Hi Tom,
Great to hear from you.
A couple of years ago when you attended a Penton Owners Group meeting in Amherst, at the KTM building, I asked you what Penton motorcycle of all time was your favorite. If I remember correctly, you instantly replied that it was a 175cc with a Sachs bottom end. I am pretty sure that you said it had the KTM Jackpiner top end on it, or was it a straight 175cc Sachs engine of the same design as the 100/125cc Sachs?
If it was indeed a Jackpiner topend grafted onto the Sachs bottom end, do you remember how many were built, and possibly who built them?
Also, what was it about that engine that made such an impression on you?
Thanks,
Paul
PS Tom, check this out..you probably remember the section the photo was taken in..:)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-PENTON-MOTORCYCLE-OWNER-NEWS-BERKSHIRE-JACKPINER-HI-POINT-ISDT-ENDURO/181590971652?_trksid=p2060778.c100277.m3477&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140725134205%26meid%3D69a88a1ec1a64b0bba8ae2c082a1ace3%26pid%3D100277%26prg%3D20140725134205%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D181588603846
Hi enthusiasts!
Oh, now you've done it Paul: got me running down memory lane ...! I can't completely guarantee accuracy, but I'll give it a try:
About the custom 175: Was it my favorite Penton? ... Yes, and No! ... Sorry, for the ambiguous answer: age maybe.
First ... after much anticipation, I was greatly disappointed in the 175 when it came out. It had a heavy engine with a cast iron based cylinder mated to a robust bottom end, the gearbox designed from the git-go for a 250. We all pretty much knew the Sachs gearbox was too much an Achilles heal, but had hoped for a replacement in the 175 that was lighter than what we got and less energy parasitic. The Sachs gearbox, for its faults, had lightness and efficiency going for it.
Also the introduction of the 175 coincided with the new CMF frame. This frame was disappointing to me in all its sizes, specifically because of increased rake & accompanying slow steering, influenced mainly by the desires of European (Italian?) riders on faster, straighter terrain tests. This was going the wrong way for our tighter Eastern USA enduro woods riding.
I stuck with the 125. The sum total for me was the 125 was just as quick to ride and more fun, and I could keep the Sachs gearbox together reasonably well. (I almost always used the clutch, which was facilitated by a well routed & dri-slide lubed nylon insert Terry cable that had a very light velvet pull).
But the 175 size also seemed to me to be somewhat an ideal. Maybe it was nostalgia from hearing Dad's enthusiasm for his NSU 175. I also admitted that a bit more oomph, especially low end, would be welcome compared to the 125.
Skip ahead a couple years. I was working at the R&D in Lorain when someone (any help here?) had the idea to put a 175 cylinder on the top of a Sachs bottom end. We knew this was to some degree quite insane because 1. The gearbox wouldn't take it, and 2. Still with the cast iron cylinder, there would not be enough weight savings to improve handling significantly. But the project went ahead: I wish I could remember the details better as to the who/what/whens. I was involved, but not the basic initiator.
Things didn't turn out so badly, our pessimism wasn't realized:
1. The engine worked much better than we had hoped. There was more power (proving the less parasitic gearbox theory) and MUCH better power band! It was explained that one key to this wonderful power was at the crankcase: namely that the smaller crank air volume of the Sachs bottom end significantly affected performance. And who knows, the slight change in airbox & exhaust routing may have made a difference.
In any case, we had a real gem! The gearbox didn't immediately explode: it in fact proved no more problematic than the 125, at least for me. Because of the improved power band I could take a fraction of a second more for a positive shift. And to think of it, The overall power had been nearly matched by several hopped up 125's & 152's anyways.
2. It had great handling! Let me explain... The time was dawning of long travel suspension, the first iteration of which was moving the rear shocks forward on the swing arm. KTM was a pioneer introducing forward shocks on updated 100 & 125 CMF frames, and the result was somewhat a miracle! The magic wasn't primarily more travel, although that was significant, but rather the geometry jacked up the rear end, lessening rake and gosh darn ... it steered well! I had been racing my 125 with the new suspension for a couple months and smiling the whole time. And wonder of wonders, the added weight of the custom 175 engine in that frame didn't make a significant difference in steering!
We had the Holy Grail ... An improved 175 power that rode like a 125! YEA! But then... it was quickly and ultimately apparent that this bike was totally useless for us. The handwriting was writ large on the wall at this point: the Sachs gearbox was intolerable for general sales, in all sizes. I wanted to race the custom 175 a least a few times, but dad quite rightly laid his foot down. It was our proud policy to race basically stock motorcycles.
