Once dismissed as ‘foreign muck,’byvirtue lightweight Italian motorcycles
shouldreallybeasuniversallypopular with Brits as spaghetti Bolognese.Viva ItaliaIn the1950s multi-cylinder MVsand Gilerasweregenerallyregar dedinthe UK as vanity projects.RoyPoyntinghas
been aregular
contributor toThe
ClassicMotorCycle
since1995 whenhe
entered and wona
writing compet ition.
Aveteran of many
restorations, he
continuestobean
enthusiastic rider.oday’s motorcyclists mustfind
it hard to comprehend the
derogatoryway Italian bikes used
to be regarded.They only need
an occasion al sightofmotor cycle
racingonthe televisionto knowthatfirmslikeDucati
and Aprilia arequite capable ofmatchin gthe best
MotoGPbikes campaignedby theJapanesegiants.
Ducati’s road bikes arealsoamongthe mostdesirable
race-replicas,and Moto Guzzi’srange includesretro
roadsters,cruisers and adventure bikes that can
challenge anythingproducedbyHarley-Davidson
and BMW.
It wasquite differen tint he 1950s and early-1960s
Everyone wasinawe of themulti- cylinderGileras and
MV Agustas whichruled the bigger Grands Prixclasses,
buttheyweregenerallyregarded as vanity projects
made byfirmswith moneytoburn. Less interestwas
taken in the smaller classesbecause the MVs, Guzzis
and Mondials whichdominated themwere seenastoo
specialised to be of much p ractical interest, and that
dismissivefeelingwentins pades for micro-racers from
the likes ofItom and Motom.
Admittedly our designersand manufacturers paidlip-
service to the ‘racingimprovesthe breed’ philosophy,
butitwas left to theItalians toreally putit into practice.
Relativel yfew Brit ishmotorcyclistseven knew that
all thefirmsI’vementioned–plus Benelli,Maserati,
Morini andmanyothers–alsomade lightweights for
the road, andstill fewerrealis ed howclosely those
machineswererelatedtothefirms’ racers.Had we but
known it,wecouldn’t have failedtobeimpressed by the
stupendousperformances achieved by lightweights in
marathonroad racessuch as theMotogirod’Italia.But
–possiblybecause ourmotor cycle pres swas weddedto
the home industry–wemostly didn’t knowit. And if
sportinglightweightsfromAermacchi andDucati were
occasionally seenonour roads,theywerelookedat
moreincuriosity than admiration. Folkloretold us they
were fastbut fr agile toyscursed with dodgyelectrics,
paintworkand chrome plating, and –wheth er through
jealousy,xenophobia orsimple ignorance–manyofus
believed it.
Howwrong we were!Durin gmytimewithThe
ClassicMotorCycleI’ve been lucky enough toreport on
lightweightsmade by six orsevenof thebette r-known
Italian companies andIfound theyall putthe products
of ourhome industryinthe shade.Without exception,
theirrace-breedingshone through with superb
handlingand performance tooutdomanymuch bigger
machines. BeforeI’m accused of bias,however ,I’ll
freely admit there’dbesomethingwrong if theyweren’t
better than contemporaryUKmotorcycles, because
theywereconsiderably more expensive. In 1958 for
example,the 175cc ohcDucatiSSportscostmorethan
twice asmuch as theequivalently-siz ed Bant am,and
almostthe same asa650ccGoldenFlash.Isitany
wonder theywererarelyseen onourroads?
Anditwasn’tjust thecostthat told againstthem in
Britisheyes.There wasalsothe fact that the superlative
performance wasachieved with complex engines
needingtoberevved to alevel th at would spell
expensivedisasterwith the bikeswe were used to.
Quality engineeringwas thekey, and that’s what’s so
noticeable whenyouovercome anylingering prejudice
aboutItalian bikes.
My current restoration projectisamoped (ifyou ask
‘why?’,Ican onlyreply ‘whynot?’)sold with afamiliar
name,but asItalian asspag hettibehind the tank badge.
Likemostconte mporaryBritish lightweights itrelies
on proprietarycomponents,but howdifferen tits
Minarelli engine andDell’Ortocarburettor arefrom
thosedishedupbyVilliers!Virtually everything’svisibly
betterfinished,with smooth die-castcomponents
replacingknobblysand castings ,and the internals
vividlyrevealthe difference in design philosophy.
Villiers’approachtomakingengines forthe smallest
clas seswas tosimplify everythi ng, so theclutc hwas
reducedtoasinglespring and acouple of full-sized
plates.Minarelli, on the otherhand, provideda
conventional-lookingclutchwith fourspringsand
sevenplates,but scaleditall d owntoabout four inches
in diameterwith plain plates amere35,000ths ofan
inch thick!Similarly, thesmallestVillierscarburet tor’s
sole availableadjustmentistothe needle height, while
the even tinierDell’Ortodevic ealsohas an adjustable
pilot jet,changeabl emain andatomisingjets,and most
intr iguingly of all; the ‘tickler’not only depressesthe
float, butalsooperates aminuscule‘startingsump’.
Details likethoseadd up to givemachines quite
different characters–characterswhichseem to
demonstratethe difference betweenstolidNorth
European pragmatism andMedite rraneanflair.Both
approacheswere equallyvalid so ‘you paidyourmoney
and youtook your choice’. It’s just ashame that more
1950 s’ and60s’enthusiastsweren’t open-minded(and
wealthy) enough to enable moreofustomakethat
same choice today. EndOpinion |RoyPoynting Classics
ife