mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Moderators: StephenRC45, Dave45
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Just to let anyone know if you are intrested, we will be attending the Mallory Park 1000 oldies this next weekend. We are taking three bikes hopefully, two will be rode in anger as they were intended and the other just to sit and look pretty(very very pretty)! So come and say hello if you dare!
pictures from mallory
just a few pics of the three immaculately turned out 45s at Mallory this weekend..
not sure if any of you went but it was a very good weekend although a bit hot
I think the three 45s pictured did the v4 corner proud an
d were easily some of the best turned out bikes there and there was a constant crowd of people having a good look and taking pictures
not sure if any of you went but it was a very good weekend although a bit hot
I think the three 45s pictured did the v4 corner proud an
d were easily some of the best turned out bikes there and there was a constant crowd of people having a good look and taking pictures
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
All three bikes are indeed very nicely turned out.
Are they all replica’s? The Hislop looking bike certainly is… but to appear similar to the original that particular bike does need to have the single end can exhaust system.
Whilst congrats and respect are due to the owners (et. al.) for the obvious cosmetic quality of the bikes, on a purely personal note, I’ve never really been able to understand the point (if there is one) to (any high fi) replica build, as it’s always seemed to me that such a process not only stifles individual expression but also ‘paints the bike and owner into a corner’; though I suppose the sometimes oo’s and ah’s from any misguided in the crowd could be found uplifting for the owners of facsimilie’s.
Many years ago, and against a ‘background of anguished shrieks’, I built my very own ‘Slippery Sam rep’ as a non-such - mainly differing as I preferred my own colour scheme (cardinal red) to that of the original bike – so I guess my ‘Sam’ represents not so much a rep as a homage without the ambiguity.
But then who cares what I (or anyone else) may think – nothing can detract from how nice the bikes in question are; and I guess that’s what really matters to an owner, or observer… so, renewed respect.
Regards,
Roger.
Are they all replica’s? The Hislop looking bike certainly is… but to appear similar to the original that particular bike does need to have the single end can exhaust system.
Whilst congrats and respect are due to the owners (et. al.) for the obvious cosmetic quality of the bikes, on a purely personal note, I’ve never really been able to understand the point (if there is one) to (any high fi) replica build, as it’s always seemed to me that such a process not only stifles individual expression but also ‘paints the bike and owner into a corner’; though I suppose the sometimes oo’s and ah’s from any misguided in the crowd could be found uplifting for the owners of facsimilie’s.
Many years ago, and against a ‘background of anguished shrieks’, I built my very own ‘Slippery Sam rep’ as a non-such - mainly differing as I preferred my own colour scheme (cardinal red) to that of the original bike – so I guess my ‘Sam’ represents not so much a rep as a homage without the ambiguity.
But then who cares what I (or anyone else) may think – nothing can detract from how nice the bikes in question are; and I guess that’s what really matters to an owner, or observer… so, renewed respect.
Regards,
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hmm… Do I detect the buzzing of angry bees (hopefully not the hybridised African killer variety).
How’s you replica progressing Mark, well I hope (truly) as it’s what you want and wish for yourself – and when finished I trust you’ll not pass it off as something that it aint – the real thing, for example.
But could such passing off of a replica ever happen? I mean a rep being ‘projected’ as genuine? Well yes, by degrees. For example markRC45 writes “lets take the hislop bike for example”… Note: It’s not been written… let’s take the Hislop replica bike for example… it’s “the hislop bike”.
Well, guess what, it’s not “the Hislop Bike”; but it’s oh so easy, isn’t it, to let a little mistake (or laziness with accuracy and precision) convert to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’.
Now on to other people’s enjoyment. Well how about adultery, or someone throwing their leg over your bike (as opposed to your wife) because that would represent other peoples enjoyment. Surely that’s ok then – as it’s other peoples enjoyment. I suspect that what you mean Mark, is that it’s self-gratifying and personally rewarding to be the maker of other people’s apparent enjoyment (or is that other people’s envy?); and perhaps to have something to flaunt at mere peons who, unlike some, haven’t got what it takes to achieve such heights of specialist ownership (of an object). That must be one hell of an ego buzz (even a V4 ego buzz at that!).
I’ve, many times, been on the sidelines (and incognito) observing and listening to the self-righteous, snotty-nosed, superior, supercilious, down-looking, owner’s of this or that. Frankly such attitudes (which are very prevalent in the ‘rare classic anything’ world) make me wince (largely because rank stupidity always makes me wince).
Then there’s the prospect of it making more sense for a motorcycle enthusiast(?) to build a replica to, as said, flaunt - than it does for an owner of the real thing not to use the object as some sort of ego inflating device. Such ‘peacock strutting’ only makes sense (to me) when the owner of anything feels the need to use whatever it is that’s owned as a crutch to lean on, or as a lever to apply for the purposes of trying to achieve not only social acceptance but some level of adulation.
Personally speaking, I own the bikes I own purely for me, and that’s it – they’re not for social networking, not to create the impression I’m special and not to use as a platform from which I can look down on others. That might possibly also explain why whoever owns THE Hislop bike doesn’t give a flying fffff… fish what other people may think makes more sense with regard to its ownership.
Btw, the motto of the UK RC30 Owner’s Club, of which I used to be a member is… “The Privileged Few”… Sort of say’s it all really!
Wow, that multicoloured shiney thing!
Dave, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’… Sell me your VanGogh for a quid.
As for stifled individual’s expression… did I write self-righteous, snotty-nosed somewhere…
Regards,
Roger.
As always, no offence meant or intended, but on this occasion I have to include the rider, if the cap fits then wear it.
