Norton and Triumph in MCN

Interesting and embarrassing story re the T120. I was in Missoula MT and realized I hadn't lubed the chain for 1500 miles
and had a 1500 mile ride home coming up. Stopped in at a local MC shop for some chain lube. The shop happened to be a Triumph dealer.
A very friendly fellow was out looking over the bikes on display. He came over quickly as I rode up . He wanted to know all about the fairing which he though was from some aftermarket company. I assured him that it was a stock ( but a bit hard to get) Triumph item.
He then said " The bike I really like is the T 120, it's identical to your bike except it has an upright seating position"

Well where do I start with that? Should have let it go, but didn't, of course. I said, no they are quite different bikes. The suspension on the Thrux R is Ohlins and USD Big Piston Showa, the T120 has conventional forks and Kayabusa suspension units front and rear. The Thruxton has a different frame and the R model has an alloy swing arm. The R has Brembo twin disc brakes the T120 has single Kayabusa and so on. The T120 is also about 50 pounds heavier than the R.

Then I started listing all of the engine internal differences, output differences, final drive ratio differences, electronic differences and finished with
" probably the only common parts on the two bikes would be the engine cases, although I've read that even those have different part numbers for the two bikes"
He looked a little shocked, mumbled something about the customers knowing more than the sales people, to which I replied
"Yes, it's always disappointing when that happens, but in this case I had months of pouring over the minute details of the bike while waiting for it to be built"

I wandered in and as he appeared to be the only person inside, I asked if he knew where the sales staff were.

"I'm the owner, I can try to help you" came the sheepish reply.

Oops!

Nothing embarrassing about it. Lord, I've learned SO much more info from this forum that I have to laugh when I hear the local dealership sales AND service people spewing total BS.

Hello Everyone , Can somebody tell me which Triumphs are still made in England ? I know that my 1996 Triumph Trident and 2004 Thruxton are made in England. I know they still make bikes in Hinckley correct ? So which models ? All triples ? Just curious that's all. Thanks for your feedback.

Tony

Do you mean which Triumph models are still assembled in England?
I think all Triumph models are "made" from parts sourced from suppliers - worldwide.

How much of the MkII is made in England?

Voodooo said:

How much of the MkII is made in England?

Click to expand...

Of course, the bike is assembled in England.

And according to the article in MCN, 83% of the components are made in Britain.

Britfan60 said:

Well, heck. My bike is running so dry now and perfectly, even w/o the ignition upgrades, I'm done comparing. I've been really racking up the miles. Enjoy your bikes, fellas, regardless of what you prefer. I am considering adding that T120 though. Nice 2 up gentleman's bike.

Click to expand...

I just passed a new T120 going the other way. The first thought was that it was a 69 Bonneville, one of the prettiest bikes ever built. No, it was a new one. They've got the tank shape perfect . It was a bit bulbous on the previous gen Hinckley Bonnies. Also, the header pipes from front on have this beautiful inward tapering curve that the previous Gen did not. The Thrux also has that header shape and it catches my eye all of the time.
The new team was smart enough to pick up on all of Edward Turner's styling tricks.

What a gorgeous bike that T120 is.

Glen

worntorn said:

Britfan60 said:

Well, heck. My bike is running so dry now and perfectly, even w/o the ignition upgrades, I'm done comparing. I've been really racking up the miles. Enjoy your bikes, fellas, regardless of what you prefer. I am considering adding that T120 though. Nice 2 up gentleman's bike.

Click to expand...

I just passed a new T120 going the other way. The first thought was that it was a 69 Bonneville, one of the prettiest bikes ever built. No, it was a new one. They've got the tank shape perfect . It was a bit bulbous on the previous gen Hinckley Bonnies. Also, the header pipes from front on have this beautiful inward tapering curve that the previous Gen did not. The Thrux also has that header shape and it catches my eye all of the time.
The new team was smart enough to pick up on all of Edward Turner's styling tricks.

What a gorgeous bike that T120 is.

Glen

Click to expand...

I crawled all over that thing at the dealership. Its nice and at 80 ponies, it won't complain on the highway. Wish the suspension was a little stiffer. Better than the previous, but still a little soft. I may go all out and get a Harley touring bike or a Beemer 1200rt. I'm not rushing into anything. Maybe I'll shop around over the winter.

I was sent the MCN paper by a very nice gentleman we all know named Richard Pearce. Thanks Richard!!

