Triumphrat

joeygloor · 05-25-2005

I just went on the superduke website and I watched the video of that bike roasting ass while two dudes beat the piss out of one another. How cool is that!!? Really made me want to buy the bike. It reminded me of when I saw Mission Impossible II. Once I saw Cruise ride the S3 through fire, I had to have one. I still think the speed triples have the best overall appearance (all bodystyles: 95-2005) but I wouldn't mind a Superduke in the garage too. I love naked sport bikes, coolest looking bikes on the market -bar none.

(to those who read my comments about the 05 triple being too small for me with the cut rear end, I realize the KTM is small too. Its not that I don't like that look, I just wish they made them bigger, not higher up --just bigger, thicker, and longer front to back)

Martin_R · 05-25-2005

Quote:

On 2005-05-25 00:21, joeygloor wrote:
I just went on the superduke website and I watched the video of that bike roasting ass while two dudes beat the piss out of one another. How cool is that!!?

Where have you been? I think every motorcycleboard had links to that clip about a year ago.

Quote:

I still think the speed triples have the best overall appearance (all bodystyles: 95-2005) but I wouldn't mind a Superduke in the garage too.

Well that was my original problem also. SuperDuke or S3. Duke having superior handling and top shelf components, but butt ugly styling (maybe bearable with all the optional carbon tanks etc.) and a higher price tag + availability was low. S3 had the styling I wanted, but was a bit smallish and the motor and components are not quite up to the KTM standard, but S3 was available and cheaper so that was what I chose.

Quote:

(to those who read my comments about the 05 triple being too small for me with the cut rear end, I realize the KTM is small too. Its not that I don't like that look, I just wish they made them bigger, not higher up --just bigger, thicker, and longer front to back)

I'd say the SuperDuke is not small, it might in fact be the largest factory streetfighter around. Seat height is very high, seat to pegs ratio is very roomy and the bars are wider than S3 or Monster. Go and have a test drive and you'll see, it just seems slim because of the narrow V-twin engine.

OMEGA · 05-25-2005

It's the 990 superduke, and we just learned they wont be coming to the states, at all. :evil:

Ephtriple · 05-25-2005

I read several naked bike tests...the speed triple always finished at 1st place. So, it not only got the better look, but all in all, its the best rated naked bike so far...

Its definetely the better choice :hammer:

Martin_R · 05-25-2005

Quote:

On 2005-05-25 04:45, Ephtriple wrote:
I read several naked bike tests...the speed triple always finished at 1st place. So, it not only got the better look, but all in all, its the best rated naked bike so far...

Its definetely the better choice :hammer:

Yes, I agree that the S3 is the better choice for most of the UK bikemag testers, who like to blow the 'made in England' trumpet a bit.

All I can say is if you have ridden both and thought that the S3 is better for you then it is. But if you have only ridden the S3 you should never go and take the Duke for a tester as you will notice that the ride is quite a bit better than Triumph's. Which might or might not piss you off some.

There is no way around the fact that there are some cost cutting and legacy designs on the S3 when the Duke is a fresh from the drawing board, no-compromise machine.

And this is from an owner of a '05 S3 which I am quite happy with. The S3 was the better price-performance-styling compromise for me, but if I would have judged on performance alone the Duke would have kicked my S3's butt with one arm tied behind it's back.

crashmasterd · 05-25-2005

Some Performance data:

KTM 990 Superduke: Triumph Speed Triple:
Top Speed: 136 mph 148 mph
1/4 mile: 11.64 seconds 11.53 seconds
0-60: 3.5 seconds 3.35 seconds
0-100 7.1 seconds 7.28 seconds

While the KTM is lighter, the Triumph has both more horsepower and considerably more torque.

As far as handling is concerned, the two bikes are petty comparable with neither one out performing the other. All the testers I've read so far praise the handling of the Speed Triple. They also like the KTM, so no winner here.

And great Buddha the KTM is coyote ugly.

[ This message was edited by: crashmasterd on 2005-05-25 07:49 ]

mookieblaylock · 05-25-2005

i got a 950 and the list of ***** going wrong with these bikes is extensive. Yes the 990 is the next generation but the beauty of the triumph is the triple is evolved into something that is very trust worthy mechanichaly

[ This message was edited by: mookieblaylock on 2005-05-25 07:54 ]

Ephtriple · 05-25-2005

Martin_R I do not read UK bikemags, I am talking about testers from french and german mags. They all place the S3 n°1.

For example, Motorrad german bikemag:
Rankings:
1. Speed triple
2. MZ 1000 SF
3. Yamaha MT-01
4. Benelli TNT 1300 Sport
5. Buell ligthning XB12S

And on their list of the ever best ranked naked bikes, the speed triple is on first place and the KTM 990 Duke is on 27th place.

In other mags the S3 also won against the Duke.

But its true, I haven't ridden the Duke yet...

OMEGA · 05-25-2005

What I would like to know is the actual weight difference between them, ready to ride with fuel.
Torque is heavily favoring the S3.

Windchill · 05-25-2005

I've had the pleasure of riding both!!

I own a 2003 S3, quite the prettiest by far IMHO, and got to try the Superduke about a fortnight ago when my Guzz was being serviced.

It was a laugh in a manic sort of way, but I'm afraid I didn't rate the motor at all - my taste is for tons of creamy torque, not something choppy, badly fuelled and over sensitive.

Yes, it turned me into a grinning teenager for about half an hour, but after that it was pure pain in the arse.

Handling wise, I couldn't really make a call though - perhaps my bum is insensitive!!

As a naked package, nothing beats the S3. :nana: