One hell of a ride.
Errr, not quite with you - but i should have said 'encourage brand loyalty'.Originally Posted by Paul in NZ
What? Just like Bloors crowd rewarded us old life time brand loyal types for keeping the dream alive...
Paul N
but whatever - we have a pretty good time.
bd
Una Storia Italiana
A) OK........ ok, I have to step in at this point and say....... Biffy.... muilties (4cyl's) belong in cars mate a real bike has one or two cyl's perfurably in a vee configeration, the Futura would be my pick (after a V11 Le Mans) I have ridden the Futura and it was smooth and way to quite.A) twin!! I didn't realise it was a twin. Come on, who wants half an engine in a modern bike? You need a minimum of three cylinders in order to qualify as a motorbike don't you? Particularly if you want to be a credible sports tourer.
B) Seriously though - I've heard nothing but negative things about using twins in anything designed for serious touring. All that vibration and such like for hours on end. But I love the low down torque on twins. But not for touring surely?
C) Can someone please convince me otherwise and tell me why twins are ok for touring and not just great fun for blasting the back roads.
B) Honestly thats the 1st time I have heard that about twins, Beit 2 of 4 pods a engine has a vibration eg: I find 4's to have a high and fast vib a tingling type a thing were as a twin is more of a low slow vib more of a pulse.
C) I'm not about to covince you on anything....... but heres a thought you convince me.... lets say the XX for a week end
I have mostle had twins and my main interest in riding has been touring, and I have never had a problem with that in fact I find the avarage 4 cyl a tad on the boring side..... but back to the twin thing, the CX turbo was wicked for touring, the Guzzi dito but the postion was a killer after 600k or so, more to do with the style of bike not cyl's.
The Storm is great being a series 2 its bars are set up more for topuring and the V2 bit is no differant to a 4.... apart from the fact that with a twin it isent always nesasery to knock it down a gear.
The pan pasific is a 800cc V2 and is a full on tourer..... I'd like to know what someones thoughts are on them.
I have covered the most milage in a day on a VFR750 (the last of them) 1100k and felt like I could do it again.... but thats cos the rds were kinda straighter than NZ rds.... maybe a V2 is the ultermit in touring engines..... oh crap that would be a STX
cheers DD
(Definately Dodgy)
Forum whore
Loooonnngg story but when they first started making the new ones they changed the Logo and started getting all harley legal with people that were using the old logo to advertise parts to keep the old bikes going and putting it on mugs, caps and shit. Law suits were threatened etc etc
They went to great lengths to stress the new bikes were completely disconnected from the old oil leaking, un reliable junkers that typified the old triumph and then started re using all the old names.
A lot of folks that kept the faith were feeling a bit miffed with it all! (lets not mention the heavy handed styling)
But what ever....
A few years back I was speaking to Jack Wilson at Big D Cycles and while they were well pissed off they took so long to get bikes to them they were still pleased the name was back. If it was good enough for him, how can I complain!
Paul N
f*sakes.Putsomeclotheson!
Comfort? Okay. So you want a bike you can ride the length of the South Island on in one morning and still feel fresh. Great. Do that often do you? Every weekend is it?
I rode to the coast this weekend. And when i got there i could have ridden straight back. 100% fact that a silky smooth tourer would have delivered me in better condition, but i associate the odd ache and pain with riding motorcycles.
I'd have a "tourer" one day. I've considered it. But for now i'm happy with a bike that will get me where i need it to, vibration or no, aches or no. They all serve to remind me i'm on a bike, and focus me more on my surroundings. A lumpy assed twin serves me fine. I don't want a bike with a reverse gear or a stereo or a thousand litre tank. I don't want a couch yet!
The bottom line for me is i'll ride as far as anybody on a tourer, i'll just arrive in worse nick, and with a few more fuel stops. But i'm okay with that. Then this weekend i'll get to Akaroa for a quiet beer long before the first tourer turns up. I think Aaron will back me up on that....