How’s you replica progressing Mark, well I hope (truly) as it’s what you want and wish for yourself – and when finished I trust you’ll not pass it off as something that it aint – the real thing, for example.
But could such passing off of a replica ever happen? I mean a rep being ‘projected’ as genuine? Well yes, by degrees. For example markRC45 writes “lets take the hislop bike for example”… Note: It’s not been written… let’s take the Hislop replica bike for example… it’s “the hislop bike”.
Well, guess what, it’s not “the Hislop Bike”; but it’s oh so easy, isn’t it, to let a little mistake (or laziness with accuracy and precision) convert to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’.
Now on to other people’s enjoyment. Well how about adultery, or someone throwing their leg over your bike (as opposed to your wife) because that would represent other peoples enjoyment. Surely that’s ok then – as it’s other peoples enjoyment. I suspect that what you mean Mark, is that it’s self-gratifying and personally rewarding to be the maker of other people’s apparent enjoyment (or is that other people’s envy?); and perhaps to have something to flaunt at mere peons who, unlike some, haven’t got what it takes to achieve such heights of specialist ownership (of an object). That must be one hell of an ego buzz (even a V4 ego buzz at that!).
I’ve, many times, been on the sidelines (and incognito) observing and listening to the self-righteous, snotty-nosed, superior, supercilious, down-looking, owner’s of this or that. Frankly such attitudes (which are very prevalent in the ‘rare classic anything’ world) make me wince (largely because rank stupidity always makes me wince).
Then there’s the prospect of it making more sense for a motorcycle enthusiast(?) to build a replica to, as said, flaunt - than it does for an owner of the real thing not to use the object as some sort of ego inflating device. Such ‘peacock strutting’ only makes sense (to me) when the owner of anything feels the need to use whatever it is that’s owned as a crutch to lean on, or as a lever to apply for the purposes of trying to achieve not only social acceptance but some level of adulation.
Personally speaking, I own the bikes I own purely for me, and that’s it – they’re not for social networking, not to create the impression I’m special and not to use as a platform from which I can look down on others. That might possibly also explain why whoever owns THE Hislop bike doesn’t give a flying fffff… fish what other people may think makes more sense with regard to its ownership.
Btw, the motto of the UK RC30 Owner’s Club, of which I used to be a member is… “The Privileged Few”… Sort of say’s it all really!
Wow, that multicoloured shiney thing!
Dave, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’… Sell me your VanGogh for a quid.
As for stifled individual’s expression… did I write self-righteous, snotty-nosed somewhere…
Regards,
Roger.
As always, no offence meant or intended, but on this occasion I have to include the rider, if the cap fits then wear it.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello Mark.
Glad to hear your build is coming along well and I do entirely and sincerely hope it’s one superb (hi-fi) replica – which I think (from what I’ve thus far seen) it will certainly be. In which case you should, for your efforts, stand justifiably tall and be entirely proud of the achievement – for I see nothing negative in the outcome you’d have accomplished, given that such is what you must have wished and strived for.
Odd as it may perhaps seem (from what I’ve already written) I also see nothing wrong in any kind of replica building and/or ownership if that ‘rings ones bell’. My point, a purely personal one (hence who cares), is that whilst I see a clear purpose in building a hi-fi example of a marque, e.g., a full kit RC45, I (again entirely personally) see no point in replicating (to the nth degree) a specific time and place example within the marque; unless there’s a wish to let popular misconception allow a replica to be mistaken for the real thing… And I have, over the years, observed replica owners ‘allowing themselves the luxury of basking in the glorified but mistaken light shone on them by their genuine replica’.
If in building a hi-fi replica of a unitary example of a marque, such as the one you’re building Mark, and for you (or any owner) to then honestly and openly strive to ensure there is no mistaking its replicative nature, you’ll be paying proper homage to the genuine bikes and that will be nought but commendable.
No, I didn’t go to the Mallory event (this time), even though the circuit is almost on my door-step (relatively). A quick ‘zip in – and out’, as it were, would have been easy, but as the event has become much of a muchness I elected to be busy with other things.
Maybe next year.
Regards,
Roger.
Glad to hear your build is coming along well and I do entirely and sincerely hope it’s one superb (hi-fi) replica – which I think (from what I’ve thus far seen) it will certainly be. In which case you should, for your efforts, stand justifiably tall and be entirely proud of the achievement – for I see nothing negative in the outcome you’d have accomplished, given that such is what you must have wished and strived for.
Odd as it may perhaps seem (from what I’ve already written) I also see nothing wrong in any kind of replica building and/or ownership if that ‘rings ones bell’. My point, a purely personal one (hence who cares), is that whilst I see a clear purpose in building a hi-fi example of a marque, e.g., a full kit RC45, I (again entirely personally) see no point in replicating (to the nth degree) a specific time and place example within the marque; unless there’s a wish to let popular misconception allow a replica to be mistaken for the real thing… And I have, over the years, observed replica owners ‘allowing themselves the luxury of basking in the glorified but mistaken light shone on them by their genuine replica’.
If in building a hi-fi replica of a unitary example of a marque, such as the one you’re building Mark, and for you (or any owner) to then honestly and openly strive to ensure there is no mistaking its replicative nature, you’ll be paying proper homage to the genuine bikes and that will be nought but commendable.
No, I didn’t go to the Mallory event (this time), even though the circuit is almost on my door-step (relatively). A quick ‘zip in – and out’, as it were, would have been easy, but as the event has become much of a muchness I elected to be busy with other things.
Maybe next year.
Regards,
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello Slight111fan, over in Dk – always a pleasure to hear from you.
