T160 first ride

Tridents are Bonnevilles (nearly identical frame for T150) with a very heavy powerunit. Power wise they are somewhat like a 500 Daytona which is a stone until you rev it right proper. Trident is a lot like that. Once you punch it out to 850 it starts to be what it should be. If you make it near a thousand then you have a mid 70s jap bike that also handles (for the time).
They have a lot of issues, well documented, caused by lack of development, money and time. If they are meticulously put together with modern tooling and materials they can be quite reliable. Indeed, some straight out of the factory were just that but
it was, sadly, hit or miss.
Our bikes were all victims of this and that they still give us pleasure today is actually quite an achievement.
 
Alan L said:
The T160 is quite a heavy bike as has been discussed in other posts. As such it has a very different feel to other British bikes, very much at odds with the ‘stripped down‘ feel of a pre-electric start commando or Bonnie. It is a shame that the factory didn’t get around to increasing it’s cubic capacity to make up for it’s increasing weight and the extra horsepower of it’s Japanese opposition ( Z900).
The Trident wears much of it’s weight very low which gives it superb stability and at speed appears lighter than it actually is. It also makes it excellent on slippery dirt roads of which I am surrounded by. A T160 really becomes an extension of your body, far more than many better known bikes including various Italian thoroughbreds.
All this adds up to a very safe bike that really looks after it’s rider. As I bought mine as a ‘loose pisseled‘ youth who confused his riding abilities with his wildest dreams, I‘m convinced that a lesser bike would have killed me.
Although sharing so many parts and design similarities with British twins, Tridents have a very distinct feel. More than any other bike I’ve ridden, one can ‘feel’ it’s race heritage flowing through it’s veins. Although it sounds like a cliche the noise of a rapidly accelerating Trident is truly electrifying.
A well fettled Trident can still fight above it‘s weight and could be described as greater than the sum of it’s parts.
Arguably they were ill conceived using lots of old twin technology rather than an entirely new design and had faults that could have easily been fixed in the design stage however so many improvements are now available that they are far better now than when new in the showroom.
I hope readers of this forum will excuse the rather ’rose coloured glasses‘ description of these bikes but I truly believe they are really something special and need to be experienced to be understood.
ala
Click to expand...
Hi Alan, could you tell me if the conrod is unique to the Trident ? What is the best option when rebuilding , new rod bolts and nuts and rebuilding the rods ? Or new billet alloy ? , steel replacment , or new old stock ? And some will need balancing . Cheers
 
Yes I've seen those , do you know if they balance up ok or are a pain in the as$ requiring Mallory metal etc .
 
I am in the camp of the 'stock rods are fine' provided they don't have vast mileage on them
(most don't). Use new stock bolts and correct nuts. Weigh them out and the pistons too.
Balance the crank. Won't hurt to shot peen the rods either.
Rods almost always fail because the crank loses lubrication and seizes. This is on the street I am
not a racer. My bike doesnt make tremendous horsepower.
Do not know if steel rods will prevent holes in the crankcase after big end seizure. Probably not.
 
