2010 Triumph Thunderbird Review

"The re’s also no such thing as a viable cruiser that’s ugly, so the UK-based Triumph turned to an American designer to define how an inline-Twin cruiser should look. Tim Prentice, who has styled the Honda Rune...."

Hoo boy, I think I'd take a quick look at editing this one! I think Tim needs to get that OFF his resume pronto.

Looks like a nice alternative for those who want a big cruiser. However once again, this motorcycle is designed from the bottom up and recently too. So why the heck must it weigh over 750 pounds? Hello-o. Remember the original concept? A chopper? A chopper was a Harley with stuff chopped off to save weight because of all the US Troops who rode Brit bikes in Europe during WWII and who learned the advantages of less weight. They came home and started chopping stuff off of HDs and Indians. So now we have the Brits designing bikes for the US market and adding weight for some unknown reason? Why? If you are going to build mock-choppers then try chopping them for a change.

Why does this bike exist?

I have no doubt that Triumph is capable of engineering a good bike. I'm just not sure why they keep chasing this segment. From the Bonneville America to the Rocket 3 have any of their cruisers done well in terms of sales volume?

I can see the appeal of high per-bike margins (cheaper components than sport bikes combined with higher MSRPs somehow justified by bigger displacement and more affluent customers) but if you can't sell them, what's the point?

Besides wonky styling in some cases, Triumph is in this no-man's land of cruisers with prices higher than the Japanese and little brand cache amongst those looking for an American ride. Would they be better off sticking to classic-style roadsters and sporty bikes?

theDuke said:

I have no doubt that Triumph is capable of engineering a good bike. I'm just not sure why they keep chasing this segment. From the Bonneville America to the Rocket 3 have any of their cruisers done well in terms of sales volume?

I can see the appeal of high per-bike margins (cheaper components than sport bikes combined with higher MSRPs somehow justified by bigger displacement and more affluent customers) but if you can't sell them, what's the point?

Besides wonky styling in some cases, Triumph is in this no-man's land of cruisers with prices higher than the Japanese and little brand cache amongst those looking for an American ride. Would they be better off sticking to classic-style roadsters and sporty bikes?

Click to expand...

Said another way: Don't deny your DNA.

You gotta' be sh*ttin' me. Triumph has such a long and storied history of sporty 360 degree twins and triples why the hell do they insist on copying Harley or Harley style cruisers. Here's a clue, how about a 1600cc twin that looks like a beefed up version of a T100? well screw 'em, If I want a Harley that's what I'll buy not a copy cat sans the vtwin (but with a V twin power pulse) engine.

Triumph has hit a solid home run with the Bonneville and triples, even the original Hinckley Legend, Thunderbird or Trident would look good built around this engine. The development cost of this model would have been better spent on a Trophy replacement as competition for the 1400 Conk and FJR...then at least I would have something to think about buying.

Where's the ponies? Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't I expect more than 76hp from a water cooled 1600cc mill?

I don't get it.

To me, the old Triumphs were light, lively machines that put handling and performance above all. I guess that's what the current Speed/Street triples are supposed to be, now.

The cruiser Triumphs confuse me. Apparently, they sell well enough, though, as I see more cruisers than sporty bikes.

Where's the middle ground?

The old T-bird sport (triple with twin mufflers on one side) looked to be my kind of bike.

"
The cruiser Triumphs confuse me. Apparently, they sell well enough, though, as I see more cruisers than sporty bikes."

I think you do get it with the last part of your stement. Cruisers sell, sportbikes don't. Add in the cost of retooling a sportbike every 3 years, and I think there really isn't much confusion.

"A 270-degree firing interval essentially turns the motor into a 0-degree V-Twin"

I guess I should have read the homework assignment Mr. Duke, but I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?

It means they staggered the firing order to simulate a V-Twin firing sequence without the cylinder arrangement. The traditional Triumphs had 360-degree firing order. One cylinder fired every revolution. It had a very even exhaust sound. The 270 gives is a bit of 'potato-potato' sound.

longride said:

It means they staggered the firing order to simulate a V-Twin firing sequence without the cylinder arrangement. The traditional Triumphs had 360-degree firing order. One cylinder fired every revolution. It had a very even exhaust sound. The 270 gives is a bit of 'potato-potato' sound.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but with the restrictive sound standards these days, who would notice? Especially after Calif passes their yearly inspection law for bikes and all those aftermarket exhaust companies go out of business.

Not to be overly persnickity but a 360 degree firing interval is the same as a 0 degree firing interval as there's 360 degrees in a circle, a 270 degree is ...well, 270 degrees and I might add an abomination in the eyes of God hissef' as prophisised by the Messiah Edwin Turner. A 360 degree firing rate is the only acceptable configuration for a British vertical twin.

longride said:

It means they staggered the firing order to simulate a V-Twin firing sequence without the cylinder arrangement. The traditional Triumphs had 360-degree firing order. One cylinder fired every revolution. It had a very even exhaust sound. The 270 gives is a bit of 'potato-potato' sound.

Click to expand...

So they make a point of not building a V-Twin, and then build the inline twin to sound like one. Schizophrenic. It will never sound like a Shovelhead, so why even bother?

Kenneth_Moore said:

So they make a point of not building a V-Twin, and then build the inline twin to sound like one. Schizophrenic. It will never sound like a Shovelhead, so why even bother?

Click to expand...

Just because they didn't want it to look or sound EXACTLY like a Harley doesn't mean they don't want it to kinda look and sound like one. After all, the guy that designed this did the Rune. He learned a hard lesson on THAT one!

longride said:

Just because they didn't want it to look or sound EXACTLY like a Harley doesn't mean they don't want it to kinda look and sound like one. After all, the guy that designed this did the Rune. He learned a hard lesson on THAT one!

Click to expand...

Don't forget he did the Rocket3 also. That makes it 0 for 3. Time for a new career.

sarnali2 said:

Not to be overly persnickity but a 360 degree firing interval is the same as a 0 degree firing interval as there's 360 degrees in a circle, a 270 degree is ...well, 270 degrees and I might add an abomination in the eyes of God hissef' as prophisised by the Messiah Edwin Turner. A 360 degree firing rate is the only acceptable configuration for a British vertical twin.

Click to expand...

Actually, the firing interval in a 360 degree vertical twin is, indeed 360 degrees. The crank has to turn 360 degrees, not 0 degrees, before the second cylinder fires.

A 0 degree firing interval would be a "twingle".

One more explanation and I will be completely lost. Wait, I already am.

pplassm said:

A 0 degree firing interval would be a "twingle".

Click to expand...

i.e. - both pistons on the same crankpin, with intake, exhaust, and combustion events occuring all at the same time...............