What is it about street scramblers...

They were the ADVs of their day. Now making a comeback.

AHA!!! I need to market my '64 Triumph T-Bird as a "Street Scrambler" (or just "Scrambler") instead of 'Street Tracker'.

Thanx, that ought to fix that...

pantah_good said:

http://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/900508-cycle-news-issue-45-november-14-2017/48

Click to expand...

It looks as though it would be good on The Mile.

That thing just looks GOOD...period! The right "street scramblers" seem to grab me by the nuts and don't let go. My first real motorcycle was a beautiful brand new 1968 Triumph TR6C with full knobbies (what did I know), and I still think it was the prettiest and coolest bike I've ever owned. I don't think Commandos can make a good street scramblers, but P11's sure do.

acotrel said:

It looks as though it would be good on The Mile.

Click to expand...

It's little bro, the FTR 750 certainly is. They won all three Miles I attended in 2017, Springfield (twice) and OKC.

Trackers are the purest form of motorcycle-an engine surrounded by a spindly frame, two wheels, a tiny fuel tank, a place to sit and something to hang onto. They harken back to a day when riders rode to the racetrack, stripped off the lights and street equipment, competed with their fellow humans, put the lights etc. back on and rode home.

Indian has it figured out. Even though the street version of the FTR is a prototype, it could be reality in short order.

Looks like everyone's jumping on the scrambler bandwagon.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new-bikes/2017/november/norton-650-scrambler-supersport/

Could this, like the Kaw 650 parallel twin, be a basis for a competitive flat-track engine?

It doesn't do anything for me as a street bike. But as a flat-tracker it is inspiring. I always liked XR750 Harleys even in flat-track form. I don't usually race on dirt, but I could learn. I love motorcycle speedway and flat-track. A big V-twin sideways on dirt at 100MPH really does it for me.

That 650 Norton thing doesn't look right at all, but still could be a good rider I guess.

I might have silly ideas, however I think race classes should always involve only the same TYPE of bike. If it is big V-twins, they should all be big V-twins.

acotrel said:

I might have silly ideas, however I think race classes should always involve only the same TYPE of bike. If it is big V-twins, they should all be big V-twins.

Click to expand...

I'm not as concerned about cylinder configuration, as I am about DISPLACEMENT. I don't cotton to the idea of giving HDs 100-250cc advantage. There are several types of V-twins, so the fact that it's a V shouldn't factor into it.

Now, in AHRMA Production class, they have committees that ATTEMPT to "balance" the field as far as OHC vs pushrod classes, seems to work reasonably well with a capacity advantage for pushrods vs OHC. However, you will always find outliers caught at a disadvantage, and outliers with a clear advantage.

Then again, in AHRMA production classes, as ABSURD as it sounds, they allow ANY internal modifications as long as it APPEARS original!!! Total nonsense, but they have no way of policing internal modifications with an all-volunteer tech staff. I'm surprised I did as well as I did with my BONE-STOCK 650 Bonnie against pushrod 750s, OHC fours, triples, etc. Maybe I'm a better rider than I thought?

i like the idea of the Norton Scrambler, just not a fan of the short rear end look and hope they do have a decent sized fuel tank/refuel range.

In Australian historic racing, many bikes are way over-capacity. We have methanol-fuelled 1100cc CB750s dominating a particular class, so very few people ever race 1960s vertical twins. The whole mentality is 'big is better'. What it does is create a situation where money wins. The racing is supposed to be historic. Back in the 80s, a rule was introduced into road racing which limited superbikes to 1000 cc. The Irving Vincent is up around 1500cc and is almost as fast as a MotoGP bike.