That’s all Folks 2

The ‘BritTwit Commando’ would be a lot lighter than the Triumph twin range, which would therefore pay dividends in handling.

Weight is the one negative for the current Triumphs twins IMHO.

Seems Triumphs just got a little heavier every year from around ‘68 onwards.


There is more to the equation than weight, although light is right. It's possible that Norton could build a great handler, but Triumph already has it figured out. They have learned a lot over the years. The success of the 675 Daytona showed that.

The 448 lb Thrux outhandles my 348 lb Egli and the 422 lb Daytona 955.
The fellow who raced a 961(G81) posted on here when he purchased his Thruxton 1200.
He was blown away by the handling just like I was. Didn't expect it to be honest.

So on the handling front, it's easy to say x will beat Y , but much tougher to actually do this.
And if the Triumph is too heavy for you, how are you managing the mass of your 961:)?

Glen
 
Last edited:
The ‘BritTwit Commando’ would be a lot lighter than the Triumph twin range, which would therefore pay dividends in handling.

Weight is the one negative for the current Triumphs twins IMHO.

Seems Triumphs just got a little heavier every year from around ‘68 onwards.

The weight does help the bike hold the road better in cross winds, especially on the super slabs.
And the Triumph twins are really designed for that, not racing.
My T100 is significantly better in that respect than the old twins i've owned and ridden.

The T100 does carry it's weight higher though, and it's noticeable.
When I dropped my 961 in the garage I was shocked at how easy it was to lift back up compared to the Triumph, or other 4 cylinder jap bikes that I have dropped.
And the 961 is no light weight (490+lbs), so it carries its weight relatively low.
My T100 weights 460lbs, and its a hernia and a half to pick up.
 
if the Triumph is too heavy for you, how are you managing the mass of your 961:)?

Glen

Simple... it’s the main thing I don’t like about it!

There’s no argument here though Glen, I’ve no argument against the handling of the new Thruxtons AT ALL!

It’s just the fact than when Ducati can build a 200bhp V4 that weighs 367lbs (dry according to Wiki) I struggle to accept Triumph couldn’t do better than 448lbs (dry according to wiki) with a twin.

And, to show I’m not Triumph bashing here, with its minimal frame etc, I simply haven’t got a clue where the 495lbs (wet according to my scales) is on my 961 !!

@BriTwit it is true that weight helps in the circumstances you describe. I learnt to appreciate that on my R66 trip. Some ‘extra’ weight is probably deliberate on some bikes. But I don’t think that’s the case on bikes like the 961 or Thruxton R.
 
Simple... it’s the main thing I don’t like about it!

There’s no argument here though Glen, I’ve no argument against the handling of the new Thruxtons AT ALL!

It’s just the fact than when Ducati can build a 200bhp V4 that weighs 367lbs (dry according to Wiki) I struggle to accept Triumph couldn’t do better than 448lbs (dry according to wiki) with a twin.

And, to show I’m not Triumph bashing here, with its minimal frame etc, I simply haven’t got a clue where the 495lbs (wet according to my scales) is on my 961 !!

@BriTwit it is true that weight helps in the circumstances you describe. I learnt to appreciate that on my R66 trip. Some ‘extra’ weight is probably deliberate on some bikes. But I don’t think that’s the case on bikes like the 961 or Thruxton R.

The Ducati costs $40,000, the Triumph $14,000.
Like comparing a McClaren to a Mustang.

BTW, the Thrux 1200 with all its ABS, Traction control, big brakes, water cooling, 1 more gear and all that extra motor is 50 lbs lighter than the previous 865. That in itself is quite a feat. The Speed Twin is a further 16lbs lighter than the R ( wheels).
Can't agree that Triumph is continually adding weight, they are adding power and features while removing weight.

Glen
 
Last edited:
Superbikes and sportbikes in general have skeletonized engine cases, and lightweight extruded aluminum perimeter frames, with very light forged alloy mag wheels. Manufacturers are not concerned if their bikes look like spaceships, as long as they good like spaceships.

Modern classics are designed with steel backbone/cradle frames with dual shocks, laced wire wheels, and engine cases that are anything but skeletonized. With large balancer shafts, the engine cases are "substantial" to say the least. The components are selected to provide the construction and appearance of the old classics, but with a more modern reliability, and better performance. There are consequences to having such a build concept.

Triumph have addressed the weight issue somewhat with the introduction of the new Speed Twin 1200. They dropped 10Kg from the Thruxton by replacing the front frame with an aluminum extruded section, and switching to light aluminum alloy mag wheels.
 
True.
I could knock close to 15 lbs off the bike with a wheel change but it wouldnt look as nice.
So the compromise is to go tubeless and catless, this gets rid of about 15 lbs.
According to the Triumph site, the Speed Twin is about 7kgs or 16lbs lighter than the stock R.
It's all a compromise, while the lighter weight always helps handling and acceleration, it also negatively affects the ride comfort level on real roads.
Racetracks are a different story, conditions there tend to be near perfection , the Sulby Straight at the IOM being an exception.

Glen
 
Last edited:
The time has also come for me and my 961 to part ways, I'm afraid.

