Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Bike of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,832 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01june09_hurricat.htm

this looks kinda cool



Many Europeans - and a (very) few Americans as well - have no use for cruisers, craving something with a more aggressive, urban style. Italian designer Oberdan Bezzi wouldn't mind seeing a streetfighter based around the new 1597cc, Parallel-Twin, 8-valve motor. Think of his bike as Old Blighty's answer to the VMAX: hulking muscle and minimal bodywork, topped off with high-spec suspension bits and radial-mount brake calipers.
This certainly gets my pulse going more than the Big Bird does.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
See, some of you think the Tbird is ugly. But to me that thing is a monstrosity. If i wanted an ugly bike that performs i\'d get a street triple or speed triple.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,832 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
See, some of you think the Tbird is ugly. But to me that thing is a monstrosity. If i wanted an ugly bike that performs i\'d get a street triple or speed triple.
I like a big torquey twin though...just not with a cruiser wrapped around it. I agree this concept is a little ugly, but the general concept is what I like.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
Fair enough. But wouldn\'t you prefer more of a traditional look like the bonnie with a few performance upgrades like you\'ve done with yours? I just find that thing to look like a sportbike to me, engine aside of course.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
I think it\'s a nod to the 70s modded triumph triple called the hurricane. A bike that DID look good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Cool looking bike with a bad name lol. I think it does kinda of resemble a crotch rocket however I dont think it really is one. Or am I missing something here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Nice Looking

The bike looks pretty good. Belt drive, ABS: I'd think about it. Terrible name though. I have pretty much decided not to go with the Thunderbird. I will let some other lucky person have my spot in line. I guess I'm not an American Cruiser person. Sport Touring, Naked, even upright touring.

I just don't see what it is about the T-Bird that makes it need to weigh in at 700 lbs, or why it is priced where it is. I think I'll sit back and see what else Triumph comes up with in the next 12 months. No hurry. I am confident that they will come up with something I like better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
The bike looks pretty good. Belt drive, ABS: I'd think about it. Terrible name though. I have pretty much decided not to go with the Thunderbird. I will let some other lucky person have my spot in line. I guess I'm not an American Cruiser person. Sport Touring, Naked, even upright touring.

I just don't see what it is about the T-Bird that makes it need to weigh in at 700 lbs, or why it is priced where it is. I think I'll sit back and see what else Triumph comes up with in the next 12 months. No hurry. I am confident that they will come up with something I like better.
I think that a lot of that weight is from the crank itself. Talking with the Triumph rep at Demo Days, I want to say the thing was over 60 lbs. Now, that number might be off a bit. That being said, the bike looks heavier than it feels.

I'd love to see them put the 1600 motor into a whole new range of bikes!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
Yeah, definately the balancers. They said in an article that to tame the parallel twin\'s vibes took a lot of weight, so thats why. It also is probably why the thing feels so torquey to all who ride it. the inertia from those balancers. Could also *in part* account for the excellent mileage triumph reported, assuming it\'s true. Something like 54 highway. My speedmaster never got more thn 42 with any type of riding.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,832 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I think that a lot of that weight is from the crank itself. Talking with the Triumph rep at Demo Days, I want to say the thing was over 60 lbs. Now, that number might be off a bit. That being said, the bike looks heavier than it feels.

I'd love to see them put the 1600 motor into a whole new range of bikes!
I've had the crank from my bonnie out, and it is freakin heavy! Just a guess, because I didn't weigh it, but I'd say it's at least 35 lbs, maybe more.

Yeah, definately the balancers. They said in an article that to tame the parallel twin\'s vibes took a lot of weight, so thats why. It also is probably why the thing feels so torquey to all who ride it. the inertia from those balancers. Could also *in part* account for the excellent mileage triumph reported, assuming it\'s true. Something like 54 highway. My speedmaster never got more thn 42 with any type of riding.
The bonnie balancers only weigh about 8 lbs total, so given this motor is roughly 2 times the size I'd say they're less than 20lbs. Still, a lot of reciprocating mass sucking power off the engine. I'd rather have the vibes and a freer-revving engine.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
Dont assume that just because of the weight it doesnt rev quite freely. From the videos ive seen it seems to rev quite freely, moreso than my speedy did. When they blip the throttle it winds up MUCH quicker than my speedy. read the reviews. If the balancers on this engine are a factor in the performance in some way, id say its to the good because everyone so far has done nothing but rave about the bikes engine. Imagine it with pipes filter and BB. Even if im wrong, those balancers wont stand a chance in a tug o war with that engine then !

By the way, they are much more than double the weight of the speedys. I saw it somewhere that they were some ungodly weight. Something like 60lbs if i recall. But who cares...the engine appears to be a killer from all accounts. And in the article where triumph talks about the development they mentioned the need for huge weight because no one has ever gone this big on a P twin and it was unknown territory. They finally realized a P twin this big needed huge balancers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
Screwed up design denotes a design that doesnt work right let alone as incredibly well as the reviews suggest. Youre second guessing a team of engineers that i have a feeling are a little more knowledgable than you and outnumber you. Its always good to be confident sweat, but....

And yeah, it could be wrong. But i DID read theyre huge right from the mouth of a triumph rep. Whether the 60 Lb weight is right i dunno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
any motorcycle engine that needs 60lb balancers is a screwed up design. That CAN'T be right.
I agree 60lb balancers is insane. I think the total crank weight was 60lbs. Which if you think about it, not really that far off. Each cylinder for the new 1600 is almost as large as on 865 P-Twin. Again, this is most likely 12th hand information, so I really take it with a grain of salt. Dazco might need to lay off the Triumph brand Kool-Aid for a bit. :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,832 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I agree 60lb balancers is insane. I think the total crank weight was 60lbs. Which if you think about it, not really that far off. Each cylinder for the new 1600 is almost as large as on 865 P-Twin. Again, this is most likely 12th hand information, so I really take it with a grain of salt. Dazco might need to lay off the Triumph brand Kool-Aid for a bit. :p
I think you're right (both the crank and the Kool Aid :D), it has to be the crank that weighs 60+lbs.

Daz, I don't care how many engineerds there are, 60lbs of counterbalance is phuqued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Back to the "Hurricat" bike. I like the overall concept of it with the highly upgraded suspension and brakes. Some of the cosmetic features such as the headlight cowling, seat pan and tank are not my cup of tea. That muffler is God awful ugly. I think if Triumph uses this platform for several bikes, I would definetly like a sport inspired version minus the ugly stuff. I personally would never go back to a forward control styled cruiser, only because it played hell on my back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
like i said, whatever the weight the point is that in that article triumph said the balancers are wicked heavy because thats what it took to tame it. And going by the reviews it's dead obvious that extremely heavy balancers, whatever they weigh, Do in fact work in this engine w/o hurting performance or disallowing it to rev freely.

I'm not telling you this because i'm an encyclopedia of engine knowledge, i'm just the messenger. The only koolaid i've been drinking is the koolaid of common sense. I just read the facts and relayed them. fact 1, the balancers according to triumph are far heavier than they expected to need, fact 2, the engine outperforms most bikes in it's class according to a number of reviews. Point....heavy balancers do not hurt the engines ability to freely rev or perform.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
any motorcycle engine that needs 60lb balancers is a screwed up design. That CAN'T be right.
The extra weight was added to the torque compensator and alternator,not the balance shafts.The 270 crank made the engine so easily balanced that there wasnt enough reciprocating weight to tame the low rpm power pulses.It had nothing to do with balancing the engine,more along the lines of refinement of the power delivery.That could be an area that a serious engine builder could look to make it quicker reving by removing that 20 lbs of dead weight.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top