The faux pas of the Big Four

For a variety of reasons, I’ve only just opened my July OBM. I must say that any worries you have, I’d dismiss. It is still a near perfect balance of ‘old and newer’ and as useful as ever. The XS750 article was spot on. Steve Cooper’s summation of it looking ‘odd’ was a big turn-off to buyers back in its launch days. We, as a main dealer, had lots of other problems besides looks, though.

The first was the wariness of motorcyclists to buy something that seemed odd and mechanically suspect. The policy of the ‘big four’ (Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki) back then was to do research based upon machine use/customisation in the UK, US and Europe when designing their ‘new’ models. They didn’t always get it right. The decision to go to a 4-into-1 exhaust by Honda produced the abomination on the F1 that turned buyers off and was rapidly changed to the better-looking F2 version. Kawasaki produced the W1 thinking that the A10 design had a greater lifespan than it actually did (more on them later). However, among motorcyclists there was, and is, an acceptance that some things and manufacturers simply were better than others in certain fields. (Why use Norton frames and Triumph engines to make a Triton, for example?). Basically, if it looks right, it is right. Yamaha was acknowledged as the two-stroke expert. Its decision to go into four-strokes was viewed with scepticism, especially as the XS650 was actually awful compared with the ‘familiarity’ of a 650 Triumph. Each winter, we trade mechanics attended courses in London on the new models being brought in. Yamaha, I know, was warned about this risky adventure!

In the mid-1970s I wanted a shaft drive bike, but the choice was limited and expensive. As it was, I bought a Moto Guzzi in ’76, but I really wanted a multi-cylinder engine machine, as I’d moved from a Honda 4 to that, which seemed retrograde. So I was keen to see (and buy!) an XS750 as soon as one came into the shop.

I unloaded and uncrated our first machine and built it. What a disappointment. Bits of cheap bent metal everywhere to hold things together, very out of balance weightwise and a clunky gearbox, worse than the Guzzi. So I didn’t buy it. Within days we started to get service bulletins on them.

There were so many factory build faults and usage failures that they eventually filled two lever arch files. No other machine came near to this. The rush into four-strokes had led Yamaha into a cul-de-sac. Its whole XS range was a nightmare. The 500 needed 54 separate fastenings undoing just to get to the tappets. The 250 and 400 twins were gutless and had ND ignition systems that failed before first service mileage was gained. Their saving grace was the 1100 with its incredible power – but, sadly, incredible weight! It took THREE of us to get one out of a crate!

The XS750 was a good idea, but we were Laverda main agents, and its 3s sounded far better. We were also BMW main agents and BMW’s quality was only a few hundred pounds more. Compare Yamaha then to Kawasaki, again creating in the idyllic ‘superbike’ days of the early 1970s some incredible two-strokes, but when it went into four-strokes it came up with the Z1 whose story speaks for itself. It’s the Ultimate Japanese Motorcycle template that is still in use today. So, it could be done.

Suzuki? It had a winner with the GS750, and I had one of the first ever GS1000s in the UK, but I wished it had a shaft drive instead of the expensive O-ring chain. When the ‘G’ range was launched, it was an unnecessary cosmetic redesign that turned many buyers off (including me) so Suzuki too ‘got it wrong’.

Peter Rotherham, ex-Kings of Birmingham Superbike Centre