Best Bonnie ever?

[Indiana_Jones]

I tried dropping a gear and hoofing it, more sewing machine noise, and it quietly got on with the job.

After market silencers will fix that problem

-Indy

[invisiblehand1]

yeah you're right. But the size is the killer. The bonnies are really lardy - and I really wanted to like it, i went down to ride the scrambler with the money burning a hole, and I didnt buy. In fact I've accidentally bought 2 more Guzzis in the interim, both 1970s tonti framed cafe racers - brooommmmmm

[kr250]

Agree Yank spec tank and nearly flat bars, just like mine, any body got forks, front wheel complete and clocks for 73 Daytona 500, some clown put Jap front end on it

[Bandit Rider]

Back to the original question: I am with 69 - 70. But, pre-unit is part of the "glory days", a superb engine when it was designed.

[Big Dave]

The bonnies are really lardy )

I don't agree with that. In fact if I was in the market for an ADV bike it would be a Scrambler or a DR650/KLR650, depending on finances at the time.

[Motu]

I think you are the only person who thinks the new Bonnie is a lithe and nimble bike similar to the old model.The Triumph was lighter than the BSA,lighter than the Norton,lighter the Matchless,lighter than the AJS,lighter than the Royal Enfield.Because it was a lighter bike than all it's opposition,it was more nimble and light handling,a joy to ride.

A fat overweight Bonnie doesn't deserve the name.Fat bikes are like fat people...worthy of disrespect.

[Big Dave]

I think you are the only person who thinks the new Bonnie is a lithe and nimble bike similar to the old model.The Triumph was lighter than the BSA,lighter than the Norton,lighter the Matchless,lighter than the AJS,lighter than the Royal Enfield.Because it was a lighter bike than all it's opposition,it was more nimble and light handling,a joy to ride.

A fat overweight Bonnie doesn't deserve the name.Fat bikes are like fat people...worthy of disrespect.

Maybe it's just that I'm over 4' tall.

New SE steers beautifully. Doesn't have great ground clearance - but till then there is NUFFING wrong with it. In fact it's very nice and very pleasant to ride.

Ridden a Scrambler all around the north island and done a capital coast ADV ride on it. I'd buy one for solo riding. Damn fine bike.

The fact that there is so many of them on the road also suggests I'm far from the only one.

It has a starter motor, oil cooler, anti-pollution equipment, a huge battery, working electricals and all the other necessaries for a bike to be saleable in 2010. That weighs more. But they don't make it some sort of slug as purported.

Maybe you and Paul are the 'only' Old codgers left with a stick up their arse about the good old days. :-p

[Ixion]

Yes, but only because they weighed them at the end of the road test. Since a significant proportion of the Triumph's component parts had been left scattered at the road side, naturally it weighed in lighter. It was a lot lower and narrower than the Hinck. Even the scrap iron collection is lower and narrower (and lighter ) than the Hinck

[Big Dave]

The mass of the vehicle is not as important as location of its mid-mid-middle.

The improvements is Kyaba suspension over the past 5 years is also notable.

In 2001 the first thing you'd do is change out the shocks. That is no longer as urgent.

[Edbear]

I think you are the only person who thinks the new Bonnie is a lithe and nimble bike similar to the old model.The Triumph was lighter than the BSA,lighter than the Norton,lighter the Matchless,lighter than the AJS,lighter than the Royal Enfield.Because it was a lighter bike than all it's opposition,it was more nimble and light handling,a joy to ride.

A fat overweight Bonnie doesn't deserve the name.Fat bikes are like fat people...worthy of disrespect.

Oi!!! I resemble that remark!

The mass of the vehicle is not as important as location of its mid-mid-middle.
The improvements is Kyaba suspension over the past 5 years is also notable.

In 2001 the first thing you'd do is change out the shocks. That is no longer as urgent.

Yup! My mass is right in the middle...

