Does anyone else, on seeing all these damn ugly Next Big Thing 'Adventure/Tourers' think School Mum 2 Wheeled Range Rover'......
Since I bet MOST of these Bikes will see less dirt than my old XJ750 did...........
Yes..... I do!
Putting that motor in a retro style naked bike would not work. its a hideous mess of rubber pipes!
It still makes me smile reading the endless calls for a TBS replacement. The TBS has a top speed of what? 125 to 130 mph. Does 5 to ten mph at a speed that will see you in clink anyhow realy matter? The twins are lighter, lower, simpler, cheaper to build buy maintain and modify. With very mild tuning they will hit 125mph if you really must. Triumph know this as do most twin riders. Thats why there is no replacement TBS. It was good in its day but its been replaced by better.
Besides the iconic Triumph was never the Trident. It was always the paralell twin. You never see Harley owners whining that Harley should bring out a replacement for their Aermachi badge engineered singles do you? Thats because Harleys essential essence is the V twin even though they made other stuff just as all proper Brit bike enthusiats know iconic British motorcycles are paralell twins Especialy Triumphs. The Trident was a Badge engineered BSA anyway
Or maybe its just I just don't need to compensate by having a bigger bike between me legs (Ok I used to have a D1200I was less sure of myself then )
Advertisement Remove adverts by upgrading to a premier account
nickwiz: The Trident was a Badge engineered BSA anyway
Unless your next posting will be to claim that Kate Beckinsale is really a man, you'll be hard pushed to make a more factually incorrect statement such as the one above .......
Quote: Unless your next posting will be to claim that Kate Beckinsale is really a man, you'll be hard pushed to make a more factually incorrect statement such as the one above .......
Barney: It's the bike we've all been asking for, for the last 5 years its the bike missing from the Triumph range. A Trident replacement with a retro leaning softer than a S3 with room for a pillion and luggage a naked you can tour on. Yes to all those with S3's I know you can tour on them.
It still makes me smile reading the endless calls for a TBS replacement. The TBS has a top speed of what? 125 to 130 mph. Does 5 to ten mph at a speed that will see you in clink anyhow realy matter? The twins are lighter, lower, simpler, cheaper to build buy maintain and modify. With very mild tuning they will hit 125mph if you really must. Triumph know this as do most twin riders. Thats why there is no replacement TBS. It was good in its day but its been replaced by better...............
Or maybe its just I just don't need to compensate by having a bigger bike between me legs (Ok I used to have a D1200I was less sure of myself then )
I know where you are coming from Nick but top speed and handling is only part of the story. I and others like the TBS because it's more chunky looking, especially the engine and bigger. I'm 6'1" and 15 plus stone and I don't want small and light so would never buy a Bonnie but I want a classic looking bike that goes pretty well and the TBS fits the bill perfectly.
Before the TBS my naked was a Suzuki GSX1400. I never took it over 5000rpm because you didn't need to, pulled like a train and was effortless and therefore great with a pillion. Performance was more than most would ever need but this my point really - it was awesome to ride because you could just tootle around or if feeling braver could venture into the dragging towards the horizon torque, absolutely brilliant! As you know you need a big engine for good torque and so a 1200 makes a lot of sense.
You would show me a clean pair of heels on your Thruxton but that's not what it's about for me performance wise.
Obviously the TBS has nowhere near the torque of the GSX but it does give a similar sensation and any replacement would need a bigger engine as most other bikes do now because of the ever more stringent emissions regulations.
Bikes and cars tend to be nicer and more relaxing if you are cruising at say 80mph if their top speed is way higher than that.
TLO: I know where you are coming from Nick but top speed and handling is only part of the story. I and others like the TBS because it's more chunky looking, especially the engine and bigger. I'm 6'1" and 15 plus stone and I don't want small and light so would never buy a Bonnie but I want a classic looking bike that goes pretty well and the TBS fits the bill perfectly.
