Triumphrat

mjtool · 05-03-2007

Anybody else read the short article regarding Triumph's vp mentioning the 2 new cruisers? I know we were speculating 1 and a 675 but they said large cruiser and one would be a present model redone. not in those exact words. the bad news was 12 to 18months

mike

dazco · 05-03-2007

D@mn ! I have been trying to be so feakin patient, but i cannot wait that much longer ! I feel in limbo because i don't know whether i'll be staying with a speedmaster or not. Up to a year and a half?! ARRRRRRG...

Silverado57 · 05-04-2007

For anyone in the market for a bigger cruiser, 18 months is a long time to wait.

And what if you wait those 18 months and it ain't the bike you were hoping it would be?

1962gypsy · 05-04-2007

I would like to ask you guys something, and I am not trying to start anything. I believe everyone should ride whatever bike or style of bike floats their boat. But I was wondering what the deal is with the "spiraling arms race" in motorcycle engine displacement? I mean really guys, your Speedy's are either 790 or 865, niether of which really strikes me as a puny engine. I know, I know, thats small in comparison to todays huge v-twins and the Rocket3. But really, don't you find that your Speedy's pull real hard, cruise at legal and even extra-legal speeds effortlessly? With bags one can easily load up and cross the nation w/o worry on a Speedy. Hell, I did it once on a 78 T-140 and the performance of it's 744 cc mill was never lacking. This is not putting down anyone who wants the supeersize version. Just wondering is all. Daz, my side gapped plugs are still firing away!

Silverado57 · 05-04-2007

Gypsy, my Speedmaster definitely rocks! We can ride 2-up at 90 MPH with a load of gear.

But I think some people are looking for something with a little more weight and a little more power for long-distance riding.

I DO NOT want a Rocket. A cruiser in the 1200-1600 range is fine.

lindsayt · 05-04-2007

I've wondered the same thing. People used to cross the county two-up on 400-lb, 500cc bikes. Considering that they were generally iron head/iron barrel, pushrod engines, they were forced to compromise between power and reliability. Today's 800cc Triumphs have much more power, don't weigh much more, and because of their design have the luxury of producing good power while still being tuned quite conservatively, which allows high reliability to boot.

I walked into a Honda dealer and asked them why they don't sell any 350cc or 400cc bikes any more - the dude said, "they just don't have enough power for anything". Crazy.

[ This message was edited by: lindsayt on 2007-05-04 08:58 ]

dazco · 05-04-2007

Well, it's really a matter of "to each his own" isn't it? If we all felt the same as you there would only be one brand and model of bike ! On the other hand i am somewhat in agreement with you in that i am quite happy with the speedmaster. But 2 things.......it's a bit underpowered for MY personal preference even with the mods i've done, and second, the pipes provide me with that extra bit but at the cost of noise. I prefer quiet pipes and the bigger twin would allow me to keep it quiet while not only giving me as much power as the speedy with mods, but even MORE. Not to mention a stock bike is IMO almost always going to run and idle the best. If i left the speedmaster stock, then it would be much too underpowered for MY taste.

And yep, side gapped plugs going strong here too. On a side note tho, while they don't work quite as good, i started using iridium's side gapped because i found with normal plugs side gapped, the gap widens and goes out of spec too fast due to wear. I found the bike feeling a bit sluggish after a few weeks or even less, then would have to re-gap them as they'd become too wide. I even experienced the plugs not firing as consistantly and fouling. The iridiums are made of.........well, iridium ! A metal that wears far slower. In fact, i checked them after a couple thou miles and they hadn't changed at all, plus i never felt the bike start to lose any power or had any fouling issues. The iridiums when side gapped like i said seem to give slightly less improvment than standard plugs side gapped. But it's not enough to warrant the trouble of constantly removing and re-gapping the plugs which i had to do with standards.

Quote:

On 2007-05-04 08:34, 1962gypsy wrote:
I would like to ask you guys something, and I am not trying to start anything. I believe everyone should ride whatever bike or style of bike floats their boat. But I was wondering what the deal is with the "spiraling arms race" in motorcycle engine displacement? I mean really guys, your Speedy's are either 790 or 865, niether of which really strikes me as a puny engine. I know, I know, thats small in comparison to todays huge v-twins and the Rocket3. But really, don't you find that your Speedy's pull real hard, cruise at legal and even extra-legal speeds effortlessly? With bags one can easily load up and cross the nation w/o worry on a Speedy. Hell, I did it once on a 78 T-140 and the performance of it's 744 cc mill was never lacking. This is not putting down anyone who wants the supeersize version. Just wondering is all. Daz, my side gapped plugs are still firing away!

lindsayt · 05-04-2007

Actually, I've been theorizing on the "arms race" of displacement in the motorcycle world, and I think I have an interesting idea - I'd like to see if you guys agree with me.

The reason small bikes used to be so popular was that they are the ultimate in utility - you could easily throw them around in town, they could do just about everything, they were easy to own, easy to repair, cheap, and probably most importantly, easy to ride.

Bigger bikes required much more skill to ride - their bulk made them hard to maneuver in town, and it was much easier to get into a jam with a heavier bike. But in the hands of a skilled rider, they rewarded the endeavor with better performance, better high-speed stability, and the respect and admiration of those who couldn't ride them.

My theory is that this NATURALLY led to bigger bikes - while ease of use and ownership used to be an end in itself, it slowly became "too easy" - people wanted to push their skills, and a bike that was easy to ride didn't prove proficiency at the skills required simply to ride across town on a bigger bike. The fact that they were harder to ride actually made them MORE desirable - people want to expand their skills, prove that they are competent enough to ride them, and of course want to be rewarded with the stability and performance that weight and power can bring in competent hands.

I know I'm on a tangent here - maybe I should make this a separate thread - but what do you think? Do you think the fact that bigger bikes are harder to ride, and hence force the rider to be a better rider, has something to do with their upswing in popularity? Obviously, an extremely adept rider may *prefer* to ride a lighter, smaller bike like ours (the Bonneville family); but I wonder if our bikes really ever *force* somebody to become an extremely adept rider - everything is so easy on a bike this light and small. Opinions?

This is a theory I've been contemplating recently as a way of trying to understand why people would *want* to ride a 1600cc bike, for example, which still kind of eludes me, to be honest.

[ This message was edited by: lindsayt on 2007-05-04 09:36 ]

1962gypsy · 05-04-2007

Probably a mixture of lots of factors, Lindsayt, but you may be on to something. I wonder when or even if it will ever stop. I exclude the BossHoss from any normal conversation about bikes, hehe. But when is big going to be big enough? For example, the Kaw Vulcan 2000. I can almost guarantee you that Kaw is feeling some sort of pressure to up the ante....and Star and Honda etc...
I'm not sure I want a bike with a motor bigger than the VW beetles we used to abuse. Of course, I've never owned a bike larger than 53 cubes so what do I know? Maybe I'm just blissful in my ignorance. I guess my brain still just relates to the old days when an 80 inch Harley was REALLY big. The freakin' R3 has 960 cc's on it!
Or to put it another way, it's a decimal point away from being three 790 mills. Don't even get me started on 300mm wide rear tires.

dazco · 05-04-2007

I don't know what it is for others, but for me i'll tell you exactly why i used to like small bikes back in the day and not now. 2 words......TWO STROKE. Those old suzuki and yamaha 2 strokes were fast as F*** ! They'd slaughter any of our twins in a stoplight run. Not much happening on the freeway, but on the streets they were a blast. Small 4 bangers were never as fun IMO. Had to get up to at least 650 before they had any power to speak of. any of my old 2 strokes would slaughter my speedmaster up to 60-70 mph.