Can’t remember the model. It was in the late 70s/early 80s. It was a long-stroke “thumper” built kind of retro-Brit style that I bought to replace my BSA 500, also a long stroke single.
The Yamaha rode very well AFAIR and could just about climb cliffs. Bitch to get started sometimes though and a pretty low top speed.
There used to be loads and loads of 500 singles – BSA, Matchless, AJS, I think even Triumph might have had one.
I’d have another in a heartbeat if I could.
That would have been the SR500, street version of the XT500 off-raod bike. We used to call it the heel-breaker 
Indeed it was. Mine looked almost the same as the one below except it was midnight blue and had a straight pipe, clip-ons and a single seat. Boy was it
L-O-U-D!
Big thumpers rule!
cool, very british looking, you don’t see these where i come from…so these thumpers have tons of torque, lots of pull, but they top out pretty quick. Sounds like they have a similar riding personality to a v-twin cruiser in that respect…
Ah, I’ve always loved this bike, it’s still one of my all-time favorites, but I sadly never owned one. I envy you the experience, sandman! Back home it ironically (because of the extreme action necessary on the kick-start) developed into a bike preferred by ladies, I guess due to the relatively low seat. They don’t make bikes like this anymore: simple, elegant, down-to-earth, no technical gimmicks … what’s really ironic is that I now drive a majesty, shame on me! 
[quote=“joesax”][quote=“TNT”]Anything over 125cc with a one cyclinder engine can not be that good[/quote]What can you mean? The 250 trailie my brother rented in Thailand was very ‘good’ and those BMW 650 singles are no doubt several times ‘better’. Now, multicylinder bikes have different power output characteristics to singles. Singles generally have smooth power over a wide range, but are not very ‘revvy’. (Two-stroke engines are an exception to this because they are very different altogether).
[/quote]
Well I was always led to believe the more cyclinders you have the better simply cause it gives more balance in the engine…hence a 4 is better than a 2 and a 6 cyclinder is better than a 4…
Also when you have a one cyclinder engine you are getting power every 4 strokes of the piston or two revs of the crankshaft… with a two cyclinder engine you are getting power on every stroke(albeit it in theory half the power if we are comparing a 250CC single and a 250cc V engine or straight 2 cyclinder engine) but you are getting the power more consistently
Also in theory two cyclinders of size X/2 should have better breathing than a cyclinder of size X… since you have the same number of valves… of course the valves in the cyclinder of size X may be twice the size to compensate?!
Maybe it is me but I would prefer an engine with more than one cyclinder… my 150CC probabily would be more expensive… I assume it is easier and cheaper to cast a one cyclinder engine that a 2 cyclinder V or straight… and then you would have to have a different cam an extra piston etc
So maybe they just use one cyclinder engines cause they are cheaper to build
Also I would not like to have a see a one cyclinder 6 litre truck jumping up and down the road follwing the stroke of the piston