Yup.... same here too.... 6' plus and 13 stones.... I need a big bike so I don't look like I have summat wedged in me trousers.... also I had a bonnie as a loaner a few years back and TBH I found it a little breathless on open roads... great for lanes and towns tho... you can't compare a twin with a triple they have their own characteristics that appeal to all sorts of folks... and then o' course theres the noise... a triple on full throttle thru' open pipes is SERIOUSLY horny, (speshully thru' a tunnel) twins just don't do it for me.. having said that I'd like to see a 1700 Thunderbird Twin in a decent roadster chassis
back to the 1200..... can anyone tell me why modern bikes seem to look almost.... insectoid...? I dunno they all look like they are a loose amalgamation of parts rather than something that flows together and looks .... integrated....?
Yup.... same here too.... 6' plus and 13 stones.... I need a big bike so I don't look like I have summat wedged in me trousers.... also I had a bonnie as a loaner a few years back and TBH I found it a little breathless on open roads... great for lanes and towns tho... you can't compare a twin with a triple they have their own characteristics that appeal to all sorts of folks... and then o' course theres the noise... a triple on full throttle thru' open pipes is SERIOUSLY horny, (speshully thru' a tunnel) twins just don't do it for me.. having said that I'd like to see a 1700 Thunderbird Twin in a decent roadster chassis
6'1" and 13 stone here too. (last time I bothered to weigh meself) A 1700 Tbird sport twin would be more likely to get built I reckon. i wouldn';t mind seeing one of those.
I'm of course biased as my Modified Thruxton is as close in the looks dept to the perfect 65 bonnie ( one of my favourite Triumphs) as I can afford to get it without spending daft money. Nearly all the cool of the original with the added ability to rack up thousands of miles with minimal maintainance!
Having said that i'll probably get bored of its looks and paint it all matt black or something one day
Bluelabel aka ~Aitch~: back to the 1200..... can anyone tell me why modern bikes seem to look almost.... insectoid...? I dunno they all look like they are a loose amalgamation of parts rather than something that flows together and looks .... integrated....?
Because they are designed by blokes in their 20s who've grown up on PS games Transformers and Manga comics?
Girders? They're festooned in poncy little bits of aluminium and plastic that often serve no point other than to "style" things up! not very butch if you ask me!
Tigeralorange: I know where you are coming from Nick but top speed and handling is only part of the story. I and others like the TBS because it's more chunky looking, especially the engine and bigger. I'm 6'1" and 15 plus stone and I don't want small and light so would never buy a Bonnie but I want a classic looking bike that goes pretty well and the TBS fits the bill perfectly.
Before the TBS my naked was a Suzuki GSX1400. I never took it over 5000rpm because you didn't need to, pulled like a train and was effortless and therefore great with a pillion. Performance was more than most would ever need but this my point really - it was awesome to ride because you could just tootle around or if feeling braver could venture into the dragging towards the horizon torque, absolutely brilliant! As you know you need a big engine for good torque and so a 1200 makes a lot of sense.
You would show me a clean pair of heels on your Thruxton but that's not what it's about for me performance wise.
Obviously the TBS has nowhere near the torque of the GSX but it does give a similar sensation and any replacement would need a bigger engine as most other bikes do now because of the ever more stringent emissions regulations.
Bikes and cars tend to be nicer and more relaxing if you are cruising at say 80mph if their top speed is way higher than that.
Spot on that man. Same with my old CB13. It's nice to have the hp/ft.lb's there if you need them. On the twins they aren't.......not really. Harley owners don't whine as their bikes are still pulling like trains at 80-90mph - mine certainly used to! As Bluelabel said, the twins are getting breathless at those sorts of speeds. The counter-argument, I guess, is that they aren't really made for that.