Shelby-Right said:
Hi Alan, could you tell me if the conrod is unique to the Trident ? What is the best option when rebuilding , new rod bolts and nuts and rebuilding the rods ? Or new billet alloy ? , steel replacment , or new old stock ? And some will need balancing . Cheers
Click to expand...
Hi Shelby,
I’m really not qualified to answer your question. I always assumed the rods were unique but when the question is posed I can’t be sure. As a talented amateur i gradually learned about my Trident with a ‘three steps forward, two steps backwards’ approach. For the first 30 years of ownership, lack of money meant I never bought any of the exotic performance equipment for it like Carrillo rods etc. The vast majority of my bike’s internals are original.
To the horror of many (and myself) it is still running original rods and bolts after all these years. The bottom end has never caused me any problems. Most of my difficulties have been from the barrels up, including pistons, rings, valves, guides and head and rocker box oil leaks.
Even the brakes are standard with the best pads. I often wished to put an extra disc on the front as was fitted to some very late model Bonnies in the early eighties but never got around to it. Contrary to what you hear the Triumph brakes are adequate to good for all normal riding and a good grip on the lever will just about lock the front wheel.
I went down the cheap path to increase capacity by just boring the cylinders and fitting cut down 650 pistons. This is a very inferior way of doing it and notoriously leak. I ended up using stainless steel lock wire in a machined groove as a head seal (along with a copper gasket) and this solved the problem but I would never recommend it as brilliant replacement barrels and pistons are available.
When built properly Tridents are quite reliable but pay particular attention to the clutch set up which is finicky and unnecessarily complex. The rubber shock absorbers in the chain wheel are barely adequate and tend to collapse.
Valve guide geometry is a weak point and can lead to rapid valve and guide wear. Black Diamond valves etc are a vast improvement on originals. Norman Hyde elephant foot adjusters helped solve guide wear.
I would highly recommend after-market exhausts 3 into 1 from Viking
My very best advice i van offer is to consult the excellent Triples Online Forum which has an absolute wealth of knowledge on all matters Triple. The number of improvements that can be made are endless and will purely be limited by how deep your pockets are. Contributors with far greater knowledge than me will advise you exactly where to get the best bang for your buck.
Irrespective of what level of improvements you make, provided the engine is well assembled and in good condition you should get great satisfaction from a Trident. As I have mentioned previously, I do believe the riding experience is improved by increased capacity, other performance enhancements probably give decreasingly smaller improvements in performance. I suspect that the best quality oils now available compared to those from the mid seventies probably contribute more to engine longevity than any other individual thing.
As a final tip, ensure your bike never runs lean at continuous high power settings as they will burn holes in pistons. I think the most massive design fail in the history of motorcycles is the fact that Triumph specified fuel taps that were incapable of providing sufficient fuel to the carburettors at full throttle if only one tap was selected. WTF?
Sorry for the lack of hardcore advice but hope this helps
Alan
 
Lose the points and go with Trispark ignition. Keeping the timing correct with three sets of points is
a bit much. Burning holes in pistons can result. Check your main jetting too.
 
Onder said:
Lose the points and go with Trispark ignition. Keeping the timing correct with three sets of points is
a bit much. Burning holes in pistons can result. Check your main jetting too.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!
My bike still has a Lucas Rita electronic ignition that I installed very early on. It has never given any trouble but these days I would for for a Trispark.
Alan
 
Alan L said:
Hi Shelby,
I’m really not qualified to answer your question. I always assumed the rods were unique but when the question is posed I can’t be sure. As a talented amateur i gradually learned about my Trident with a ‘three steps forward, two steps backwards’ approach. For the first 30 years of ownership, lack of money meant I never bought any of the exotic performance equipment for it like Carrillo rods etc. The vast majority of my bike’s internals are original.
To the horror of many (and myself) it is still running original rods and bolts after all these years. The bottom end has never caused me any problems. Most of my difficulties have been from the barrels up, including pistons, rings, valves, guides and head and rocker box oil leaks.
Even the brakes are standard with the best pads. I often wished to put an extra disc on the front as was fitted to some very late model Bonnies in the early eighties but never got around to it. Contrary to what you hear the Triumph brakes are adequate to good for all normal riding and a good grip on the lever will just about lock the front wheel.
I went down the cheap path to increase capacity by just boring the cylinders and fitting cut down 650 pistons. This is a very inferior way of doing it and notoriously leak. I ended up using stainless steel lock wire in a machined groove as a head seal (along with a copper gasket) and this solved the problem but I would never recommend it as brilliant replacement barrels and pistons are available.
When built properly Tridents are quite reliable but pay particular attention to the clutch set up which is finicky and unnecessarily complex. The rubber shock absorbers in the chain wheel are barely adequate and tend to collapse.
Valve guide geometry is a weak point and can lead to rapid valve and guide wear. Black Diamond valves etc are a vast improvement on originals. Norman Hyde elephant foot adjusters helped solve guide wear.
I would highly recommend after-market exhausts 3 into 1 from Viking
My very best advice i van offer is to consult the excellent Triples Online Forum which has an absolute wealth of knowledge on all matters Triple. The number of improvements that can be made are endless and will purely be limited by how deep your pockets are. Contributors with far greater knowledge than me will advise you exactly where to get the best bang for your buck.
Irrespective of what level of improvements you make, provided the engine is well assembled and in good condition you should get great satisfaction from a Trident. As I have mentioned previously, I do believe the riding experience is improved by increased capacity, other performance enhancements probably give decreasingly smaller improvements in performance. I suspect that the best quality oils now available compared to those from the mid seventies probably contribute more to engine longevity than any other individual thing.
As a final tip, ensure your bike never runs lean at continuous high power settings as they will burn holes in pistons. I think the most massive design fail in the history of motorcycles is the fact that Triumph specified fuel taps that were incapable of providing sufficient fuel to the carburettors at full throttle if only one tap was selected. WTF?
Sorry for the lack of hardcore advice but hope this helps
Alan
Click to expand...
Thanks Alan , mines not been apart as far as the previous owner could tell , 10,800 miles or so he re did the pushrod tube seals fitted elephant foot adjusters , motor sounds pretty quiet , exhaust is a viking 3 into one , it has a electronic ignition, starts good and carbs were redone by someone who new, amals and said they weren't worn , it runs fine but I know the timing is down a couple of degrees , it needs to have those stubs that screw onto the carb as the K&Ns have trouble staying on , I might have to machine some up .generally check stuff , like the primary chain ? I feel a little vibe when releasing the clutch ? It seems promising. I will get it out weather permitting, for more testing :-) Cheers
 
