Jan issue of Motorcyclist
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Joined
·
142 Posts
Haven't read the article, but I'm not surprised. After all, isn't the Thruxton pretty much a T-100 with different needles and mufflers (with cosmetic differences of course)? I'm sure I'll get tonnes of feed back from Thruxton owners proving me wrong, but when compared to the Ducati...there is no comparison.
The Duc is 127cc larger, 61 lbs lighter, produces 19 more hp and 11 more ft-lbs of torque, and costs $3500 more. Surprise, surprise--they like the Duc more and it outperformed the Thrux. I think they should compare the Duc with a Triumph; however, the Triumph to use would be the modern cafe racer--the S3. :-D But that will never happen.
Yeah, they pissed off some old farts, but look at it another way--sure made the Duc look bad when they picked the Thrux to compare it with. Didn't want to compare with another sport bike that is close to equal in weight, cc, and hp.
I thought the comparison article was pretty well written--most of the Thrux "deficiencies" noted in the article have been written on this forum by Thrux owners. "The engine sounds like a tea-kettle whistling" was a little bit different way of saying it sounds like a sewing machine. :-D
In the end they concluded in the comparison article that the "Triumph is the more authentic cafe racer, but the Ducati is the better motorcycle."
I think many readers skipped the comparison article and went straight to the "Off The Record" page where Tim Carrithers, Executive Editor, and Brent Avis write a couple of paragraphs each and take "pot-shots" at Triumph. I don't think their comments went very well with the actual comparison article. Again, I think the Duc's reputation suffered more than the Thrux from their "bashing" comments. For the price of the Duc, you can have an S3 that has a real suspension and a LOT more performance. :-D
Larry
Yeah, they pissed off some old farts, but look at it another way--sure made the Duc look bad when they picked the Thrux to compare it with. Didn't want to compare with another sport bike that is close to equal in weight, cc, and hp.
I thought the comparison article was pretty well written--most of the Thrux "deficiencies" noted in the article have been written on this forum by Thrux owners. "The engine sounds like a tea-kettle whistling" was a little bit different way of saying it sounds like a sewing machine. :-D
In the end they concluded in the comparison article that the "Triumph is the more authentic cafe racer, but the Ducati is the better motorcycle."
I think many readers skipped the comparison article and went straight to the "Off The Record" page where Tim Carrithers, Executive Editor, and Brent Avis write a couple of paragraphs each and take "pot-shots" at Triumph. I don't think their comments went very well with the actual comparison article. Again, I think the Duc's reputation suffered more than the Thrux from their "bashing" comments. For the price of the Duc, you can have an S3 that has a real suspension and a LOT more performance. :-D
Larry
Joined
·
375 Posts
clip-ons, rear sets, couple more HP, smaller front rim, 41mm forks with adjustable preload, floating front disc, slightly shorter wheel base, taller, thinner and not as much chrome stuff. I don't like chrome stuff anyways. So in a nut shell it's a little sportier and just a little more wonderful.
TJ
TJ
Joined
·
41 Posts
I read the article and was amazed at the criticism of both bikes, especially as an owner of the Sport 1000. Personnally, I didn't buy the bike to be an ultra-modern track rocket. If that's what I had wanted, then I'd have bought a Superbike. I bought it purely for the Retro look and feel and was pleasantly rewarded in both categories.
While I don't have a Thruxton, I do have a hopped up Scrambler. It does exactly what I bought it to do, as does the Duc...put a smile on my face everytime I ride them.
While I don't have a Thruxton, I do have a hopped up Scrambler. It does exactly what I bought it to do, as does the Duc...put a smile on my face everytime I ride them.
I love it when the rags grow a pair and get brutal in their reviews,,,even when it focused on a favorite of mine.....Nothing is worse than a sweet sappy love letter to the manufacturer's marketing dept...
As someone who was around back in the heyday of the late 50's and 60's...I don't have a problem with the idea that maybe those were not such great days for the quality of bikes....We worked on them more than we rode them....
Todays Triumphs are way better than any of the bike back then, but compared to the featherweight sportbikes of today, they can't hold a candle performance wise...
