The bike that defined the sixties was undoubtedly Honda's CB750, though there was a lot that was bad about it, its overwhelming impression was good. It put to rest, once and for all, the idea that the Japanese couldn't build big bikes. Its OHC four cylinder engine contained technology that most British factories could not even build in their one-off race machinery and it was the sheer effrontery of the Japanese company to so redefine production engineering that sets the CB apart. Triumph had their triple but they didn't have the reliability, oil tightness and electric starter of the CB750.
The Honda was heavy, sported poor suspension, still had chain primary drive (albeit hyvoid) and a separate oil tank but none of that really mattered. What counted was the ease with which it could be ridden, how little effort was needed to keep it from falling apart. Not the fastest machine in the Kingdom it nevertheless was one of the few bikes that could be poked along at ton-plus speeds without living in fear of engine self-destruction. All meaningless by today's standards but revolutionary back then.
In engineering terms, Honda's earlier attempt at a big bike was more meaningful. The CB450, known as the Black Bomber, took all of Honda's hard won vertical twin knowledge and distilled some unique engineering. Most interesting, the DOHC top end which sports torsion bars instead of valve springs and rockers set on eccentric shafts for ease of valve clearance setting. The crank throw was 180 degrees rather than the usual 360 degrees in British twins, giving perfect primary balance but a torque reaction along the crankshaft.
43 horses, 410lbs, a proper tubular frame and rather soft suspension added up to a mixture of good and bad times on the road; a marvellous mix of grouchy low rev torque and high rev power punch that would let the bike cruise along at 90mph plus without the usual grinding vibration. Every later Jap vertical twin can trace its roots back to the venerable Black Bomber. The excellence of its engineering apparent in the tiny valve clearances and the fact that it would turn in 70mpg whilst holding 90mph. A good 'un!
Ugly were the legion of Honda twins before they heard about style, almost anything before 1960 but to be fair by that decade they only had the odd aberration in their step-thru's and mini-bikes. Even the commuter CD175 of the late sixties couldn't really be called blotto, time certainly kind to its pressed steel frame and dumpy mudguards.
Back to the good, the sixties Dream series certainly fits the bill, both CB72 250cc and CB77 305cc vertical twins. Sharing a lot of the engineering with the later CB450, they had simpler OHC heads and spine frames that used the engine as a stressed member. High revving by British bike standards they could give the 500 twins of the day a good run for their money, held together despite the unheard of revs their motors could be buzzed to.
Like most Hondas of this era the Dream excelled in its motor but was less than perfect in its chassis but nothing a bit of work on the suspension couldn't cure and there is enough performance in the CB77 to make it on modern roads! The same can be said of Triumph 500 twins, and the like, of the era but only after they have been totally re-engineered!
Better yet than the CB72/77, the CB250K1 - a sort of mini Black Bomber with SOHC top end - offered the first 100mph 250cc twin (as in learner legal back then) in 1968. Okay, it needed a long road with either assistance from a hill or wind to achieve that, but the fact that the motor could rev to eleven grand without bursting its seam was history in the making! This was a decade of progress, the K1 had more power and better handling than the CB72, something not so universally achieved in the next decade! Hardly surprising that the K1 was immensely popular with new riders, nor that shocking that most were revved and ridden into the ground.
Yamaha spent the same decade producing many godawful ugly strokers, not getting into the game until as late as 1967. Ugly were such two strokes as the YD3, YES2 and YDS-3, though they sported all the conventional chassis bits that you might expect and benefited from the famed TD1's progress on the race track. Only towards the end of the decade did Yamaha get their act together, most notably with the smaller 125cc stroker twin, the YAS1, though lacking in excess power at 15hp it would sing its heart out in a way that rival Bantams never, ever, managed.
Yamaha were also perfecting their 250/350 stroker twins at that time, the YDS's slowly mutating into a semblance of Western style, though the first RD's took the classic shape as far it could go in the stroker world, but that didn't happen until the beginning of the next decade.
The ugliest bike Yamaha ever produced? Probably the 1965 YGS-1, an inspiration for the later YB100, though many of the early sixties twins appeared to get their styling cues from behind the Iron Curtain! Apart from relatively advanced stroker engineering, Yamaha's other great innovation of the decade was perfecting the form of the off-roader, the basics for the later DT175 already formed by 1968 in both 250 and 125cc trailsters - bikes that were able to run rings around the heavyweight Brit four strokes as well as being unexpectedly tough.
