[4Triumph]

oregonthruxton

Heres the article from Motorcyclist for you that haven't seen it. oregonthruxton hope you don't mind.

[ This message was edited by: 4Triumph on 2006-12-08 18:23 ]

 

[tham]

Thanks for posting that !

It was just as I suspected.
Obvious pokes at the Triumph......
I was under no illusion that this bike was going to be as capable as a frickin Ducati with obviously superior suspension (& a substantially heftier price tag I might add..& How about maintenance costs?)

They are not even in the same league..


I get tired of all the folks around my neck of the woods talking about how great the Ducatis are....then put them up for sale as soon as the everpresent Italian engineering,Maintenance & parts prices pop up a couple of times.
(Please see my list of bikes & you will see I am no stranger to strange Italian engineering :razz: ).

It just read like an excuse to bash the obvious downfalls of the Thruxton & to toot the horn for Ducati (which gets tooted way to much in my opinion.)
Overblown I tell ya....... :asb:

 

[4Triumph]

tham

I owned a Ducati 900 Monster for a very short time, brakes and handling like nothing else around, but the cost to keep it was way too much! Then when the rear cylinder started leaking oil at 1800 miles I traded it in!

 

[boboso]

Now this will really confuse the crotch rocket boyz whilst my 8" headlight is in their rear views.

I typically like Motorcyclist mag, but have to agree that they were overly brutal for what both these bikes are about. How bout "it puts a smile on my face when I ride it and look at it"...?

Pull the fairings off another bike and call it anything but ugly. My old 916 was gorgeous, but pull off the plastic and it was hoses and unfinished machine bits. Yet, that too is still something I drool over.

I have read other reviews in which they state, with an aftermarket pipe, or drop the front end, and other mods that can be done to make the squidly diddily machines work better, no mention here.

I am disappointed and will be writing a message to the editor... Then again, I really don't give a [email protected]%K what they think

 

[customcafe]

Slow to do the ton, son please, I can crack the ton in about 6 seconds on my modified thrux, and have room to spare. The essence of a cafe racer in my view, is to take an otherwise stock machine and make it yours and fast. Which is exactly what I did. ***** that magazine.

cheers, jason

 

[tham]

On 2006-12-08 18:40, 4Triumph wrote:
tham

I owned a Ducati 900 Monster for a very short time, brakes and handling like nothing else around, but the cost to keep it was way too much! Then when the rear cylinder started leaking oil at 1800 miles I traded it in!

:wink: I hear you,
Let me clarify also, that I am well aware of how amazing Ducatis can be (If not a little overrated sometimes.)

I have alot of friends who know exactly what they are getting into when they buy a Duc...& they accept it because they lust after that performance,sound, whatever.
We also have alot of "status" buyers around here ("here" being Santa Barbara...not this forum.) who just buy what is expensive & popular.

I have a friend with an older Superlight (which is broke half the time :razz: ).... I don't think he will ever get rid of it because of how it makes him feel when it is running.

I just don't think that article was very fair in their comparison & they kind of miss the point.

Not everyone needs cutting edge technology,just safety....& probably half the riders who fancy themselves "racers" don't even begin to push the limits of what is available out there.



The bike is what it is....a throwback that is extremely fun to ride.


I think the GT has the Multistrada motor which is about as reliable as you are going to get with a Duc. (I know a few cats who swear by Multistradas....& yeah...they have cash.).

[ This message was edited by: tham on 2006-12-11 11:00 ]

 

[Spyder94]

I have been reading Motorcyclist for about 30 years. They were pro Italian, and anti British then and still are. Those two writers are techno freaks and don't seem to understand simple. haven ridden a Modified Trux, the bike handles good, and has as much power as my Norton, but the Thrux is slower. The Thrux is a fat chick. My pared down Norton weighs 365 pounds. This makes the Norton way quicker. Don't let the article get you down.


Steve, gears and such


:yayyy: :yayyy: :chug:

 

[Motley]

I was at the Toronto motorcycle show today and had a good close look at the Ducati bikes. Man those things are fugly!!! Nice bikes if wrapped in plastic fairings but naked they are just a mish-mash of wires and hoses. The seats on 'em are wider than the Goldwing barcolounger, the ergonomics are terrible and don't get me started on the tanks.

Maybe I'm a little biased but the Thruxton is a much better looking machine.

 

[Fast_Fashion]

On 2006-12-09 11:20, customcafe wrote:
Slow to do the ton, son please, I can crack the ton in about 6 seconds on my modified thrux, and have room to spare. The essence of a cafe racer in my view, is to take an otherwise stock machine and make it yours and fast. Which is exactly what I did. ***** that magazine.

cheers, jason

indeed. if i wanted a plastic appliance that did everything for me i would have bought amodern sportbike... or a brand new car.

3/4 of the fun is the battle to make it better and saying you did it.

[ This message was edited by: Fast_Fashion on 2006-12-13 00:45 ]

 

[Mancha]

Interesting that they compared a 2007 Thruxton to a 2006 Sport 1000.

Anyway, the Thruxton is an unfinished motorcycle, which is one of the reasons I bought it. If I'd bought the Sport 1000 I originally wanted, I'd have been more or less forced (by fear and relative lack of alternatives) to leave it stock, and I wanted a bike I could transform into MINE.

And please--to say that the Thruxton is "all but invisible"!

[ This message was edited by: Mancha on 2006-12-13 00:57 ]