One hell of a ride.
Thank you paul now I understand.
Most of the 'distancing' of the early Hinckley Triumphs from the Meriden machines was done so as not to be tarred with the brush of unreliability and leaks that had been so effectivey loaded by messers Lucas et al.
I think it was also about not having new dealers swamped with 197X Bonneville repairs, trade ins and ongoing headaches.
As the bikes have established themselves as reliable and hardy as any other euro, then the past has been embraced and acknowledged in the form of Thruxton, T100 etc.
Bloor has done it smart commercially, at the expence of some traditional values perhaps, but it's now a pretty good product and you only have to look at the amout of Rocket III's and T'birds and Americas that are out with the Meridens at the TOMCC and see there is generally wide acceptance.
chz
bd
Forum whore
About all I get miffed about these days (from a true anorack wearing train spotters mind) is the mis use of the names and the BSA type styling which is in general, far too heavy for a Triumph which were always lithe, sensual beasts (well ok maybe thats a stretch for a bathtup thunderbird).
To my mind the current Tiger should be a Trophy (as that was the off road model)
The Daytona should be a Bonneville
The T600 should be a Daytona
The Trophy should be a Tiger
The Bonneville should be crushed for exceptional ugliness and the Thruxton cleaned up a bit and renamed the Ace.
Paul N
unless you can prove it.
Hang on, surely you don’t mean taking the piss at my Bird? After your mag sung its praises in a recent review I simply cannot believe that you journo types aren't all part of a greater clone "collective", incapable of independent thought. It must be because I'm a pom. It can't be the bike.
Would love to see a 6'5" ladder of a man like you riding a Trophy. Now that would be funny. As a matter of interest if you ride the trophy for more than 10 minutes, with your size and all, do turn into a pupa and then re-emerge days later as a butterfly?
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
Good job you've got no clout at Triumph then, they'd have been broke in the first two years trying to fit motors in sideways and shit.....
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
AKA Strawbs
Ah yes, tis the only bike I think I would change the Fazer for..... will be trying one when our dealer gets one, if I like I will change.... maybe
Because I can......................
One hell of a ride.
The Quadrant?
Anyway I like the way the bonne looks and the Tiger should have been called the Adventurer.
They haven't re-released the 'Tiger Cub Woods' (1950's) model yet either. it would be a big hit!
bd
Forum whore
Yes... Quite right The Quadrant would have beena stroke of brilliance... And while I kinda agree on the adventurer name (more appropriate) the Trophy name goes way way back for the off roaders and half the original Adventurers (a muchly mis understood and forward thinking bike btw) were actually badged Trophy Trails and the model designation was TR5T (T for trophy)..The Quadrant?
Anyway I like the way the bonne looks and the Tiger should have been called the Adventurer.
They haven't re-released the 'Tiger Cub Woods' (1950's) model yet either. it would be a big hit!
bd
Now! A Tiger Cub? Good idea as Triumph are still making the same error IMHO by not having a decent entry level machine. There is definately a place for a really cool 250 of non Japanese origin.
As for the looks of the new std Bonneville.... Bleaugh! Looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down to a very heavy landing in a used septic tank.
Go look at a Kawasaki W650 (ignore the fugly engine) and see the difference. Kawasaki understood the lightness of line that messers Turner and Wickes crafted into the Triumph twins. Bloor and co don't have a designer in house, everything is contracted out (a la the first T150 to Ogle) and I think it shows. Yes, the engineering is fine but it's UGLY because there was no one to love the bike and unify the whole thing. It's as bland as a labeless can of cold tapioca served in a railways cup on a deserted platorm on a cold winters night in Taihape. Yes, it didn't offend anyone but it's not going to inspire either!
Paul N
unless you can prove it.
