Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
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.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
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!
Don't forget he did the Rocket3 also. That makes it 0 for 3. Time for a new career.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
Confusion to the French!

One more explanation and I will be completely lost. Wait, I already am.
God says that the only acceptable firing order for a British Twin is 360 degree. Triumph will suffer for their heresy, mark my words! Satanali2 will rain fire and brimstone (and weak American beer) on their heads.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
Here it is Ken. Normal Vertical Twin motors have an even firing sequence of once every 360 degrees of crank rotation. Every time the crank goes around one cylinder fires and the next time it goes around the other cylinder fires. One cylinder fires at the 0 position for every 360 degrees rotation. If it was a clock, pistons fire alternately at the 12 oclock position

Now, what triumph did here is to stagger the firing sequence to fire at 270 degrees of crank rotation, which means that it will fire at the 0 position and then again at 270 degrees of crank rotation instead of going all the way to back to the 0 position after 360 degrees of crank rotation. If it was a clock one would fire at the 12 oclock position and the other would fire at around 10 oclock.

How's that?
They coulda gotten almost the same sound with a 180 degree configuration and avoided some of the vibration problems.

But where's the fun in that?
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
I think his question is somewhat in-line with my own thoughts on this - as in WTF does any motorcycle weigh-in at 750 pounds?

Hell, the F'n BossHoss weighs only about 250lbs more, and they use a F'n cast-iron-block automotive V-8 as the "core" of the F'n thing.
Must be for that "road holding weight" I keep hearing about.

Nah. I'm not buying it. These bikes are just too heavy. As much or more than a 30 year old Goldwing. More than my 1980 Shovelhead ..... wet. Ridiculous.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
stiffer frames, heavier wheels, more electronics and wiring, all that stuff ads weight. Original Sporties and Bonnies were pretty simple bikes.
This is why naked standards and sportbikes are all heavier too, right?
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
Bollocks. Claimed dry weight is 308 kg (678 lbs). My Fat Boy has claimed 307 kg dry but then I have 88 ci engine compared to 98 ci here. They could have named this Nippy.

- cruiz-euro
1980 Shovelhead 603lb wet weight. Bollocks to you sweetcheeks.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
I'm not saying they should be heavier but like LR said, these bikes are built to look a certain way. To keep the look and still get anywhere near the standards of a modern bike with a mild steel frame you need to go thicker and add gussets, electronic ignitions weigh more than points and coils, cast alloy wheels or steel rims and spokes weigh more than alloy rims and spokes, disc, calipers and master cylinders weigh more than skinny drums and cables, tubeless tires weight more than skinny tube tires, electric starters weigh more than kick starters and require bigger batteries, ignition modules and regulator rectifiers add weight, the copper wiring and switch gear that ties all that stuff together adds weight

Modern standards and nekkids are built for performance, the frames are designed to be light and stiff not to look a certain way, the bikes use mostly plastic and alloy instead of steel, it's a totally different set of manufacturing requirements. so no, these bikes shouldn't weigh more but if they were built using chrome molly and alloy like the originals they'd exceed the price point, cheaper materials and modern conveniences equal more weight.
Yeah. And don't forget the part about filling the frame tubes with lead.

They've also replaced a lot of the metal parts with plastic which saves weight. I just think that they don't care about weight reduction. The idea never entered the design concept. Can't blame them really. The buyers don't seem to give a shyt. Worse. They seem to clamor for heavier and heavier bikes. Sportsters gain weight. Boulevards gain weight. They still fly out the door. Amazing.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
"I would never ever buy a worster. "

That is the reason I just got one. A stripped down 72. Right side shift. You would hate it. I'd say there is no better reason for me to love it.
So, the Sportster is indicative of everything that's wrong with the US auto industry. Cool. I wonder what he would use as a representative of the US farm equipment industry? Raytheon amplifiers?
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top