Please tell me the good and the bad on 1971 Bonnevilles. I'm going to be looking at a rusty, crusty project bike tomorrow. The good news is that it is all complete and I think it has been owned by the same guy since the '70s. It's sitting in a storage locker now. He says there is nothing wrong with it other than rust from living at the beach for years and the gas has turned to sludge from sitting so long. I'm not looking to restore it, my wife wants a project for us to work on together and this will get stripped down and modded as either a street tracker or cafe. Is a '71 Bonneville good raw material? I'm more of a Guzzi guy, so pretty ignorant about Triumphs. I've read a lot of stuff about the '71s being the least-favorite year (sorry to offend if you have one) because of the high seat height??? That later years lowered the seat back down again by changing the seat rails on the frame. Is there a way to mod a '71 to lower the seat frame rails? Chop them off and weld them back on lower??? And that the front brake, while very cool-looking doesn't work worth a crap (even for drum) because the leverage on the arm is all wrong. Is there an easy fix for that? Is it true you can get '70 and earlier-looking side panels for them? Anything special to watch out for with these? Sorry for all the dumb questions from a Guzzi guy.
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/triu/triumph_bonneville_650_t120 70.htm The 1971 Triumph Bonneville was the problem child of a shotgun marriage. It was responsible for Triumph missing that years U.S. sales season, and it just about bankrupted the company. The late Sixties Triumph Bonnevilles were, and still are, considered to be the best of the lot. But a major program of standardization was underway across the BSA Group, which also owned Triumph. For the 1971 season, BSA planned to use a new oil-bearing frame for both BSA and Triumph 650 twins. However, the new Triumph frame had been designed around the BSA 650 engine, and when the first batches of frames were delivered to Triumphs Meriden factory, assembly line workers found they couldnt fit the Triumph engine in the frame without removing the rocker boxes from the cylinder head first. The 1971 Bonnies were already behind schedule because of production delays caused by a shortage of parts the result of teething troubles with a new computer system. The cumulative result was that very few Bonnevilles were at U.S. dealers for the critical April to June sales season. Other problems with the 1971 bike included a seat height only suitable for people over 6 feet tall, major frame failures caused by the center stand being mounted on the oil-bearing sump, and aesthetics only a short-sighted mother could love. The 1971 model is perhaps the least popular of all Bonnies.
I worked at a Triumph dealer during that time. The 71's were a huge disappointment to us all. The 70's were a thing of Beauty and adored. The 71's the frame changed to the oil in the backbone, raising the seat height, (that alone suxed). The brakes went from the double shoe air cooled to conical! Triumph thought it was a improvement, we thought they were junk! The air cleaners went from the screw on to a cast aluminum case type a fare. Placed were the oil tank used to be. IMO I would stay away from the 71's & 72's! The 73's started to show some improvement.
Well, as I said, we're not looking to restore it to stock 1971 Triumph specs. We're looking at this as raw material for a cafe or street tracker build. This is something I might be able to get for less than $1000. I've been told you can find later frames with the shorter seat height pretty easy for $100 to solve that problem and that the front brake issue can be fixed by making the arms longer for better leverage. Repro side covers and air cleaners can solve those bits of ugliness on the bike, right? So what I'm wondering is if the '71 Bonnevilles have any redeeming qualities, especially since you can get them cheaper since the purists don't seem to want them. The engines have some potential don't they? Aren't the tanks the same shape as the later ones?
To be perfectly honest, other than it being the first of the oil-in-frame, and as such, the first of the 'ugly' series,,,,,the main thing wrong with them was there was unattended weld slag left in the oil reservouir [frame] which was quickly picked up by the engine resulting in a high number of early engine failures. This issue will most certainly have been addressed on any 41 yr old bike by now. That said, it was 150% better handling than the previous 64-70 tube junction/braze style tube frame bikes, absolutely no question. 68-70 bikes, while being iconically beautiful, were actually parts bin throw togethers,,,,,they were throwing together bikes clearing up old inventory of frames, engines, anything they could find hanging against the walls, in prep for this new frame. Hard facts to swallow yes, but anyone with knowledge in the frame structures of late pre oil-frame bikes will see 1970 engines in 1968, 69, and 70 frames right from the factory. 1971 brakes bad,,,,,I got news for ya,,,pre oil-frame bikes were no bloody good either. I would not own a 1971-78 Triumph. They were ugly. The early bad news of engine failures followed then right through to today, as a result, they will NEVER become a 4 star collector,,,,kind of like restoring a Honda Twinstar instead of a Honda 400-4 SS. Buy a 71, not to restore to concourse, but to modify to a custom, they work well, and you'll get into one WAY cheaper to start off your project. Steve
Dood, I would say that if you can pick this bike up for under a G, GO FOR IT. Make sure the motor turns over and isn't "stuck" or frozen. If nothing else, use the motor and part the rest out on eBay to recoup you money and then some. A couple questions Do come to mind, like how many miles on the bike? How long has it been sitting/has it been ridden recently? for starters. FWIW- I had a 79 Bonnie for quite a number of years, and used it for my daily rider. It, too was a mish-mash of part-bin melange. It ran like a bike SHOULD run, and over all I had very few issues with it over the course of from 1987 til just recently. Despite the fact that the purists didn't like them, and they will never be "worth" (a laugh IMO) anything- the late model Triumphs were good bikes that ran well. Honestly, I would have jumped on mine and gone pretty much anywhere. I don't buy a bike for its "worth" but for its rideability.