Shoot - I've heard it said loads over the years by twin owners, as an owner of several twins and by reading biking mags that twins aren't the best for long journeys. In fact I read an article last night in a Ride road test where the guy who was road testing a Suki twin said his fingers went numb after about 100 miles due to the engine vibrations and it took him days to recover.
Now I know I'm comparing apples with possums, but I've definitely heard it said a number of times and based upon my experience, that "in general" twins aren't "ideally" suited for touring due to the vibrations, relatively poor fuel economy, noise etc etc. The key words here being "ideal" and "in general". Would love to try one on a hike one day. Maybe you and I should swap bikes on one of our outings DD? I don't know about a whole weekend though!!
As for 4 cylinders lacking the poke of twins, that's one hell of a generalisation. Although I know where you’re coming from because loads of 4 cylinder bikes feel lazy. But have a poke at my bike mate and then tell me it isn't quicker than yours all the way through the range and with equal consistency, all the way through the range, and will carry on going once any road going twin had either run out of steam or motion lotion .
Don’t get me wrong here guys, I’m a big fan of twins and have owned a fair few myself (XRV 750, DT's, TZR,GPZ etc) and may very well own one again. So don’t feel that you need to defend them. They’re a hoot and have served me very well over the years. But at the moment I've choosen ball breaking speed & acceleration combined with with the ability to tour, economically, without a sore arse, two up in comfort on a silky smooth motor.
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
Forum whore
Sounds like you are getting SOFT... Your bike is one step away from a car! (scrathc that, your bike is a better car than my 89' Starlet)
I'd defend the economy of touring on a Guzzi compared to your monster any day... (mainly because I sleep under bridges and in ditches and eat old fag ends and road kill)
Paul N
Moto Guzzi LeMans (It's a mans bike son - says so on the side)
parting of the sensory
The Firestorm is not the smoothest twin out there (in fact, I believe Honda may have deliberately engineered in some vibes for 'character'), but I had no problems with vibes on it. It only had noticeable vibes at around 4k rpm, and even then, they didn't numb my hands or feet.
My two big problems with touring on it were the seating position and fuel mileage. My knees were too bent, which cut off circulation and made my right foot go numb. The short range of the tank was a good excuse to stop and unkink my arthritic limbs.
Noise? Always wear earplugs on the open road, so that was no problem.
On the contrary - it's the twins that feel (and sound) lazy. Due to developing maximum torque lower in the rev range than an IL4, they feel like they're hardly working. This also means there's less need to change down a gear to overtake. The facts probably say otherwise and agree with "tell me it isn't quicker than yours all the way through the range and with equal consistency, all the way through the range, and will carry on going once any road going twin had either run out of steam or motion lotion" but it's just a perception thing: a twin seems like a more lazy, relaxed ride.
Yeah, for long-distance touring, smoother is definitely more comfy. Don't forget though that riding a bike is a very visceral thing - it's all about the sensations, whether a particular bike "does it for you", and for many people (me included), ultimate smoothness and quietness take something away from that. I've never ridden a Blackbird, although I came close to doing so the day I bought the VFR, but I have a very good idea what it'd be like. Years ago (before the Blackbird was released), I test rode a whole lot of new bikes back-to-back, and rode a CBR1000. It was a lovely, smooth, comfortable bike - the nicest I'd ever ridden. But I knew that if I owned one I'd pine for summat with more character after a while.
... and that's what I think.
Or summat.
Or maybe not...
Dunno really....
unless you can prove it.
Ok Paul - I'll give you that one. The Bird is certainly softer than many of the twins, in terms of ride comfort and the silky smooth available power. As for me getting soft. Nope, not me. I like riding all sorts of bikes and as I'd never had a 4 cylinder rocket before I though I'd give it ago.
Buying an old fashioned southern European machine is on my list somewhere, just after sleeping with Helen Clark. Thinking about it, she's probably more attractive than 98.7% of all Guzzi'z anyway
This weeks international insult is in Malayalam:
Thavalayolee
You Frog Fucker
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks