Norton and Triumph in MCN

Tis weeks MotorCycle News in the UK has a 961 vs Thruxton test. They don't declare a winner. But the 961 gets very highly praised.

Gave a little edge to the Triumph on performance. Gave way higher praise for quality of build, nostalgic feel, overall beauty to the Norton. I couldn't read every word because it was scanned and sent to me an a bit too small. But that's what I was able to gather. Its not online yet.

I was sent the first 3 pages to the article by Blightybrit from the UK . I have not read it all yet either . Clearly the Triumph engine is a real gem and better handling then the air cooled version. I say give a big edge to Thruxton on performance , I have not driven a Thruxton. But according to the dyno reports at cycle world 70HP vs 87HP I would say is a very big advantage for Thruxton. Those buying on HP alone should look to Thruxton in my view . I thought the Bonneville vs Norton comparison made more sense to me . Or Triumph Bonneville T120 vs Norton 961 Sport made more sense to me . I know for a fact my Norton make 70 HP at the rear wheel at MCC dyno , not 80 , not 87. The engine is the same across the Norton Commando Range . No attempt was made to produce a higher spec engine for any other model . Lets be fair though , when the 961 came out it had a performance advantage over the aircooled Bonneville/Thruxton. But since then Norton had not changed , in short it was not a moving target. In my opinion the Norton engine is capable of producing more power then it does IF somebody was given the opportunity to do it. This would be reliable power somewhere in the 80 to 90 HP range. This all takes money to do , for example Carpenter Racing come to mind in New Jersey. They were given a Triumph Rocket to work on and also a air cooled Bonnie which the promptly got (wait .. 90 HP ) from. The Air cooled Ducati 900 or 1000 2 valve engines make 85 HP or more this is stock from the box. Norton chose NOT to do this for financial reasons , In fact the engine was DE-Tuned for them for a broader torque band. Mark my words folks " Our Day Will Come " .

Britfan60 said:

Gave a little edge to the Triumph on performance. Gave way higher praise for quality of build, nostalgic feel, overall beauty to the Norton. I couldn't read every word because it was scanned and sent to me an a bit too small. But that's what I was able to gather. Its not online yet.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes, it said the Triumph outperformed the Norton quite easily, but in terms of build quality, aesthetics, tactile riding pleasure, etc, gave the points to the Norton.

They kinda concluded by saying that if you want to do high mileage, and / or commute then the Triumph would be best. If you want a weekend bike to enjoy, the Norton would be best.

Not sure what you do if you want both !?!

The Norton can do high mileage ! Are they speaking about comfort or just robust enough to do high mileage ?

TonyA said:

The Norton can do high mileage ! Are they speaking about comfort or just robust enough to do high mileage ?

Click to expand...

Comfort and convenience. Rider modes, ABS, super smoothness, etc.

These are important features to many. To some, they are precisely the things to avoid!

After just completing a tour of 4830 kms thru 100 degree heat, two thunder,lightning and hail storms, numerous mountain passes including the 11,000 ft Beartooth, I can vouch that the build quality of the Triumph Thrux R is superb.

I wonder if the journalist has ever done a trip like that on any bike, let alone such a trip on each of the bikes in his report?

The oil is still clean and full, and inside of the engine where it belongs. The bike ran flawlessly even at very high elevation.
The power is magnificent.

Twenty minutes of cleaning once home and it looks as new again.

Glen

I like both the commando and the thruxton R. But once I seen the commando it was easy for me. That doesn't mean I dislike the Thruxton R. I plan to purchase one in the near future. For the price you can't go wrong with the thruxton R.

Glen,
I rode a Thruxton R today. I was seriously impressed with the power. To be honest, it got me thinking that I actually don't want to go that fast anymore! Its one of those bikes where, when entering a village after a blast on an open road, you slow down to what feels like a crawl, only to realise you're still doing twice he speed limit!