[Paul in NZ]

Maybe you and Paul are the 'only' Old codgers left with a stick up their arse about the good old days. :-p

I don't think that comment is worthy of you Dave. It is possible to agree to disagree and my taste runs to something else. If disagreeing with your 100% Triumph appologist social marketing program makes me an anal stick siting antique, so be it! The thing is, I'm genuinely interested in the history of the bikes and the era post war to the early 70's and I am entitled to a perfectly valid opinion.

I wanted Triumph to make a really good performance bike to take that name and instead they have made a popular bike to sell to other people who have a hazy memory about what a bonne really meant. For the record, I'm not a huge fan of stock T140's either even though they are considerably more advanced than the original.

For what its worth - I see very few of the new twins at classic bike club runs but a lot more W650's. I'd venture to suggest your average new triumph buyer is not much interested in history.

[YellowDog]

The choice between buying a brand new reliable modern piece of retro nostalgia OR a 35 year old restoration job with heaps of character IS an easy one for me.

I've ridden a Bonnie SE and thought it was a super piece of kit. I rode a Bonnie in the 70s and loved it too (even the oil spray on my jeans) - but it's all relative. I am sure that I would hate it now.

I really do admire those guys who spend thousands on their projects and the satisfaction of a completed project (most don't ever complete them) by far outweighs anything you could possibly buy - BUT if I AM buying and not restoring, I will always buy as new and modern as I can.

[Paul in NZ]

The choice between buying a brand new reliable modern piece of retro nostalgia OR a 35 year old restoration job with heaps of character IS an easy one for me.

I've ridden a Bonnie SE and thought it was a super piece of kit. I rode a Bonnie in the 70s and loved it too (even the oil spray on my jeans) - but it's all relative. I am sure that I would hate it now.

I really do admire those guys who spend thousands on their projects and the satisfaction of a completed project (most don't ever complete them) by far outweighs anything you could possibly buy - BUT if I AM buying and not restoring, I will always buy as new and modern as I can.

To clarify - in my opinion the SE or one of its brothers are ideal for you BUT that does not make it the best bonnie ever. It makes it the best bonnie for you and good onya. (I just like winding Dave up)

BTW - I know lots of people that have never stopped riding their old trumphs and have many many miles on them and they dont spend thousands, they may spend many hours however....

[Voltaire]

The choice between buying a brand new reliable modern piece of retro nostalgia OR a 35 year old restoration job with heaps of character IS an easy one for me.

This is a good point.
Personally I like the 59 Bonnie and the history that goes with it. I restored a 1959 T110 ( which I still have ) 20 years ago.
I took a " new " Bonnie for a ride at Holeshots with the intention of possibly of buying a Thruxton.
I did about 30 kms up the back roads of Albany, and I was glad to give it back.
It might have Triumph on the tank and Bonnie on the sidecovers but as far as I'm concerned its about as authentic as a new Mini or VW Beetle.
If I could only have one bike ( and I had no mechanical skills )it would be a modern, but it would not be a retro.
Probably the best of the retro bikes would be the Ducati 1000.

[Motu]

Maybe you and Paul are the 'only' Old codgers left with a stick up their arse about the good old days. :-p

Must be something about the name.I'm not lost in the past...but the past is a good benchmark to compare something new with,even if the new is only a week newer than the old.It's what we do as humans,and I see it often in your articles and road tests - even if you road tested a new hoverbike,I'm sure you would have to make a comparison to how much better it is than the old wheeled motorcycle.

Every motor vehicle gets bigger along the way - take the Toyota Corolla for example,the latest version is much bigger than the 1969 model,but has better performance in every way,is safer and more fuel efficient,and no one in their right mind would say the old one was better.But they had to make the Starlet to take the small corollas place...and now we have things like the VITZ.

But what I have a stick up my arse about is weight - to me the whole thrill and excitement of a motorcycle is a high performance engine in a light chassis.Sure,put a more powerful engine in a heavier frame and it'll be faster than a lighter bike with less powerful engine,but the best way to increase performance is to take weight off,always has been.I just don't like overweight motorcycles - I'm sure if I had the excess cash to by a new Bonnie I'd be very happy with the product.But if I wanted a vertical twin to compare to a '69 Bonnie....I'd take my R65.