I recently "sold" her to my brother for about two thirds of my original investment. He was doing me a huge favor as I was in need of the cash. And the plan was for him to keep it in his garage in Colorado for me so that we could ride together whenever I visited. But ultimately it is his bike now and he recently decided to trade her in for a different bike - with my consent, of course. So, yes I am sad about it. I will miss the open road rides terribly. I will not miss the inconsistent starts and constant worry of where and when the next issue would occur.

I'm still a proud owner of a '75 Mk3. So I can still get my Norton fix when necessary. ;)
 
Ok Glen, you got me, I was quite wrong to say:
“Triumphs just got a little heavier every year from around ‘68 onwards“.

I should have said:
Triumphs just got a little heavier every year from around ‘68 until 2016 when they started shaving some off at last”.

I guess we’ll just have to leave the discussion where it is. You guys are happy with the weight of the current bikes, personally, I’d be happier (perhaps even happy enough to buy one) if they were lighter.

Until then, I’ll just have to ride my light weight Meriden twins whilst I wait for my Super Light to arrive!
 
The time has also come for me and my 961 to part ways, I'm afraid.

I recently "sold" her to my brother for about two thirds of my original investment. He was doing me a huge favor as I was in need of the cash. And the plan was for him to keep it in his garage in Colorado for me so that we could ride together whenever I visited. But ultimately it is his bike now and he recently decided to trade her in for a different bike - with my consent, of course. So, yes I am sad about it. I will miss the open road rides terribly. I will not miss the inconsistent starts and constant worry of where and when the next issue would occur.

I'm still a proud owner of a '75 Mk3. So I can still get my Norton fix when necessary. ;)

Sorry to here it, but at least you had the 961 experience, and lived to tell about it.:D

See ya on the classic forum.
 
The time has also come for me and my 961 to part ways, I'm afraid.
I'm still a proud owner of a '75 Mk3. So I can still get my Norton fix when necessary. ;)

Sorry to hear that Peter but not at all surprised. The 850 will keep you smiling and you could always have a blatt on the Scout if 'er indoors will let you have the keys :)
 
It not like you didn’t give it an honest go with the 961.
You're right, Richard. And I had some pretty darn nice rides over these past 3 years.

I did contact the dealership that's taking her on trade to let them know her correct dollar value. They had no clue. :rolleyes:
 
I have also pulled the plug on my (one of our 3 961 Nortons and replaced it with a new Triumph Truxton 1200R. Will now be interesting to compare. Initial impressions are good. Time will tell.
Our Euro 4 961 has been a disaster of poor build quality control and less resilient parts, etc to our earlier 2016 961's.
The final straw was a telephone call from Teasdale saying they had cancelled our order for a fourth 961 Henry Cole 961 with them as supposed they had problems with the 3 previous cole style bikes that required each to be returned to the factory with mechanical ? problems which Norton said there were no problem, their customers and themselves disagreed and Teasdale implied they would no longer deal with Norton and if we still insisted on one we should deal direct with the factory.
Needless to say we took their appreciated advice and did not.We now have many service parts purchased through our many engineering contacts that will be used on our (so far) retained other 961 bikes but also a recently better fully adjustable and stronger seat base that was recovered by Saddle Craft with new foam and comfort memory foam etc. that was a brilliant improvement as other Saddle Craft customers will vouch for and subsequently little used but removed from our now sold SF that will not fit any of our other 961 if any one is interested please email fulton@caraclasssic to discuss.
 
All these stories of bad reliability and lousy dealer back up really does Norton Motors no favours whatsoever, and it's so difficult to accept that they (Norton) don't do anything about it. My point being that it's a simple pushrod twin for god's sake , something that could have been built in the 70's. How can it be that difficult to make them reliable. I think the problems must stem from Stuart Garner as it's his company, instead of trying to release new models he should concentrate on owners who have spent hard earned money on his product. There is still a sizable market out there for a large capacity twin, just look at Royal Enfield's latest offering
I must add however (touch wood) that my own 961 has been absolutely reliable from new, the only problem I've had has been the rear brake loosing it's braking ability !
sam
 
Boy , does this sound familiar ...

The final straw was a telephone call from Teasdale saying they had cancelled our order for a fourth 961 Henry Cole 961 with them as supposed they had problems with the 3 previous cole style bikes that required each to be returned to the factory with mechanical ? problems which Norton said there were no problem, their customers and themselves disagreed and Teasdale implied they would no longer deal with Norton and if we still insisted on one we should deal direct with the factory.
 
These are the Thiel short pipes. They’re actually longer than the Norton shorties, which even I admit is an improvement, and about 8ft shorter than the stock Norton pipes.

It’s the overall lines of them that I find most appealing, no awkward kinks / cut n shut bends, etc.

Anyone who says these look anything less than the ultimate in tubular stainless art needs more than ‘men in white coats’ ...


nurse, nurse!! the only pill I need is another Norton!
 
I also follow the Triumph Speed Twin forum.
I have a triumph dealer 35 miles from me and like the new speed twin and will probably get one sometime.
But, I also see on the triumph forum all the problems they have as well with assembly and quality issues.
 
Back
Top