Everything you’ve written I agree with, particularly your comment about ex-race bikes (very often) not remaining entirely as they were at some specifically considered moment in time.
The ex-Steve Hislop 1994 Castrol Honda TT bike (or any of the other team bikes in those particular races – F1 & Senior) might represent examples in point (temporal variation); and indeed, Hislop’s bike did vary (somewhat) from race venue to race venue - with him aboard.
Having said that, one thing’s pretty well certain… whilst the three individual RC45’s in the 1994 TT may have each had components changed from venue to venue, e.g., Hilsop also raced ‘his’ bike with an Ohlins forks/brembo callipers set-up, it would be reasonable to expect that each bike (being set-up for each individual each rider’s preferences) remained set-aside for each individual rider’s use (each rider having preferred requirements – so little likelihood of component interchange between bikes).
Further to that, Joey Dunlop was a ‘notorious’ (and excellent) self-mechanic, who ‘hated’ hands (other than his own and a trusted few) to touch his bikes. And why not have that attitude… given that Dunlop may have seen his performances as dependent on confidence in his bike, let alone a consideration towards safety (and survival). Maybe that’s a trait displayed by the quiet and introspective... an attitude of ‘if you want a job done properly, do it yourself’ (when you’re capable, of course).
To underline the principle suggested, Stephen Davison wrote (Motorcycle News, May 22nd 2013 – TT Preview 2013):
…Michael and William Dunlop, in Williams’caravan…
“Ah Jaysus, there’s a pizza in there”, William said as he dived for the oven door. Moments later the pair were laughing together as they dissected the edible bits of the cremated meal and joked about the fact that half an hour earlier, the baking tin they were eating out of had had a gearbox in it….
… It was also reminiscent of times shared between an older generation of Dunlops. Michael and William grew up watching their farther Robert and uncle Joey doing the same thing at race meetings all over the world.
Anyway, and moving on, the point is that as long as the individual riders were in the team, it’s virtually certain the individual bikes would not have had ‘chopping and changing’ riders, nor the chopping and changing of parts – only same type replacements through necessary maintenance (with fundamentally unchanged settings).
Now Hislop had his big fall-out with Honda over the RC45 (i.e., His race bike), which he ‘slated’… Justifiably?.. Yes, it must be so, but perhaps only from Hislop’s point of view. So once Hislop had left the team, what happened to “‘his’ particular” bike?
If the history is correct:
At the 1995 TT the Castrol Honda team fielded four RC45’s, the riders being Joey Dunlop, Phillip McCallen, Nick Jefferies, and Steve Ward. I think it plausible (at the very least) to say that Dunlop and McCallen kept their own (known quantity though up-graded as necessary) 1994 bikes; so Hislop’s bike (almost certainly) went to Jefferies or Ward. Of the new team members (the ‘better race placement prospect’ – most likely thought to be Jefferies, based on track record) probably had the new bike set-up (from scratch) to suit his needs; with the other new (‘junior’) member (Ward) being left with Hislop’s ‘old’ bike (no emotion and no love in the deadly serious game of front-line racing).
Onto the 1996 TT and changes of sponsorship and livery, etc., no longer a Castrol Honda, but a Honda Britain, race team. So, did all three 1994 bikes, and the newer 1995 bike carry over to 1996?
Well, McCallen, Jefferies, and Dunlop ran and finished (1, 2 & 7) in the F1; and also participated in the Senior. So for 1996 it was back down to three bikes, with one being left unused (or ‘got rid of’ before the 1996 TT - as it would have been pointless (no emotion no love) in not converting it to race team cash …a lot*)... was this surplus and moved on item ‘Hislop’s bike’? Would McCallen, Jefferies, and Dunlop, have kept their own “known quantity” bikes (already set up for their particular needs) in 1996?
Which Spitfire would you want to fly into combat? The one you were ‘at home in’, or the bright shiny new one – to match your bright shiny new headstone!
The Tillston Honda RC45 (full kit & equal spec to the Honda Britain bikes) was, for example, ridden by Derek Young in the May 1996 NW 200. This was the first of Tillston’s RC45’s and the only one to come from the (Castrol) Honda Britain race team (at great cost* - and with Honda Britain verbalising that it had been Hislop’s race bike… hence the great cost... no emotion no love... just hard cash, all documented).
In the 1996 F1 & Senior, Young again rode the same Tillston Honda RC45 to 13th & 6th places respectively;
So, if Honda Britain didn’t run one of the (previous years four) bikes in 1996, and Tillston’s certainly purchased a full kit RC45 from Honda Britain, and raced it at the May 1996 NW 200 and TT then, yet again, was this the former Hislop bike, particularly in consideration of words of honour (relating to value and price) between peers? Not much rational speculation (or logic) required to achieve an answer with a high probability of it being not just entirely plausible, but also entirely correct, that Tillston’s did indeed purchase Hislop’s RC45.
Given all of the above, the historical circumstances (thus circumstantial evidence), plus the (better than) ‘conjecture’ explained – plus, history, plus documentation, etc., (so documentary evidence too) it becomes even more probable that Tillston’s purchased the former Hislop RC45 from (Castrol) Honda Britain… than the extremely unlikely (to nil) probability that Tilston’s didn’t purchase Hislop’s RC45.
Assuming the above is true, i.e., Tillston’s purchased Hislop’s RC45, then the owner of any ex-Tillston bike, of which there were ultimately three (two being subsequently purchased from the Medd race team) would clearly have a 33% probability (rounded down) of owning ‘Hislops’ 1994 TT winning bike… all be it and ostensibly with ongoing changes made by Tillston’s (as time progressed and the bike continued to be raced).
