Triumphrat

kludge

Two big negatives for me.

1. It does indeed look like every metric cruiser ever built, and not even one of the prettier ones. Cruisers in general are not my thing. It's the 2008 folks, not 1968. You are 40 years late for that fashion trend. You can get a comfortable riding position on a touring or adventure bike and much more practicality, so I don't believe that anyone buys these things for anything other than looks. That said, I fully respect anyone's right to dress up like a gay pirate and ride around on something like that looks like a mobile jukebox. In return you can respect my right to point and laugh at your monumental lack of taste.

1a. As a guy who wouldn't buy a Speedmaster or America, the new T-Bird is even less attractive to me.

1b. While I find the idea of a 'Speed Twin' hooligan version mildly interesting, a new bike would have to do something no existing product in the line-up does. A Speed Twin based on this motor would have less torque and hp than the Triple, and weigh more. Even a little Monster would kick it's ass. That motor is going to have some enormous hidden reserve of character to make up for that.

2. A 1600cc parallel twin is not good engineering. Hell, a 1600cc twin of any configuration is not really good engineering, but at least a v-twin would have primary balance that didn't need two massive balance shafts to tame. Balance shafts are inefficient mmkay, and the bigger they are the more power they waste. Yes, obviously Triumph will never build a v-twin. So, they should not try to compete with superior technology in that market.

2a. Whatever torque this new motor makes and whatever the torque curve looks like, I bet that a triple with less capacity could equal or better it. At the same time it would be more compact and possibly more fuel efficient.

This new thing isn't going to do any of the things I want in a motorcycle. Sad to say that neither would a 1600cc Bonnie. What I would have been interested would have been something with the weight and agility of my old Meriden twin, with about 900cc, dohc, quality and reliability. I didn't buy a new Bonnie because it's bigger, heavier and slower than my old 750. Too bad Triumph seems to be moving further away from that ideal instead of closer. I do hope they sell a million of them to fund the development of the 675 and a new liter-class triple with power closer to the 200hp mark, but I won't be one of those buying one.

__________________
Have specs on nuskool triple valve diameters or cam timing / lift? Please help.

HiDesert

Sweet whistling Jeshophat, what a thread. Well, it's called 'Opinions wanted!'

I like the look of the standard version much better, but frankly both of them are 1000 cc too big for me. I'd be a lot more interested if they were 750s or smaller, and weighed proportionally less. I don't want 1600 cc in any kind of bike. 955 is more than I need.

I'm sure this opinion puts me well outside the motorcycling mainstream, but there it is. (Blasphemy to follow) I think the huge engine trend is pretty silly. That's not what I want in a motorcycle; I want light weight, good efficiency, agility, and a catalytic converter that turns exhaust gasses into fresh fuel.

I'm flexible on the last requirement.

__________________
In the third century B.C. the Greek stoic philosopher Chrysippus died of laughter after giving his donkey wine, then seeing it attempt to feed on figs.


HiDesert's ride photos

Tbirdnz

Well I thought that too when I first got my TB900 but my CB1300 is only 5kg heavier and what a big difference in the two bikes. Being able to go to warp speed in nano-seconds is a blast !

I got that from Captain Kirk and I'm sure he would also have the answer to your catalytic fuel reproducer, or maybe you should ask Scotty ?

....but big cruisers need HP just for the weight issue.


-------------
Ride on !

Lee

Hide I agree with you, but it is all in the head. I have convinced myself that my Rocket is a 750 cc........ times three.

__________________

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

DuckMan001

That's an interesting statement considering the 3 Triumph dealers here in town can't keep Bonnies and Thruxtons on the showroom floor they sell so quick.

__________________
Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is he will tell you. If he isn't there's no need to embarrass him.

DuckMan001

Maybe I'm not squinting my eyes right but except for the engine, it looks like any one of the dozen or so harley clones to me.

__________________
Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is he will tell you. If he isn't there's no need to embarrass him.

Tbirdnz

I think it will be one of these:




A fox among a bunch of dogs !


---------------
Ride on !

buz

Once I've seen it in the flesh then I'll pass judgement

Sal Paradise

I agree with Kludge. Well said Kludge, especially the part about respecting the rights of pirates. Also - kudos to the guy who suggested a speed twin, what an idea. If it really worked I'd buy it as an alternative to the GT1000 I am dreaming about.

This design seems like a Harley clone to me. Its like all the other clones and I am not interested. Why on earth would I buy a "Triumph Harley"?

smaughazard

Well, if nothing else, the bike is sure a conversation starter! Yes, the entire cruiser class is based on custom H-Ds; so what? If there's anything truly copied here, it is the wheels taken from 80s Viragos.

IMO, it looks better than some of the Japanese cruisers- less busy, and fewer trinkets. The mufflers will be easily replaced, and the radiator has been carefully de-emphasized. Cruiser styling with forward controls works pretty well for those of us with longer legs; I have forward (well, dual) controls on my '98 Trident: because I wanted my shifter and brake available without dancing between the rider pegs and highway pegs. Belt final drive is light and low-maintenance, and the EFI is inevitable for emissions reasons alone. 100hp at the rear wheel is OK, but I have yet to see any torque ratings.

What I probably WILL object to is the expected price…