Flatspot said:
a. The brakes are shite, yes I knew they were going to be, but they are particularly bad. Not impressed. If and when I get home and recover from my bypass surgery next week I’ll be looking to upgrade front and back.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you don't normally ride with standard Commando brakes! Either that or your T160 brakes are not sorted. They should be way better than standard Commando brakes! Nice bike!
 
My new to me T160 has pretty good brakes .
T160 first ride
 
marshg246 said:
I'm assuming you don't normally ride with standard Commando brakes! Either that or your T160 brakes are not sorted. They should be way better than standard Commando brakes! Nice bike!
Click to expand...
My Commando brakes were shite, it’s true. I found that out very quickly, and then I obtained a Don Pender disc, caliper and adaptor bracket. Now it stops rather nicely.

I was looking at options for a T160. Either a second disc setup like Shelby-Right above. Or maybe a Hyde larger disc, adaptor bracket and caliper. Then a thought crossed my mind, 2x Hyde disc and 2 adaptors and 2 calipers and super stoppers!

Then I thought perhaps I’ll just leave it all stock as it’s unlikely to get ridden far, if at all.

I’ve realised, since my heart attack and subsequent open heart surgery, I really have no desire to actually ride either of my bikes :( Not only that but it’s almost winter yet again and froze toes aren’t my favourite - let’s see what Spring brings, although I’m planning to drive around Scandiwegia late April, May and June. So maybe summer then……
 
I'll add my 2p s worth having owned all the main triple variants (Rocket 3, X75, T150 and T160) but by no means any kind of expert .
Advising someone to cure a flatspot by spending, what, £2500?, on a bike he's not even sure he likes, seems a bit , er, drastic! I'd love a Beadling big bore kit on my bike, but at that price (and I'm not quibbling with it's quality or end result) I'd need to be pretty sure I was keeping the bike!

I always found my T160 quite pleasant, but pretty gutless acceleration wise, partly due to the weight of course. This was in the '90s when triple knowledge wasn't quite as widespread as it is now. I tried an earlier datebox airfilter , which made little difference, and current knowledge is the standard blackbox airfilter isn't that restrictive, though Les Williams did (I believe) drill some surreptitious holes in the Bike magazine test bike that did the oft-quoted 126mph.

What IS now common knowledge is ALL T160s had the valve-timing retarded by 2/3 tooth, either for emissions or to avoid warranty claims, dependent on who you quote. It's worth checking on all variants, vital on a T160. The non-race shop prepared press bikes in UK and US did about 110mph flat out. There's a well documented procedure searchable on Triples Online forum, needs a bit of time and two dial gauges.

My current R3 benefits from a gas flowed cylinder head by someone who learnt from the guy who did the factory press and IOM Marshall bikes. The porting on many earlier heads was woeful as standard, including mine, T160s are much better but can still benefit. That cost me £200.
With less weight and less restrictive standard inlet and exhaust systems compared to the T160, my R3 will hit a GPS verified 110mph sitting up (if only it could stop!)

Flatspot hinted his commando was smoother, and I agree, so is mine, but triples can vary, blueprinting/balancing the heavy clutch can help massively, it did with my X75 Hurricane.

None of my more recent triples have had that flatspot, and I run the R3 on T160 needles and jetting as per Richard Darby/3d Motorcycles advice, so maybe it's a restrictive silencer thing along with that cam timing?

Finally, Elephant Foot adjusters (as per VW/Porsche design) are available, I believe, from Dave Madigan, and are highly recommended to reduce guide wear (a weakspot like most Triumphs). The Norman Hyde variant (which I have in my R3) are Mushroom head adjusters, simpler, cheaper, help, but not in the same league I would suggest?