Now as if that weren’t enough, there’s more…..
Anyone who owns another of the Tillston bike’s is even more likely (67% probability rounded up) to have, what started out as, ‘Hislop’s’ 1994 bike, especially if those bikes are the only two, ‘all singing all dancing’, full kit bikes that Tillston’s raced.
If you then add to that the same ex-Tillston multiple owner also being the owner of another of the (early) Castrol Honda RC45’s, then the probability of that owner being in possession of ‘Hislop’s’ 1994 TT winning bike is yet further enhanced. Not only that, such an owner would obviously not only (with a very high degree of probability) be in possession of ‘Hislop’s’ bike but also the potential owner of either Dunlop’s or McCallen’s early RC45.
But one must consider, as Slight111fan has mentioned, the temporal changes that race bikes experience and which is a most valid point, indeed and one causing me to go in to the detail that I have and to now continue with.
So, (of course and as written) ongoing changes (upgrades) would have been effected on all of the Tillston RC45’s but particularly so the full kit (1 & 2 ) bikes to ensure they remained race competitive. But if, in such an upgrading process, all of the original parts had been retained with the bikes, and if in the case of the first Tillston (ex-Castrol Honda) bike it had been returned to original ex-Castrol Honda spec (by Tillston’s) using the very same parts it had come with (i.e., as when purchased by Tillston’s) then that bike would exist in very, very, close order to Hislop’s RC45 (if not, to all intents and purposes, almost entirely so).
Now, once again, if all so far happens to be true (there’s little doubt as to plausibility – even without documentation) and still yet rather more than a dose of healthy scepticism were to be voiced, it would be important to ask… what could be the basis of such (‘unhealthy’) scepticism? I propose that one reason could be the… ‘if I haven’t got it then I’m not prepared to countenance anyone having it attitude. An attitude stemming from one psychologically setting ones-self up to have something (unique) based upon the slender most, indeed almost non-existence, of evidentiary features.
I know the exactly where the the ex-Castrol Honda sold (fact) to Tillstons is, plus another ex-Castrol Honda RC45 plus another of the full kit Tillston RC45’s are (all documented) and they’re all in the possession of one person - and I can say with a high degree of confidence (for various reasons – in addition to what's explained above) that one of the RC45’s is almost certainly (thus to an extremely high percentage probability) the ex-Hislop (true high fidelity) RC45, with the other ex-Castrol Honda RC45 being Dunlop’s (the third RC45 being full kit ex-Medd).
So, after that… and to get back on track… and to concur with Mark #133… the bikes pictured do indeed look brilliant and if the replica’s serve to please all who behold them then that is fantastic, as it may serve to increase knowledgeable admiration for the originals… And having thought about that situation I’m lead to reassess my thoughts and to mellow so as to be rather less (seemingly) ‘critical’ of (virtual ‘carbon copy’) replicas.
As always my regards to all.
Roger.
Everything you’ve written I agree with, particularly your comment about ex-race bikes (very often) not remaining entirely as they were at some specifically considered moment in time.
The ex-Steve Hislop 1994 Castrol Honda TT bike (or any of the other team bikes in those particular races – F1 & Senior) might represent examples in point (temporal variation); and indeed, Hislop’s bike did vary (somewhat) from race venue to race venue - with him aboard.
Having said that, one thing’s pretty well certain… whilst the three individual RC45’s in the 1994 TT may have each had components changed from venue to venue, e.g., Hilsop also raced ‘his’ bike with an Ohlins forks/brembo callipers set-up, it would be reasonable to expect that each bike (being set-up for each individual each rider’s preferences) remained set-aside for each individual rider’s use (each rider having preferred requirements – so little likelihood of component interchange between bikes).
Further to that, Joey Dunlop was a ‘notorious’ (and excellent) self-mechanic, who ‘hated’ hands (other than his own and a trusted few) to touch his bikes. And why not have that attitude… given that Dunlop may have seen his performances as dependent on confidence in his bike, let alone a consideration towards safety (and survival). Maybe that’s a trait displayed by the quiet and introspective... an attitude of ‘if you want a job done properly, do it yourself’ (when you’re capable, of course).
To underline the principle suggested, Stephen Davison wrote (Motorcycle News, May 22nd 2013 – TT Preview 2013):
…Michael and William Dunlop, in Williams’caravan…
“Ah Jaysus, there’s a pizza in there”, William said as he dived for the oven door. Moments later the pair were laughing together as they dissected the edible bits of the cremated meal and joked about the fact that half an hour earlier, the baking tin they were eating out of had had a gearbox in it….
… It was also reminiscent of times shared between an older generation of Dunlops. Michael and William grew up watching their farther Robert and uncle Joey doing the same thing at race meetings all over the world.
Anyway, and moving on, the point is that as long as the individual riders were in the team, it’s virtually certain the individual bikes would not have had ‘chopping and changing’ riders, nor the chopping and changing of parts – only same type replacements through necessary maintenance (with fundamentally unchanged settings).
Now Hislop had his big fall-out with Honda over the RC45 (i.e., His race bike), which he ‘slated’… Justifiably?.. Yes, it must be so, but perhaps only from Hislop’s point of view. So once Hislop had left the team, what happened to “‘his’ particular” bike?
If the history is correct:
At the 1995 TT the Castrol Honda team fielded four RC45’s, the riders being Joey Dunlop, Phillip McCallen, Nick Jefferies, and Steve Ward. I think it plausible (at the very least) to say that Dunlop and McCallen kept their own (known quantity though up-graded as necessary) 1994 bikes; so Hislop’s bike (almost certainly) went to Jefferies or Ward. Of the new team members (the ‘better race placement prospect’ – most likely thought to be Jefferies, based on track record) probably had the new bike set-up (from scratch) to suit his needs; with the other new (‘junior’) member (Ward) being left with Hislop’s ‘old’ bike (no emotion and no love in the deadly serious game of front-line racing).