Suzuki were the other major proponent of the stroker cause in the sixties, they swapped the racier edge of the Yamahas for greater versatility; an act that also allowed them to develop bigger twins. Easily the best stroker of the decade, the T500 had performance that scared British 650's, an amazing amount of engine toughness and handling that merely needed a bit of help from upgraded suspension. It was also in another, better, world as regards to smoothness and lack of vibration.
The big 500 had its origins in the earlier, smaller stroker twins - even in 1965 the T20, for instance, had a passing stab at classic styling, couldn't be written off as ugly. 25 horses at 8000 revs made it a bit of a flyer for the day, especially as it only had to push along 320lbs. The 125 and 250cc versions were similarly virtuous but it's mostly the tough old T500 that has managed to survive into the modern era.
The ugly, if not bad, title's shared by the B120 and T125 Stinger. The latter a high revving twin with a penchant for self destruction that managed to merge road and trial styling in a thoroughly mad way - well, it was 1969, the end of a crazy decade. The Bloop (the original model was the B100P and the name stuck when the capacity was increased) was a sort of single cylinder stroker version of the CD but with even more hilarious commuter looks. The engine, though, was so tough that some of them manage to survive to this day. Oh, in the last year of the decade Suzuki also made an attempt at a stroker version of the famed Honda C50 step-thru; the F50 requiring a pretty big sick bucket.
Kawasaki's sixties strokers didn't make much of an impression until they acquired the rights to Bridgestone's excellent 350 disc valve twin - possibility the second best stroker of the decade, right behind the T500 but so rare it's hardly worth bothering trying to track one down. Both of Kawasaki's late sixties stroker twins, 250 and 350cc, were flyers of ill-repute that presaged later triple madness.
For 1967, making 31 and 41 ponies, both 250 and 350, were well on the pace, able to burn off just about everything of similar capacity that could still turn a wheel. The 350 a devourer of both 500 and 650cc vertical twins. These weren't heavy bikes but the steering geometry and distribution of their 330lbs of mass left something to be desired; the old self destruction blues when backing off in the bends. Good bikes, certainly, but never boring - if you get my meaning! The final 250 twin, the A1S, had styling and chassis that were very similar to the first triple.
Never imported officially in the UK, but so strange that it must merit a passing mention, the BSA A10 inspired 650 W1 must've caused some odd looks in Tokyo back in 1966, not to mention the States. Think about an A10 motor whose components had been accurately manufactured and perfectly assembled, it'd give a good idea of what the venerable steed was like to ride. Handling wasn't up to British standards but the lack of oil leaks and relative smoothness makes it an interesting piece of motorcycle history. The bike survived until the first year of the new decade!
A whole host of early sixties 125cc singles existed but I doubt that any made it to the UK, they had a strong CZ influence in their style but were probably manufactured to a very high standard. Ugly, ugly!
Kawasaki also played with marginal trailsters, both purpose built singles and minor conversions of their twins. The latter looked quite cute and were okay for screaming through town but the former never made much impression on the Yamaha DT's; obvious inspiration for the later lacklustre KE125's. So chalk them up as bad.
The Seventies
This was a decade that began to erode Honda's omnipresence in the manufacture of four stroke twins and fours. That they failed to really develop their sixties designs didn't help - at least in terms of weight reduction and power output, they did at least have a more sophisticated feel. The Honda CB250G5 perfectly sums up this kind of badness. Blunted to the point of blandness, it had none of the 100mph edge of the CB250K1 with which it shared much of its design. Its touches of modernity were a six speed gearbox and a single front disc, as well as a bright paint job.
Such engineering malaise went deeper than mere blandness, the camshaft bearings (part of the cylinder head casting!) notoriously short-lived, though they could be sleeved and thus renovated. Such was the lack of power, though, that few people bothered. The CB360G5, relying somewhat less on revs for forward motion, lasted a bit longer. Come 15000 miles, more likely than not the bike had become a rolling wreck, a continuum of soggy suspension, ruined disc caliper and knocking engine bearings.
Another strange piece of engineering degeneration was the CB500T, an update on the almost legendary CB450 Black Bomber that used its stroked engine to major in a bland delivery of power and also suffered from major piston/bore problems. Handling and braking go pretty dire with age but are easily upgradeable. Replace the godawful exhaust system with something more curvaceous, a classic looking motorcycle emerges but it does haven't the depth to pull it off.
What else did Honda do wrong at the beginning of the decade? Well, detuning the CB250K1 when they introduced the K3/4 didn't help, though the 350 version - for all its inherent blandness - was immensely popular in the USA because there was just enough proper motorcycle in it to complement its relative ease of use and general toughness.
Don't know if the CD175, in final iteration, was good, bad or ugly - probably all three. It almost looks like a miniature BSA, these days! Totally lacking in top end power but economical and tough. Up to a point, its brother, the CB175, was definitely good. The limit being set by how long it took for constant high rev use to burn out the valves. Where there are still CD's tottering around there are almost no CB's left running. The qualities of both bikes were coalesced in the CB200, which had most of the CB's performance and most of the CD's frugality. The mechanical front disc was good for a laugh but it was overall a very useful tool. Honda wasn't to get close to this kind of versatility until the much later CD250.
The Benley's that followed the demise of the earlier twins were made down to a price, though later engines held together reasonably well. Ugly as sin from new, poor build quality meant they soon became rolling wrecks. They didn't really make it into the real world even in their final models, more a paragon of production engineering economies than anything else.
Honda's second generation four, the CB500, was scaled down with a proper wet-sump design. Its major failing was any discernible feel of blood and guts in its 50 horses. Smooth, easy handling and generally tough it was a good motorcycle for the times, classic in style and now somewhat overpriced. The engine was scaled down and up, being incredibly bland in 350/400cc forms and somewhat vibratory and short-lived as a 650. The 550 was probably the best of the bunch but lacks the 400's and 500's classic status.
The CB400F was thought a gem of a motorcycle by many but its need for revs meant the piston rings could be short-lived. Its chassis was based on the CB360G5's but redeemed itself with better suspension, weight distribution and ergonomic riding position. No surprise that prices for original, pristine CB400F's are out of this world.
The CB750, itself, underwent no fundamental changes for almost a decade. Power was diminished, weight increased, detail work and better tolerances improving the level of engine vibration and general feel of sophistication. Even the F1 of 1975 didn't offer a radical solution to Honda's by then aging design though it managed to get the mass down below 500lbs and added a bit of blood and guts to the power delivery. Handling and chuckability were better than the original effort but this wasn't much of a compliment. The whole lot should be viewed as bad in comparison to what they could have become but that many are still left on the road gives the nod to the brilliance of Honda's production engineers.
Under heavy pressure from rivals, Honda finally went the DOHC route in 1979. Both the CB750KZ and CB900 shared a similar engine layout and chassis, defined by excessive mass, odd handling and quick rot brakes. The 900, in particular, had loads of blood and guts, could go so rapidly that the steering became plain frightening! Lacking was the total robustness of earlier fours, thrash and neglect equalled an early engine explosion. Bad bikes but in a mean and moody way that many real bikers love and appreciate.
The other much appreciated dog of the decade, the CX500. Honda's engineers managed to produce a pushrod vee-twin that incorporated the company's then famed camchain tensioner self-destruction routine. By the end of the decade Honda had sorted all its problems, the bike emerging as a useful workhorse until the built-in obsolescence caught up with it after 50,000 miles of abuse. But definitely a seventies dog! Woof, woof!
Yamaha were the first on the heels of Honda with a four stroke design. The XS-2 a 650cc vertical twin much in the mould of rival BSA's and Triumph's, save that it had an oil-tight OHC engine with a wet sump and gear primary drive. In short, the kind of motor Triumph should've been building in the sixties. Nothing's that easy, the XS's handling prone to major speed wobbles when going fast. The subsequent XS650 was less powerful, heavier, but better braked and much more stable. Have to call them good, just on the back of the immensely tough engine.
If the XS650 was as pure a piece of engineering design that ever emerged from Yippon, the XS500 messed up big time. The DOHC eight valve head was prone to overheating, the chain driven balancer awkward to adjust and therefore usually neglected. The handling was good, the mass reasonable, and the power, when the engine was running properly, better than most British 650's. Alas, it's one of those engines that can explode without any warning!
The XS's were never a direct rival to Honda's efforts but the Kawasaki Z1 definitely was! Dumping the antiquated baggage of separate oil tank and hyvoid primary chain, the 900 four added DOHC's to the equation, emerged as the toughest and fastest piece of iron available in 1973. Kawasaki spent most of their research money on perfecting the engine, the chassis not up to the wild acceleration or speed. It was even less prone than the CB750 to an easy suspension upgrade, both steering geometry and weight distribution too far out of it for a painless redemption.
