pritch
9th February 2013, 11:39
A few weeks ago when talking to Derek, owner of the New Plymouth Motorcycle Centre, he mentioned that he would soon have a 2013 Triumph Street Triple R as a demonstrator.
Having established that the forecast for today, Friday, was fine I called yesterday to see if the bike had arrived. Wal, the salesman, told me that the bike had arrived but that it had zero miles on and they liked some “gentle” miles before they let customers loose on it. I pointed out my advanced years and that it was exceedingly unlikely that I would be laying dark lines in the corners. Wal spoke to the boss and the answer came back that I could have the bike.
OK, so I won't be able to tell you much about popping wheelies or the high speed handling. Having read KBer Blackbird's favourable comments about his Street Triple though, and having for some years now been interested in a lower, lighter, bike, I was keen to try the R.
Within the constraints imposed by the low Kms I was mainly interested in how the bike might function as a fun bike/light tourer and my ride would hopefully give an indication of how it might perform in that regard.
Never having ridden a standard Street I can't compare the R to the basic model. The February issue of Bike magazine contained a test of the R. When I got home today the March issue was in the mailbox and there is a comparison between the 2012 and 2013 R models.
My personal reference point is the 2009 Speed Triple.
A comparison of the specifications between the standard and the R indicate that the R has a higher seat, more aggressive steering geometry, adjustable suspension both ends, a distinctive colour scheme, and of course, a higher price.
I was a bit worried about that seat height because that's a minor concern on the Speed Triple. No problem when riding normally, but slow speed on rough ground requires care. Enough of a concern that when I went to the Dansey's Pass hotel a couple of years back I went in - and out - from the southern end avoiding the hilly, rockstrewn northern end. Yeah I know...
A pleasant surprise when I hopped on the R, the seat may be higher than the standard model, but it's lower than the Speed Triple. Foot plant felt fine.
Changes to the 2013 R? In addition to the new sharper geometry, the latest iteration has a revised frame, swingarm and wheels. There has been a move to mass centralisation with the battery moved further forward and a single muffler moved downstairs. There is also a higher first gear, those wheelies may take a little extra effort – if you're that way inclined. I liked the new muffler arrangement though, it probably halves the cost if you fancy fitting an aftermarket can. Not that there is anything wrong with the standard item.
On leaving the shop and riding into traffic things seemed familiar except, of course, the engine revs were higher than I was accustomed to.
On the open road the thought occurred that the fly screen was working rather better than I was used to. Those little bits of plastic Triumph use are rather more efficient than appearances might suggest. I assume the perceived performance advantage of the R screen might be due to a lower seat positioning the rider further down “in” the bike?
The mirrors gave a nice view of my shoulders, but there was enough of the mirror left to give a vibration free view of the road behind. They're not the best mirrors around but they aren't the worst either. The thought ocurred that if I wanted to fit my CRG Splitters I'd have to find a new way to mount them.
BIKE had reported that the brakes worked fine at speed but were a bit touchy at low speed. This and the quicker steering made me just a tad nervous, but I didn't notice anything untoward. Maybe the Brembos on the Speed Triple aren't much different. The quicker steering didn't result in any twitchy handling but several times I had to adjust my line in bends because I had turned in quicker than intended. Not major corrections but corrections none the less. I assume one would adapt quite quickly, the light precise steering should make the R a delight on a road like SH43, The Forgotten World Highway.
The instruments look familiar but there are improvements. There is a gear indicator which is nice, I've often thought I'd like one but have never had one. There is also a fuel guage and apparently a remaining range function.
I had read previously that the Street overtakes trucks like a litre bike. It struck me that it was possible that statement was just hyperbole. On the way back to New Plymouth I came across two truck and trailer units on a back road and had no trouble getting past. The engine is torquey for a “600” and the acceleration produced an inspiring soundtrack from the engine. My last four bikes have been an inline four, a V4, a V twin, and the triple. I really like the triple, it's a great road engine, and the smaller version has similar appeal.
To avoid most of the roadworks I headed for Opunake with the plan to stop at the Headlands Hotel for lunch. (Recommended.) Since the seat felt firm and I was interested to see how it would feel after rather more than the 62k to Opunake I didn't stop. I headed for the inland Wiremu Rd and kept riding. The seat never became uncomfortable, hopefully it should last at least the 17.4L tank range.
The experts at BIKE say that the R is “not obviously better” than the standard model. They also say that the differences between the 2012 model and the 2013 version are miniscule. “Any disparities need back-to-back miles and your fullest attention to notice.” I guess you could just pick whatever colour you like?
BIKE have given the Street several awards in recent history:
Bike of the Year 2009
Best Naked Ever 2011
Most Fun Bike Ever 2012
For years the Honda Hornet 600 set the standard for middleweight bikes, In Britain currently the Street Triple outsells the Hornet four to one.
“The king is dead. Long live the king?”
