PDA

View Full Version : While on the subject of motorcycles ..............



SpiderMan
03-07-2006, 11:58 AM
Does anyone here own the new 2300 CC Triumph triple? I finally saw one in person at the gas station last weekend. That slab-sided vertical inline engine is quite distinctive - the bike reminds me of a tractor on two wheels. Very good-looking tractor, that is, except for the radiator.

SpiderMan

heater451
03-07-2006, 05:06 PM
Like half a Honda Valkyrie (sp?), and half the size/weight, I bet.

Looks nice--I got a buddy that works at Atlanta Ducati/Triumph (& Moto Guzzi), but when I go down there, I pretty much think about putting a Thruxton on a credit card. . . .


2300 Rocket III
http://www.moto-net.com/images/triumph_rocket_pro.jpg

Valkyrie
http://www.bsmotoring.com/2002/02may12_2.jpg

Thruxton
http://www.bikez.com/bike/22048/index.jpg

====================================

Deeman3
03-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Spiderman,

I test rode one last week. It be bad....maybe not quite as bad as a V-Max on the bottom end but even stronger after about 40mph. It will be added to the stable as soon as I can get a divorce from Deewoman...

Deeman

SpiderMan
03-08-2006, 08:38 AM
Actually, the Triumph is not that far off the weight of my Valkyrie, but the packaging is obviously a lot different. My bike has a horizontally-opposed flat six-cylinder, and the trumpet's got a vertical triple, but they're both big. We're comparing tractors and freight trains, I think.

The Triumph is extremely tall in the engine/tank area, but the seat height is low. With my long legs, I probably wouldn't be that comfortable riding it. The owner of the bike I saw was short, maybe 5'10" at the most. I think he said he paid $16K for it, don't know if that's list or a markup.

SpiderMan

Deeman3
03-08-2006, 09:47 AM
Since I've riden a valyrie on occasion, the main difference is the spread of your legs. It's not near as much with the Triumph and seems more comfortable in that area. I agree that the Valk is overall maybe a more comfortable ride but you get more of that crotch rocket feel on the Rocket III.

I guess it's just what you want. I understand the Triumph goes for list $15,995 to $16,299 in large markets but they are limited in small areras so some gouging has occurred, llike the dealers adding some overpriced lights and add-ons just to pump up the price. The engine seems pretty vibration free for a three holer but it does vib a bit more at high RPM's than your bike.

Deeman

heater451
03-08-2006, 04:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>. . .I guess it's just what you want. I understand the Triumph goes for list $15,995 to $16,299 in large markets but they are limited in small areras so some gouging has occurred, llike the dealers adding some overpriced lights and add-ons just to pump up the price. The engine seems pretty vibration free for a three holer but it does vib a bit more at high RPM's than your bike.

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>16K!--I'd buy two Thruxtons (different colors--I can't decide which I like best), and a truckload of gear for that. . . .

I would agree with the wide stance on the Valkyrie, although I think they did a good job, compacting the tranny up against the engine. Back in '98, I rode a Valkyrie and a Full-dresser Harley across town (Santa Barbara, at that time, so it was a short trip). I decided that the Harley was actually nicer in the stop-and-go, since it had more feel at the clutch, was surprisingly managable for having the full fairing and cases on it. For cross-country, I'd have taken the Honda.

Back to the sitting position: The Valk is just plain BIG, the Harley has the high, vertical layout of the engine, which would be similar to the Rocket, but the Harley tranny is much wider. The Rocket, although I haven't ridden one, I can see has a seat much higher, which would tend toward that "crotch rocket feel" that you mentioned. However, in recent years, sportbikes have had more cushy seats added to them, requiring a wider stance than before, so I'm not sure how much the description applies any more, other than considering bars-to-seat-to-peg postition.

I haven't read up on the history on the Rocket, assuming that it is something of a retro-bike (or, tractor, as the case may be), but I would guess that the designers intended it to be sort of a drag-bike, but got the handling specs as modern/sporty as they could. Then again, maybe they just wanted to throw something out there to be different (and with "different", comes $$$$$).


===============================

SpiderMan
03-09-2006, 09:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>The Rocket, although I haven't ridden one, I can see has a seat much higher, which would tend toward that "crotch rocket feel" that you mentioned.<hr /></blockquote>

I'd have to disagree there. The new Triumph has a very low seat height, so much that a short guy (who would otherwise fit the bike very well) might have to look around the sides of the gas tank rather than over the top /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

heater451
03-09-2006, 04:14 PM
Ah--you're right.

The photo of the Valkyrie, being flatter, looked lower to me. And I took the humped-back tank of the Rocket to just be a very high, to clear the engine, with the seat still high, in comparison to the Valk. I also didn't really think about the photo angle of the Valkyrie---and my ride on the one was awhile ago. . . .

BTW, here's a couple of articles:

1) Comparison (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=1894)

2) R3 (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=1008)



=========================