The Z1 became the better braked Z900, which in turn ended up as the Z1000, a not particularly clever transition as, like the CB750, gains in power and loss of mass weren't in evidence, though some of the wilder handling excesses were tamed. Engine reliability and toughness remained as good as ever whilst many owners managed to get the Z1000 to trundle through the bends in a reasonable manner after doing a suspension upgrade (later front ends helping a lot).
Kawasaki's production engineers were let loose on the Z650, not merely scaled down but using shell main bearings rather than the tougher rollers found in the Z1. The result, though, was a bike that had most of the performance of a 750 with a touch of the 500 fours easy handling. Though the bike emerged at the end of the decade it was really a seventies design, sharing much of its engine with the Z500/550, though not their camchain tensioner (which must've been inspired by rival Hondas).
Kawasaki lost the plot when they tried to design vertical twins. Both the Z400 and Z750 missed the whole point of the genre - light weight, simplicity - in their search for smoothness. Both sported chain driven balancer systems, which made them smooth at low revs, but absorbed power and ruined economy. Bad design but both bikes quite useful plodders if run on the back of their low rev torque.
Honda went the same route with their Dreams and Superdreams, though they didn't over-engineer to the same extent as Kawasaki. The CB400N Suprdream the best of a bad bunch and a good bike until things began to go expensively wrong after the first 20,000 miles. Compared to the sheer purity of design of the sixties CB450, they were plain horrible, another piece of production engineering excellence that resulted in a bad end result.
Not easily forgotten, the CB400A, an automatic version of the CB400T Dream. Combine a slow reacting automatic gearbox with a detuned motor and sloppy chassis, end up with a little bit of motorcycling horror. It's okay if you're about 110 and like pottering around, otherwise file it as ugly and bad.
Meanwhile, in 1977, Suzuki defined how vertical twins should be built. A throwback to the CB250K series with the added benefits of a single gear driven balancer and DOHC's. Pistons moving out of phase to give perfect primary balance, the balancer taking care of the torque reaction along the crank. This worked so well that the motor became a touch bland, the chassis was also far too remote from the road. The mill so finely thought out that the basics, albeit with watercooling and eight valves, are still there even in the latest nineties machines.
Suzuki also had a go at Kawasaki's position as the prime producer of big fours. The GS750 soon gained a reputation for toughness that was only second to Kawasaki's efforts. It also handled far better than rival fours. Suzuki didn't takes any chances with the DOHC design, building in large safety factors to make sure their first fours didn't gain a reputation for undesirable mechanical malaise. Thus it was almost as heavy as the Z1. Whilst it didn't buckle and bump its way through the bends it needed quite a large amount of muscle to rock 'n' roll - but then big, heavy and wide four cylinder engines always limit the ability of the chassis. The best 750 four of the decade - as you'd expect, they had plenty of time to learn the mistakes made by earlier, rival efforts, and pick and chose the best design points.
The GS550 was more of the same, being so heavy that its 54 horses really never had a chance of producing exciting acceleration. However, the motor's tough enough to go around the clock and the chassis so well designed that when the throttle's slammed shut in the corners, the bike tightens up its line. Vicious use of the front discs in low speed corners will have the wheel snapping back wildly, though! Brilliant in everything except acceleration, then.
Suzuki rounded off the decade with the GS1000, more of the same but with a slightly dodgy engine and less well mannered chassis - too much mass and power to cope with, but suspension upgrades helped enormously. The GS never quite had the same cachet as the Z1000, which lived long on the mythical Z1's prowess.
Yamaha joined in the fun at the end of the seventies with the enormous XS1100 - one bad motherf..ker if ever there was one! Excessive torque tended to tear the chassis apart but the odd maniac managed to master the beast, wheelie the thing just about everywhere and drag the undercarriage through the bends. Most riders just found them plain bad, though.
Honda manufactured the most outrageous machine of the decade, the CBX1000. All six cylinders, DOHC's and 24 valves worth! A throwback to their sixties six cylinder racers insofar as it used the engine as a stressed member in the spine frame. Engine width was kept reasonable by placing the alternator under the carbs. Amazing engine note and smoothness, only goes bad when someone reassembles the motor wrongly - easy to do given its massive complexity! Also the great missed opportunity of the decade - why the hell didn't they cut the motor in half, make a neat 500 triple?