Great read!! It' rather funny how common the comment of the 961 is not a daily rider; yet I ride mine to work every day and it's my only bike currently on the road same with many people on this forum. I Do approx. 6,000 miles a year. My dad and Richard Pearce rode theirs across North America. So, I guess if you're used to super smooth and no character I can see how that comment would come out but if these reviewers actually had 2 weeks on the bikes daily then lets see what they say. Perhaps there really isn't anything bad so they have to make up stuff to sound fair. But the clip-ons do suck after about 45minutes unless you are going a a good speed and the wind helps keep the weight off your wrists then just over an hr and a break is needed. So I can see their point with the config they had to work with. But the standard bars are great for all day and if you add 1" bar risers you can travel across North America in comfort. :mrgreen:

I stopped by the Triumph Dealer to look at the R spec after the read. However, the R was sold and they have a waiting list so I wasn't able to hear it run or actually ride one. Perhaps one day. So for now I'm bias based only on looks of the bikes and 8,000 miles on my SE of riding over two seasons so far. I will never sell my Norton. I make Tattoo Equipment, maybe I should get a Norton Tattoo like that other guy on his leg.

I read an MCN article on line comparing the Thruxton R and the Dominator SS which had the aluminum gas tank. The were negative comments about the Norton vibration , " This bike is all about vibration " and " By the end of the day I had a head ache " . OK OK I got it now - the Norton vibrates right ? So what else can you tell us about your experience ? OR Would you like to lie down first ? In the end there wasn't much there other than the bike looks good , and you can spend the afternoon polishing and enjoying. And oh yes the Norton loses in a drag race. The reviews in some ways are disappointing and don't say much about the bikes really in my view.

Even the performance tests, if they do any, are useless. In the old days a dragstrip and track were rented, many runs and laps were done, some good information was gained. Sometimes the bikes broke down under the strain, which was good to know about.
Now they might do a side by side roll on in an intermediate gear, all within legal limits, but who passes at or below the legal limit?
Then we see that the intermediate gear ratios on the bikes compared is totally different, so the test is of little value.
A top gear roll on would be of some merit, but without the expense of a track, they can't really do these legally.

Most of the reviews are just fluff, one persons impression of the bike based on what they have read in the specs and a short ride.


Glen

Thank you Richard Pearce for the MCN. That was a fine read. It described the bike's builds exactly as my side by side comparison. High praises for both bikes, but the Norton exposes the Triumph for the mass produced soulless bike it is sans speed. Like I said, I like both, and as a matter of personal economics, I'd have wound up with the R instead of the 961. Glad it didn't work out that way. The vibes and the grunt are actually one of the major selling points for me.

Britfan60 said:

Thank you Richard Pearce for the MCN. That was a fine read. It described the bike's builds exactly as my side by side comparison. High praises for both bikes, but the Norton exposes the Triumph for the mass produced soulless bike it is sans speed. Like I said, I like both, and as a matter of personal economics, I'd have wound up with the R instead of the 961. Glad it didn't work out that way. The vibes and the grunt are actually one of the major selling points for me.

Click to expand...

You are not alone but I confess I don't get the appetite for vibration. Harley resisted rubber mounting for years as they said that their customers wanted the famous Harley vibration.
The original Commando was all about getting rid of vibration and a really well set up one does just that, at least from just below cruising speed to red line.
I expected the Thruxton R to be as smooth as my 955 i Daytona triple-it isn't. The 50 engineers argued on that one and those in favour of having an engine with some "character" won out. It's not so much vibration as a strong motor pulse when the throttle is suddenly opened, not unlike my Vincent. Roll back either bike back to cruise mode and everything goes smooth until you pour on the coals again. This I like, although the silky smooth and howling Triple still gets my vote as the best motorcycle engine ever built.

I do not like bikes that vibrate continuously at various constant speeds. When doing big trips, this gets old in a hurry.
I have a couple of bikes that do this and they end up sitting a lot of the time. Dynamic balancing may be in the cards. In the meantime, special grips, gel seat, fiddling with motor mount bolts all have helped but the underlying problem is still there.

As far as grunt- if you think the Thruxton falls short of the 961 there, don't ever ride the Thruxton!

Glen

Britfan60 said:

... Like I said, I like both, and as a matter of personal economics, I'd have wound up with the R instead of the 961. Glad it didn't work out that way. The vibes and the grunt are actually one of the major selling points for me.

Click to expand...