Compared to the bikes back then they are "cutting edge".......Just apples and oranges
I'm keeping my Triumph,,, it suits me very nicely and that is what matters........
As someone who was around back in the heyday of the late 50's and 60's...I don't have a problem with the idea that maybe those were not such great days for the quality of bikes....We worked on them more than we rode them....
Todays Triumphs are way better than any of the bike back then, but compared to the featherweight sportbikes of today, they can't hold a candle performance wise...
Compared to the bikes back then they are "cutting edge".......Just apples and oranges
I'm keeping my Triumph,,, it suits me very nicely and that is what matters........
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Interesting. I was looking for a new bike, something sporty and fun to augment my workhorse BMW, but not a full-on repli-racer. I looked at a BUNCH, including Suzuki SVs, Monsters, etc. It came down to the BMW K1200R (just too big and heavy), the Sport 1000 (high maintenance, low hp), and the Speed Triple (just right, baby :upthumb:
For the price (and upkeep) of the Sport 1000, you can have one helluva thruxton.
For the price (and upkeep) of the Sport 1000, you can have one helluva thruxton.
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
Put that extra $3500 into the Thruxton, and you'll have somthing that will at least hold its own against that Duck in every way.
:moon:
:moon:
Joined
·
68 Posts
I read the article and my first thought was the testers expected to much from both bikes. The article is basically about to old style Cafe type bikes, yet they expected modern power to weight ratio, and modern handling.
I don't have a Thruxton, but I do own a Scrambler. Both bike are not built to go out and compete againest modern designs. However, the retro Triumph's are well built, reliable motorcycles that allow us to take a step back and enjoy the sport of riding....retro style. They are not the lightest bike, and don't deliver tons of horsepower......ok where's the problem?
I would by a Thruxton in a minute regardless of the article! Remember everyone has an opinion, mine doesn't agree with the article.
[ This message was edited by: McQueen278 on 2006-12-16 23:36 ]
I don't have a Thruxton, but I do own a Scrambler. Both bike are not built to go out and compete againest modern designs. However, the retro Triumph's are well built, reliable motorcycles that allow us to take a step back and enjoy the sport of riding....retro style. They are not the lightest bike, and don't deliver tons of horsepower......ok where's the problem?
I would by a Thruxton in a minute regardless of the article! Remember everyone has an opinion, mine doesn't agree with the article.
[ This message was edited by: McQueen278 on 2006-12-16 23:36 ]
G
Guest
·Shopping for a Bonnie and Owner of 2 Ducs, I have to say the whole article was garbage. To me it was written by someone that is a sportbike rider and only sportbike rider. A retro classic is not going to have the power, suspensions, braking, like a modern superbike. Very little talked about the smile factor of riding either bike. The writer bashed on the Ducati and the Triumph, what kind of article is that. Doesnt the writer know if someone is shopping for a classic, They have to make some sacrifies in performance. Being a Ducati faithfull and shopping for a Triumph...I am leaning to a Triumph for its cost, character and uniqueness
If I want the best speed, power, handling...I would spend 3500 more than the Sport 1000 and get a 1098
Just proves how ingnorant the mags are to true motorcycle faithfulls.
[ This message was edited by: Synergy on 2006-12-16 23:47 ]
If I want the best speed, power, handling...I would spend 3500 more than the Sport 1000 and get a 1098
Just proves how ingnorant the mags are to true motorcycle faithfulls.
[ This message was edited by: Synergy on 2006-12-16 23:47 ]
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
"Motorcyclist" must live in a world that is populated with bikes that are at their best when brand new. They are not machines of potential or beauty, necessarily. Instead they must work perfectly as stock, or they must pay the consequences. We all know that our Bonnevilles are a starting point. We are much more interested in creating something that is uniquely our own than to settle for something that is status quo. Our Triumphs start off with a worthy name, reliable function, awesome potential, and a reasonable price. We, along with our aftermarket partners, do the rest. Unlike the staff of "Motorcyclist", I have no complaints...
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
