Modern "cafe" racers and stuff.

**Bonez** · 23rd August 2005, 18:31

Originally Posted by Motu

Ahem,cough,cough - shut that door please,or someones going to drive a shit load of examples through.The big four has been built on that whole concept.

You mean "Triumphs" big four? Cough. cough....

**Bonez** · 23rd August 2005, 18:33

There were other manufactures with twin cylinder 4 stokes m/c around before and after Turners offerings.

**Paul in NZ** · 23rd August 2005, 18:41

Originally Posted by Bonez

There were other manufactures with twin cylinder 4 stokes m/c around before and after Turners offerings.

True - but it was the total package that mattered!

However, one interpretation of what you just said is that Turner copied the twin idea and improved on it to make it better.. What a cad... Imagine... (PT)

**Bonez** · 23rd August 2005, 18:50

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

True - but it was the total package that mattered!

However, one interpretation of what you just said is that Turner copied the twin idea and improved on it to make it better.. What a cad... Imagine... (PT)

Seems to be a pattern forming here don't you think? I feel my sock puppet comment in another thread was spot on

**Big Dave** · 23rd August 2005, 18:59

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Meh! but still made a better fist of it that that Bloor thingy... A GSXR1000 is more a real bonnie than that is...

Congrats - That is without doubt the biggest load of bullshit I've read on Kiwi Biker.

**Bonez** · 23rd August 2005, 19:03

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Congrats - That is without doubt the biggest load of bullshit I've read on Kiwi Biker.

I think you missed the point.

**Big Dave** · 23rd August 2005, 19:29

Originally Posted by Bonez

I think you missed the point.

No I didn't - we've had part of this argument before. (the part I take exception too)

I spent a few days swapping rides on these two bikes.
Jump off one - hop on other.
I *know* Bloor's men have made a fucking good fist of re-creating the Bonneville and his stick it up your arse attitude is just some nit-picking old school mentality.

edited for context.

**SPman** · 23rd August 2005, 19:39

Meh! but still made a better fist of it that that Bloor thingy... A GSXR1000 is more a real bonnie than that is...

In a modern world I think he's right.
A Bonneville was the epitome of fast sport bikes of the era - a modern Bonneville is just a retro throwback with pretensions of style and form and less performance and excitement than the original!
A GSXR 1000 (or similar) is at the cutting edge of motorcycle road sport performance - where the Bonny was when new.........an ultimate "weapon".
The modern Bonny is for old farts with delusions of their youth ......may as well buy a cruiser.......

**Bonez** · 23rd August 2005, 20:33

Originally Posted by SP

In a modern world I think he's right.
A Bonneville was the epitome of fast sport bikes of the era - a modern Bonneville is just a retro throwback with pretensions of style and form and less performance and excitement than the original!
A GSXR 1000 (or similar) is at the cutting edge of motorcycle road sport performance - where the Bonny was when new.........an ultimate "weapon".
The modern Bonny is for old farts with delusions of their youth ......may as well buy a cruiser.......

I think in these days of market labelling the new bonny, truxton etc do fall into the "cruiser" catogory whereas the W650
is "retro" through and through-18" and 19" wheels on the W650 are a dead give away

Edit-I know there where earlier Brit bikes with 17" rears. Triumph T100A was one of them.............

**Motu** · 23rd August 2005, 20:43

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

True - but it was the total package that mattered!

However, one interpretation of what you just said is that Turner copied the twin idea and improved on it to make it better.. What a cad... Imagine... (PT)

The original Triumph Twin was a Val Page design,all Edward Turner did was a Tightwad Turner redesign and some of GM's Bill Mitchell styling flare,and the Triumph was born.

It always annoys me when people talk about the Bonnie as the epitome of British Twin performance,there were far better handling and more powerful motors....but the Triumph had a certain ''something''....Turner gave it that.To me the Triumph always felt lighter and more peppie than other twins,but it handled like crap and the motor couldn't take a hiding.

**Ixion** · 23rd August 2005, 22:00

Originally Posted by Motu

The original Triumph Twin was a Val Page design,all Edward Turner did was a Tightwad Turner redesign and some of GM's Bill Mitchell styling flare,and the Triumph was born.

It always annoys me when people talk about the Bonnie as the epitome of British Twin performance,there were far better handling and more powerful motors....but the Triumph had a certain ''something''....Turner gave it that.To me the Triumph always felt lighter and more peppie than other twins,but it handled like crap and the motor couldn't take a hiding.

