.... and then I remember that the Brits started working on this layout sometime about 1900. Over several decades, they got the handlebars right, the saddle height right, the seat hardness right, the weight of the bike right, the engine configuration right, the look of the bike especially right, ...... took them several years, but the overall result was... right.
So, is it any wonder why we like these bikes as much as we do? They're a design that's frozen in time, perhaps in the mid to late 1960's, when Britbike design was at its apex. And that was THE right time in the evolution of the British motorcycle for Triumph to use as the basis for a modern Bonneville ..... a time when bikes had finally evolved to fit people.
I'm probably not saying this as well as I should, but I hope you see my point.
.... and then I remember that the Brits started working on this layout sometime about 1900. Over several decades, they got the handlebars right, the saddle height right, the seat hardness right, the weight of the bike right, the engine configuration right, the look of the bike especially right, ...... took them several years, but the overall result was... right.
...and then the company went bust and that was that.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. The Hinckleys are bigger, weigh 30kg more, have 8 valves and OHC and as for the bars - well check the number of threads about changing them. I don't recall fake carbs on the Meridens.
I tend to agree with the last point, although I don't regret the difference at all. About the only comparison of my 05 Bonnie with my '68 Bonnie is a general resemblance to it. And the only people who confuse the two are people who really haven't been up close and personal with a Meridian Twin. I'd say that Hinckley did a good job of capturing the aura of the older era [the very thing people now howl about when they hear rumors of any change to their "classic" ??? 6 year old line of bikes].
The makers of the modern Bonnie need to be credited with producing a far more reliable and much improved bike mechanically than the old ones.
You guys are right. I confused 'similarity' with 'aura'. Kind of like comparing the original Mustang with today's Mustang. Aura yes, but not so similar. Actually, I'm not unfamiliar with the older Triumphs, and put quite a few miles on them, admittedly many more on a mid 60s BSA,
At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I believe my now-departed W650 captured more of the feel of the older Brit machines, due in some part to the design of the engine ... longer stroke, smaller bore vs short stroke/large bore of our Bonnies. The W was heavier than the old Triumph twins, but several pounds lighter than my T100.
I enjoy my T100 as much as any motorcycle I've owned, but sometime in the future, they'll be another W in my garage alongside her.
And Cycle World agrees with you! I remember a comparo article between the new Bonnie and the Kawi W650 that came to the same conclusion.
But I do agree with the point that the design has developed over time. What we have in the Bonneville is one of the last "standard" motorcycles. It's not just for track day or canyon carving -- it's a great basic transportation machine. Commuting, errand running, just going from here to there with multiple stops along the way are not major projects. Solo or two-up, riding it is never a chore.
As much as I enjoyed my BMW R1150RS on the highway, it was a bear to use around town. Similarly I can't see using a big cruiser or a Rocket 3 to hop to the store for some bread and a carton of milk. And a two-up run for ice cream on a sport bike just isn't very comfortable (or dignified) for the pillionairess.
While Triumph have been making bikes for over a century, they were never known for their parralel twins until Ed Turner designed the 500 Speed Twin in 1937. This was the blueprint for every Meriden twin that followed it, & a direct line runs from it to the very last Harris Bonnie's. Our Hinkley's are a modern update of the theme, & are, in many ways, better than the original. However it should be noted the until the late '60's, Triumph twins were amongst the fastest bikes in the world, & were at the cutting edge of racing technology. & as good as our new bikes are, no one could ever accuse them of that. So I respect the achievements of the old bikes, & I'm very glad to be riding a new one.
I think the original point here was that the Bonnie embodies the best of motorcycling when bikes were not so specialized. The Bonneville can serve your needs as a cruiser, a long distance traveler, an in-town errand bike, etc, etc.
It's a comparatively elemental machine that excels in its simplicity and functionality. I think that's the most important component of the "aura". . .this motorcyle can be easily tailored to fit most any rider's requirements.
funny most folks focus on the engine when describing a mc.
what triumph had right for decades is the 19" front wheel...flat-track slides.
the steering geometry...the nimble
the general size and length... tracking and groove
...and then power to weight in a skinny package.
thank goodness they brought back a mc that makes sense...while a 17" may carve better, you can't sportbike in the dirt with any confidence...
that triumph middle of the road, do-all, jack of all trades master of none is exactly what I came up on...and what suits me best.