The handling was equally impressive, I wasn't expecting it to feel so nimble or neutral. It feels a LOT lighter than it actually is. The suspension was set way too hard, this actually made more sense when really pushing it, but for 95% of the time for 95% of the people, it must definitely be too hard. Not sure why they set them up like that.

There's no doubt it is a very competent and well thought out motorcycle, and to me, its clear why the journo's said the Triumph would be their choice for distance or commutes.

I have not ridden a 961 yet, but I can imagine why they said the Norton would be the 'fun choice' of the two bikes, the Triumph was lacking in rawness / character / call it what you will. For you of course Glen, with a hot snot, fire breathing Egli Vincent in the garage, this is hardly an issue!

If any 961 owners fancy meeting up at H cafe or somewhere else near Oxford, I'll trade a go on your 961 for a blast on the 'Blue Bomber'...

I'm looking forward to reading this article. Someone very kind is sending me a copy. I have not yet ridden a Modern Triumph. I do ride my 961 every day that is not raining which equates to approx. 5,000 miles per year. Although I have ridden for two hrs in hard rain and have got caught a few times here and there. I rode all the way to North Carolina last year with minimal stops (1,000 miles). To Finger Lakes NY last year and going in two more weeks. My dad rides all over North America with his. I have no complaints of comfort (except with clip-ons I have about 45minutes max then need a break). I am a proud modern Norton Owner that's for sure. We have torn the engines completely apart. Not too many complaints there either. The bike is very reliable and handles very well.

If Triumph gave me a Thruxton to ride every day for a CDN season to report on, I would gladly give an honest review. Even make MANUALS. Now THAT would be a fair review that would be very interesting. I find myself disbelieving many reviews because the reviewers don't really put a lot of miles on the vehicles. And to add, the Norton is AIR COOLED 1000cc and the TRIUMPH is liquid cooled 1200cc maybe similar styling but not similar power plant. I'm sure the Triumph is amazing and perhaps one day I will get a chance to find out for myself. I imagine if I rode down to the Triumph Dealer on my 961 they would let me take one for a rip.

And you all know I'm not paid by Norton to say anything! Look at all the issues I've made public that I'm sure they are not happy with me for. But the good news is, they were all easy to correct and the new bikes don't have half the issues now. Hey Simon, send me a V4 to test for a season. You'll get manuals and honest testing and daily rider feedback. 8)

Maybe I should make a youtube review of the Norton 961 letting watchers know every last detail of the good and the bad.

Richard!
I would be very very interested in your YouTube video! I would be even more interested in your thoughts of the thruxton R. I have been really considering buying one even before I bought my 961. A local dealer has a few thruxton 900's and 2 thruxton R's. I think for the price they perform well.

+1 for youtube video!

Maybe I can help with trans Atlantic/Pacific review
You know "meanwhile downunder..."

Richard I very much agree with your critique of modern road tests. They write far too much generic, sound bite nonsense and far to little that contains objective information!

Its also interesting to see how things get hyped. Sometimes the hype changes. This is happening a little with the Thruxtons in the press now. They were hyped up by the amazing attention to details of the false monza cap, pretend Amal carbs etc. but these very features are now coming in for criticism.

Also of interest to me was the fact that the Triumph dealer I went to (Hughendon M40) could get a new R quite soon (depending on colour choice) whereas there were NO standard Thruxtons available until 2017. The standard is outselling the R right now.

For anyone interested, they have a pre-registered silver R, with track kit (including fairing... It looks stunning) with only 35 miles on it, for £13,000...

Fast Eddie said:

The handling was equally impressive, I wasn't expecting it to feel so nimble or neutral.

Click to expand...

I almost test drove one during the weeks I waited for my 961 to be delivered. I made several inquiries and a couple of visits to the local Triumph dealer. Ultimately I talked myself out of trying to compare the two. Then later to satisfy my itch a acquired a 10 year old Speed Triple. I really think I have the perfect combination now.