My own sentiments are similar to yours, Britfan. Except to me the vibration is the 2nd most annoying thing about my 961. (The first is having map-code #77 installed and it's cold start and rough acceleration problems :x ).

worntorn said:

The original Commando was all about getting rid of vibration and a really well set up one does just that, at least from just below cruising speed to red line.
I expected the Thruxton R to be as smooth as my 955 i Daytona triple-it isn't. The 50 engineers argued on that one and those in favour of having an engine with some "character" won out. It's not so much vibration as a strong motor pulse when the throttle is suddenly opened, not unlike my Vincent. Roll back either bike back to cruise mode and everything goes smooth until you pour on the coals again. This I like, although the silky smooth and howling Triple still gets my vote as the best motorcycle engine ever built.
Glen

Click to expand...

Can't agree with you more, Glen. Prior to my 2003 Daytona 955i I owned a 2000 Sprint ST. I'm a little sad to learn the Thruxton R is not quite as smooth. I adore Triumph's modern triples because they have such a forgiving power band! That's why after selling my '03 Daytona I could not resist replacing it with an '06 Speed Triple. :mrgreen:

I think what we have to remember here is these bikes are nostalgia bikes. Of course back in the day Norton wanted to reduce vibration since a motorcycle was a much more practical machine. I mean you wouldn't buy a modern sports tourer today and complain about the lack of vibration!

So for some part of the experience is to own a bike that harks back to the 'good old days', with an engine that might pop and bang and have a bit of 'added' vibration. These bikes make no sense from a practical perspective, relatively inefficient air cooled engine or in the case of Triumph a fake air cooled engine with lots of other fake bits and bobs to make the rider believe they're riding something out of the sixties or seventies (which adds to the cost of manufacture). Both of these bikes are an example of the wealthy society we live in where such impractical machines can be designed, built and sold to a market willing to pay a premium for a certain look. They are both deeply flawed if viewed strictly from the perspective of judging them against other modern motorcycles sold on the basis of best Tourer, Sports bike etc.

The reality is that in the heyday of the motorcycle, they were popular primarily because many people couldn't afford a car! Kickstarting a bike was actually a pain in the arse, same goes for fiddling around with carburetors, ignition timing, valve clearances etc. Yet Triumph has gone to great lengths to 'reintroduce' some of these 'features', if only from a cosmetic perspective.

We buy these bikes based on the emotional response they elicit in us and therefore one is not 'better' than the other since as individuals we are naturally drawn to one or another. Unfortunately human nature dictates, as evident in this thread on occasion that once that choice is made there is a need to prove that your choice was better than the alternative....

What I DON"T miss....finally....is the oil leaks. The Norton does vibe a lot less than my old Bonnies. I find it comfortable enough. 200 miles is easy. Don't forget, we Americans have some fat asses. You really need to get that remap, Contours. My bike ran like crap with the #77 map and when hot, idled at 22-2400. I'm really fortunate to be 12 miles from the dealership.

iwilson said:

They are both deeply flawed if viewed strictly from the perspective of judging them against other modern motorcycles sold on the basis of best Tourer, Sports bike etc.
.

Click to expand...

Deeply flawed? I don't think so.

Is that why when we are out on tour and I let my BMWr 1200 et riding friend on the Thrux I have to beat him off with a stick to get my bike back?
And as much as the BMW does it's job just fine, what a snoozer of a bike to ride. Might as well take a car and get it over with!
I agree that these bikes are not a logical choice of vehicle. Large capacity motorcycles in general are not a logical choice for transportation.
In the wealthy countries, they are just about fun. Might as well get the one that gives you the greatest amount of fun.

Glen

worntorn said:

they are just about fun. Might as well get the one that gives you the greatest amount of fun.

Glen

Click to expand...

Exactly !

That is what it all boils down to.

And it is totally subjective and individual !

The vibration is not that bad . I don't understand why it is such a big deal . With a big fairing , higher bars and a fatter seat this thing will tour easy ! With a 1 tooth larger front sprocket this thing would be a real mile muncher ! Norton should make the Interstate again !!! I mean it would sell . Big fairing , High Bars , Big Fuel Tank , Fat seat , Lower foot pegs and a rack in the back . Heavier shock springs. Look out Gold Wing !!!!

Fast Eddie said:

worntorn said:

they are just about fun. Might as well get the one that gives you the greatest amount of fun.

Glen

Click to expand...

Exactly !

That is what it all boils down to.

And it is totally subjective and individual !

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
Whatever, floats your boat.