OIF Triumph vs BSA reputation

So, I have a 1971 Tiger. I was recently offering it for sale on CL. Among the low-ball offers I got one message that was pretty offensive. So, this leads me to a question: Why are the early OIF Triumphs regarded so poorly, but the BSAs aren't?

I am well aware of all the stuff written about the too-tall seat, the awful aesthetics, the conical hub brakes, etc. But all those complaints also apply to the BSAs of the same vintage, and yet in a Google search today I found nothing bad mouthing the 1971 BSA but pages upon pages of opinions and contempt for the 1971 Triumph. Same frame, brakes, looks, but one is deemed OK and the other is judged irredeemably horrible!

Does anyone have an explanation for this apparent inconsistency?

BTW, I took the CL ad down and decided to keep the bike just to spite all the naysayers. My aim in selling it was to partially fund a new Tiger 800, but the response was such that the new Tiger will have to wait.

Because many of us have never even seen an OIF BSA.

In recent years, the "bad reputation" of the OIF bakes has faded, although historical criticisms will exist forever with google.

Actually, the values have been rising steadily in the last 5-10 years, especially due to 2 factors:

1. They are fairly easy to find

2. They make great vintage cafe racers and/or roadracers

You have to take the spoot from lowballers and just dismiss it. THERE ARE BUYERS OUT THERE, as long as the price is reasonable.

Thanks GP.

I was asking a highish price, but in line with the NADA guide figures.

One guy was ready to come and see it. I waited around for him. Eventually he called to cancel, and said that he had " researched that year and model - oil in frame - that's bad news". He told me that he had a buddy with hundreds of British bikes, so that was probably his research.

Another weirdo sent me an emai full of cuss words, a stupidly low offer, and the closing statement that "if You don't like the offer you can drive it off a cliff and stay on it." Nice!!

Of course, flakes and Craigslist pretty much go together, I guess.

But, back to my question. There are lots of sites on the Internet that tell you what a mistake Triumph made in 1971 and what crap bikes they are, but I found nothing said about the BSAs that are nearly identical. So I wondered why folks are forgiving toward BSA and some are downright hostile towards Triumph.

The problem is the POSSIBILITY of cracks developing at the swingarm pivot point on the main frame downtube.

You can always have some careful brace welding done on the pivot area of the frame, then re-list it as "properly reinforced". All it takes is draining the oil, removing the back wheel, welding it up, then re-assemble and top off with oil. Shouldn't cost more than $200, and can be done in one morning or afternoon.

The idiot that gave you grief needs to be dismissed as such.

There was hostility when they were new, in that nobody wanted them.

It was with the new 1971 BSA/Triumph range that the writing on the wall for the British bike industry became bigger than the wall. The Japanese bikes were good and getting better. BSA changed everything except the bloody engine!

I think that early Tri OIF bikes get critised because people inevitably compare them to earlier bikes which many prefer, but equally inevitably they compare them to later OIF Triumphs which got (very slowly) better as years passed. So in Triumph speak, the earlier OIF bikes do unfortunately represent something of a low period.
BSA didn't survive, so they don't have later / better bikes so compare against, and their earlier unit construction bikes aren't anywhere near as 'iconic' as pre OIF Triumphs. So relatively speaking, BSA OIF bikes seem OK. They also represent the end of the line, so to some, are desirable just for that reason alone.

Having said all that, as people become more interested in history and collectibility and less interested in ridibility of classics, early OIF Triumph values seem to be recovering.

It's similar at the other end of the scale, some of the very late model Triumphs; Royal Wedding, TSX, TSS, couldn't be given away a few years ago, but values are now on the rise (BTW, the TSS when sorted, is one of the fastest Brit twins ever and a cracking bike)!

i own a 1972 low-frame OIF bonneville, and there is and has been nothing wrong with it in the 38 years that i've had it. it's been mechanically trouble-free except for the Lucas electrics, which it shares with all the earlier ones. if i had a chance to buy a new one, i'd jump on it.

there were a bunch of complaints-- about change mostly-- when the OIF came out, and the people that are complaining now are just reciting things they have read about in old literature but never experienced. i've seen lots of OIF BSAs, and they don't look as nice to me as the trumpets.

Hi,
I have two A65 BSA OIF, one lightning and one tunderbolt.
My cousin has a T140 OIF.
I like very much all OIF types.
I would like to have a Firebird OIF but is not easy to find here!
Ciao
Piero

Heard the term ' Snivling p*m ' . Wouldnt be happy without something to complain about . :mrgreen:

The XJS wise widely critisised as ugly and dated , untill the Group A successes , at the END of its lifespan .

pommy ' Motorcyclist ' mag had a Ray knight build T140 thruxton feature around 74 , dunno if anyone else did one .
The early T120 O.i.F. would be a ideal ' track bike ' , in my humble opinon . Clip Ons etc etc .
Some early long conical mufflers ( BSA at least , dunno if the tri's got them ) have a central hole with four flutes outside it .
these are quite and dont slow it down any , and theyre light .

Mudguard stays breaking and the cheap tinney tin instrument mounts were a bit knaff , but a sound secure chassis .
Teardrop Tanks the same as P.U. T120 and T150 ( externally ) & Slimlines a the same pressing sectioned . Incedently .

turned out my first ride (as a pax) was on a 72 lightning, made a HUGE impression on me that led to a 74 commando as a first bike,

might as well have been yesterday

Well I hate the OIF things BSA and Triumph with an equal passion, that said I did have a 79 Bonnie which was a nice ride but wasn't really a real Triumph to me.
The Apex of BSA and Triumph twins was 1970 for me. Both lines had reached their zenith of aesthetics. My favourite being the Spitfires and I'm pleased to say my MK II finally arrived from the US yesterday after a 6 month wait.
Never ever buy an OIF that someone had bead blasted the frame :roll: :lol:
A good friend had a TSS and thought he'd sealed everything to stop the beads getting into the frame oil tank. Had to rebuild the bottom end a couple of times!
Impossible to get the oil tank really clean from around the headstock area.
Give me a separate oil tank unit construction engine everyday :wink:
I'd like to put a TSS engine into a 69 BSA A65/50 rolling chasis, I think that would make a nice ride

I'm with raglafart (....RAGLAFART??). I too hate the OIF things. What were BSA/Triumph thinking, when they had probably the best ever British bike up to then, the T120R, they threw that out and made the OIF. No wonder Beezumph went through the hoop, it was because they wanted to!
cheers
wakeup

I'm still fond of my '76 750, 5 speed, LH shift, OIF, F&R disc braked, Bonneville. It runs very well for what it is.





You can make an OIF resemble an earlier Triumph if you want. The purists might not like it, but, to heck with 'em.

For What It IS . ? :? Try Nitro .

I had a 79 T140E for a couple decades, always loved it. Ran great, never a problem with it in any real regard.
If you remember, there's that whole unit vs pre unit argument group too.

BSA... all the BSA guys I know (lots actually) love their bikes, and also rail against Triumphs of any stripe- OIF or no, unit or pre, no matter what they ride, exactly. But it's all fun n games.
If anyone comes out with serious vitriol, delete and disregard.

Haters will be hatin.
Universal Law Of The Universe.
(is that redundant?)