Having said all that, if I had to choose one brit bike to actually ride it's be my Commando, but nobody said any of this was logical!
 
h
wavey_davey said:
I'll add my 2p s worth having owned all the main triple variants (Rocket 3, X75, T150 and T160) but by no means any kind of expert .
Advising someone to cure a flatspot by spending, what, £2500?, on a bike he's not even sure he likes, seems a bit , er, drastic! I'd love a Beadling big bore kit on my bike, but at that price (and I'm not quibbling with it's quality or end result) I'd need to be pretty sure I was keeping the bike!

I always found my T160 quite pleasant, but pretty gutless acceleration wise, partly due to the weight of course. This was in the '90s when triple knowledge wasn't quite as widespread as it is now. I tried an earlier datebox airfilter , which made little difference, and current knowledge is the standard blackbox airfilter isn't that restrictive, though Les Williams did (I believe) drill some surreptitious holes in the Bike magazine test bike that did the oft-quoted 126mph.

What IS now common knowledge is ALL T160s had the valve-timing retarded by 2/3 tooth, either for emissions or to avoid warranty claims, dependent on who you quote. It's worth checking on all variants, vital on a T160. The non-race shop prepared press bikes in UK and US did about 110mph flat out. There's a well documented procedure searchable on Triples Online forum, needs a bit of time and two dial gauges.

My current R3 benefits from a gas flowed cylinder head by someone who learnt from the guy who did the factory press and IOM Marshall bikes. The porting on many earlier heads was woeful as standard, including mine, T160s are much better but can still benefit. That cost me £200.
With less weight and less restrictive standard inlet and exhaust systems compared to the T160, my R3 will hit a GPS verified 110mph sitting up (if only it could stop!)

Flatspot hinted his commando was smoother, and I agree, so is mine, but triples can vary, blueprinting/balancing the heavy clutch can help massively, it did with my X75 Hurricane.

None of my more recent triples have had that flatspot, and I run the R3 on T160 needles and jetting as per Richard Darby/3d Motorcycles advice, so maybe it's a restrictive silencer thing along with that cam timing?

Finally, Elephant Foot adjusters (as per VW/Porsche design) are available, I believe, from Dave Madigan, and are highly recommended to reduce guide wear (a weakspot like most Triumphs). The Norman Hyde variant (which I have in my R3) are Mushroom head adjusters, simpler, cheaper, help, but not in the same league I would suggest?

Having said all that, if I had to choose one brit bike to actually ride it's be my Commando, but nobody said any of this was logical!
Click to expand...
Hi,
I basically agree with all Davey says although for me, irrespective of actual performance, nothing can match the intangible rush of a triple when on song as it accelerates and the solid feel of it’s handling as it enters high speed corners.
Yes, I love my commando but it lopes along at good clip but Trident always feels more urgent.
Alan
 
Alan L said:
h

Hi,
I basically agree with all Davey says although for me, irrespective of actual performance, nothing can match the intangible rush of a triple when on song as it accelerates and the solid feel of it’s handling as it enters high speed corners.
Yes, I love my commando but it lopes along at good clip but Trident always feels more urgent.
Alan
Click to expand...
Indeed. And add to that, open pipes of some kind (ie peashooters, straight through black caps, ray guns) and the sound is amazing !
 
Yes, I always have had 3 into 1 with a very unrestricted megaphone. Without labouring the point too much, the sound is electrifying. I have always had flat wide bars on my bike, I’m not sure that the upright bars particularly suit the nature of a T160.
All bikes, and particularly my British bikes can be an exciting experience but for me a trident is something else.
I was interested to hear about the varied engine timing of the T160 to reduce performance and minimise warranty claims that was suggested by a poster in this thread. If this is true, then it would explain a lot about the varying performance of Tridents when tested.
Personally I think a good stock T160 should be good for around about 190km/hr flat out but I’m sure many left the factory that wouldn’t have achieved this. Terminal velocities of well over 200km/hr are probably achievable with very careful assembly and a minimum of performance parts.
Whilst only a fool would suggest that a Trident was the high point of mechanical reliability, perhaps unlike the big twins, when correctly assembled, they can be ridden very hard at continuous high RPM without failure, hence their excellent race records but poor ownership reliability. A pithy quote I once read about the bikes, ‘Whilst Tridents made race records, Hondas made sale records.
Although I have rather eulogised triples in this thread, I’m more than aware of the bike’s problems. They did have various faults. Poor quality control from the factory exacerbated those problems, especially when sold to unsympathetic owners with little mechanical ability. Deep down in many ways they are almost prototype or perhaps ‘proof of concept’ that was put into production without sufficient development. A total retooling would have required to really solve their issues. Numerous improvements were made to the 160s although some would say it was just tinkering around the edges of a flawed design. Nevertheless they were arguably the best bike ever to come out of Britain but fundamental issues still remained meaning it could never be a bike for the masses like it’s Japanese nemesis. It was also sold at a very high price.
As a last comment, I believe a T160 can make a lesser skilled rider both safer and quicker than he would be on an equal or objectively faster opposition bike.
just some thoughts
Alan
 