Onto the 1996 TT and changes of sponsorship and livery, etc., no longer a Castrol Honda, but a Honda Britain, race team. So, did all three 1994 bikes, and the newer 1995 bike carry over to 1996?
Well, McCallen, Jefferies, and Dunlop ran and finished (1, 2 & 7) in the F1; and also participated in the Senior. So for 1996 it was back down to three bikes, with one being left unused (or ‘got rid of’ before the 1996 TT - as it would have been pointless (no emotion no love) in not converting it to race team cash …a lot*)... was this surplus and moved on item ‘Hislop’s bike’? Would McCallen, Jefferies, and Dunlop, have kept their own “known quantity” bikes (already set up for their particular needs) in 1996?
Which Spitfire would you want to fly into combat? The one you were ‘at home in’, or the bright shiny new one – to match your bright shiny new headstone!
The Tillston Honda RC45 (full kit & equal spec to the Honda Britain bikes) was, for example, ridden by Derek Young in the May 1996 NW 200. This was the first of Tillston’s RC45’s and the only one to come from the (Castrol) Honda Britain race team (at great cost* - and with Honda Britain verbalising that it had been Hislop’s race bike… hence the great cost... no emotion no love... just hard cash, all documented).
In the 1996 F1 & Senior, Young again rode the same Tillston Honda RC45 to 13th & 6th places respectively;
So, if Honda Britain didn’t run one of the (previous years four) bikes in 1996, and Tillston’s certainly purchased a full kit RC45 from Honda Britain, and raced it at the May 1996 NW 200 and TT then, yet again, was this the former Hislop bike, particularly in consideration of words of honour (relating to value and price) between peers? Not much rational speculation (or logic) required to achieve an answer with a high probability of it being not just entirely plausible, but also entirely correct, that Tillston’s did indeed purchase Hislop’s RC45.
Given all of the above, the historical circumstances (thus circumstantial evidence), plus the (better than) ‘conjecture’ explained – plus, history, plus documentation, etc., (so documentary evidence too) it becomes even more probable that Tillston’s purchased the former Hislop RC45 from (Castrol) Honda Britain… than the extremely unlikely (to nil) probability that Tilston’s didn’t purchase Hislop’s RC45.
Assuming the above is true, i.e., Tillston’s purchased Hislop’s RC45, then the owner of any ex-Tillston bike, of which there were ultimately three (two being subsequently purchased from the Medd race team) would clearly have a 33% probability (rounded down) of owning ‘Hislops’ 1994 TT winning bike… all be it and ostensibly with ongoing changes made by Tillston’s (as time progressed and the bike continued to be raced).
Now as if that weren’t enough, there’s more…..
Anyone who owns another of the Tillston bike’s is even more likely (67% probability rounded up) to have, what started out as, ‘Hislop’s’ 1994 bike, especially if those bikes are the only two, ‘all singing all dancing’, full kit bikes that Tillston’s raced.
If you then add to that the same ex-Tillston multiple owner also being the owner of another of the (early) Castrol Honda RC45’s, then the probability of that owner being in possession of ‘Hislop’s’ 1994 TT winning bike is yet further enhanced. Not only that, such an owner would obviously not only (with a very high degree of probability) be in possession of ‘Hislop’s’ bike but also the potential owner of either Dunlop’s or McCallen’s early RC45.
But one must consider, as Slight111fan has mentioned, the temporal changes that race bikes experience and which is a most valid point, indeed and one causing me to go in to the detail that I have and to now continue with.
So, (of course and as written) ongoing changes (upgrades) would have been effected on all of the Tillston RC45’s but particularly so the full kit (1 & 2 ) bikes to ensure they remained race competitive. But if, in such an upgrading process, all of the original parts had been retained with the bikes, and if in the case of the first Tillston (ex-Castrol Honda) bike it had been returned to original ex-Castrol Honda spec (by Tillston’s) using the very same parts it had come with (i.e., as when purchased by Tillston’s) then that bike would exist in very, very, close order to Hislop’s RC45 (if not, to all intents and purposes, almost entirely so).
Now, once again, if all so far happens to be true (there’s little doubt as to plausibility – even without documentation) and still yet rather more than a dose of healthy scepticism were to be voiced, it would be important to ask… what could be the basis of such (‘unhealthy’) scepticism? I propose that one reason could be the… ‘if I haven’t got it then I’m not prepared to countenance anyone having it attitude. An attitude stemming from one psychologically setting ones-self up to have something (unique) based upon the slender most, indeed almost non-existence, of evidentiary features.
I know the exactly where the the ex-Castrol Honda sold (fact) to Tillstons is, plus another ex-Castrol Honda RC45 plus another of the full kit Tillston RC45’s are (all documented) and they’re all in the possession of one person - and I can say with a high degree of confidence (for various reasons – in addition to what's explained above) that one of the RC45’s is almost certainly (thus to an extremely high percentage probability) the ex-Hislop (true high fidelity) RC45, with the other ex-Castrol Honda RC45 being Dunlop’s (the third RC45 being full kit ex-Medd).
So, after that… and to get back on track… and to concur with Mark #133… the bikes pictured do indeed look brilliant and if the replica’s serve to please all who behold them then that is fantastic, as it may serve to increase knowledgeable admiration for the originals… And having thought about that situation I’m lead to reassess my thoughts and to mellow so as to be rather less (seemingly) ‘critical’ of (virtual ‘carbon copy’) replicas.
