Might be good to mention that the old interceptor had a 360 deg crank as per the other English twins where the modern one has a 270 deg crank. I think approximately 200 interceptor engines where left on a dock when RE went bust. These were snapped up by the Rickman brothers who then went on to produce the Rickman Interceptor.
Thats very impressive sir .Just the effort rquired to clean up and enhance the photos with stategic subtle shadows and clean backgrounds is fantastic .The amount of detailed stats throughout is equally outstanding .Clearly you have a passion for creating quality videos . I'm looking forward to checking out your Burt Munro doc vids and all of your video library as soon as I can .Your channel looks to be a hidden gem ,although just a quick look at some of your video view counts tells a different story .,Holy Moly man you have cracked the code , hard work seems to pay off .Cheers for now Good sir
Not really. I'd say that the old bike is unusual looking. I think the new ones look great. What other new bike even comes close?? They're all either space age or hipster design. Even Harley's look shit nowadays.
The engine on the old one looks very nice and massive, the old bike had quite a few interesting features that no other bikes had. I think Royal Enfield did a pretty good job with the design of the new 650. It's a tad surprising they didn't get a few more horsepower out of it though (fuel injection, multi valve head, ohc etc...)
@@motorcyclecafe It's only for people below 24 years old here, anyone over goes straight to unrestricted. Idea is that young folk with not fully developed brains don't get themselves killed on high power bikes. I don't think it's really a problem, but you could argue if it's really necessary. It does mean manufacturers are inclined to make bikes for this lighter, smaller class though, instead of focusing on heavy models. Remember how 250's used to be a big deal, and got a lot of effort put into them? Same deal right? It's why the Continental GT was ever conceived, or those crazy small 4 cylinder sportbikes from japan.
@@motorcyclecafe @rickrandom6734 I know the OG was only a 250, but there are a lot of differences between them and I think it would be interesting to see how it began and where it led to...
Love how you put this video together. Do you shoot ,script and edit all on your own ? Side note I saw you contacted my channel asking why there are 50 vids listed but only 25 or so showing .I think they included all of my shorts in the total number .I would have answered you in the email you sent but for some reason I couldn't find it when I went back to reference it ..I don't know what the heck I did but I must apologize for not replying properly.
All good buddy. Yer I do everything myself, fix up dud photos to High defintion to make them pop etc..., it takes a long time many hours just for a few minutes of video. The Burt Munro docos although maybe not my best ones took literally thousands of hours i researched Burt over a number of years. Im even friends with Burts son on fb. I guess some in NZ are not to happy with my findings but every single thing in both docos is absolute fact. Which is why i wanted to produce the docos. I struck gold when i found this old video a guy filmed off his tv of Burts bike still in america 1 year after his death. NZ claim they have the record breaking bike but in fact they only have the engine and Burts test frame.
If you have to Kick the sh1t out of it you should check your settings!! Nice comparison thanks! Never would have guessed the old one would be lighter? It has a HUGE lump of an engine when seen in the "flesh"
I'm not so sure the bike available here in Aussie has the same amount of horsepower and we don't have an a2 license. Anyway it doesn't really matter it's still a nice bike either way.
@@motorcyclecafe It does have 47hp in Aus. Our LAMS requirements are similar to the A2 in the UK. I got my Restricted bike licence last year, and own a Conti GT 650. They are a fun first bike
It's amazing just how much better the 1965 model looks. It has a nice light, clean look. You can see right through the bike in several places. And it is not covered in black paint. The new one looks fat and heavy, you can't really see through it anywhere. And almost everything that should be bright aluminum or chrome is painted black. The 1965 engine is a much better design. It could use some refinement, but the OHV pushrod 2 valve design is definitely the way to go. I have a 2007 Royal Enfield iron barrel Bullet 500, in red and chrome. It is a wonderful bike, it does not leak oil, and usually starts on the first or second kick, if you know how. It has points ignition, and I've replaced the stock carburetor with an Amal Concentric MK1, which works a lot better.
i like the look of the old enfield engine better, and the style, not saying the new bikes are bad as i have never ridden one but they conjure the same feeling as the new BSA, least enfield have renamed the new models unlike Goldstar which bears no resemblance to the real BSA
I think BSA have done a great job with the new Goldstar. I covered it in my 'El Cheapo Bike' video. If the original BSA were still in business, no doubt the engine would have been similar to this new one. To me it looks like a nice evolution of the original bike.
The weight of the new bike is my only real problem with the 650. It reminds me of the Suzuki GT750 which had a really heavy frame, but great engine. A frame kit for the RE would be awesome.
The bike itself is pretty light but it's not so much how much a bike weighs which is important, it depends on how high the weight is. I do think the new 650 is a tad top heavy.
i looked at r. e. back in the early 60's, but i thought bonneville would have a little edge on the top end, and were substantially lighter.. fast neutral was no compensation. brit bikes were slow to realize the saving that comes from integrating the engine into the frame. that list began and ended with vincent. just remembered, panther, too. but they were granddad bikes. i remember looking at a 250 honda, and wondering, 'why doesn't every parallel twin do this?'
For what benefit? I rode a 650 Bonnie around throughout the 70’s and it never had any handling problems, it was as light as most trail bikes today are and the only bike of the time that held the road better was a Norton with a Featherbed frame, either 650SS, or an Atlas. I’ve never seen a Royal Enfield 750, but if they were that hard to satrt every time, I wouldn't have wanted one. I once bought an 850 Commando from a mate. It was in perfect condition, but it could be a real PITA (pain in the arse) to start, most unlike the Bonnies I was used to. After several months of being delayed for work because the damn thing wouldn't start and had flooded (with me sweating like a boxer in the sauna after kicking it for half an hour) I sold it and bought a 750 Bonnie. I don’t see any reason for making the engine part of the frame, unless you want to go racing. The Vincent was (like the Panther) engineered to do all manner of things and that was nice, but they COST and that was the ONLY reason they went out of business. There are all kinds of things that could have been done with all kinds of bikes, but the question must be asked; Are they necessary?
What’s sad too me the manufacturers of the so called new and improved Enfield seems too have missed the return mark. I see the Enfield manufacturer have shortened the front fender to save a few bucks. Too me this takes away from the true image of the bike. If I wanted a scrambler this type of fender would fit the bike. But chrome back on the bike, such as the two fenders. Stop this stupid idea of painting what’s called fenders and the ridiculous use of some kind of mud flap attached to the rear fender. How much more would chroming the two fenders and making them both full fenders to stop all the road debris from hitting the riders back and the front of the engine. Come on folks, clean up your all new Enfield and bring back the chrome plus polish up the engine cases as back in the day. Those swept exhaust systems suck. Bring the head pipe straight out along the bikes frame and keep the muffler straight along the rear axle. This swept idea is ugly as sin and cheating the looks of a great bike. I’ve been riding bikes for over 55 years, designed a few. Bring back the 60s look with today’s technology is what’s needed.
