Gold Star: head to head with retro rival
Has been a dynamic, aesthetic and sales success. Royal Enfield’s Interceptor Which makes it the new Gold Star’s main competition. But it’s not as simple as that…
On paper these two look like arch rivals with similar power, build quality and olde worlde appeal. The only apparent discrepancy is the Enfield is £1000 cheaper with the bikes in the spec we’re testing. At £7000 the BSA isn’t crazy money, it’s just that the Enfield is remarkable value. However, it doesn’t take long to work out they’re doing two slightly different jobs.
You get the first hint just looking at the bikes. Because I’d mentally filed both under ‘modern classics’, it was startling to see how different they are parked side by side. The BSA mimics the original Gold Star so devotedly that it looks genuinely old next to the Enfield – the way the top rail of the subframe angles down, the shrouded forks and the plump saddle all conspire to give it an authentic classic vibe. By comparison the Enfield, with its straight line from tank base to subframe, slim saddle and piggy back rear shocks, looks like a modern interpretation of an old theme.
Which is what it is, but because it looks so retro compared with most bikes I’d never clocked just how many contemporary touches it has.
Then you sit on the bikes and more differences appear.
The BSA’S saddle is only an inch lower than the Enfield’s but feels more because of its squidge.
This puts you into a cruising riding position not far off something like a Harley Sportster, with your back vertical and your feet tucked under your arse. It’s a relaxed and comfortable place to watch the world drift by provided you don’t up the pace.
The Enfield’s riding position isn’t a million miles away, but because of the higher and firmer saddle it feels like you’re sitting on the bike rather than in it. This is important, because it conspires with the Enfield’s famously sprightly handling to make the Interceptor feel much livelier than the BSA. ‘The Enfield is up on its toes,’ says Mike, ‘whereas the BSA feels more laid back. The Gold Star doesn’t handle as sweetly either – it’s not quite neutral and feels like it needs more input to hold a line. There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just not quite as accurate as the Enfield. The way you sit on the BSA reinforces the slightly ponderous feel too – you’re a bit lower down, the bars feel higher, and the side covers touch your legs which make it feel slightly fatter in the middle.’
One is a revamped single, the other a modern twin, but engine differences aren’t obvious. Both have power to blat past traffic and hold motorway speeds, both are slickly fuelled and flexible. The Enfield is smoother and its sixth gear leaves it less stressed at higher speed, but on the engine front it’s a tie.
‘The BSA is much better than
I expected,’ says
Mike. ‘If you want
a single-cylinder bike that looks like an old one, it’s very good. But it’s not an eye-opener. It’s not an exciting motorcycle. Whereas you can get off the Enfield feeling just that… excited.’
He’s right and it’s confirmation the two bikes do different jobs brilliantly – one charms, the other excites. Which to choose depends whether you want a retro that’ll dispense sunny afternoon giggles, or a reliable, comfortable charming trip down memory lane. And if it’s the latter the BSA has another bike to worry about: our first ride on RE’S new Super Meteor is over the page...
‘I’d filed both under “modern classics”, but it was startling to see how different they are parked side by side’