Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked upon
as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around "restoring"
this type of bike.

Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value of
the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper resto
job.

This means that there are many half arsed but very shiny bikes out
there at the moment, which in some cases take in unwary buyers, who
end up paying a lot of money for a tarted up wreck.

On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked upon
> as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around "restoring"
> this type of bike.
>
> Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value of
> the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper resto
> job.
>
Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
actually.

> This means that there are many half arsed but very shiny bikes out
> there at the moment, which in some cases take in unwary buyers, who
> end up paying a lot of money for a tarted up wreck.

Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
actually.

Your point?

Roper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> This means that there are many half arsed but very shiny bikes out
> there at the moment, which in some cases take in unwary buyers, who
> end up paying a lot of money for a tarted up wreck.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

--
03 GS500K2
76 Honda 400/4 project, 78 400/4 in black
68 Bantam D14/4 Sport (Classic)
06 Sukida SK50QT (Slanty eyed shopping trolley)

TOG@Toil wrote:

> On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked
> > upon as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around
> > "restoring" this type of bike.
> >
> > Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value
> > of the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper
> > resto job.
> >
> Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> actually.

He's completely wrong again though (surprise, surprise). The fact that
the finished article is worth way less than the cost of restoring it
doesn't make it "entirely impossible to do the work properly", it just
makes it impossible to make a profit.


--
Krusty

On 9 June, 10:23, "Krusty" <dontwant...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> TOG@Toil wrote:
> > On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked
> > > upon as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around
> > > "restoring" this type of bike.
>
> > > Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value
> > > of the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper
> > > resto job.
>
> > Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> > actually.
>
> He's completely wrong again though (surprise, surprise). The fact that
> the finished article is worth way less than the cost of restoring it
> doesn't make it "entirely impossible to do the work properly", it just
> makes it impossible to make a profit.
>
Well, yes, ISWYM. It's almost always cheaper to buy a really good
sorted running bike than to restore a wreck, but sometimes people
restore bikes just for the fun of it. That's how I'm looking at my
TS250ER.

And sometimes you can restore a bike for very little. I reckon my 400
Four owes me maybe £300, and it's worth six or seven times that.

On Jun 9, 10:10*am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:> Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked upon
> > as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around "restoring"
> > this type of bike.
>
> > Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value of
> > the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper resto
> > job.
>
> Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> actually.
>
> > This means that there are many half arsed but very shiny bikes out
> > there at the moment, which in some cases take in unwary buyers, who
> > end up paying a lot of money for a tarted up wreck.
>
> Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> actually.
>
> Your point?

The point is that the interest in mundane old late seventies and early
eighties bikes has meant that a fair few people have set up as
"restorers" who only have very basic knowledge, and whose standards of
workmanship are in some cases not as good as better DIY types.

To be able to do this type of work properly requires a wide range of
skills, and it does seem to be very silly that a lot of car bodywork
types with an interest in bikes, are now setting themselves up as
"restorers".

TOG@Toil wrote:

> On 9 June, 10:23, "Krusty" <dontwant...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > TOG@Toil wrote:
> > > On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked
> > > > upon as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around
> > > > "restoring" this type of bike.
> >
> > > > Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final
> > > > value of the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of
> > > > a proper resto job.
> >
> > > Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> > > actually.
> >
> > He's completely wrong again though (surprise, surprise). The fact
> > that the finished article is worth way less than the cost of
> > restoring it doesn't make it "entirely impossible to do the work
> > properly", it just makes it impossible to make a profit.
> >
> Well, yes, ISWYM. It's almost always cheaper to buy a really good
> sorted running bike than to restore a wreck, but sometimes people
> restore bikes just for the fun of it. That's how I'm looking at my
> TS250ER.

Exactly. Not that the reason this all kicked off has anything to do
with restoration anyway. Beav doesn't afaik claim to be a restorer, &
sealing the inside of a rusty tank isn't restoration, it's repair.

--
Krusty

TOG@Toil wrote:
> On 9 June, 10:23, "Krusty" <dontwant...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> TOG@Toil wrote:
>>> On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked
>>>> upon as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around
>>>> "restoring" this type of bike.
>>
>>>> Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value
>>>> of the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper
>>>> resto job.
>>
>>> Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
>>> actually.
>>
>> He's completely wrong again though (surprise, surprise). The fact
>> that the finished article is worth way less than the cost of
>> restoring it doesn't make it "entirely impossible to do the work
>> properly", it just makes it impossible to make a profit.
>>
> Well, yes, ISWYM. It's almost always cheaper to buy a really good
> sorted running bike than to restore a wreck, but sometimes people
> restore bikes just for the fun of it. That's how I'm looking at my
> TS250ER.
>
> And sometimes you can restore a bike for very little. I reckon my 400
> Four owes me maybe £300, and it's worth six or seven times that.

Lord, my 944 had something like £15k to restore it between me and the
previous owner. A minter is worth 5k.

The salvage was worth about a grand.

--
Hog

Hog wrote:

> TOG@Toil wrote:
> > >
> > Well, yes, ISWYM. It's almost always cheaper to buy a really good
> > sorted running bike than to restore a wreck, but sometimes people
> > restore bikes just for the fun of it. That's how I'm looking at my
> > TS250ER.
> >
> > And sometimes you can restore a bike for very little. I reckon my
> > 400 Four owes me maybe #300, and it's worth six or seven times that.
>
> Lord, my 944 had something like #15k to restore it between me and the
> previous owner. A minter is worth 5k.

Just to prove TOG's first point, I paid 12k for my mint 944 Turbo SE,
thrashed the arse off it for several years including a few trackdays,
hardly spent a penny on it, then sold it for 11k.

Conversely a mate's spent tens of thousands on his DB5 (including 20k
for an engine rebuild), & he'd have to wait a loooong time for it to be
worth enough to cover the costs, but he doesn't care as he's ended up
with the car he wants & money isn't an issue to him.


--
Krusty

On 9 June, 10:50, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 10:10*am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 June, 09:49, Roper <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:> Seems that as crap like Superdreams and 400 fours are now looked upon
> > > as "classics" that a healthy trade has grown up around "restoring"
> > > this type of bike.
>
> > > Its entirely impossible to do the work properly, as the final value of
> > > the bike is only going to be a fraction of the cost of a proper resto
> > > job.
>
> > Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> > actually.
>
> > > This means that there are many half arsed but very shiny bikes out
> > > there at the moment, which in some cases take in unwary buyers, who
> > > end up paying a lot of money for a tarted up wreck.
>
> > Um, I think that's always been true of just about any restoration,
> > actually.
>
> > Your point?
>
> The point is that the interest in mundane old late seventies and early
> eighties bikes has meant that a fair few people have set up as
> "restorers" who only have very basic knowledge, and whose standards of
> workmanship are in some cases not as good as better DIY types.

Oh, quite.
>
> To be able to do this type of work properly requires a wide range of
> skills, and it does seem to be very silly that a lot of car bodywork
> types with an interest in bikes, are now setting themselves up as
> "restorers".

>
Really? Name three.