Motorcycle Classics mag: the 81 to 84 XJ550 Seca gets a nod

Just opened up the mailbox and found my May/June 2012 issue of Motorcycle Classics. Lo and behold, there on page 10 is a picture of my model and year, the '81 XJ550 Seca, highlighted in their regular "Best bets on tomorrow's classics" feature. They focus on the 1981-1984 XJ550 Seca.

They do a pretty good job highlighting it (although there are a couple technical errors describing valve clearance adjustments). Just nice to see another positive tip of the hat to our XJs.

 

Yes, I saw that on my online subscription and confirmed today with my paper subscription. Very cool! That's two of my bikes featured as "Best Bets" now.

That news, a Woo-Hoo and $.25 will get you a cup of Joe.

 

Joe must be cheaper than coffee :lol:

 

HELLATIOUS errors; enough to scare off prospective owners! 8O

You'd think they'd fact-check their stuff a little better; back in the day such an error would have been cause for great loss of credibility. You don't even break the camchain to pull the head, fer chrissakes. Plus the adjuster IS NOT automatic; it is a "release and retighten" type (semi automatic at best.)

Bunch of amateurs; they gave themselves away with that one.

They could have asked any one of us.

 

Oh, and one more obvious one: There was NO 1984 Seca 550. They were available here in the USA for model years 1981~83; although the '83s were all manufactured in 1982.

Buncha amateurs.

 

Re: Motorcycle Classics mag: the 81 to 84 XJ550 Seca gets a

Yep; you're right of course, Fitz, but I like the mag enough that I was trying to just focus on the positive. Before I write a letter to the editor.

 

send em your write-up fitz, show em whats up

 

Nope. If they want that level of coverage they'd have to PAY for it.

I will be sending them a "nasty-gram" however. How many other completely inaccurate "tidbits" have they published in regard to what other bikes?

 

haha throw a copy of the note on here, I want to see how badly :lol: you burn them, haha :lol:

 

+1

 

Hey Guys
Sorry for the slow reply on this thread. Yeah, we f'd up pretty nicely on this one, for which I'll take full blame. We should have done a better job of fact checking. But just so you know how this could happen, the fellow who writes that department, his technical knowledge has - until now! - been beyond reproach. Plus, exactly as we were preparing that article, I was putting together a 1982 Kawasaki GPz750 top end, which does have shim-under valves. I've never worked on the Yamaha engine, but it sounded perfectly rational, so I never checked it. The reference to 1984 was a stupid typo. Anyway, I appreciate the support some of you have expressed, and we deserve the ribbing we got on this. Although we miss the mark some times, we strive to be technically accurate, and I appreciate what it means to be left wondering if you should question everything we write.
Richard Backus/Motorcycle Classics

 

Richard; We appreciate the response, don't fret the delay.

Unfortunately, in addition to the obvious technical errors in regard to valve adjustment you missed a couple of other technical details AND screwed up on the history as well.

As I mentioned above, the 550s dual-spring cam chain tensioner was NOT fully automatic; although a fully automatic version was fitted to some of the later, bigger-bore bikes.

You "touted" a voltmeter as a modern improvement on the GPz; but failed to mention that the Seca 550 (not the Maxim) had both a volt meter and a reasonably functional fuel gauge (also a bit ahead of its time in the motorcycle world.)

Now, about the history:

The 550 Seca was the direct descendant of the very original XJ, the 398cc XJ400D introduced for the Japanese home market. The 550 Seca without its USA-market fairing is virtually identical to the XJ400 as introduced (the 400s later got different pipes) except for displacement (and lack of YICS.)

That original, chain primary, chain driven XJ was sold elsewhere in the world as the XJ500 before having YICS and the little bikini fairing added and brought to the USA as a 550 for 1981. Yamaha subsequently dropped the fairing for the '83 model year.

The 650 Maxim was in fact, the first second generation XJ; the shaft driven "power unit" came along well after the original, smaller displacement 4-cylinder bikes had been around for a while (although not in the USA.)

My point in regard to the accuracy (or lack of it) in this article remains the possibility of similar mis-information in regard to other bikes that may not have been picked up on by your eagle-eyed readers if none of them were familiar with the subjects being discussed.

I haven't read the 850 Norton article yet; as an original owner of a '74 Commando roadster (that I still ride,) I'm interested to see what surprises that piece may hold.

You folks might want to consider checking with somebody who actually remembers the bikes being written about; or run your articles past an enthusiast group such as ours before before committing them to publication.

 

Fitz. Yes, the reference to the chain tensioner was of course also wrong. And your point in regard to accuracy is well taken. For better or worse, certain technical points will invariably be left hanging, but errors of this type are easily avoided with a little bit of due diligence. FYI, I rode 850 Commandos for the better part of a decade, hope I'm clean on that one!
Richard Backus/Motorcycle Classics

 

Re: Motorcycle Classics mag: the 81 to 84 XJ550 Seca gets a

Richard, you've got one of the finest and most interesting mags on the planet as far as I'm concerned. Been reading it for YEARS.

 

And that, my friend, is my point.

In this particular case, a whole lot of due diligence because you pooched the historical significance as well.

If you're going to represent yourselves as journalists, then due diligence is well, your duty.

Oh, and it wasn't the Combat motor that did in the Nortons-- it was the CB750 Honda followed by the Z1 Kawasaki a couple of years later. Reliable electric starting turned out to be the most salient selling point and the Britbikes were done.

Of course the fact that they were still producing 1937-era motors into the 70s MAY have contributed a tad--- only Harley can get away with that one forever, as Triumph soon found out.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Norton. (And my 550 Secas.)

Ride safe--- Fitz

 

Regardless of how I feel about the errors, you guys deserve a bit of praise for owning up to them here.

Don't let this scare you away from doing articles on the XJ series, there are some other gems in the line and you've got a couple guys here who know these bikes inside and out (I'm not one of them, I just know my bike).