As always my regards to all.
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello Jamie, thanks for your appreciation of my sleuthing and reporting - and I’m glad you enjoyed the read.
Renewed thanks and regards,
Roger.
Renewed thanks and regards,
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello Thomas, and my thanks for letting me know you enjoyed what I’ve written on the RC45 that was (with virtual certainty) Steve Hislop’s 1994 TT bike.
It would unquestionably be nice (and of course useful) if Honda’s V4 race bike histories (for each individual bike – or as many as possible) could be definitively compiled – or even for just one of the models.
My own interest (so far) has only been in the bikes recently mentioned and, unfortunately, I suspect, from personal experience, one person trying to investigate and cover more than a ‘handful’ of bikes would face a mammoth and so probably a largely unsuccessful task.
However, as can be seen from my experience, individual bikes (and their past) can sometimes be comprehensively traced, but it’s often only by ‘slogging through’ the intertwined historical record(s) so as to get the basic time-line and facts right. It’s an approach I’d recommend before asking for anecdotal ‘evidence’, as such ‘memory based evidence’ can sometimes be unreliable enough as to send you off into a ‘dead end’.
The other great problem in tracing race bike histories is the oft wishful, wild, and groundless claims that people can make for knowing about or having this or that; merely because whatever it is in question may showe certain (sometimes irrational and spurious) characteristics. The best analogy for that I can think of is...
...I have an Ostrich feather therefore an Ostrich must be a bird (yes that would be a fact). The feather I have is a very large feather (yes, that could be a fact too). Ergo, I own the feather of a bird that ‘soars above the eagles’ (no).
And to personally exemplify what I mean about claims...
...I’ve an plain and unused RC45 fairing which came from Honda Britain. Written on the fairing (by someone back in the day at HB) is “Hislop”. There’s little doubt in my mind that the fairing was a specific Hislop spare, as it was purchased many years ago when almost no one was interested in such ‘stuff’. But now time has moved on, and interest having developed, it’s possible I could have unscrupulously felt-tipped “Hislop” onto the fairing myself (but I haven't). There’s doubtless someone out there who’s the actual ‘pen-man’ but whether that will ever be found out and properly recorded is doubtful.
As for the ‘45’s I’ve mentioned, Hislop’s, etc., they may well (probably will) ‘resurface’ one day (along with others) but as they’re presently in deep dry storage, and the owner doesn’t have the wish, or feel the need, to ‘display’ them, the “one day” probably isn’t at all imminent.
With regard to the McCallen ’45 (VIN 1000126), I hope you’ll have success in ultimately tracing its ‘movements’ and if I should happen to discover anything about it during my occasional bouts of searching I would of course let my findings be known.
My best regards,
Roger.
It would unquestionably be nice (and of course useful) if Honda’s V4 race bike histories (for each individual bike – or as many as possible) could be definitively compiled – or even for just one of the models.
My own interest (so far) has only been in the bikes recently mentioned and, unfortunately, I suspect, from personal experience, one person trying to investigate and cover more than a ‘handful’ of bikes would face a mammoth and so probably a largely unsuccessful task.
However, as can be seen from my experience, individual bikes (and their past) can sometimes be comprehensively traced, but it’s often only by ‘slogging through’ the intertwined historical record(s) so as to get the basic time-line and facts right. It’s an approach I’d recommend before asking for anecdotal ‘evidence’, as such ‘memory based evidence’ can sometimes be unreliable enough as to send you off into a ‘dead end’.
The other great problem in tracing race bike histories is the oft wishful, wild, and groundless claims that people can make for knowing about or having this or that; merely because whatever it is in question may showe certain (sometimes irrational and spurious) characteristics. The best analogy for that I can think of is...
...I have an Ostrich feather therefore an Ostrich must be a bird (yes that would be a fact). The feather I have is a very large feather (yes, that could be a fact too). Ergo, I own the feather of a bird that ‘soars above the eagles’ (no).
And to personally exemplify what I mean about claims...
...I’ve an plain and unused RC45 fairing which came from Honda Britain. Written on the fairing (by someone back in the day at HB) is “Hislop”. There’s little doubt in my mind that the fairing was a specific Hislop spare, as it was purchased many years ago when almost no one was interested in such ‘stuff’. But now time has moved on, and interest having developed, it’s possible I could have unscrupulously felt-tipped “Hislop” onto the fairing myself (but I haven't). There’s doubtless someone out there who’s the actual ‘pen-man’ but whether that will ever be found out and properly recorded is doubtful.
As for the ‘45’s I’ve mentioned, Hislop’s, etc., they may well (probably will) ‘resurface’ one day (along with others) but as they’re presently in deep dry storage, and the owner doesn’t have the wish, or feel the need, to ‘display’ them, the “one day” probably isn’t at all imminent.
With regard to the McCallen ’45 (VIN 1000126), I hope you’ll have success in ultimately tracing its ‘movements’ and if I should happen to discover anything about it during my occasional bouts of searching I would of course let my findings be known.
My best regards,
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello all.
I’ve just been idling away a few Bank Holiday minutes and I’ve found this:
http://www.racingvincent.co.uk/22_Racin ... 70713.html
Scrolling down there’s a nice photo of an RC45 with the caption:
“In stark contrast - Seve Hislops RC45 Honda, from a very different era. But again, a gem of a bike”
I wrote on Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:02 pm:
But could such passing off of a replica ever happen? I mean a rep being ‘projected’ as genuine? Well yes, by degrees. For example markRC45 writes “lets take the hislop bike for example”… Note: It’s not been written… let’s take the Hislop replica bike for example… it’s “the hislop bike”.
