Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

T120 REPORT

26K views 150 replies 35 participants last post by  Dougl1000 
#1 ·
Done 1000km on the T120, first service completed no issues
this is one of the nicest bikes i have owned,plenty of power, and torque,
a few friends have ridin it, they cant stop ravin about it, these friends have had many motorcycles over 40yrs
of riding,i can hear the coggs in their heads turning (i want one) time will tell if they make the move back to triumph
 
#4 ·
I'm sure the T120 is adequately powered for what it is, but the "high torque" thing is marketing BS. In fact, engine torque in general is a meaningless quantity to riders. Engines make power, gears convert that power into a variety of torque vs speed ratios.
The reason I bring it up is because it's misleading. Torque in and of itself tell one essentially nothing about an engine. Giving a torque at an rpm as you did, tells us the power at that rpm. Thing is, the Thruxton engine makes more torque at an even higher rpm meaning it's engine is making a buttload more power even in the midrange. But even if it made a lower absolute max torque, it's engine may still make more power over its rpm range.
The problem with max torque and max hp is they tell us what the engine does at two rpms in the range. Only a power graph over the entire range tells the rest of the story...
 
#6 ·
I love that the T120 makes me look like a better rider than I probably am. There's none of the wrestling that I used to do with my old T100, wishing that it had capabilities that it just didn't.

I really like the almost eerie smoothness and precision of the T120's gear box, especially on the downshifts. Before entering a corner, I can downshift a gear or two too much, but because of the slipper clutch there's no tendency for the rear wheel to hop or slide out. Yet, there's still plenty of engine braking when going down a steep hill. Getting this just right is a real accomplishment by Triumph.

Add the bikes looks, fit and finish, handling, comfort, braking, and power, and you've got a real winner in the T120.
 
#14 ·
The T120's torque is a very real thing. It's not marketing hype, and it's unlike anything I've experienced on any bike I've owned before. The bike simply has more usable power than you're likely to ever really need, anywhere on that very flat power curve. It gives the T120 a unique character.
 
#15 ·
The bike simply has more usable power than you're likely to ever really need
There ya go!

Contrary to popular belief, torque is not power at low rpm and there is no magic rpm that torque becomes power. Torque is a force like voltage is a force. Neither implies motion. Voltage * current flow equals power in the same way that torque * rotational speed equals power.
The power company doesn't send you a bill for "voltage." They can give you 1 V and 1 A or they can give your 0.5V and 2 A or they can give you 2 V and 0.5 A. Any way you slice it, they're going to charge you for 1 W of power used. Similarly, applying a torque to your crankshaft will not accelerate your bike any more than applying a voltage to your refrigerator plug will cool your Budweiser. Without power, machines no worky.
 
#24 ·
Some folk like changing gear a lot, others enjoy riding the torque, each to their own. Personally I prefer the high torque at any revs for instant overtakes. I once had a 120bhp bike with max torque at 7500rpm, a right pita having to change down two or three gears to get some go. But then some folk like the short powerband of 2 strokes & enjoy dancing the cogs & hearing it sing.

Got to have me a go on that T120, soon.
 
#28 ·
The T120 hauls ass

And mine, happily.

Smile-o-meter wise, a flat torque curve pleases everyone and makes many friends: at low RPM in a high gear, you have the full torque to overtake effortlessly and smile an easy smile. Shift down and the same engine torque translates into higher rear-wheel torque, and you overtake faster, the meter goes very smiley and the butt-dyno goes into the red.

And yes, the T120 hauls ass.
 
#33 ·
Well for my money this bike is about the best I've had out of the crate. And for the record I've owned quite a few. The seat and suspension could use work or replacement but I have found that is usually the case with about 95% of motorcycles anyway, even ones with bigger price tags then this. My only other little gripe would be why they just didn't add the cruise control and ad $300 to the price. Other then those two things it is one of the best overall packages I've owned. It really can do just about anything you want, commute, tour, twisties, technical riding, even light duty off road with the proper tires. Its really a swiss army knife........
 
#34 ·
With my wife on board, I can ride at around 2000rpm in 4th or 5th gear down the entrance ramp of the freeway.... open it up a bit (like half throttle) and jump right out past any of the 75mph-80mph traffic on the freeway.... well before the merging lane is anywhere near blending into the actual freeway!!
Not a crotch rocket by any means but very satisfying.
 
#35 ·
Keeping it simple.

HP = rate of work
Torque = Strength of that work

To have that strength at low rpm = less work for us.
Everybody who's ridden it loves that 1200 Bonnie motor. My Tiger Sport might be getting chopped in for one.

I know what I prefer after swapping a ST1050 with it's max torque at 7,500 rpm for a Tiger Sport 1050 with its max torque at 4,300 rpm. Brilliant instant grunt from that re-tuned motor.

Good example hp v Torque is two 100bhp bikes eg a Bandit 1200 v CBR600 and a headwind. Not exactly rocket science eh.

Another good example is the Fellaballa v the Shire:

 
#43 ·
Keeping it simple.