Both my 150v and My 850 MkII are mildly leaned on. The Trident seems to have greater acceleration when flogged. Mind that the 150 is a 850 with a flowed head and fake 1971 silencers that are straight through. All in all the Norton is the better all arounder.
 
wavey_davey said:
I'll add my 2p s worth having owned all the main triple variants (Rocket 3, X75, T150 and T160) but by no means any kind of expert .
Advising someone to cure a flatspot by spending, what, £2500?, on a bike he's not even sure he likes, seems a bit , er, drastic! I'd love a Beadling big bore kit on my bike, but at that price (and I'm not quibbling with it's quality or end result) I'd need to be pretty sure I was keeping the bike!

I always found my T160 quite pleasant, but pretty gutless acceleration wise, partly due to the weight of course. This was in the '90s when triple knowledge wasn't quite as widespread as it is now. I tried an earlier datebox airfilter , which made little difference, and current knowledge is the standard blackbox airfilter isn't that restrictive, though Les Williams did (I believe) drill some surreptitious holes in the Bike magazine test bike that did the oft-quoted 126mph.

What IS now common knowledge is ALL T160s had the valve-timing retarded by 2/3 tooth, either for emissions or to avoid warranty claims, dependent on who you quote. It's worth checking on all variants, vital on a T160. The non-race shop prepared press bikes in UK and US did about 110mph flat out. There's a well documented procedure searchable on Triples Online forum, needs a bit of time and two dial gauges.

My current R3 benefits from a gas flowed cylinder head by someone who learnt from the guy who did the factory press and IOM Marshall bikes. The porting on many earlier heads was woeful as standard, including mine, T160s are much better but can still benefit. That cost me £200.
With less weight and less restrictive standard inlet and exhaust systems compared to the T160, my R3 will hit a GPS verified 110mph sitting up (if only it could stop!)

Flatspot hinted his commando was smoother, and I agree, so is mine, but triples can vary, blueprinting/balancing the heavy clutch can help massively, it did with my X75 Hurricane.

None of my more recent triples have had that flatspot, and I run the R3 on T160 needles and jetting as per Richard Darby/3d Motorcycles advice, so maybe it's a restrictive silencer thing along with that cam timing?

Finally, Elephant Foot adjusters (as per VW/Porsche design) are available, I believe, from Dave Madigan, and are highly recommended to reduce guide wear (a weakspot like most Triumphs). The Norman Hyde variant (which I have in my R3) are Mushroom head adjusters, simpler, cheaper, help, but not in the same league I would suggest?

Having said all that, if I had to choose one brit bike to actually ride it's be my Commando, but nobody said any of this was
Click to expand...

Onder said:
Both my 150v and My 850 MkII are mildly leaned on. The Trident seems to have greater acceleration when flogged. Mind that the 150 is a 850 with a flowed head and fake 1971 silencers that are straight through. All in all the Norton is the better all arounder.
Click to expand...
So with cam specs , are the older T150 and newer T160 , duration and lift the same ? They just have a different rev counter worm /position ? It's just that with cam timing , it's different to ignition timing. I:E , if as mentioned the cam was "retarded" this will make the valve events happen later and move the power up a little and vice a versa . Cheers
 

Similar threads

Onder
First ride out for the T150v this season
Replies
3
Views
253
Tripler
T
yves norton seeley
First ride in 2024
Replies
2
Views
366
robs ss
robs ss
W
First ride on a Commando
2
Replies
29
Views
2,039
pinto2
pinto2
swooshdave
First Ride of Season - Oregon Norton Enthusiast Feb Club Meeting
Replies
6
Views
450
swooshdave
swooshdave
961al
TVS 961... FIRST RIDE IMPRESSIONS.
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3,232
Stu Bodycote
Stu Bodycote
Back
Top