This is a supposed to be a thread about the new man-sized Tiger/Adventurer, yet has ended up as a discussion about poof-sized twins & TBS's. Please keep those bikes in the nancy, gay boy's bikes forums
I like the new Tiger. If it's big enough & cheap enough, I could be tempted
Oh I agree. I've had a variety of Hinkley and Meriden and Coventry Triumphs over the last 15 years. Oh and a BSA just for variety. Nothing from the far east has been in my garage since my last GPZ600r. Great bikes and all but I like me British bikes.
Fretty Merckx: Real Triumphs have 3 or 4 cylinders and have at least 800cc The twins are for gays, poof, nancy boys and homosexuals.
Theres my thread for that kind of talk! Now how about we get back to the Tigers?
I'll start again.
I genuinely don't understand why adventure bikes use complicated three cylinder watercooled engines in pretty technically complicated chassis. Good as they are I really would have though something far simpler and easier to repair by some backwoods mechanic in Ulanbattar would be more sensible as a genuine adventure bike. To me these Big Beemers and now Triumphs are really more like two wheeled Chelsea tractors. Often you need to be 6'6" just to get a toe down. They bill themselves as ultra practical yet to my eyes are ultra impractical for the majority of riders.
Barney: So the bike will be at Milan a week or so before the NEC big deal. The main interest from the bike buying public will be at the NEC Triumph's home market.
Nope. Triumph mainly sell abroad. The local market is good, but won't be where the majority of these bikes sell, and the major european dealers will visit Milan not Birmingham
Don't know never met PtB but I do know most of my riding mates even struggle to get on an average sport bike without being all tippy toes. They've no chance of riding one of those giants. s!$% I'm 6'2" with long legs and even I feel uncomfortable on them. Being astride one might be possible but it looks daft when youre toppling over at the lights!
Also in my limited off road experience it was quite important to be able to put a foot down now and again. I just don't get the whole giant traily thing. The only competition bikes like that are for the Dakar and lets be honest most road riders or even adventure riders are never going to do the Dakar. They just seem to be like a marketing mans wet dream rather than a practical bike.
I would honestly rather put off road suspension on my old Thruxton or buy a RE or an ancient Japanese air cooled trailie to go round the world than one of these expensive ugly white elephants. Just don't get them at all.
What we[?not all of us agree ] are fed up with is the MCN bollocks that every new Triumph that breaks cover 6 months before release, you can almost set the date in your calander, suddenly the paper is full of so called spy shots which clearly aren't.
Or maybe triumph have a tried and tested testing schedule that includes road tests around hinkley that get caught by snappers on the standard 3 month before launch.
I would suspect early sept next year will have snaps, not because of drip feeding, but because of triumph road tests 3 monts before a show.
It'd be easy for Triumph to work out where/when those 'spy' shots were taken.
Equally easy to disguise new models so that they wouldn't be recognised, or to deliberately allow a prototype to be seen. It doesn't need to be an 'arrangement' with the press.
nickwiz: Don't know never met PtB but I do know most of my riding mates even struggle to get on an average sport bike without being all tippy toes. They've no chance of riding one of those giants. s!$% I'm 6'2" with long legs and even I feel uncomfortable on them. Being astride one might be possible but it looks daft when youre toppling over at the lights!
Also in my limited off road experience it was quite important to be able to put a foot down now and again. I just don't get the whole giant traily thing. The only competition bikes like that are for the Dakar and lets be honest most road riders or even adventure riders are never going to do the Dakar. They just seem to be like a marketing mans wet dream rather than a practical bike.
I would honestly rather put off road suspension on my old Thruxton or buy a RE or an ancient Japanese air cooled trailie to go round the world than one of these expensive ugly white elephants. Just don't get them at all.
I agree Nick, I think it was you earlier that compared them to a Range Rover which is a good analogy. Well the whole Range Rover range really except for the Defender. They are designed to go off road but very few actually do.
But the adventure type bikes do make good tourers which most are used for and so the complicated engines aren't such an issue. And they do look the part if that's what you want. Not my cup of tea though.