Honda kept well away from the strokers, a dying breed on the back of ever stringent pollution laws. Yamaha kept the genre alive, developing their RD series into the RD400E - easily the best stroker of the decade. Not the most robust, though, that title goes to the GT500 Suzuki, a detuned version of the sublime T500 twin.
The RD benefited from Yamaha's racing involvement, combined a slick chassis with an eager motor, yet one that would also plod along without throwing a fit, thanks to the reed valves between carbs and induction ports, and electronic ignition. All the RD's, from 125 to 350cc, were also good stuff but Yamaha managed to turn stroker orthodoxy on its head - it was usually the smaller strokers that ran best!
The GT500, despite its larger engine, lacked the edge of the smaller stroker but was still a useful alternative to the four stroke twins and fours, whose power output it tried hard to emulate. If not the snappiest device on the road, the GT was at least easy to ride and long lasting.
Suzuki's obsession with matching the bland running of Honda's middleweights went deeper with their stroker triples, the GT380 and 550. The advantages of strokers - low mass, high power and relative simplicity - completely missing. Throw in far from robust natures, the centre cylinder in particular subject to all kinds of mechanical infidelity, to define these bikes as pretty pointless. Both bad and ugly.
Suzuki had more luck with their smaller strokers, everything that was good in the breed culminating in the final rendition - the GT250X7. The earlier Ram-Air GT250 was a bit too muted and the GT185 twin prone to expensive self-destructive habits. No, the X7 managed to blend minimal mass, 100mph performance, adequate handling and marginal toughness - not as robust as the rival RD250 but on the pace with that bike. The old GT125 twin was usually thrashed into the ground by learners, so they are all bad by now if not in their day.
If Suzuki messed up their stroker triple designs, Kawasaki at least got the basics right with the infamous H1 - a huge, direct, surge of power; only 60 horses, but it all seemed to switch on at once, with a delightful stroker triple howl - not to mention cloud of pollutants. This power did nasty things to the primitive chassis that didn't really have a clue about steering geometry, weight distribution or the integrity of the chassis bearings. Thus barrelling out of bends with the power coming in would cross up the chassis something rotten whilst hastily backing off turned the back end totally plastic. And the rider spastic if he wasn't lucky!
Later, the triple was developed into 250, 400 and 750cc versions, the 500 becoming both milder and more controllable, but it's the H1 that really stands out as the maddest bike of the decade. The 750 actually had quite a lot of low rev torque but its power was too much for the chassis, and its engine was never particularly reliable. Later 400 triples muted the breed into a semblance of civility whilst still being able to blow off midrange Honda fours, and the like.
The 250 triple, in early versions, wasn't the ideal tool to learn on but had the status of being able to do the ton on a good day. On a bad day, it'd oil all its plugs or throw the rider off the road, though the chassis, due to the relative lack of power and mass, had the easiest time of all the triples. Argue about any Kawasaki triple as to whether it was good or bad but none of them could ever be called ugly.
The Eighties
A decade when weight was lost, handling improved, engines became more powerful and the overall package more useful. It was also one of ever increasing complexity, poor frugality and ridiculous sticker prices. The two strokes, except for some odd bikes, a dying breed and the Japanese perfected the straight four, though they strayed far and wide in search of viable alternatives.
Honda went out on a limb with their vee-four series, no doubt annoyed that their primacy in straight fours had been put in doubt by superior rival designs. They took a big bath due to valvegear problems that were only ultimately cleared up when they used extremely expensive gear camshaft drives in the VFR750. Both the VF750 and 1000 were hopelessly complex, far too heavy, inappropriately suspended and didn't do anything better than rival straight fours. Apart from having an interesting mix of low rev torque and high rev power, and superior smoothness but the secondary vibes in big straight fours were rarely destructive. Not even time has been kind to their designs, both bad and ugly.
The VF400 and 500 were less of a mess, more able to benefit from the vee-four layout in terms of usable power and torque. Still complex, still finicky in their top ends, they could nevertheless be a joy to ride hard. Time has killed most of them off, once the engines go they are very difficult to resurrect. Toss a coin, decide if they were good, bad or ugly!
Definitely good, the VFR750 took all that was fine from Honda's vee-four range, produced a brilliant all-rounder with a racy edge. It would take most of the rest of the decade to shrug off the earlier effort's poor showing but minor improvements with each passing year finally managed to assuage Honda's earlier massive loss of face.
