Triumphrat

johnnypence

aside from two carbs vs. one, what are the major differences between the bonnie and tiger throughout history? i know that in 72, the TR6 came in road and scrambler models, but it's not real clear to me how the TR6R i drive is too different from a bonnie of the same era.

was one cheaper than another? more accessories? different performance?

just curious.

also, is it really true that my 72 tiger ONLY came in that one silver/blue paint scheme? that's weird. so maybe if you wanted green or red, you had to get a bonnie?

funny how little owner's manual and sales brochure info comes in the hayne's manual...

__________________
Sic semper tyrannis

jimballard

One carb vs two is the only major difference. It's an advantage, really, because the 2nd carb doesn't do too much until you hit about 4-5,000 rpm. Then there's the issue of balancing the twin ones... The Tiger might have a bigger gas tank (it did in the 70's) but I'm not sure about that in '72. Yes, they only came in one color scheme per year, but it was a small price to pay.

Enjoy your ride, single carbs are great: Jim

__________________
Jim Ballard

The older I get, the faster I was....until lately!! (Speed IS the fountain of youth)!

GrandPaulZ

I concur with Jim 100%.

I think the HP advantage of the Bonnie's two-carb setup was so insignificant it wasn't worth the trouble, like 2 HP.

Top speed was about 5 MPH higher (maybe not QUITE 5...)

__________________
GrandPaulZ
Author of "Old Bikes"
Born Again Bikes
My Photos

Slinky

Many years ago I had a TR7 when several of my friends rode T140s. We used to ride them pretty hard, and in the real world there was no difference in performance.

Mine consistently used less fuel though

__________________
"You can't fly with the eagles if you keep scratching with the turkeys."

johnnypence

so at the time, was triumph billing the bonnie as the "premium" cycle with the tiger as an "affordable alternative?" basically, why would a 1972 consumer chose one over the other at the time?


***
and I DO enjoy the ride. it's really something. all the tinkering pays off.

my other bike, years ago, was an 83 550 honda, which was an electric-start, get-on-and-go, 55 mpg sweetheart of a curve-straightener. it was my only transportation all through the middle 3 years college.

the tiger is a great difference. it's fun to smell like gas after a ride. it's fun for a ride to be an "event" that takes some preparation.

also, i think that if i can get everything tuned just right, it will be faster than my honda was and handle better to boot.

__________________
Sic semper tyrannis

jimballard

By the by, how is the countess? (Sorry, I had to slip that one in). The single carb models were faster off the line and would hold a twin carb off until hitting the higher rpms. The dual carb ones were just a bit "overcarbed" as I remember it.

Of course, my memory is a fleeting thing: Jim

__________________
Jim Ballard

The older I get, the faster I was....until lately!! (Speed IS the fountain of youth)!

okiecityflash

I always thought the twin carbs with round air cleaners were the best things, as far as looks go on the old Bonnie"s. The other being the gas tank with the rack. Its a pity Triumph didn't use them on their oif Bonnie"s. I even thought about seeing if a 650 head would fit a t140e. I saw one guy that took some curved radiator hose and made a look alike, hung a bracket over the back bone. Looked alright, but wasn't the same.

[ This message was edited by: okiecityflash on 2006-04-08 09:59 ]

panda

basically the trophy ( single carb) was the sports tourer TR6 touring/road ,the thunderbird was the tourer ( hence 6T, t for touring) the twin carbs were there for marketing and as the basis for the 'production' racers. It was not until the tuning guys prepared the bikes for production racing that the twin carbs came into their own. Some t120s have been clocked at over 140mph during the IOM tt races.
People often underestimate of what some of the old bikes were capable. Even today there are not many 650 cc bikes that can get to 140mph.. and there has not been a 500 cc 'production' bike built since 1961 that can sustain an average of over 100 mph for 24 hours. Leastwise no manufacturer has had the courage to try and all this on amal carbs, lucas electrics and a £25 points ignition system :-D

[ This message was edited by: panda on 2006-04-08 13:29 ]

__________________
A wise man learns from his mistakes..
A genius learns from other peoples mistakes.

johnnypence

140. wow. i have no desire at all to get up to that speed, but it's nice to know i can pass a truck. my granddaddy used to talk about "when the needle got stuck between the 'harley' and the 'davidson,'" back in the late 40s. i have no idea at what speed that happened, but it was fast enough to outrun the cops if you throw the table-top jukebox you stole on the pavement and make them swerve to miss it.

but HE was a crazy redneck ... well, i guess the apple don't fall far from the tree ... but even still i don't much like to hang on above 75-80 mph.

__________________
Sic semper tyrannis

jimballard

Just for the record, the "parcel rack" on the gas tanks were finished by the 1968 models, I believe. I did like them, though, as I had one on my 1966 TR6R. It was handy, but now a tank bag does do a better job. Oh, there was always a bit of a "legend" in the good old days about what happed when a rider stopped quick or hit something and slid up the tank into the rack....YEE-OUCH!! Makes one wonder if the population explosion had anything to do with the demise of the rack.

Just singing soprano in a Castrati Choir: Jim

__________________
Jim Ballard

The older I get, the faster I was....until lately!! (Speed IS the fountain of youth)!