The Page twin was different, the 6/1. A 650cc about 1935. Designed with sidecars in mind. Looked very like a BSA A10 (which was designed by Page after he left BSA, so that's not surprising) .

This was one of the secrets of the Turner twin. Prior to the speed Twin, 500cc and up twins were ALWAYS designed with the sidecar market in mind. So they had good bottom end torque, and really strong (and heavy) frames . Turner said "stuff the sidecars" and built a sports 500 twin in a lightweight (read shitty) frame. It was light, fast, and cheap. What Turner was good at, and Page was not good at, was ensuring the the business made money selling his designs. But the Speed Twin was good for its day. 90mph (a good one could hit the ton one way) was something for a 1930s 500.

Noone ever put chairs on Triumphs the frames just weren't up to it (well you COULD, if you insisted) . There was a legend (maybe true) that Turner couldn't actually ride a bike. Noone ever saw him do so, he didn't really care about handling so long as the top speed was high and the bike looked good. Reckon he'd do pretty well as Chief designer of most modern motorcycle companies!.

**Motu** · 23rd August 2005, 22:54

I really like guys like Edward Turner,is there a biography of him? I've read bits and pieces and can put together in my mind what he was up to,but more background would be great.He was a real character,and everything he touched was unmistakable,he was a designer in the total sense.Val Page made some of the most important designs of the classic era,but he was a backroom boy,Turner was frontroom.

I served my time with a guy who was a ''milkbar cowboy'' in the 50s - he always asked what the hell I wanted to ride a Triumph for,in his day they were considered cheap crap,what the Cops rode...so you could always be sure you could get away from them.But to me the Triumph was light and nippy,it felt like fun to ride,not stodgy like ''the others''.I think this is what endears the Triumph to the romantics...so what if a Norton could ride around the outside of you....it felt faster....and that's all that matters with the rose tinted specs of nostalga....

**Brian d marge** · 24th August 2005, 03:24

Actually that all was media hype ...here is the reall story ,,,,I wrote this a while back ..but its all true I tell you ...all true ...( I dont know how to cut and paste so its in word at the bottom )

Stephen

( sorry I would like to answer this a bit more in depth ,,but I have 2 much on me plate ...Conrod fatigue ( work) , and ( I promised to post about high siding ,,,Kb )

Pictures from left to right

1 ,,the 1st Indian Enfield
2. Herr Otto first attemp at a Roadworthy Machine
3 The First Luxury MC .later called the goldwing
4. The british Answer to the Honda Super cub ,,,As tested by Sir Archibald Buggaham

**Paul in NZ** · 24th August 2005, 15:33

Originally Posted by Big Dave

No I didn't - we've had part of this argument before. (the part I take exception too)

I spent a few days swapping rides on these two bikes.
Jump off one - hop on other.
I *know* Bloor's men have made a fucking good fist of re-creating the Bonneville and his stick it up your arse attitude is just some nit-picking old school mentality.

edited for context.

Of goodness..... One thing to argue a point but you are gettin' a bit het up here big guy! I'm happy to agree to disagree...

Just because I don't happen to personally agree with you OR Triumph on this bike does not make me wrong, it's just my opinion, and thats all it is. It's not bollocks, it's what just an opinion. It's not like I picket triumph dealers or throw rocks at the bloody things and I'm certainly not asking anyone to stick it up anyones arse.

My point is, the original bonnie was an edgy sportsbike. It's significance (to me anyway) was that it clearly maked a time when the motorcycle went from being a fairly utilitarian device designed to proved 'ride to work' 'take the family on holiday' capability as well as remove the lights and lets go racing capability, to something else. With the extra glitz, un ashamed performance, bad ass looks and reputation it was soley a (flawed) device for going very fast very quickly. A boys toy, a recreational 'life style' thing if you will.... It was beautifully executed and it was unmistakeable in profile. It had the Turner (or more likely the Wickes) look in every line.

As the bonnie aged, it's magic declined and the T140, while a very worthy bike and better in every way than a 1959 T120R and possibly the BEST bike they ever made in the classic period, is not the firecracker the name deserved.

The modern Bonnie does not have the individual stamp - it looks like a committee bike. A 916 has 'the look', the original Fireblade had it too, even a Moto Guzzi 750 Sport had that total design that one man brings to it.

I'm not being mean, I quite like the Thruxton.. Much nice looking bike but the whole range lacks the purpose and lightness of touch.... That essential badness... Lets face it, even a T140 owner had to be a bit mad or bad...

The new bonnie? Bad? Hmm.. No, not really....

The Kwaka is in the same tepid bath but in my opinion, they got the scale better.