Well, guess what, it’s not “the Hislop Bike”; but it’s oh so easy, isn’t it, to let a little mistake (or laziness with accuracy and precision) convert to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’.
I think I can safely say that my case - regarding laziness with accuracy and precision converting to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’ - has been very well exemplified.
Regards,
Roger.
I’ve just been idling away a few Bank Holiday minutes and I’ve found this:
http://www.racingvincent.co.uk/22_Racin ... 70713.html
Scrolling down there’s a nice photo of an RC45 with the caption:
“In stark contrast - Seve Hislops RC45 Honda, from a very different era. But again, a gem of a bike”
I wrote on Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:02 pm:
But could such passing off of a replica ever happen? I mean a rep being ‘projected’ as genuine? Well yes, by degrees. For example markRC45 writes “lets take the hislop bike for example”… Note: It’s not been written… let’s take the Hislop replica bike for example… it’s “the hislop bike”.
Well, guess what, it’s not “the Hislop Bike”; but it’s oh so easy, isn’t it, to let a little mistake (or laziness with accuracy and precision) convert to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’.
I think I can safely say that my case - regarding laziness with accuracy and precision converting to apparent and popular misconception, i.e., illusion into ‘reality’ - has been very well exemplified.
Regards,
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Well Dave45.
Have you really written that! Are you truly serious!! Do you actually imagine for one moment that honesty, integrity, fairness, accuracy, and precision don’t really matter!!!? Because that’s what you’re most certainly implying (saying actually).
Ok then Dave, with regard to “passing-off”… let me find out all I can about you and then I’ll steal your identity… for what purpose? One and one only - to take advantage of you… to your disadvantage. Of course, even though it would be easy to, I’ll not produce and then display a descriptive rider saying that although I superficially appear to be you, I’m not really.
Dave if you want to live in ‘complete ostrich head ignorance’ that’s entirely your prerogative, all I can say is thanks for letting me (at least) know.
Btw… if it “doesn’t really matter”… why produce an easily misinterpreted replica in the first place?.. And then remain silent when such misinterpretation occurs?? It’s “passing-off” Dave, and it’s dishonest.
Btw, as you’re a moderator for this site are you going to let this post stand, or will you ‘chop it out’ because it’s (doubtless, i.e., intentionally - and deservedly as far as I’m concerned) going to be a little discomforting relative to what I see as your obvious ‘philosophy’ regarding honesty, etc.
Roger.
Have you really written that! Are you truly serious!! Do you actually imagine for one moment that honesty, integrity, fairness, accuracy, and precision don’t really matter!!!? Because that’s what you’re most certainly implying (saying actually).
Ok then Dave, with regard to “passing-off”… let me find out all I can about you and then I’ll steal your identity… for what purpose? One and one only - to take advantage of you… to your disadvantage. Of course, even though it would be easy to, I’ll not produce and then display a descriptive rider saying that although I superficially appear to be you, I’m not really.
Dave if you want to live in ‘complete ostrich head ignorance’ that’s entirely your prerogative, all I can say is thanks for letting me (at least) know.
Btw… if it “doesn’t really matter”… why produce an easily misinterpreted replica in the first place?.. And then remain silent when such misinterpretation occurs?? It’s “passing-off” Dave, and it’s dishonest.
Btw, as you’re a moderator for this site are you going to let this post stand, or will you ‘chop it out’ because it’s (doubtless, i.e., intentionally - and deservedly as far as I’m concerned) going to be a little discomforting relative to what I see as your obvious ‘philosophy’ regarding honesty, etc.
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
Hello Stephen.
I’m going to respond to your post paragraph by paragraph (and point by point) as simply (whilst communicating matters) as I can.
No slagging off matches…
As far as I’m concerned there aren’t any, unless being deservedly and appropriately taken to task is to be considered “slagging off” (I trust not).
Why do all these topics end up…
Because when a replica is produced it is morally incumbent upon whoever may choose to present it for public consumption ensures that the truth about it always be told. A simple, factual, placard containing the word "replica" (and if verbalising/writing, using the same word) is sufficient - so why isn’t this always done with (unintentional) misrepresentation thus avoided?
Race bikes as a whole, pass through many hands…
This can be true, but when the virtual entirety of a race bike passes through very few hands (so history traceable) and it is maintained as a bike along with original parts being retained with it (on the shelf), and the bike and original parts are ultimately reconstituted, then the result becomes a bike closer to originality than any other bike of its type can ever possibly be.
However a RC45 is a RC45…
I absolutely agree and without reservation.
I don't spend as much time on the forum…
Your unavoidable lack of forum time is to the other member’s loss. When Dave is right and doing an excellent job it’s quite correct that he should be backed; and I do appreciate that being a moderator is very difficult, particularly as partisanship (no mater what the attractions might be) must be avoided at all costs.
We are all grown men, now act like it!...
Hear hear to that; and so I trust replica’s will hence forth not be offered-up as "The... Bike", they'll be factually referenced/placarded for all to see at all times.
Onward.
There is a simple principle at stake with regard to this particular subject matter, I have alluded to it several times, it is integrity – something which one entirely and voluntarily defers to… but this morality should always prevail, even when, for example, the original (on which a replica is based) might no longer exist.
I hope, and yet again trust, that none of this response from me is found annoying by anyone – thought provoking yes (the prime purpose), annoying no.
Stephen, my sincere best regards and wishes with your ongoing V4 and NSR programme’s and to everyone else troubling themselves with bike preservation, original’s and replica’s alike.
Roger.
I’m going to respond to your post paragraph by paragraph (and point by point) as simply (whilst communicating matters) as I can.
