Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 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?
Keep in mind this stated weight is a realistic one, not the former bogus dry weights the OEMs used to try to deceive us with. The new Vulc 1700 full-up weight is 761 lbs, so the T-Bird is right in the contemporary ballpark.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
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?
To be in the cruiser market without a bike in the range of 900cc to 2200cc doesn't make sense. Hence the T-Bird.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
The old T-bird sport (triple with twin mufflers on one side) looked to be my kind of bike.
Me, too. But they didn't sell. This new one, even in a crappy economy, will do much bigger volume. It's not the Triumph of old, and that includes a continuing success. Triumph has doubled its market share since 2005, and it now exceeds Ducati in volume, so they are doing many things right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 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.
1. Fat tires, triple-disc brakes, fuel injection, catalytic converters and a frame that doesn't tie itself in knots when cornering all require extra beef that a 1960s chopper never had.

2. Do you really think Boss Hoss is as honest as Triumph regarding claimed weight? They claim about 1100 lbs "dry." Add coolant, fuel, battery fluid, and whatever else they forgot to add to the total, and I bet you can count on nearly 1300 lbs fueled up and ready to ride.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 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.
Wow, a calm voice of reason! What are you doing on this board?!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Looks like a nice enough bike, competitive price too.

I have to wonder though, why not simply sell it with the 104 kit covered in your sidebar? Slightly bigger pistons and different cams would not cost much extra if they simply came with the bike to begin with.

With the kitted engine, power is very good for the class. Seems like a missed opportunity.

As it is, the new Thunderbird is heavy and underpowered as delivered. Pity. The power part of it apparently is easily rectified.
I wouldn't say the T-Bird is underpowered - unless you think a Harley is underpowered, even tho the Triumph has more power.

The 104 kit isn't standard for the same reason Harley's 103ci motor isn't standard. It allows for an aspirational purchase that can also be lucrative for dealers. It also allows Triumph a simple upgrade in a couple of years once the bike isn't as fresh anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
It would be nice if a difference of opinion could simply be seen as from a varied but valid perspective. Like the Sportster: For all its charms, it is a fairly antiquated design, and I I've heard many of you bi-atch about the current model's chubby weight and lack of rear suspension travel.

All's I'm askin' is for a little more tolerance and a little less name callin'.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top