Honda didn't completely forsake the straight four, the CBX750 finally offering a modern rendition of the breed. Tough as they come, the DOHC four shrugged off the somewhat evil reputation of its predecessor and could play with the big boys from rival Jap companies. Lacked the dangerous handling of earlier CB's, ran like clockwork to at least 40,000 miles under a minimal maintenance regime. A good 'un.
The near miss of the decade, the CBX550 - better than its rivals in almost every way, it was burdened with a nasty, short-lived camchain tensioner that made long distance touring an interesting experience. Various fixes tried but even the last model still had a dodgy reputation. You don't see many about, these days - wonder why?
Kawasaki spent the first half of the decade trying to get their big fours to handle properly - with limited success. The engine redefined ruggedness in GT550/750 form, became loved by DR's and long distance tourers. It wasn't until halfway through the decade that they redefined the straight four, in the form of the GPZ900. More than the watercooled engine, it was the way the mill was integrated into the spine chassis that finally absolved the company of its reputation for building strange handling motorcycles. Ultimately, the GPZ900 was still too heavy to make the grade but it had a couple of years before Honda got back into the game with the splendid CBR600.
The latter bike totally restored Honda's fortunes as makers of high performance motorcycles; an instant hit that remains, to this day, at the top of the sales chart. So well rendered that some riders complain it's too sophisticated and bland. No pleasing some folk, but it has to be the best motorcycle of the decade!
Kawasaki had a shot at the 600 market with the GPZ and GPX 600's but they never really threatened the CBR. Yamaha came closer, at the end of the decade, the splendid FRZ600 only lacking comfort - despite the race looks it actually had more low rev torque than the CBR. The Yamaha sported the innovation of its alloy Delta-box frame, so neatly drawn that the bike looked about ten times better once the fairing was removed. Its slanted forward watercooled engine was mildly troubled by gearbox and clutch weaknesses but usually only when the rider insisted on full power wheelies. A bit more attention to detail it could've beaten the Honda dead.
Yamaha's whole range of earlier aircooled fours was bland to the point of non-existence. Whereas the GPz550 four could be crowned as the best aircooled four of the decade (in its blend of handling, performance, frugality and ruggedness), the XJ550 could only be called worthy. The XJ900, in early editions, harked back to the glory days of speed wobbles, circa CB750K1 and Z1, later emerged clothed in yet more worthiness, if heavy, slow turning tourers are your game.
Suzuki held steady with their aircooled designs. First developing the GS into the GSX four valvers and then developing that motor into the GSXR series, which used both air and oil cooling to achieve outrageous power outputs; all three series giving no ground on the reliability front. The 16 inch wheel GSX's were amusing handlers, though it was the undoubted high speed ability of the 1100 Katana that took the crown for the most frightening speed wobbles. Also give the Kat's the nod for the most interesting styling.
The original GSXR750 showed the way things were going even though it appeared midway through the decade. It was going to take a while before anyone else was going to match its 400lbs and 100hp. The alloy frame was too closely related to the old wrap-around tubular steel affairs, lacked totally the innovation of Yamaha's Deltabox chassis, and the GSXR750 was never really settled in the corners and sometimes very dangerous. But that didn't stop people thrashing the balls off them - no coincidence that many of them ended up without fairings, defining the street-fighter look; cheaper than buying new plastic after a crash. Its lack of comfort was also unbelievable. The 1100 version was a touch more comfy but much heavier. The 750 was street racer of the decade, then!
Suzuki showed that no company's perfect, fitting the GSX400F with a too small sump; crankshaft bearing longevity questionable even with later upgrades. Like the CBX550, its general performance was ahead of the pack, lacking the blandness of devices like the Z400 four. Another near miss, then.
Suzuki's smallest twin, the GSX250 was also screamed to a premature death by giddy youngsters though it wasn't, overall, a bad bike. Yamaha's XS250 twin never ran in a particularly happy way, neither did the 400 version; any mismatch in the exhaust/carburation or degradation of the electrical system left them in a mess. Kawasaki's GPz305 was a high revving little nutter that harked right back to the original sixties Honda Dream but would melt its engine when ridden with true provocation.
The GS450E would've emerged out of the ether as the best of the twins had not Kawasaki sliced one of their grand dame 1000cc motors in half to produce the GPZ500. Fast, comfortable, good handling, passably frugal and relatively easy on consumables its only real fault lay in the sixteen inch front wheel, that on original rubber could flip away without warning when it hit some diesel. Despite this it makes it as the best twin of the decade.