The fast 4cyl jap bikes I had were fine...but too heavy, too wide, ....and too much power is spooky in gravel or mud...AND after 7-8 years parts are tricky to find...and it's not worth keeping them up...disposable mentality.
the hogs are fine with truck wind, but not for trials in parking lots or heavy traffic...forget dirt trails...legacy maybe, but moderate to minimal utilitarianism.
the dirt bikes are great in mud and traffic, but not truck wind...toys for younger bodies.
purpose specific design surely excels in the specific discipline...but everything else is out the window.
these do traffic, parking lots, dirt trails, zip, corners, carry, dirt, predictable flat-track slides...and have that artsy nuance from 600 years of coachworks visually that isn't matched in modern design (cars lost it after the 1930s)...I spend too much time admiring it for the art...and feel right at home in motion.
what's not to like? They pretty much had mc basic design down by the 1960's...just were stuck with ticklers and Lucas. These later bikes saved all the good and fixed the crap areas.
that said...they still don't match the pure art lines of the 650 primary case or bi-lateral gas tanks of the late 60's. something's gained...something's lost.
THAT said...I don't meter a bike by it's engine alone...I close my eyes and it either "is"...or it "isn't".
these "is"...and that means you appreciate it enough to invest time, money, and care long after the market value argues against...which is why HD does so well yet the V-Rods don't sell...and why you eventually get your t*t caught in a wringer with a Jap bike.
also funny is all the HD clones that get market share on illusion alone.
Indian should come back with the Big Chief for the nostalgic market if they must compete with HD...but they should also build on the Royal Enfield fiasco of the 50s, and come back in with a modern Triumph Twin mimic...a la BMW 800s. That part of the market is sorely misrepresented.
With these fools posing as marketing geniuses, You're either offered a toy mc or a pig mc.
Let's pray for Norton and the like to get it right despite the posers and geniuses.
Well, he IS right in some regards, and probably the ones that make the bike appeal to him so much. In particular, the ergonomics. Look at most of todays bikes........you're either sitting low to the ground on a cruiser or you're in a fetal position on a sportbike with very little in between. And having owned both meridan and hinckley twins, i know that while there are differences in how they feel, they are RELATIVELY very similar. So i think what he is saying is true because i think what he really meant to say is it is a bike designed with a traditional look and feel compared to todays contraptions.
fwiw, the whole reason i'm on a bonnie is because it's JUST a motorcycle. nothing fancy...it's what a MC should be, in my opinion -- not specialized for racing (sportbike) or for straight road cruising (HD).
i'm too young for nostalgia, but recognize that the core traits that made earlier bikes so great have been lost to marketing and speed.
I'll agree. I wouldn't say the New Bonnie isn't exactly the same as the old. I think it's just evolved without being too radical of a departure. BITD highway speeds were much slower and lightweight bikes handled the speeds as well as dealing with the quality of the roads back then. Heavier bikes ride the slab better IMO especially at the higer speeds of today. Road building technology has evolved and the vehicles have too. I think the differences regarding rider position are another evolution. Ergonomic studies have produced a lot of knowledge over the years and companies are listening to their customers in order to make their product better. You can have the most horsepower, the best suspension and the most reliably built machine on the planet but if it isn't comfortable it won't sell.
Just like the Meridian bikes, I certainly consider my Bonnie a great all around bike that can handle just about any kind of road from dirt to superslab. Consider the fact that the Scrambler isn't much different than the T100 or even the Thruxton. They all have the same basic frame, engine and suspension. The only difference being rider position and a few alterations that could easily be transferred between the 3 models. Also, consider that the TBA and Speedmaster also share the same drivetrain as well making it ideal for any application. I have always appreciated the fact that some companies stick with a formula and refine it over a long period of years.
But hey, what do I know. I also like air-cooled 45 degree pushrod v-twins with a single crank pin and inline cylinders that were refined from 1914 till today.
I loved to older Triumphs when that's what we had. I'm not at all ashamed of my newer ones that capture the vibe, look, and feel of the older ones with better breaks, no oil leaks, and much better tires. The only thing I really miss is a kick starter.
Yeah, it's the look alright. They just got it so right. I like how it looks good in all it's guises Bonnie, Scram, Thrux, & the Cruiser's, & that engine was just made to be showed off. Unlike modern naked bikes, which look like they've been pranged & lost their fairing
Mind you, I wouldn't have bought one if they didn't have the Go, to go with the Show. But at the end of the day, when I'm all tuckered out from riding. It sure is relaxing to sit on my verandah & admire those classic lines. I love my bike!
I agree. Don't get me wrong, because I love my Bonnie Black 05! But for sheer aesthetics those 60s bikes were to my eyes, and still are, the quintessential motorcycle. My '68 Bonnie was lean, lithe, the lines all were in harmony, the engine lean with beautiful configuration rising from a narrow waist to the head, pipes angled just so out and swinging back, straight, to the pea shooters. In contrast, while still beautiful in its own way, my new Bonnie is on steroids, particularly the blocky engine.
Monte - our engines remind me more of a Royal Enfield engine (not the single) but the 750cc Interceptor. I hadn't pulled up a photo of one of those sweethearts for years, but when I looked at this one, I could see why I was about to sell my BSA, walk right past the Triumphs, and go with an Enfield. I'm sure it would have been a colossal mistake, but when I was 23 and single, reason didn't play a big role in my decisions. Check it out.
