Triumphrat

derek985 · 07-06-2006

I recall that all the old Triumphs looked kinda similar to the Bonnie....

Daytonas
Tigers
Thunderbirds

And now the Daytona looks like a rice rocket, the Tiger looks like a Ducati/BMW, and the Thunderbirds looked more like a Harley than a Triumph.

I realize that Triumph is probably going for wider market appeal but it's my opinion that the new versions of these models are a slap in the face to the classics of yesteryear.

D.

FlatFourOne · 07-06-2006

In my opinion, change is good. If you want Triumph to stay in business for years to come, you've got to support their efforts to appeal to a wide demographic. Triumph has a great thing going for it in that they've got a large group of enthusiasts as well as a rich history. I think that it's great that they even MAKE the Bonneville and Thruxton models. They are the only manufacturer out there that even produces a bike that is such an obvious nod to the past. My friend has a speed triple and I've got a Thruxton. When we go out riding together, all the younger guys check out his bike and all the older guys compliment mine. I just think that it's important for Triumph to keep moving forward and from what I've read about the new Daytona 675 and Speed Triple, they're definitely on the right track with their sport bikes. Basically, I don't think we have anything to fear with regards to Triumph forgetting their rich heritage while they move towards the future.

Ridge · 07-06-2006

I think almost all manufacturers did the same thing with their bike models. Look at the Honda Superhawk it really changed over time.

It's actually really unusual (except until the 'nostalgia craze' of recent times) that a company would try to make its new products look their old ones.

I would love to own an old Daytona and a brand new one too.

dawgfan · 07-06-2006

The Bonnie is the Standard....kidding guys...sorta

This will be TMI but here goes anyways...

So I am at a clothing retailer with my gf who decides to bring me a pair of boxer shorts cause per her, "they have your bike on them"...

No $hit, the motorcycle that was to be a generic bike was the Bonnie. The kneepads and pipes gave it away..

How friggin weird.

sweatmachine · 07-06-2006

The bonnie looks like what a kid would draw if asked to draw a motorsickle.

That's the appeal though methinks, simple and pure.

RedBird · 07-06-2006

The reason is probably similar to the reason WE look so different than WE did back when. As I have said before, I don't believe in the sanctification of motorcycles. "Slap in the face"...no, but the bonneville was a welcome slap in the corporate "pocket book" of Triumph. I don't believe they expected it to sell as good as it has sold in the USA--lots of us old uns around still. :-D Now, the younger crowd are purchasing bonnies when they can find a dealer that isn't sold out. If I had wanted a "classic", I would have bought one. I wanted something that was MUCH better than the classics, and I got what I wanted. :-D

Larry

derek985 · 07-06-2006

These are all good points - I think that what I may be getting hung up on is that Triumph had a look all thier own and now most of the new models seem to look like everyone elses styles.

Do you know what I mean? I don't want a Harley-styled Triumph or a Yamaha styled Triumph, or a Ducati styled Triumph - I want an original Triumph design - something that has an original look. To me, the classic Bonnies, T-birds, Tigers, and Daytonas represent Triumphs best and most original design efforts to date.

I know that other people want Triumph branded bikes that take design cues from other brands but I guess I don't fully understand why. Maybe to be different, but not TOO different?

D.

WANG · 07-06-2006

Form should follow function. The primary function of Triumph's classic line is to look comparable to classic bikes, thus their form. The primariy function of the D675 is to be a bad-ass middleweight sportbike, therefore...

If all of the Triumph model line looked like the Bonneville, there would be a strong chance that they would perform alot like the Bonneville, and that would be pretty lame to have a lineup consisting solely of 500LB/55HP bikes.

ohiorider · 07-06-2006

Well said, Wang. I personally think Triumph would have gone down the drain if their first effort in the 1990/1991 timeframe had been a Bonneville. They first had to prove to the motorcycling community that they were capable of building modern, high performance motorcycles. This they have done, and based on the praise being heaped on the 675 and S3, it can only cast a positive shadow on the retro Bonnevilles.

I'm sure someone will remind me that "Harley didn't make their comeback building high performance bikes". Can't dispute that. But Triumph ain't Harley .... and each company has to make its way in the market in its own unique manner.

I'm afraid if Triumph had taken the 'lets build only Bonnevilles' approach, they would have hit the dumper like Kenny Dreer and Norton just did recently.

Triumph may not be pushing 250,000 bikes out the door each year, but their comeback story is no less impressive.

Bob

mecscc · 07-06-2006

Derek: Triumph had a decision to make: be a niche manufacturer and sell a few thousand bikes a year at a price few would pay, or try to become a fairly large producer with several lines that appeal across the spectrum. They chose the latter and have thrived.

Niche retro manufacturers have failed, or are just hanging on, like Matchless, Indian, Norton, and, we have to wait and see, maybe Victory. Although if Polaris is willing to keep dumping big bucks into that hole it might survive.

So, if Triumph were just selling retros you could double the cost, few would likely pay it and they would fold. The retro Triumphs survive in part because the other, more modern, Triumphs are doing so well, including the behemoth Rocket III.

Second, since you had a '68 Bonneville perhaps you also know about other bikes, particularly post WWII Brit bikes. And while I liked my '68 Bonnie and my '70 Daytona very much, thank you, they were NOT all that different than several other bikes of that era.

The looks of a Trumpet, or a BSA or a Enfield or AJS or Norton or Ariel or Excelsior or Matchless or Vincent were NOT all that much different to the eye of someone who was not a true affecionado. They all had a certain "Brit Bike" look with fairly subtle differences.

Liike so today: I couldn't tell you the difference between one sport bike, or naked street bike, or motocross bike without color and logo clues. But the true fans of those bikes can tell them a mile away. And they would argue to the death that a CB1000RR looks TOTALLY different than a, to me, identical, Kaw, Suzi, or Yamaha -- or Triumph. Ditto in the mid size bikes.

The point is that you and I may think that "they all look alike." But, just as that is not true for people it isn't true for motorcycles either.

Read the recent reviews: Speed Triple is best street fighter; Daytona 675 best middleweight, and in a new shootout came in 2nd against sport bikes costing three times as much and displacing 1/3 more.

There is a whole lot more to Triumph than retro. And there always was.

Take care,

Monte