Carl-Erik Renquist wrote:
I can't say anything about the quality of the repro frames or fenders as I have not seen or had a hand on them myself.
My opinion is that I think this 101 bike is so fun to ride and own that I would not mind having an all repro bike. However, everybody have their own reason to get involved in this hobby. It includes all kinds of decisions, economical, available free time, and what direction the individual wants to take with the end product. Is the bike a tinker hobby, for display, occational use, extensive use or a money investment/transaction deal or what?
Most that start with a restauration is governed by feelings and really unrealistic aspirations in many cases. One big underestimation is the time it takes. It takes time to find a detail, and if you already have it, it still takes time to repair or restore that detail and it takes time to make the right finish, and more time to assemble, adjust and tune the detail to work on the bike. I haven't counted but I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than 2000 details on a 101. And this is absolute certain -All and every part, even the tiniest little washer will take time to fettle with. And storage space.
Very few can dedicate the time it takes, or have all the skills that is needed to restore all details, may it be material selection, fabricating, machining, welding, tin work, magneto/ electric, painting, plating, leather work. For that it takes to have the facilitys and an array of the right materials, chemicals, tools, machines, jigs with all the space that is taking up. So most likely you need contacts in multiple professions.
I'm glad you see my point of view Carl-Erik. Being only 26 years old I do not have all the resources to simply buy a complete restored 101. And I also do not have the option to buy a project bike. And being 2014 there are not a whole lot of options anymore. Parts are drying up and if replica parts are available for the same price, I would probably go that route.
Also I feel I would be much more apt to ride and truly enjoy a bike with all the feel and looks of an original far more than a actual original bike. I am under the impression that is not fraudulent or improper to own and ride a replica motorcycle as long as it is fully disclosed as an reproduction. But I also feel that the a bike is not a complete 'replica' if you are using at least some original components. As we know the 101 motor is a motor all it's own. There's no faking it. It is very easy to mistake other bikes with incorrect motors for originals. I have noticed this especially with Triumphs. I feel that an original motor is the soul of a bike. Everything else can be replaced, but nothing will replace a completely original motor. If you build a 101 Scout with all replica parts, except the motor, I would still consider it something of an original. Obviously for bike shows, Concours events, and sale purposes, this is not the case. I was having a discussion about this the other day with a Concours selection committee that you would be VERY hard pressed to find any truly original cars and especially motorcycles from before WWII. Something has always been replaced, repaired, repainted, something. So where do you draw the line with an original? All the restored bikes on here I would regrettably have to put in the same category. They have been tinkered with at some point in their existence. And if you've replaced gas tanks, or the front forks, or the seat leather, or a fender, or the floorboard rubbers, or swapped a damaged frame, or assembled a bike from 'original' parts, is it still original? I would like to see the number of 101 Scouts out there that are 100% original with all original matching components.
With regards to actually building the bike I'm planning on building, I would feel much better about bringing out and riding a 'replica' than an original. If it got a nick, or a scratch, or even got into an accident, I would be upset, but not nearly as devastated as if an original machine were damaged. And it's also more about bringing these bikes out and showing them off to people who might otherwise not know these bikes. I am a big proponent of not hiding rare and special bikes in collections, as I have some myself.
But lastly, I would always feel bad about constantly bringing out a machine built from totally original components. I know if I owned a 101 (original or not) I would be riding it all the time. I know for myself it would be a much more enjoyable experience if it could be care free, knowing that if something happened to the machine, not much is lost from a historical point of view.
However, I digress. First, I have dealt with long term projects before. I have a 1969 Triumph Bonneville that I am finishing up currently that has been apart since the summer of 2009. So I am well aware of the time and difficulty involved in building a bike and waiting for just the right parts to come along. Second, a big issue for me is the costs. I do not have $15,000-30,000 to invest in a complete or complete project 101. It's just not an option. And third, I would feel much better working with new components and being able to build exactly what I want, without the moral dilemma of modifying an original bike. One option I want that is different than most bikes would be sport handlebars. Also the motor I have sourced is a 1929, but I would want to fit a John Brown headlight to my bike. I know this is not correct, and with an original machine I may pressure myself to make it correct with a small headlight. With a replica I can do what I want. While all the modifications I want to make are very easily reversed, I would prefer to not be tampering with something that should be kept original. Believe me, I am also a stickler for keeping original machines original. With my Bonneville I am not touching the exterior in any way. It is 100% original down to the paint, low bars, and alloy fenders as it is a Euro spec bike from Canada. I would NEVER restore a completely original bike. These days original Triumphs are becoming increasingly hard to find as everyone has taken them and made doll job restorations out of them. Better than originals. Personally, I find it disgusting. But that's just me.
But the biggest issue for me, is that I do not want to spend large amounts of money for 80 year old pot metal that may not be usable or survive restoring, or if it does, may not survive being on a motorcycle again for very long. And I would rather not spend thousands of dollars for original rusted frames and fenders that have to be inspected, repaired, straightened, and painted when there are brand new, clean, ready to paint pieces made of quality controlled modern steel. We can all agree, steel may have been more pure back in the day, but metallurgy, casting, and machining was not what it is today. I would feel much safer on a 'brand new' frame and fork set than a hobbled together/rehabilitated original.
But please, don't take this rant as a knock on original bikes or restored original bikes. They are always better. They will always be better. They are the real deal. I cannot argue with that. But with the prices of parts and incomplete or unrestored equipment going through the roof, there are very few options from a cost standpoint to build a rider that make sense anymore. And I feel that the amount of riding I'll be doing with it, it would be much easier and safer to work with fresh equipment that originals.
That being said, I would still love to hear from anyone else who has dealt with these companies that make replica components, or have built bikes like the one I am planning on building.
Thanks,
Scott