So the above explains the "yes" of the answer to the question was this my favorite Penton. It was one of those wonderful "comings together". The "no" is that I never raced it!
Take care, all,
Tom
Hey Tom,
Is that 175 at Dave Mungenast's museum with the blue tank?
1976 MC 5 Original Owner
1982 Suzuki PE 175
1976 Penton 175 GS
1976 Penton 250 GS
I haven't been to the Dave Mungenast Museum, but referencing your post of 12/13/12 "Steel tank Jackpiner" http://www.pentonusa.org/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=0.6&TOPIC_ID=14020& , no this was a different project. The Steel tank 175 would have been early '70's whereas the custom 175 I reference was later, mid '70's. And it is not to be confused with earlier cast iron cylindered engines.
My memory:
Throughout the '70's we used steel sleeved aluminum cylinders on all production bikes, with the exception of the original production 175's, the cylinder I believe we used in the custom build 175 and reference as "cast iron". These were actually a unique new hybrid process: a cast iron core containing both the bore and ports with finned aluminum bonded to it. It may have cooled better, but weight savings was nil.
I can't remember the color of the (by then fiberglass) CMF tank & panels. It might have been green to correspond with being built upon a 125 bottom end and frame. But we had a lot of the light blue around from ISDT bikes. And not each of the few we built weren't necessarily the same color!
Wow,
Great first hand history, information and reading.
Thank you Tom, and thanks for sharing!
Thanks Paul; Great questions.
Dan.
Tom,
Thank you for such a detailed explanation of your reply to the question asking you about your favorite Penton, presented at the POG meeting a few years back.
You initial thoughts on the 175 when it was introduced parallel what your brother Jeff stated about a month ago, when we were discussing the "hybrid Sachs/KTM 175" at the pig roast on your Dad's farm, hosted by Jerry Berky.
The reason the subject came up is that I had on the back of my pick-up a "hybrid Sachs/KTM 175" that Carl had built in the early seventies. Carl's engine and pipe were originally housed in an early non-frame breather chassis, but had eventually been switched to a later chassis. The machine had been tucked away for many years and Jack had hauled it back east, on his return from the ISDT Reunion Ride.
The later chassis is thought to have been left over from three chassis that were sent to Penton West to have Hiro engines installed into them, with only two being used for the Hiro project. Frame serial number comparisons are in the works to possibly confirm this theory. Dave Duarte from Penton west has provided much of this information, I am sure you remember Dave. I just got off the phone with Dave a few minutes ago and he asked me to tell you he says "hi".
As far as who initiated the project at R&D in Lorain, I have a few names to toss out to possibly jog your memory. Johnny Cobb, J.D. Slater, Doug Wilford or possibly Dane?
From what you have said, it seems that you folks were working totally independent from what Carl was doing out west. We are still working on figuring out why Carl built his engine as Carl's memory is a little foggy on this issue, a few theories are as follows.
A. Was he working in conjunction with KTM in the development of the Jackpiner topend power output?
B. Did he want a more powerful machine for some special events where the Sachs just didn't have enough power, or he wanted to run with larger machines, possibly in some desert races?
C. Possibly he just came up with the idea as you folks did, or maybe he heard through the grapevine about your project and he decided to build one.
D. Given the long delay in getting the Jackpiner into production, possibly KTM sent the topend to the states to give your Dad an idea of it's potential.
I have been told that the hybrid Carl built is extremely fast, hopefully a test ride will be forthcoming in the near future, but the machine needs to be gone thru first.
Did you guys at R&D only build 1 of these hybrids?
Did you ever ride a Hiro powered Penton?
Just can't thank you enough Tom for answering these questions, and for providing us with a glimpse of your experiences "back in the day".
Paul
This photo is from the pig roast hosted by Jerry Birky. It was noted there was something "different" about the bike. This is the Hybrid 175/125 powered Penton described in his post.
(http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae59/CheneySachs/154560_943703228978273_5500800354346833156_n_zpsad898200.jpg)
Dale Fisher
Penton Owners Group - Memberships
Mudlark Registry
Facebook - Cheney Twinshock Racing Group - Administrator
'70 Six-Day 125 - V2017
'71 Six-Day 125 (Dave Fisher's) - V5553
'72 Mudlark - W257
'73 Jackpiner - 175 21159727
'74 Berkshire 100 - 40171056
'98 HP-14 Hi-Point
And some silly other bikes...
This was such great read. Thanks POGGERs.