I was born in 52 (to give you the era), in the mid 60s my 2 older brothers had 700cc "Indian" Royal Enfields...one 56, the other a 57 ( I believe they were called "Trailblazer" under Indian marketing)...with the neutral finders...one broken crank...and rewrapping alternator coils (we always had interesting garage products)...so not all was good about the REs...tho classic brit, they came with issues when pushed beyond conservative transportation purposes as designed. Triumphs (and BSAs) of the era were a better product when it came to pushing performance...tho the BSA shifter plate tended to wear jumping gears.
...and I agree with the cut of the old Triumph cylinders...like a slim waisted chiseled torso...it positively provokes the subconscious on a visceral level.
Sportsters to a point, but the mid-late 60's 650 Triumph (IMHO) got all the lines right...tho most folks insist on 650+++++, I preferred the 500 single carb.
another brother had a 68 Victor for a while...endless entertainment watching him kick it...then doing the bad word dance.
"I wonder why the Bonneville works so well ...."
They got a lot of it right after years of experimenting.
credit where credit's due.
Interesting. I don't like it. Seeing the pic I think you are absolutely right and visualizing the problem on another bike helps me understand WHY I don't like it or the new Bonnie engine as much: There is no air. No empty space between anything that forces you to draw your eyes to the lines of the engine. It is all filled up with metal. A big lump. Thank you.
I realize that others, lots of others, like the brawny look of a thicker, heavy engine. But for me there is no frame of reference without some open areas in the bike. Its like what is called "white space" when composing printed text. No white space, everything scrunched together makes it hard to read, hard to focus on detail.
Kind of like Leno once said "..... I don't want a bike I can't see through...". Hey, when I was 23, the aesthetics of a bike were only a small part of the equation. All I knew was that a 750cc Interceptor was what the Captain of my Reserve unit rode, and it made my Beezer look like a Whizzer motorbike when we parked them side to side.
Also, if you think back, Triumphs back then were about as common in the USA(although much fewer in number) as Harleys are today. If you wanted something different, it wasn't a Triumph, it was something else, like an Enfield.
Yeah, well, they go even faster now. Like, tomorrow is November. Where did '07 go? When I was young I never thought about it and thought the old geezers were nutz when they said, "Time goes faster as you get older." Right. Not for me, Old Timer. Well, now that I'm fast approaching geezerdom [which used to be 60, is now 70 and in about 14 months will be 80] I know exactly how you feel. "42 years ago" = yesterday. I guess the difference is that 42 years ago we could look forward to another 42 if we were lucky. Can't say that now. So every day, yet alone year, that we are healthy enough to ride is all the more precious..............Hope that makes sense to someone besides me.
Are you kidding? I go through this 'years spent vs years remaining' mind game all the time. It concerns me, but doesn't panic me. As bikers, we've been fortunate in a way most people never are. We naturally gravitated toward these relatively inexpensive machines (bikes in general), then rode then all over the place, enjoyed the ride, enjoyed the scenery, enjoyed the people we've met, and found it didn't take much to make us happy other than a full tank of gas and a good bike under us. We are really low maintenance individuals in the overall scheme of things.
I think our bikes have alot of the good points of the 60s bike with a little new mixed in.The DOHC 4 valve cyc. is from the 60s and 70s to just not from triumph.honda had dohc in 66 on the cb 450 and a 4valve cly in the 70s on a 250.heck others prob. had them before that .
Edward Turner's most acclaimed achievement (to most) is that he was able to design a twin that was no larger in outward appearance and weight to the twin port singles of the time.
Though I love my "06" T-100, I still lust after the 60 Bonnie's. I think they were the most beautiful bikes ever built. I had a "71" that I really enjoyed but it didn't have the look that touched something inside like the "63" to "70's" did and it didn't quite feel the same under me either (maybe psycological). Last year, I bought a "70" basket case to fill the urge to own one of the classics but couldn't see spending the money it would've taken to get it going (it was pretty used up) to have 37 year old bike technology when I could get a new Bonnie for less. I now have the T-100 but still look at old Triumphs on ebay every day. I'm thinking I should find someone with an old Bonnie that would let me ride it a bit to see if how different the two are. Maybe time has faded reality and I just remember the good stuff. I do miss seeing the "70" shape in the garage.
The 60s and 70s Triumphs were and are beautiful bikes. I can understand how you could go back and forth between new and old. I just cannot get into the restoration mode, so I guess I'll ride the new Bonnies until they're old. Then they'll be tomorrow's classics!
Yup, me also. This is just the sweetest bike and I love it. I want to grow old together with it. Hopefully, we will still be together in thirty years time, and with hundreds of thousands of kilometers ridden.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums
3.9M posts
167.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to Triumph Motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, racing, cafe racers, bobbers, riding, modifications, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!