The litmus test following one of these rides is the question, would I buy one?
Hell yes!
Thanks Derek and Wal for the ride.
Having established that the forecast for today, Friday, was fine I called yesterday to see if the bike had arrived. Wal, the salesman, told me that the bike had arrived but that it had zero miles on and they liked some “gentle” miles before they let customers loose on it. I pointed out my advanced years and that it was exceedingly unlikely that I would be laying dark lines in the corners. Wal spoke to the boss and the answer came back that I could have the bike.
OK, so I won't be able to tell you much about popping wheelies or the high speed handling. Having read KBer Blackbird's favourable comments about his Street Triple though, and having for some years now been interested in a lower, lighter, bike, I was keen to try the R.
Within the constraints imposed by the low Kms I was mainly interested in how the bike might function as a fun bike/light tourer and my ride would hopefully give an indication of how it might perform in that regard.
Never having ridden a standard Street I can't compare the R to the basic model. The February issue of Bike magazine contained a test of the R. When I got home today the March issue was in the mailbox and there is a comparison between the 2012 and 2013 R models.
My personal reference point is the 2009 Speed Triple.
A comparison of the specifications between the standard and the R indicate that the R has a higher seat, more aggressive steering geometry, adjustable suspension both ends, a distinctive colour scheme, and of course, a higher price.
I was a bit worried about that seat height because that's a minor concern on the Speed Triple. No problem when riding normally, but slow speed on rough ground requires care. Enough of a concern that when I went to the Dansey's Pass hotel a couple of years back I went in - and out - from the southern end avoiding the hilly, rockstrewn northern end. Yeah I know...
A pleasant surprise when I hopped on the R, the seat may be higher than the standard model, but it's lower than the Speed Triple. Foot plant felt fine.
Changes to the 2013 R? In addition to the new sharper geometry, the latest iteration has a revised frame, swingarm and wheels. There has been a move to mass centralisation with the battery moved further forward and a single muffler moved downstairs. There is also a higher first gear, those wheelies may take a little extra effort – if you're that way inclined. I liked the new muffler arrangement though, it probably halves the cost if you fancy fitting an aftermarket can. Not that there is anything wrong with the standard item.
On leaving the shop and riding into traffic things seemed familiar except, of course, the engine revs were higher than I was accustomed to.
On the open road the thought occurred that the fly screen was working rather better than I was used to. Those little bits of plastic Triumph use are rather more efficient than appearances might suggest. I assume the perceived performance advantage of the R screen might be due to a lower seat positioning the rider further down “in” the bike?
The mirrors gave a nice view of my shoulders, but there was enough of the mirror left to give a vibration free view of the road behind. They're not the best mirrors around but they aren't the worst either. The thought ocurred that if I wanted to fit my CRG Splitters I'd have to find a new way to mount them.
BIKE had reported that the brakes worked fine at speed but were a bit touchy at low speed. This and the quicker steering made me just a tad nervous, but I didn't notice anything untoward. Maybe the Brembos on the Speed Triple aren't much different. The quicker steering didn't result in any twitchy handling but several times I had to adjust my line in bends because I had turned in quicker than intended. Not major corrections but corrections none the less. I assume one would adapt quite quickly, the light precise steering should make the R a delight on a road like SH43, The Forgotten World Highway.
The instruments look familiar but there are improvements. There is a gear indicator which is nice, I've often thought I'd like one but have never had one. There is also a fuel guage and apparently a remaining range function.
I had read previously that the Street overtakes trucks like a litre bike. It struck me that it was possible that statement was just hyperbole. On the way back to New Plymouth I came across two truck and trailer units on a back road and had no trouble getting past. The engine is torquey for a “600” and the acceleration produced an inspiring soundtrack from the engine. My last four bikes have been an inline four, a V4, a V twin, and the triple. I really like the triple, it's a great road engine, and the smaller version has similar appeal.
To avoid most of the roadworks I headed for Opunake with the plan to stop at the Headlands Hotel for lunch. (Recommended.) Since the seat felt firm and I was interested to see how it would feel after rather more than the 62k to Opunake I didn't stop. I headed for the inland Wiremu Rd and kept riding. The seat never became uncomfortable, hopefully it should last at least the 17.4L tank range.
The experts at BIKE say that the R is “not obviously better” than the standard model. They also say that the differences between the 2012 model and the 2013 version are miniscule. “Any disparities need back-to-back miles and your fullest attention to notice.” I guess you could just pick whatever colour you like?
BIKE have given the Street several awards in recent history:
Bike of the Year 2009
Best Naked Ever 2011
Most Fun Bike Ever 2012
For years the Honda Hornet 600 set the standard for middleweight bikes, In Britain currently the Street Triple outsells the Hornet four to one.
“The king is dead. Long live the king?”
The litmus test following one of these rides is the question, would I buy one?
Hell yes!
Thanks Derek and Wal for the ride.