I had and ridden a few 71 Triumph's and am 5'9" with no issues, the whole frame height thing is outdated and memories of that time. The pre-71's will always be more collectible, but the 71-on's are fine bike.. the front brakes work fine, and can be modified with a slightly longer brake arm. A trick I have used is to take the frame to a commercial radiator boiling facility... that will remove the paint as well as anything inside the frame.
Just got back from looking at it. It is all there but man is it rusty. Looks like he left it sitting outside in a backyard by the beach for years and years. Big barnacles of rust on the top of the gas tank and front fender. Rims are completely rusted with big barnacles of rust, exhaust pipes completely rusted. On the plus side it was all there, the motor turned over easily (it seemed a little too easy though, I could turn it over easily by hand - is this normal for these?), carb slides weren't stuck. He's owned it since the late '70s and it was last registered in 1988. The tank is about 1/3 full of 24 year old gas. Clearly, he didn't care about how it was stored away. He wouldn't budge on his asking price of $1000 and didn't have the title handy, said it was "somewhere" in the storage locker where the bike was kept. So back in the storage locker he rolled it and piled all of his crap back on top of it.
Its going to cost more than you think to make it into a running bike and get a title, offer him $500 after all it sounds like a parts bike. Besides airhead BMW's make better cafe bikes.
Well this supports the adage "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is." Fuck it. NOT worth 1000.00... Move on, another one will pop up.
Walk away from that lump of shit. Bikes left out in the weather will be a COSTLY money pit to restore.
I've got a couple of 71s. Yes, they're tall, but take a look at this photo for comparisons sake. That's a '71 P39 framed Tiger, the one that everyone said was too tall. It's tall for a Triumph, but short by some modern standards. Biggest problem with the '71, other than bad press, was the welding. This is especially obvious around the side stand. Remember that the older bikes will force you to buy Whitworth tools. I bought my last 71 basket case for $250 and the guy threw in most of a Trident in the deal. No title means no value. Finally, my brother bought a BSA 500 twin that sat outside for nine years. It took an hour to get it started. Simply being neglected doesn't mean that the bike can't be salvaged.
I have a 64 Bonneville that I've owned for about 15 years - it was in pretty decent shape. When I first got the bike it was suggested that I contact Baxter Cycle for parts. Over the years I've obtained a goodly number of parts - it has always amazed me that Baxter has just the parts that I need. If you really want an older Triumph you might do well to look about for one in better repair than what you've described. For example, Baxter has a 71 that looks pretty good for around $4k. http://www.baxtercycle.com/pre_owned_detail.asp?sid=01613275X2K14K2012J8I06I06JPMQ2063R0&veh=2505501 You might want to keep searching for a bike that will be a satisfying project, not just a money pit.
I just looked at a Guzzi last night that made the Triumph I looked at look mint in comparison. It is a 1979 Moto Guzzi G5 that someone had taken a perfectly good-running complete bike and trashed by butchering the frame to give it a chopper rake, taking off the carbs and intakes, then losing them, then storing outdoors near the ocean for a few years with only paper towels covering the intake ports to the engine. Oh, and for good measure they didn't put in on non-op status. So now in addition to the motor being stuck, the fork tubes rusted out and the frame hacked, whoever wants to change the title gets to pay $306 in back fees. Two simple things that I wish all people with old bikes that are "going to get around to fixing it someday" would do: store it indoors and file non-op status with the DMV. And I'm no stranger to taking really rough bikes and getting them running again, but man, these last two I looked at were really depressing. I hate to see cool old bikes go to waste.
I don't get the slam on the aesthetics of the OIF Triumphs. I see a lot to like about them. However, I'm not complaining as I figure this is a good thing if this helps keep the prices down. Ken
While the pre 71 are surely the more desirable, the hate for the OIF is a little harsh. Take a look at this thread. A lot of guys change out the side panels for the old style and the bike looks great! Look about half way down this thread. Side covers and fork gators and bang, damn nice bike. http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=415005#Post415005 As for the conical brake. I too had a hard time with it but search a bit, there is a specific procedure to follow to set it up. Completely changed my bike from a joke to very acceptable. As for seat height, there is a TON of foam on the 71's that can be shaved down as well as sourcing a later seat pan etc. to get it down a little more. If your bike is as rough as you say, it would be a perfect candidate for a restomod project to make it look like an oldie. As stated, the handling is superior on the OIF frames, very stout.
I'd pass. This sounds like a parts bike at best. There are enough good bikes out there, it is stupid to invest time/effort in bringing something back which has such serious corrosion issues. You'll always find encouragement to take on projects like this, but they're not the ones spending all the time and money on something that will be worth a quarter on your invested dollar when you're done if you can get it running at all. - Mark
There's some bikes I would consider bringing back from the dead no matter what the condition but these last two bikes I looked at aren't in that category. Maybe if it was a V7 Sport, or '70s Ducati, Vincent...
