More Triumph trouble for Garner...

I guess I'm gonna find out, plunked down a deposit for a Diablo Red Thruxton R with Track Racer fittings today. It will be delivered in April.
Got an email from Triumph stating I will receive a gold plated brass clutch cover, an item that is only sent to the first 250 preordered bikes( North America) and won't be available for purchase later.
Just one of the 250 is made from solid gold and must weigh a few ounces. That would be nice!

This (and $500 off list) is what we get for being the Guinea Pigs I guess.
I'm confident that by now Hinckley Triumph is very good at building water cooled motorcycle engines and modern motorcycles in general.

One of the old bikes might have to go, just not the Commando!

Glen
 
worntorn said:
I guess I'm gonna find out, plunked down a deposit for a Diablo Red Thruxton R with Track Racer fittings today. It will be delivered in April.
Got an email from Triumph stating I will receive a gold plated brass clutch cover, an item that is only sent to the first 250 preordered bikes( North America) and won't be available for purchase later.
Just one of the 250 is made from solid gold and must weigh a few ounces. That would be nice!

This (and $500 off list) is what we get for being the Guinea Pigs I guess.
I'm confident that by now Hinckley Triumph is very good at building water cooled motorcycle engines and modern motorcycles in general.

One of the old bikes might have to go, just not the Commando!

Glen
Click to expand...

Glen, you swine you!

Gotta admit to being a tad jealous here. I'm very interested myself but really need to see if the Thruxton comes with a pillion option, and if so, get my girls to try it for size before I can decide. I'd also like to be patient enough to try riding both engine types to.

And talking of engine types, both torque curves look stunning (well they're not curves really as they're so flat)! The graphs I gleaned from t'internet (below) are not totally clear, but it looks to me that the 'High Torque' engine has less torque than the Thruxton, it just produces its peak (which is lower than the Thruxtons peak) lower in the rev range. To my mind, the Thruxton looks to have the better engine for fun road use...

This is the T120 High Torque torque curve vs old 865 Bonnie:
More Triumph trouble for Garner...


This is the Thruxton torque curve, old vs new:
More Triumph trouble for Garner...
 
It is a big power curve, good thing there is traction control along with it. The Triumph website claims 120 NM for the Thruxton however that may be with the cat delete option, which I'm going to opt for.


Glen
 
worntorn said:
It is a big power curve, good thing there is traction control along with it. The Triumph website claims 120 NM for the Thruxton however that may be with the cat delete option, which I'm going to opt for.


Glen
Click to expand...

Its not a curve Glen, its almost flat from 3,000 to 6,000rpm !

Kinda like a good 850 Commando... But with nearly twice the torque...

Gonna be a blast to ride for sure.
 
Nigel, that was my thought exactly.
The fellows on the Triumph site are all fussing over the lack of the Max BHP number as of yet from Triumph. I pointed out that my Commando 850 with 60 crank BHP plus broad flat torque line has all kinds of grunt and that the Thruxton has about double the output of the Commando, so Max BHP will not be an issue. In any case BHP can be calculated from the graph and should approach 95- 100 bhp with the cat delete in place.
It's the amount of power the engine makes without revving hard that will make it a lot of fun.
Just like the 850.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
Nigel, that was my thought exactly.
The fellows on the Triumph site are all fussing over the lack of the Max BHP number as of yet from Triumph. I pointed out that my Commando 850 with 60 crank BHP plus broad flat torque line has all kinds of grunt and that the Thruxton has about double the output of the Commando, so Max BHP will not be an issue. In any case BHP can be calculated from the graph and should approach 95- 100 bhp with the cat delete in place.
It's the amount of power the engine makes without revving hard that will make it a lot of fun.
Just like the 850.

Glen
Click to expand...

Triumph MUST know what the power figures are!

Call me an old cynic... But I think they are 'dragging it out' on purpose to stimulate discussion and general interest. Otherwise known as 'hype' !
 
That's exactly what they are doing and if I am any example, it's working :mrgreen:
If we really want to know the BHP, it's right there in that torque line and it's plenty, however people are clamoring for an official number to toss about.
From the Celebrity Launch to the 250 gold plated clutch covers with one of solid gold, it is a very clever and effective marketing campaign. But in reality I bought because of the torque line plus the stying and because I am so impressed with my existing Hinckley Triumph.
The styling of the bike is near perfection to my eye. Someone mentioned that it looks like a copy of the 961 Norton. I actually see a lot of differences in proportion on the Thruxton R which I prefer, lovely though the Norton is.
And feast your eyes on the fork top clamp of the Thruxton r. It's a little piece of sculpture in itself.