The greatest missed opportunity of the eighties goes to the Suzuki GR650 Tempter, the only aircooled big twin the Japanese ever made that didn't have to trundle along with an excess of mass. Beyond comprehension why none were officially imported into the UK (some now available on the grey import circuit).
And the most underrated bike of the decade must've been the Yamaha FZ750. A tough, high tech watercooled four, slanted forward to give radically better weight distribution, it had a nice mix of power, handling and general ease of use. It was a step back from the more radical replicas that were to take over scene but a far from boring motorcycle. Decent used ones are available very cheaply, maybe making it the bargain of the current decade on the used scene.
Dog of the decade - well, Suzuki's GN400 and Yamaha's SR500 are both in there with a chance at that title, though the trailsters from which they were derived weren't half bad. The SR has too little power and too much vibration, the GN too much blandness and awful looks. The SR's considered a classic motorcycle in Japan, still, amazingly, in production (with a TLS front brake, no less). On that basis, the Yamaha wins the title.
If Yamaha had a tough time of it making thumpers, they excelled themselves with their watercooled strokers. The RD350 YPVS the defining motorcycle of the breed. Cracked exhaust systems, dodgy handling from the back end, didn't diminish the stroker power pulses nor the sheer fun inherent in combining 60 horses with 320lbs of metal. The engines were reasonably tough, though not that many left on the road. Easily the stroker of the decade. Yamaha lost the plot with the RD500 vee-four, though - too complex and finicky to make it as anything other than a boy-racer. The TZR250 somehow lacked the wholeness of the RD350, though it was in every way a ball to ride.
Both the Suzuki RG250 and 500 were harsher more temperamental attempts at stroker nirvana. The four cylinder 500 running amok amongst bigger four stroke fours until something went wrong with the motor. The RG250 had serious engine and handling problems, once a little mileage was under its wheels, but nevertheless kind of fun. Both very good and very bad, then!
Kawasaki's stroker efforts never really distilled into anything coherent, the KR1 250 not really up to the game - too many things likely to go wrong. Of the smaller stroker singles, Yamaha won out again with the RD125LC and TZR125, both able to take 25 horses and more without easily exploding, in many ways all the motorcycle that a sane person would need.
The commuter of the decade, the Suzuki GS125, a neat little OHC thumper that had a more serious build quality than the pushrod CG125. Every other wannabe commuter was plagued with dreadful styling, poor handling and ridiculous frugality. In a decade where massive progress was made in the fours, the lower end of the market was sadly neglected.
The Nineties
This was the decade of the race replica, no doubt about that! The fundamental survival route was minimal mass and maximum power crafted in a way that made the handling way ahead of any of the old superbikes. Exemplified by the Honda CBR900, a bike so radical and advanced in 1992 that it managed to remain fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged until the Yamaha R1 turned up last year - the Honda still beat it in the sales game by undercutting its price, the research and development costs long paid off.
Honda's CBR600 also remained dominant, though heavily challenged by the Kawasaki ZXR600 - merely a question of rider's preference as to style, colour and riding position; they are so close in abilities. Calling either bike good's something of a massive understatement.
Suzuki made a lot of mediocre machines - GSX600F, etc - that can certainly be classed as ugly if not bad. The GSXR series lost the plot - high power and low mass - often handled strangely but retained tough motors that were shown off best in street fighter style. The watercooled versions of the GSXR 750 and 1100 offered loads of kicks, especially if you were into Russian Roulette - most frightening bikes of the decade? Certainly the most uncomfortable.
Suzuki redeveloped the GSXR's into the 750 SRAD, a well wired motorcycle that would, with maximum effort and concentration, do for the CBR900. But it was a ten-tenths kind of machine with no softer edge, no chance to relax and none of the Honda's surprising versatility. The GSXR750 makes it as cafe racer of the decade, for whatever that's worth!
Before the CBR900 made its play, the Yamaha FZR1000 EXUP was considered the main machine for serious speed merchants, having most of the GSXR's kicks but handling, thanks to the Deltabox frame, in a far more predictable manner. Even the lighter Thunderace failed to dent the CBR's popularity. Yamaha had to completely reinvent their design in the form of the excellent R1, though its riding position and general demeanour is less graceful than the defining CBR's (itself no comforter of those afflicted with piles).
Kawasaki tried very hard with the ZX-9R and ZXR750 but had major problems paring down the weight and never seemed to get the suspension quite right, though they were never as plain dangerous as the ZX-10 on wet roads! The ZZR1100 started out as the fastest bike of the decade and kept up its engine development until overwhelmed by the Honda Blackbird, both so excessive in mass that they really belong to the eighties rather than the nineties!