Fast Eddie said:

Richard I very much agree with your critique of modern road tests. They write far too much generic, sound bite nonsense and far to little that contains objective information!

Its also interesting to see how things get hyped. Sometimes the hype changes. This is happening a little with the Thruxtons in the press now. They were hyped up by the amazing attention to details of the false monza cap, pretend Amal carbs etc. but these very features are now coming in for criticism.

Also of interest to me was the fact that the Triumph dealer I went to (Hughendon M40) could get a new R quite soon (depending on colour choice) whereas there were NO standard Thruxtons available until 2017. The standard is outselling the R right now.

For anyone interested, they have a pre-registered silver R, with track kit (including fairing... It looks stunning) with only 35 miles on it, for £13,000...

Click to expand...

The criticism of the cap & Monobloc style covers makes me chuckle. It's like, "there's nothing to complain about so let's complain about a couple of nothing items"
Some owners were also complaining about having to use the ignition key to open the sub cap. Having had gravel dumped in a riding buddy's Vincent tank by a pissed off Harley owner, I'm very glad of the lock.

The tank has this great looking cap but people are shocked that it isn't a real Monza cap. Well a real Monza cap won't pass Euro 4 regs! It needs as sealed cap just like a modern car, with lid above. But why not make the lid in the style of a Monza cap so that it suits the style of the bike and looks great?
Same thing with the fuel body covers. We can look at ugly modern fuel bodies or we can build smooth Monbloc styled covers, which is more attractive?

As we've all noted the fixation on such details and lack of real riding experience with new bikes is what you get with modern reviews.
To some degree, it is what Triumph is getting from their owners as well. One of the most popular threads on the Triumph site is "What boots are you wearing to ride your new Street Twin/ Bonneville/Thruxton" . I think the thing runs for about 20 pages and it's pretty much like listening to a group of ladies discuss handbags.
Most are concerned with getting the boot with the right look and most of those are not even proper safe riding boots!

Glen

When you get serious about long-term comparisons of:

- Handling / braking / performance
- Touring capability
- Mechanical reliability / warranty issues
- Overall looks (subjective)
- Purchase price
- Life-cycle cost (10 years)

My guess is the Norton loses everywhere but looks (Thruxon is flat UGLY), unless you handicap the engine displacement. 200+ ccs is significant.

The Thruxton is a mass-produced bike, the Commando is essentially a hand-built niche market special. So, the comparison is somewhat flawed.

Really, what is out there in 2016 that the Norton could realistically be compared to?

Now lets get back to all things Norton. Speaking of which I'm leaving for a ride on mine right now.

grandpaul said:

When you get serious about long-term comparisons of:

- Handling / braking / performance
- Touring capability
- Mechanical reliability / warranty issues
- Overall looks (subjective)
- Purchase price
- Life-cycle cost (10 years)

My guess is the Norton loses everywhere but looks (Thruxon is flat UGLY), unless you handicap the engine displacement. 200+ ccs is significant.

The Thruxton is a mass-produced bike, the Commando is essentially a hand-built niche market special. So, the comparison is somewhat flawed.

Really, what is out there in 2016 that the Norton could realistically be compared to?

Click to expand...

For the price of the Norton it can't be beat when compared to other bikes. Hand built, 90-95% British made, limited production, etc. Especially when compared to the Brough Superior

grandpaul said:

My guess is the Norton loses everywhere but looks (Thruxon is flat UGLY),

Click to expand...

I have a friend who viewed the 961 and deemed it butt ugly. He thought it too tall and top heavy looking and disliked the stock mufflers.
He and you are both entitled to those opinions, but you are both in a very small minority!

In my opinion they are both great looking bikes, in fact they are the only new bikes I can get interested in, based on appearance.

Triumph is still selling every Thruxton they can make and they are building a lot of them. Much of that sales success is based on the styling of the bike.

On a dollar for performance based decision, the Triumph is fairly expensive compare to many other new offerings.

Glen

How much of the triumph is Asian?