No slagging off matches…
As far as I’m concerned there aren’t any, unless being deservedly and appropriately taken to task is to be considered “slagging off” (I trust not).
Why do all these topics end up…
Because when a replica is produced it is morally incumbent upon whoever may choose to present it for public consumption ensures that the truth about it always be told. A simple, factual, placard containing the word "replica" (and if verbalising/writing, using the same word) is sufficient - so why isn’t this always done with (unintentional) misrepresentation thus avoided?
Race bikes as a whole, pass through many hands…
This can be true, but when the virtual entirety of a race bike passes through very few hands (so history traceable) and it is maintained as a bike along with original parts being retained with it (on the shelf), and the bike and original parts are ultimately reconstituted, then the result becomes a bike closer to originality than any other bike of its type can ever possibly be.
However a RC45 is a RC45…
I absolutely agree and without reservation.
I don't spend as much time on the forum…
Your unavoidable lack of forum time is to the other member’s loss. When Dave is right and doing an excellent job it’s quite correct that he should be backed; and I do appreciate that being a moderator is very difficult, particularly as partisanship (no mater what the attractions might be) must be avoided at all costs.
We are all grown men, now act like it!...
Hear hear to that; and so I trust replica’s will hence forth not be offered-up as "The... Bike", they'll be factually referenced/placarded for all to see at all times.
Onward.
There is a simple principle at stake with regard to this particular subject matter, I have alluded to it several times, it is integrity – something which one entirely and voluntarily defers to… but this morality should always prevail, even when, for example, the original (on which a replica is based) might no longer exist.
I hope, and yet again trust, that none of this response from me is found annoying by anyone – thought provoking yes (the prime purpose), annoying no.
Stephen, my sincere best regards and wishes with your ongoing V4 and NSR programme’s and to everyone else troubling themselves with bike preservation, original’s and replica’s alike.
Roger.
mallory 1000 old bikes and even older riders
I thought I’d wait a while to see if anyone wanted to respond to this thread any further.
With regard to the ‘45’s pictured, they are (by every appearance) absolutely superb - all of them - and the owners/builders are not only to be admired for their efforts but also congratulated on their success.
That the bikes owned/kept, or produced, exist in a particular aesthetically replicative form does not (to my mind) in any way detract from the bikes themselves, or their owners in any way, or indeed anyone else associated with them.
My initial (and seemingly negative) point was that I (purely and entirely personally) couldn’t easily identify with the wish to be the creator of a “down to the finest detail” replica.
I’m glad that Pask has seen (and kindly pointed out) that no “slagging-off” (relative to anyone/their bike and efforts) was going on (nor was any intended) but if anything I wrote was wrongly taken, then I apologise to each and all for my failure to properly communicate.
With specific regard to KR’s ’45 there was never any ‘accusation’ as to it being intentionally, and therefore deliberately, “passed-off”; and as Pask has readily pointed-out the evidence for that is in the very open and public way in which the bike was produced.
However, the other (again to my mind) point (of honour made) was that the owner of a replica (of anything) has a certain duty of care in relieving the ‘uninitiated’ of any misconception that could develop - and be disseminated (perhaps through their ‘blissful ignorance - brought on by inquiry laziness’). Not only that, were I to build anything I think I’d want to claim credit, where credit was due, for my efforts… something, incidentally, the owner of a genuine article can not claim.
Having (hopefully) cleared any misunderstanding up, I hope those who may have thought badly of my opinion (and its voicing) will be inclined towards a degree of understanding and (no grovelling intended) forgiveness.
As ever, regards and best wishes to all.
Roger.
With regard to the ‘45’s pictured, they are (by every appearance) absolutely superb - all of them - and the owners/builders are not only to be admired for their efforts but also congratulated on their success.
That the bikes owned/kept, or produced, exist in a particular aesthetically replicative form does not (to my mind) in any way detract from the bikes themselves, or their owners in any way, or indeed anyone else associated with them.
My initial (and seemingly negative) point was that I (purely and entirely personally) couldn’t easily identify with the wish to be the creator of a “down to the finest detail” replica.
I’m glad that Pask has seen (and kindly pointed out) that no “slagging-off” (relative to anyone/their bike and efforts) was going on (nor was any intended) but if anything I wrote was wrongly taken, then I apologise to each and all for my failure to properly communicate.
With specific regard to KR’s ’45 there was never any ‘accusation’ as to it being intentionally, and therefore deliberately, “passed-off”; and as Pask has readily pointed-out the evidence for that is in the very open and public way in which the bike was produced.
However, the other (again to my mind) point (of honour made) was that the owner of a replica (of anything) has a certain duty of care in relieving the ‘uninitiated’ of any misconception that could develop - and be disseminated (perhaps through their ‘blissful ignorance - brought on by inquiry laziness’). Not only that, were I to build anything I think I’d want to claim credit, where credit was due, for my efforts… something, incidentally, the owner of a genuine article can not claim.
Having (hopefully) cleared any misunderstanding up, I hope those who may have thought badly of my opinion (and its voicing) will be inclined towards a degree of understanding and (no grovelling intended) forgiveness.
As ever, regards and best wishes to all.
Roger.
RC45
I think the easiest way to completely and utterly transform an RC45 is, rear ride height and lots of it, 17 inch front rim, totally different bike. If you can hunt down an Ohlins superbike shock/linkage/tie rods, transforms it even more, you actually don't have to spend much to get a road bike handling bloody awesome.
If you're running HRC rear stuff, 96/97 linkage/tierod works sweet as.
If you're running HRC rear stuff, 96/97 linkage/tierod works sweet as.