The massive influx of grey imports, new and used, had an effect on the replica scene - loads of madly screaming 250's and 400's. The CBR400 the best of the bunch although the Kawa ZXR400 came a close second, even if only because of its howling exhaust and exuberant revs! The VFR400 was better yet, save that a few blew up with no warning whatsoever; an expensive indulgence.
The RGV and TZR 250's were the only strokers of note, the engines being somewhat tougher and easier running than the earlier versions but didn't really offer any benefits over the four stroke fours, so finely honed and well developed were they. The TZR250R was, perhaps the best of the bunch; at least to begin with, Suzuki putting more effort into the RGV250's development - they proved popular with the more extreme replica riders. So give the RGV the nod as the best stroker of the decade.
The amount of effort needed to develop competitive new replicas was incredible in terms of money, expertise and manpower. Thus it was often easier to reinvent an old design, whose development costs had long been paid off. Kawasaki tried hard with their Zephyr range but the absurd underdevelopment of their engines was something few could countenance even if they had a passing style. Tough enough, but just a little bit sick-making, don't you know.
Suzuki, having failed to sell many GSX engined machines in fanciful plastic, went the naked route with a couple of Bandits, 600 and 1200 - don't know if you'd call them seventies or eighties retro - their most distinctive feature, an otherwise rarity at the time, competitive pricing. Overnight, a whole range of Japanese UJM's were made redundant by the Bandits combination of good performance, adequate handling and crafty pricing. The 600 Bandit, in particular, did extremely well in terms of sales.
Arguably, the big CB1000N or the later XJR1200 were more interesting retro's but so large was the price difference that few had any time for them. The CB1000N was an odd version of the CBR1000, a bike that suffered in general comparison to the 600 CBR. The XJR was descended from the old XS1100, so had some credibility, even if in the decade and half between these models the XS had mutated into the FJ1100/1200 - both splendid renditions of the UJM that, alas, suffered from a severe excess of mass. The Zephyr 1100 was another alternative with a lot of ancient history behind it but its performance was so muted that Z1 owners had to hang their heads in shame. Sorry, but the whole heap of them are bad, on the back of their weight problems.
Honda, who'd done so well with their 600 and 900 creations, didn't quite hit the pace with their vertical twin CB500, all the more odd insofar as they invented the breed in the sixties (as they did the across the frame four). The CB was a sensible, reasonably rendered piece of motorcycle engineering that was far better than their previous dire Superdream era designs - CB350S and CB450S - but the market had moved on a way and devices like the GPZ500S ruled the vertical twin roost.
Not to forget the rather strange Yamaha TDM850, closely related to the ugliest bike of the decade - the XTZ750. A big old piece of vertical twin engineering, slanted forward and hosted in a Deltabox style frame. Prodigious torque that put a Commando to shame, the engine was fundamentally ill-conceived - separate oil tank, pistons moving up and down together with a complex balancer... come on, pass the sick bucket. Didn't stop the Yamaha going like stink, especially when fitted with an aftermarket exhaust. Another bike that was good, bad and ugly.
The TDM became the TRX, a weird crankshaft throw that helped it imitate the note of a Ducati vee-twin whose trellis-type frame it had pinched. Not a bad motorcycle, as such, but one woefully overpriced, that offered few advantages over the replica fours. Though rideable and fun, its whole ethos left a bad taste in the mouth, so write it down as bad and ugly!
Yamaha's other ill-considered oddity of the decade, the SZR660. The fundamentals of a modern thumper, extremely low mass and simplicity of chassis, were entirely missing, pushing the trail based thumper to the brink of instant sales obscurity. Even the trailster XTZ660 didn't really make the grade in comparison to the XT600E, which took big thumpers of a conventional nature about as far as they were going to go.
The neatest thumper of the decade, the Kawasaki KLX250, which managed to make the most of its 30 horses thanks to a relatively low mass. The KLX650 was also of note because of the sheer effrontery of its torque though in the end it had to fight too much vibration via its balancer to really deliver a good balance of qualities. The latest Jap thumpers are playing with about 40 horses, 250lbs of mass and around 400cc - something to look forward to in the coming years.
So there you go, four decades of ups and down, overall huge progress made, some fantastical machines on offer at ever decreasing prices. Enjoy!