I suppose every proper cafe racer looks much this way as they are all taking their styling cues from the great British race bikes of the late fifties and early 60s, the Manx Norton, the AJS 7r and the Matchless G50.
Its good that someone saw fit to build the 961 and the new Bonnies so that we don't all have to ride around on machines that look like a jet ski !

Glen
 
I am told they can't release Hp numbers because the bikes aren't thru Epa yet but you may be right! I would be jealous except I too put a deposit on a red one. I am with you Glen, not worried about HP at all, it's the seat height and weight I Want to see. If over 530 lbs or 32.5 inches I will find out if my deposit really is refundable!!!!
 
You got me doubting my choice again, Glen ...

worntorn said:
I pointed out that my Commando 850 with 60 crank BHP plus broad flat torque line has all kinds of grunt and that the Thruxton has about double the output of the Commando, so Max BHP will not be an issue.
...
It's the amount of power the engine makes without revving hard that will make it a lot of fun. Just like the 850.
Click to expand...

But here is where I come back to the 961 ...

worntorn said:
The styling of the bike is near perfection to my eye. Someone mentioned that it looks like a copy of the 961 Norton. I actually see a lot of differences in proportion on the Thruxton R which I prefer, lovely though the Norton is.
Click to expand...

Had the 961 been allowed to fade into the distance back in 2006, thereby making it impractical (if not impossible) to obtain one, I would be totally smitten by this new Thruxton for all the reasons you point out. Except for styling - we disagree on that piece. It does not appear sleek to me. In fact, compared to the 961 it seems bloated. And whenever I have the slightest bit of doubt over my decision to not cancel my order for the 961 (losing a grand and plopping down another grand, but saving several thousand and probably gaining many times more reliability in the end) I just take a look at that fake carburetor and sigh with relief. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder and the Norton 961 has caused me to be more irrational than ever! :roll:

That said, I am totally excited for you. Can't wait to read your reports next Spring.
 
I'm going to wait until they hit the showroom floor before deciding. They should be in by Feb. Besides, I could use a two up bike, so I may go with a T120 at a fraction less torque. I'd like to know if the suspension on that has been upgraded. Not impressed with any of the current retro line ups suspension. I DO love that fairing for the Thruxton. Real old school track.
 
Contours, I do not see the Thruxton R as direct competition to the 961. It will have slightly more hp but probably 75 or 100lbs heavier and it will not handle or brake with the Norton. As far as fit, finish, materials and appearance they are not in the same ballpark! I want the R because there is a great dealer 10 minutes away and I would ride the crap out of it, the 961 is for special occasions as I have other bikes which the R would become one of!

Curtis, the first 250 Bonnies are already sold with the R scheduled for April delivery, later orders will be more like June delivery according to Triumph NA!
 
BPHORSEGUY said:
Contours, I do not see the Thruxton R as direct competition to the 961. It will have slightly more hp but probably 75 or 100lbs heavier and it will not handle or brake with the Norton. As far as fit, finish, materials and appearance they are not in the same ballpark! I want the R because there is a great dealer 10 minutes away and I would ride the crap out of it, the 961 is for special occasions as I have other bikes which the R would become one of!
Click to expand...

Yup. I totally understand. If I could trade in my '75 Commando and my wife's XL883N on a new Thruxton R I would be totally happy with just the two (minus the wife as well).
 
The Triumph Thruxton R was competition for the 961 in my case and I suspect will be for others. I've lusted after the 961 for some time, but the problems put me off. I already have old bikes that need a lot of fettling so any additional machines need to be maintenance only types. My other Triumph is like that, just get on and go. Time will tell with this Thruxton.
As for the power comparison, I wouldn't expect the 961 pushrod 4 valve aircooled engine to come close to a 1200 water cooled OHC 8 valve engine, the comparitive Torque numbers bear that out and BHP is simply derived from Torque at any point by the equation Torque x Rpm /5252.
Weight is an unknown as yet, somehow I don't see it 100 lbs heavier than the Norton, unless all of the electronics are Soviet cold war era stuff. And then there are all of the electronics, ABS, Ride by wire, Traction control and 3 ride modes. All nice stuff to have we're told.