It will be interesting when BMW release their water cooled Boxers whether they keep an air-cooled bike in the range for those who really do use them for what they were designed for and want more simplicity?
People like big trailies for their poise, comfort and the ability to cope with some of the worst foreign roads that are out there. They have huge tank ranges and soft long travel suspension yet still can scratch with a bit of hard work. They can also be ridden off road if you fit proper tyres. I've ridden mine up a few iffy roads with the standard road/trail tyres at road pressures and it handled remarkably well considering.
Although the Trophy was a better tourer because of the fairing, the Tigers are better for overall comfort and you don't have a full fairing containing all the heat that is generated by a tourer.
Why do people buy race bikes? You can't race them on the street either.
As for complicated engines? Well, thank God they ended in a way when the British bike industry finally collapsed, look how reliable they were then. Do you ever say the same about your car, whatever it is?
I was in a twin turbo V8 diesel Landcruiser last week being driven in some pretty rough roads in the Snowy Mountains. It was a joy to be in and incredibly impressive. It is the owners 4th Landcruiser and he has been everywhere man in Australia. That's the problem though, it does appear to able to go well, anywhere ,but just what does happen if they break down on your adventure. I had a lecturer here who had an old Landcruiser, he related the story of travelling 1500 klms (say 900 miles) to start a trip with a colleague in a new Landcruiser. They stopped at a service station (one of those with a sign saying last petrol for 300 miles!), get back in their vehicles. new one will not start. Resident mechanic cannot start it, nearest Toyota dealer 150 miles away. They do not know what it is but they have heard stories about the new model - it is probably the transfigurating grommet from the cephlapod transducer. Yes we can ship it to you but do not have the part - it will take 3 weeks to get it at best............Seems to me that there is the rub. An old landcruiser could be cured by new points, carb clean, condenser, easily accessible water pump, bodged radiator from any car etc etc. If I remember Ted Simon had endless rebuilds of his primitive TR5 including major rebuilds by mechanics who had never heard of Triumph but could bodge and make do and get him going again. The choice I guess is get something incredibly high tech which will be very reliable indeed until err something goes wrong or something basic and simple which can be coaxed just a little. When I was a lad big Ford Granadas and Jags ended their lives on the local council estate cos basically they were a Cortina or Ital, where do they go now when a headlight alone costs 500 quid or more? So, that's it then, the solution is clear..............
Do you ever say the same about your car, whatever it is?
Funny you should say that because we are looking at cars at the moment and most salesman are faintly surprised when I ask them about the base model and explain I want something simple to run and cheap to maintain with lots of space and hard wearing rather than some complicated flash thing with a dashboard like the millenium falcon with sat nav and electronically managed everythings! I want four wheels space and a decent stereo to liven up the extremely dull experience of driving a car!
Quote: I want four wheels space and a decent stereo to liven up the extremely dull experience of driving a car!
Couldn't agree more, that's why I drive a Berlingo. But even bikes are still very basic compared to cars, except the useless gimmicks such as those you get on most modern ones like mpg, fuel left, average speed ec. OK for a few days, then they wear off. The only useful one on the old 1050 Tiger was the twin trips
nickwiz: Don't know never met PtB but I do know most of my riding mates even struggle to get on an average sport bike without being all tippy toes. They've no chance of riding one of those giants. s!$% I'm 6'2" with long legs and even I feel uncomfortable on them. Being astride one might be possible but it looks daft when youre toppling over at the lights!
Errrrm I'm 6'1 1/2" take a look at my avatar.... I'm astride PtB's bike with my feet flat on the floor and my (ever-so fecked) knees slightly flexed... if I had some spare cash and a bigger garage there'd be one o' they in there
I was less sure of myself then 
)
) twins just don't do it for me.. having said that I'd like to see a 1700 Thunderbird Twin in a decent roadster chassis
