
the US.

Got it?

--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

> Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
> about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....

ICBWB, IIRC, the first road tests of 400 Fours published in the UK (Bike,
MCM, Motorcyclist Illustrated et. al.) were of US spec bikes.
Originally these were the same as UK spec bikes but with the headlamp
permanently switched on and (front ?) indicators that glowed at about half
normal brightness.

D
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> TOG@Toil,chateau.murray@btinternet.com, wrote:
>>> [1] Unbelievably, they did this to the later US models, because the
>>> Yanks missed the point completely about the 400 Four and complained
>>> about the rearset pegs and the flat bars....
>>>
>> Maybe you could explain what is so wrong about sitting up comfortably
>> on what is essentially a middleweight commutor bike. I fail to see
>> any real advantage in laying on the tank apart from maybe going a
>> 1 mph speed advantage flat out.
>>
>> Maybe the only difference is what is considered to look cool in the
>> USA rather than the UK. Is it all about a "sporty" image ?
>
> Well, Steve has tried and failed to enlighten you, so I will have a go.
>
> The 400F wasn't a commuter bike. It was a pure sports bike, and
> originally sold as that. It was the first Honda four to handle and stop
> well, and it went bloody fast for the era. A pocket superbike.

37bhp, 170kg dry, top speed of 104mph attainable only by a skinny rider,
naked and covered in dubbin, 15 second quarter mile. A real superbike!
What was the competition like in 1975?

--
Eiron.
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

Eiron wrote:

> 37bhp, 170kg dry, top speed of 104mph attainable only by a skinny rider,
> naked and covered in dubbin, 15 second quarter mile. A real superbike!
> What was the competition like in 1975?

1976 Moto Guzzi V50 490cc 45hp 152Kg 105mph
1976 Moto Guzzi V35 346cc 34hp 152Kg 93mph

I don't have the quarter miles

Just to compare: Norton Commando 746cc 60hp 195Kg 105mph

--
Simon
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

On 18 Aug 2007 12:44:21 GMT, "sweller"
wrote:

>Eiron wrote:
>
>> 37bhp, 170kg dry, top speed of 104mph attainable only by a skinny rider,
>> naked and covered in dubbin, 15 second quarter mile. A real superbike!
>> What was the competition like in 1975?
>
>1976 Moto Guzzi V50 490cc 45hp 152Kg 105mph
>1976 Moto Guzzi V35 346cc 34hp 152Kg 93mph
>
>I don't have the quarter miles
>
>Just to compare: Norton Commando 746cc 60hp 195Kg 105mph

Are these Earth HP or Planet Marketing HP?

Just seems odd that the Commando, which would be physically similar or
even narrower than the Guzzis, and chain drive, shouldn't have any
speed advantage.

Or maybe it was dissipated in engine vibration.

--
-Pip
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four 

Pip Luscher wrote:

> >> 37bhp, 170kg dry, top speed of 104mph attainable only by a skinny
> rider, >> naked and covered in dubbin, 15 second quarter mile. A real
> superbike! >> What was the competition like in 1975?
> >
> > 1976 Moto Guzzi V50 490cc 45hp 152Kg 105mph
> > 1976 Moto Guzzi V35 346cc 34hp 152Kg 93mph
> >
> > I don't have the quarter miles
> >
> > Just to compare: Norton Commando 746cc 60hp 195Kg 105mph
>
> Are these Earth HP or Planet Marketing HP?
>
> Just seems odd that the Commando, which would be physically similar or
> even narrower than the Guzzis, and chain drive, shouldn't have any
> speed advantage.

The Guzzi figures come from my Mick Walker Moto Guzzi book - so are
probably Italian horse power...

The Commando figures I've cocked up as they were for a 1971 bike and they
were replaced by the 820 in 1973 - although I don't see them being too
different:
http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/norton_commando_750_1971.php


--
Simon
 >> Stay informed about: Interesting 400 Four