Motorcycle Forums banner
21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
One more explanation and I will be completely lost. Wait, I already am.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,118 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?
Ok, I get it. And I think that explains why they need 2 balance shafts and a third vibration damper. They've designed in vibration in their pursuit of a sound. You might say they "Runed" a perfectly good motor.
 

·
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.
 

·
Aging Cafe` Racer
Joined
·
8,719 Posts
think Heretical pop-pop....pop-pop.....pop-pop...pop-pop instead of God-inspired pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-......
 

·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Sarnali2 needs to learn about the concept of a 4-stroke engine.

0° firing interval is not the same as 360°. 360° is what it is, 360°. No need to make clever remarks.

Left side fires, while the right one has an exhaust stroke, and 360° further, the right one fires while the left one has an exhaust stroke. etc... (with both cylinders on the same crankpin) 0° would be like both firing at the same time. What's the point of that?

270° gives you that off-beat rumbling effect that most cruiser riders like and look for in a cruiser. How dumb would it be to shoot themselves in the foot by not offering it as such? It's not the first triumph to have that configuration. One of the 'new classics' has it as well. The Scrambler. It's just an effort to create a distinctive exhaust note with some individual character.

Lots of hating here, damn...

You say that Triumph already has cruisers, namely the America and Speedmaster. Well, do they sell good? Do they appeal to the average cruiser buyers with only 880cc? etc... It's not for everyone. They're a little too small for me. I'm tall, and I like my bikes watercooled and a little more up to date in the style departement. This thunderbird is more the size and style of cruiser I like.

The Rocket is considered too big. So what do you want then?

Oh, and how many European cruisers can I really choose from? I'm happy they delivered. That discontinued bmw cruiser was fugly. I'm sure as hell not going to buy an overpriced harley in Europe, have you seen the prices?

I happen to think they did a great job on this one. Apart from a few details here and there, it looks really good and well styled. I like the wheels, modern engine, good looking speedo, etc... Motor seems to be a little low on power for a watercooled 1600cc, but it's still more powerfull than the equivalent vulcan 1600 and certainly more powerful than a harley.

It's certainly different and standing out. I'd love to have a cruiser that for a change DOESN'T have a V-twin.

Something almost all of you seem to forget. It's not because they made this bike, that all of a sudden all the other bikes in the line-up will MAGICALLY disappear! Who cares? If it's not for you, get the bonneville, or a harley, or whatever. Lots of brands got 'out of character' models, who cares? Or is the V-rod so well perceived among purists? (or the XR1200)

Oh, and one last thing, there are not an infinte number of ways to design a feet forward, low seat cruiser. It's bound to have a curved teardrop tank, seperate frame, etc... Think about it.

PS: KUDOS to motorcycle.com. BEAUTIFUL photopgrahs in that article!! Nice job
 

·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,491 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
MODERATOR X
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
I like it, the motor looks so much better than the "other" one.

One old-time race trick to improve tractability on XS650 Yamaha flat track bikes, was to change the firing order to 270 degrees. Same with the 350 Honda twin.
 

·
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.
 

·
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.
 

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
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.
Triumph managed to make the new Bonnie 100 lbs heavier than the old one too. I know, it was to manage the tremendous horsepower that new motor has! :rolleyes: More like cheap materials and cheap engineering. I still can't figure out how they did that. Look at how heavy the new Sporties are. rubber mount it and add 50 lbs? They are kidding aren't they?
 

·
Aging Cafe` Racer
Joined
·
8,719 Posts
stiffer frames, heavier wheels, more electronics and wiring, all that stuff ads weight. Original Sporties and Bonnies were pretty simple bikes.
 

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
stiffer frames, heavier wheels, more electronics and wiring, all that stuff ads weight. Original Sporties and Bonnies were pretty simple bikes.
Better engineering and materials alone would make up the weight difference of these bikes.....if they ever used them. To me they are engineered to look a certain way and then made and engineered as cheaply as possible. 50 extra lbs to rubber mount a motor? Please! Sloppy engineering combined with cheap materials made this happen, pure and simple. They don't take weight into account when designing this stuff. They just make it work and they really don't care how much it weighs. You can't honestly tell me that a new Bonnie should be 100 lb's heavier than the old ones. Sorry, but wheels and frames should be lighter, not heavier if they were made with any forethought and decent materials.
 

·
MODERATOR X
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
750 lbs? That's a good excuse for the "lap band". Man, and I thought my Buell was portly at 400 lbs...phew.

Do you have to call a crane when it falls over in a parking lot? Don't park it on the hot asphalt puhleeze...might sink up to the axles.

Truss sales go through the roof...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Miss Agile

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.
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
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top