As far as fit and finish-, have a look at some close ups-

https://jacklilleytriumph.wordpress.com ... hruxton-r/

I'm not really seeing "bloated" either, but this is all eye of the beholder stuff. One German reviewer thought the Thruxton R was nearly as pretty as his R90 BMW . The R90 is a reliable old bike, but I've not heard it called pretty before!

More Triumph trouble for Garner...


Glen
 
Glen I am not going to knock the "R" as I call it, since I just put a deposit on one and got an E-mail from Triumph confirming my Gold cover 15 minutes after placing the deposit, ( very impressive ) ! But I have spent hours pouring over enlarged photos and I see no carbon fiber or machined from solid billet hand fitted parts! And based on the 2015 models that were made in the same factory by the same people, paint and fit and finish just will not approach the Norton.

The "R" will have a great dealer network and parts and accessories will be readily available. It will be a great bike but not a Norton. The current model is 530 lbs and the new one will have heavier suspension, brakes, tires, plus water cooling and ABS. I do not expect it to be significantly lighter then the current model! Triumph NA gave me an estimate of 500-550lbs with a 32-33 inch seat height! You are right that the 1200cc water pumper will be strong but I added 12 rear wheel hp to my Norton with just re-mapping, pipes and fuel. You can argue I will do the same with the "R" but I would not expect the same gains as the Norton map was so lean! That motor will have an extra 75 lbs to overcome and so will the brakes!

After expressing an interest in the bike I was contacted by the dealer twice and as I said, contacted by Triumph 15 minutes after placing my deposit. Granted there may have been extenuating circumstances as I am number 248 or 249 of the 250 pre-orders but it sure felt good. My dealer is taking me to Boston on a party bus to see the bike also, again feels good to have VIP treatment!

After a ride I will give a subjective report as owner of both!
 
contours said:
worntorn said:
It's a beautiful creation, no doubt. I'd love to know the weight. How much could 240 more CCs weigh anyway?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My fear is they don't have to weight any more. They added double rotors plus heavier suspension and tires and I would assume more gussetting on the frame for the added Hp + water cooling and ABS on top of what was already a porker! Triumph NA quoted me 500-550lbs with the latter being more likely! :shock:
 
Yes, I got a confirmation email minutes after the order as well, but never gave it a second thought really. I guess I'm forgetting what some of the early Norton buyers went thru. Hopefully that stuff is well in the past now.

I checked the Triumph site for the listed dry weight of the outgoing 2015 Thruxton 865. It is shown as 451 lbs. This is in line with everything I've read on the bike, never heard of a 530 lb curb weight for it, should be no higher than 500.
I also checked the Norton site for the dry weight of the 961 but could not find it listed anywhere. Various other dims there but no weights.
This site claims the 961 weighs 205 kgs dry. That's about 455 lbs., similar to the Triumph 865. Further along they show a/dry weight of 414, so who knows. I also found another site that had the Norton at 414. Dry. CF vs wire spoke wheels will make a fair dif.

Seat height for the Norton is listed as 32"
I don't mind if the Triumph seat is a little higher than that, it will allow more leg room. All depends on the rider's inseam I guess.

Anyone here weighed their 961?

http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/mot ... 59337.html

Maybe not so much difference?

Glen
 
My Norton weighed 414 lbs with just a touch of fuel on a certified scale, a 2014 Thrux on the same scale was 506! My seat measures 31.7 inches versus a factory spec of 31.8, must have settled! Several Internet sites list the Triumph from 496- 507 lbs. Manufactures are notorius for understating their weights as most reviews show.
 
I found several listings for the Norton full of fuel etc. at 448 to 454 curb weight. So it sounds like it is about 50 lbs lighter than the old Bonnie, quite a lot, but not surprising given that the old Bonnie was a very inexpensive machine compared to the Norton. And the old Thruxton was just a dressed up Bonnie whereas this Thruxton R is a totally different machine than the T120, different frame, different engine internals and high spec suspension and braking components.
Will have to see what Dec 7 brings, this is an all new machine with alloy swing arm and lightened crank. Triumph seems to be surpassing expectations with this bike, hopefully they can continue. They do know how to build light if they decide to (Daytona 675)

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top