Norton and Triumph in MCN

From getting the bike in April until last week I covered 8600 kms on it. The rear Pirelli is now shredded right down to the steel belts.
Once broken in I used it quite aggressively at times and rode it as hard as possible on lots of twisty roads, over many mountain passes. My longest day was 1080 kms, and I was able to walk afterward. Zilch for problems, electrical or otherwise. If that and the low level of vibration make it souless, I like souless.
There is sometimes a lot of discussion on where something is made, as though that is some kind of guarantee of quality. How it's made is a whole lot more important to me.

When the tire shredded, I was about to has head off on a 400 mile loop thru the coast Mountains.

I rode the Daytona 955i instead. I can't fault it, lovely smooth, fast, and also problem free bike (entirely assembled in the uk, components from the world) . Even with it has 161 HP on tap, it doesn't have the high gear roll on power of the R.

Glen
 
Glen,

Sounds like you're having fun.
Any news about when the hotted up cam / de-catted exhaust / re-tune will be available for the Thrux?
 
BritTwit said:
Glen,

Sounds like you're having fun.
Any news about when the hotted up cam / de-catted exhaust / re-tune will be available for the Thrux?
Click to expand...

The latest is that it will be a UK available item only. The recent Governmental lawsuit and huge penalty to Harley Davidson plays into it.
I guess we can bring the items in from the UK.
But I came to my senses on this last ride when I realized that I'm probably quicker on the R with it's instant grunt than on the Daytona.
Wouldn't want to mess that up and really I'm not a good enough rider to utilise all of the power,handling and braking of the R as delivered.

Sometimes these mods can really cut performance. I recently rode an early Hinckley Bonnevillle that has had the full Triumph Power USA treatment, modified head, hot cam, 39 mm FCRs, tuned exhaust, open air box and so on, many thousands of $ to boost engine power.
It was initially setup as suggested by TPUSA and the owner could not get it to run properly at all. After a year or so of struggle he found a dyno tuner who was able to get it to run smoothly, if not powerfully.
It now runs OK as in, it doesn't misfire and it idles, however it wouldn't pull the skin from ride pudding between 2500 and 6000 rpm. From 6000 to 8000 it has a reasonable bit of power, nothing fantastic. In getting a few extra horses on top the low and midrange have been completely gutted.
A lot of race tuned engines behave this way, maybe OK for the track, not so much fun on the road.

Glen
 
We all come here to discuss all things Norton. We love our Nortons and know they have many many faults. Did I say many? Sure did. Are they the fastest, no! Are they of the highest quality? Well, that depends who you talk to but we think they are decent! Are they the best looking? We think so. Is there a better bike out there that is retro and half the price? Many for sure! Do we feel like we are being gouged? Sometimes sure! Do we love our Nortons and cannot explain it? Definitely! So lets please stop comparing bikes that do not compare.

If we own one, we did our research. Anyone who can afford won either won the lotto, inherited cash, or is a smart person who does research and knows what they are getting into. They aint cheap bikes.
.
 
I'm not sure where you are coming from with the money angle or the rest of your rant. I get to hear some of that stuff sometimes in the Vincent club,particularly from new money collectors rather than old time riders. It is rather offputting.
I'll leave you to it.

Glen
 
My point is no one really wants to hear about how great another bike is compared to the one they just bought. Talk about how much greater the triumph is on the triumph forum please.
 
Thread title is Norton and Triumph in MCN. I just reported on my experience with Triumph to date. If it had given trouble I would have included that info.

Seems you are very touchy if you can't read about such things. If you are a Moderator then to some degree you can dictate what is written, but I don't think you are?

The bit about the expense of the bike and superior intelligence of the owners is over the top. It's about like a Mazda 2 purchase!


Done

Glen
 
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...

A brough superior or hesketh, prefer the Norton to be honest
 
Definitely a crowd puller I would think and you have to admire the engineering, but I agree, the Nortons do appeal more on looks and probably ride ability (not rode either yet).
 
Richard thanks for pointing out that this is Norton forum I don’t want to here about other bikes and there virtues if I did then I would look at the appropriate forum.
By following the good information on this forum I am now confident to purchase a 961 and deal with any problems that I may encounter with it.
So let’s keep this a Norton forum
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top