69 ct70 what's so different?
- Thread starter Grant's trail
- Start date
hornetgod
Well-Known Member
Just the backsides.
kirrbby
Well-Known Member
That's what I figured. I would say it's a very good addition. And I see how it's different on a K2 frame I have here than it is on the K0's. All good info, thx
hornetgod
Well-Known Member
Helmet locks were not added until the K1/HK1 production run.
kirrbby
Well-Known Member
They should be black. The white ones are for Z50's.
Adam-NLV
Well-Known Member
I know this is an old question
Helmet locks were not added until the K1/HK1 production run according to HG, but by 79 they had rubber grommets in place of the helmet lock holes, by 1981' the holes were gone and covered by this plate.
I kinda wish they kept them around though, I'm guessin that was part of a cost cutting measure.
View attachment 18710 View attachment 18708
Last edited:
hornetgod
Well-Known Member
That and the plastic fenders spelled the down fall of the model. As the chrome was phased out, the sales numbers crashed.
Last edited:
cjpayne
Well-Known Member
I've got a set of those rubber grommets if anyone wants them. I used them until I got a helmet lock back on my bike. Helped keep water/debris out.
IMHO, you're confusing cause and effect. Everything has its historical moment in the sun and by the end of the `70s, the CT70s had passed. Bike sales, in general, tanked during this era... along with the economy and the malaise continued well into the `90s. Had the `69-`74 details all been retained, retail prices would have easily topped $2K by `80 and close to triple that amount by now, all things remaining the same.
Adam-NLV
Well-Known Member
IMHO I think your both right although I'd give more of a percent to racer's explanation in that basically 'times change'... but HG has some dang valid points.
This (my) 1979 purchase has enlightened me to the changes that makes me agree with HG's explanation too.
For the Bright Yellow 1979 model it was the first bike to incorporate:
1) The end of the folding iconic handle bars.
2) The beginning of the painting fenders (they weren't plastic yet).
3) The elimination of the Helmet Holder.
4) The end of the chrome engine guard/ skid plate.
5) Lots more black paint than chrome...
Those are the 5 examples I can think of right off hand, there may be more.
This (my) 1979 purchase has enlightened me to the changes that makes me agree with HG's explanation too.
For the Bright Yellow 1979 model it was the first bike to incorporate:
1) The end of the folding iconic handle bars.
2) The beginning of the painting fenders (they weren't plastic yet).
3) The elimination of the Helmet Holder.
4) The end of the chrome engine guard/ skid plate.
5) Lots more black paint than chrome...
Those are the 5 examples I can think of right off hand, there may be more.
More than one manufacturer has screwed the pooch with model changes. However, consider that some, if not most, have been sales successes...the Mustang II & 3rd gen F-body come to mind, bean-counter engineered, yet they sold reasonably well for most of their model runs. I've also seen examples of vehicles that were killed-off, just when the weak points were finally eliminated...Fiero GT, anyone? What's far tougher to find is a clearcut example of an existing vehicle line that died in the showrooms due to cost-cuts. Without a complete redesign, such as with the various "C" designation Corvettes, there's rarely been a vehicle, bike or car, that wasn't well past its sales peak after a decade. And, living in big 3 land, I can say, without doubt, that manufacturers normally respond to the market. It doesn't always appear this way, at street level.
Now, having said all of that, let's consider the basic fact of CT70 sales figures. The short & skinny is that they dropped sharply beginning with the K2 and never recovered. If the lack of chrome, including folding bars & engine guard, is what sent prospective buyers heading back out through the showroom door, then why did the K3 sell in smaller numbers than the K1 & K2? After all, it had the most chrome of any model.
FYI, the commodity price of chromium went through the roof as the 1970s wore on. Automotive chrome virtually vanished because of this. Yet, the later 2nd gen F-bodies (for example) were the sales success of their decade, in spite of the fact that they were virtually all-plastic and the engines had been completely strangled by `75.
What's seems miraculous, imo, is that the CT70...essentially the product of a very different era...managed to soldier on as long as it did. Think about it, how many Woodstock-era machines, were still viable a decade later...at the end of the disco (ugh:31
era. I'm open to discussion, as always. Still, I remain convinced that North America was all but done with the CT70, after its first decade. The best stock version of the bike, the`91-94/12v model, was an abject failure in the market...continuing the downward sales trend which had begun two decades earlier, after picking it up right at the point at which it left off, in `82.