HP = rate of work
Torque = Strength of that work
A reasonable way to look at it. But as pulleys give us mechanical advantage, gears do the same. With a pulley, one can lift weight easier, but it comes at the expense of distance. Gears swap torque for rotational speed. What people aren't thinking thru is that the torque figure they see on a spec sheet is NOT the torque at their rear wheel.
Consider this, someone tells you an engine makes 100 ft*lbs of torque. What does that tell you about it? It tells me exactly nothing.
Now, if they give me the engine's power curve plotted against the engine's rpm, I know the torque values everywhere across the rpm band. I have no need to know them, but it's a calculation any 3rd grader could do.
Now, say I have two engines like the one you prefer and the one you don't. Say the Tiger makes 100 ft*lbs at 4300 rpm. That means the engine at 4300 rpm is producing 81 hp:
Power = (torque * rpm)/5252 = 81 hp

With only a couple points listed, we can't know what's going on with the engines everywhere else, but for the sake of argument, let's say the ST only makes 75 ft*lbs at 4300 rpm. That means the engine at 4300 rpm (using the same calculation above) is producing 61 hp.

Well, whaddya know? Turns out, the engine with the most torque is making the most power. So instead of pretending these are two different and useful things, we could simplify our lives by just noting that Tiger engines make more power at low rpm than ST engines? Why get mystical and pretend that "power only occurs at top speed" or "we ride the torque?"

What if we do the converse? Let's say the ST only makes 100 ft*lbs at 7500 rpm. That means its engine at 7500 rpm is producing 143 hp.

And say the Tiger's engine makes 75 ft*lbs at 7500 rpm. That means its engine at 7500 rpm is producing 107 hp.

Again, the engine with the most torque is the one making the most power. No way around it.

Obviously, engines make power across whatever rpm range they are capable of running. But again, for the sake of argument, let's say these two engines work like electric drill and either run at 4300 rpm or 7500 rpm. Let's calculate the avg power the engines are capable of producing across their rev ranges.

Tiger = (81 + 107)/2 = 94 hp

ST = (61 + 143)/2 = 102 hp

So truth be told, on a performance benchmark, the ST is the superior engine. And geared to take advantage of that power, the ST will prance away from a Tiger.

Therein lies the problem. Most of us aren't machines just blasting up and down thru the rpm range. We are humans and have likes and dislikes. I think that many of us twin types prefer engines that *feel* relaxed. I could ride the Tiger at 4300 and get my 81 hp in 4th gear or I could ride the ST in third gear at say 5500 rpm where it made the same 81 hp and would accelerate at approximately the same speed as the Tiger in a roll on, but I don't want to ride the ST like that because it's engine just feels too busy there. Consequently, I'd trade off some acceleration for some comfort.

In any event, the point I'm trying to get across is that engines make power. It's converted to torque/speed at the rear wheel via gears. Engine torque values provide no information that the power values don't already give you. Unless you're in the business of manufacturing gear boxes, engine torque is superfluous information.
 
#38 ·
Motard-Menace;8782049 My only other little gripe would be why they just didn't add the cruise control and ad $300 to the price.... [/QUOTE said:
Who knew there's a Law Of The Universe stating that adding cruise control to the T120 has to be (for some!) a long and frustrating exercise?

Hang in there, it's worth it!
 
#46 ·
Can someone please give this guy a 'time out'? The hot air is usually welcome in February, but his air is stale! As well as wrong! Now where's that ignore button?
 
#49 ·
If you can prove the basic physics/math wrong, you'll be up for a Nobel prize. Or I could have made a mistake. Either way, if you can fix the error, I'd be eternally grateful.
If you'd prefer to remain ignorant on this subject, the ignore button can be found in User CP under Edit Ignore List.
Have a blissful existence.
 
#50 ·
C'mon saddlebag, tell us why you persist in attempting to wind people up, when we all know how nice it can be to open a throttle in top gear at 35 mph & take off, as against dropping 3 or 4 gears to do similar. just what is your aim in all this antagonism you are creating? I'm guessing you are a young guy, fresh out of school & full of your newly learnt.
 
#52 ·
so was i,so il give you my opinion in a nut shell,its a beauty in looks and performance for the type of bike it is,
if you have not test ridden one,please do,as you should maybe check out the other bikes in the range,as they all seem to have good reviews,
im sure youll make the right decision on model etc to suit your personal views and riding prefrences
 
#55 ·
I love the looks & quality components of the Thruxton R over the T120 but my choice would be based on comfort & all round ability. I've not ridden either but tried them both out for size. Having split a Tibia plateau in a highside that jiggered the opposite hip, I was too bent up for comfort on the Thruxton. The T120 felt perfect, a bike I could ride all day every day. Ideal for the long rides to rallies & the Euro tours all loaded up with camping kit.
 
#56 ·
Strewth mate, it's like an echo. As much as I admire the Thruxton I don't see myself owning one. And I've got two screws in my right tibial plateau, one of the things that's pushing me towards more "old school" bikes. Although bugger camping for a lark. :grin2:
 
#58 ·
I've been fortunate in that I don't have anything that serious (so far).
I can imagine the Thruxton with low clip-ons is not for you :)

Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top