Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Ural motorcycles

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' at netrider.net.au started by Dp., Nov 12, 2008.

  1. I’ve seen an article in the Cycle Torque magazine about Ural motorcycles. They were talking about super quality and demand. The price was $17000.
    Being grown up in Russia I’ve seen lots of them although never ridden. They really were considered to be good bikes, at least to be bikes for sort of serious riders….but compared with what? I can’t remember if someone could compare them with Jawa available at that time. So, I grew up with something in my mind like Jawa is the best and Ural...has a sidecar…

    Quick search on the internet answered my questions, I found an article on the what is supposed to be a Russian biker website. It was interesting reading, so I decided to sacrifice half an hour of my time and translate the article into English to share with everyone here.

    I am wondering if they are really that bad why people buying them? Or they export different Urals and sell all POS in Russia?


  2. Paging PatB, PatB to the thread please. PatB.

    Until Pat gets here, do a Search for 'Ural' here on Netrider and you should be able to find Pat's excellent bumper-edition review and travel documentary. :)
  3. Humorous, but no longer accurate, at least for bikes sold in Western markets.

    MrsB's 2008 Ural is 100 times the bike that any of my jawas and CZs were. Good job really as it cost 100 times as much :shock: .

    You might want to see https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=55176&start=0 for further details.
  4. Very detailed review but you are basically confirming some of the things like oil leakage, electrical problems, high fuel consumtion, low power, tendensy to overheating even in the cold winter weather and highway riding. And all that for a brand new bike....
    I had a quick look at www.ural.com.au to get some technical specs...26.5 kwt for 350kg weight with a sidecar puts the performance right next to cbr125 but with fuel consumption of 7-10 litres/100km...So....I guess the review still at least partially accurate....

    I guess people buying them only for their look...like it was written in the Cycle Torque..."what it misses is only machine gun"...but not the power and not the quality...which really is not very important in this case...
  5. DP - thanks for the translation - that was pretty funny :p

    Patb's a guy who can spin a spanner, wanted a purpose built sidecar outfit and had little choice. The Ural fits his/wife's needs and that's all that matters :cool:
  6. Errrm.......I think you may have missed quite a lot of my points. I don't class a not terribly effective headlamp, a bit of a hot smell for the first hour or two on a new, old tech, engine and a one off dribble from the final drive as significant problems. Power output is sufficient to travel safely on any road in Australia and keep up with any urban traffic I've encountered.

    Yes, the look is an attraction, but my main motivation for buying it was to obtain one of the last motorcycles in production on which a capable owner with access to basic machining facilities can make 95% of any parts necessary to keep it running indefinitely.

    In short, yes it is a 1940s motorcycle with a few modern refinements. However, it is not a bad 1940s motorcycle any more and has improved out of all recognition from the bikes that were sold into the UK market back in the 1980s (never owned one, but knew quite a few people who did). Indeed, it's pre-technological origins are its main attraction and certain deficiencies are an almost inevitable part of that package.

    What it is not, is either an R1 or a CBR125 and shouldn't be approached as such. However, neither of those bikes, nor any other bike that I'm aware of, will carry three people and a fortnight's camping gear in any degree of safety or comfort. Nor will they make quite such a big hole in the side of any car whose driver didn't see you :grin: . Not everyone wants a sports bike.

    Yes, $18,000 will buy you quite a nice small car which will go faster, handle better, carry more and use less petrol, whilst being, basically, plug 'n' play, but if practicality was all there was to bikes, many of the members of this forum probably wouldn't be riding.

    A fair comparison would be to other bike and sidecar combinations. Yes, you can build a much better combo than the Ural. However, if you can get a brand new shaft drive 750 professionally fitted with leading link forks and a braked sidecar for $18k ride-away, I'd be very eager to find out where 'cos you're better at finding bargains than I am. Let me know what fuel consumption and performance you get out of it too. You might get a bit of extra go, but I'd be very surprised indeed if it used significantly less fuel.

    If a Ural doesn't offer what you want in a bike, fair enough, but don't exaggerate my criticisms of the machine into a blanket condemnation. The quality is, mostly, fine. At least as good as anyone but the Japanese seem able to offer. Better than most of the Italian industry's offerings until recently at least.
  7. I love the Ural. Not for what it does, but for what it is, in a world of retro comebacks, it's the homicidal Barney Gumbal minus the M16.