Now, having said all of that, let's consider the basic fact of CT70 sales figures. The short & skinny is that they dropped sharply beginning with the K2 and never recovered. If the lack of chrome, including folding bars & engine guard, is what sent prospective buyers heading back out through the showroom door, then why did the K3 sell in smaller numbers than the K1 & K2? After all, it had the most chrome of any model.
FYI, the commodity price of chromium went through the roof as the 1970s wore on. Automotive chrome virtually vanished because of this. Yet, the later 2nd gen F-bodies (for example) were the sales success of their decade, in spite of the fact that they were virtually all-plastic and the engines had been completely strangled by `75.
What's seems miraculous, imo, is that the CT70...essentially the product of a very different era...managed to soldier on as long as it did. Think about it, how many Woodstock-era machines, were still viable a decade later...at the end of the disco (ugh:31
era. I'm open to discussion, as always. Still, I remain convinced that North America was all but done with the CT70, after its first decade. The best stock version of the bike, the`91-94/12v model, was an abject failure in the market...continuing the downward sales trend which had begun two decades earlier, after picking it up right at the point at which it left off, in `82.
Adam-NLV
Well-Known Member
Yep, one of my obnoxious friends use to criticize how much time & money I put into these machines and would comment that they'd never hold any value because not enough of them were built to make it worthy of collecting. He was ignorant so I schooled him on the production numbers and years they were built. He was astounded at the production numbers and I got the last laugh.
On the viable Woodstock-era machines, I guess the Mustang would be the only one i can think of....
On the viable Woodstock-era machines, I guess the Mustang would be the only one i can think of....
I was talking about a machine that was still the same, in-production and a viable seller in both `69 and in `79. The mustang model/product life cycle doesn't fit that somewhat arbitrary timeline, as there were three different iterations sold between `69 & `79...the bloated "500lb canary" version sold from `68-`73, the Mustang II from `74-`77 and, finally the fox body was introduced in `78. Those are all very different cars. The general's 2nd-gen F body comes closer ("70-1/2" - `81) - a single iteration with more, or less, superficial variations sold for the decade; it still missed the mark, hitting the market a year after the CT did.
Compare the `69 K0 to the `79 model...it's essentially the same bike, with a handful of mostly superficial changes. From the saddle, it's actually the better bike...but still instantly recognizable as the same CT70. Now compare the `69 `stang to the `79 model. If you didn't already know the product lineage, you'd never know that there was any connection, let alone a 3rd version between them.
That's an impressive achievement. The only other machine I can think of that maybe eclipses this kind of single-model viability is the Harley-Davidson...of course `69-`79 spans the reviled AMF years.
Trivia factoid that you'll probably never use for anything...Honda did have a replacement for the CT70, the CY70 "Naughty Dax". Clearly, they saw the proverbial writing on the wall for the venerable CT70. Sadly, the bike never reached our shores, but that's another topic altogether...
Compare the `69 K0 to the `79 model...it's essentially the same bike, with a handful of mostly superficial changes. From the saddle, it's actually the better bike...but still instantly recognizable as the same CT70. Now compare the `69 `stang to the `79 model. If you didn't already know the product lineage, you'd never know that there was any connection, let alone a 3rd version between them.
That's an impressive achievement. The only other machine I can think of that maybe eclipses this kind of single-model viability is the Harley-Davidson...of course `69-`79 spans the reviled AMF years.
Trivia factoid that you'll probably never use for anything...Honda did have a replacement for the CT70, the CY70 "Naughty Dax". Clearly, they saw the proverbial writing on the wall for the venerable CT70. Sadly, the bike never reached our shores, but that's another topic altogether...
blacufo
Member
What is an original running, titled, silvertag with all the early model parts worth these days in good original condition? I see a lot the early bikes for sale either fully restored or non running basket cases. How much more value is there in the so called "silver tag" models over say a 1970 or 1971 Ct70 in the same condition?
MMR
New Member
I just bought one with 832 miles on it for $800 and it is an original 102 xxx VIN number. The paint is in not in the best condition but everything is there and it does need to be restored. Let's face it there's a little over 16,000 silver tags around so they're not as rare as people believe them to be I think.
2
2
Last edited by a moderator: