I was at dinner with some co-workers last week, and it turns out 2 of the Principles I work for ride Triumphs. They both said that they were looking for something, "different" when buying motorcycles. Anyway, this made me curious as to what the general consensus is on this brand of bike. I kind of like the way the Bonneville looks in a retro-sort of way.

I know nothing about motorcycles, and I'm just curious about what others think of Triumphs. Oh yeah, and is it the same company that used to make the TR7 (and other roadsters)?

Thanks

 

I have a 2003 Bonneville which I think is awesome. Its not a tourer nor a sportsbike but offers a nice package for riding around town or on country roads. Its narrow girth and the low C.G makes it a nimble handling machine. The HP /TQ numbers aren't too bad for what the bike is designed to do. The new parallel twin engine is vibration free and the overall design harkens to the classic Bonnie's of past.

I wish the stock pipes were a bit louder but there are plenty of aftermarket options out there. FWIW, the design of the bike & its balance were the major factors for me choosing it.
In general, Triumph does have some nice bikes, the speed triple, ST are pretty good in their categories.

 

Ride a 595 speed triple and you wont be disapointed

 

My dad has a '69 bonneville 750 that he sold not long ago, it was a great bike, and no there not the same company that makes the tr-7. i know this because my dad also has a tr-6 which he has had since new and is in the middle of a restoration right now... Yea i know he is a british nut.

 

I test rode a Triumph Daytona 650 today.

They let me have the bike for an hour so once I'd worked out that it wouldn't start unless you held the clutch in I was away

My current bike is a Honda CBR600F4i and I wanted something with more midrange grunt as the real power that you need for a quick safe overtake starts at 6,000 RPM on the Honda which means you have to have it "on the boil" or be ready to knock it down a gear.

The Daytona was interesting in that its 646cc motor and gearing gave a bike that was quite strong from low down with linear power i.e. no visible "here's the power" at 6,000 RPM, but it was all out of steam at around 10,000 RPM even though the rev counter went to 14,000 RPM. I'm sure it was as fast as my Honda but didn't feel it somehow

In terms of riding on the road this meant that if I was overtaking on the Honda I could have used the extra rev range to overtake a second car, the Triumph would have needed a gear change to get the job done in the same amount of road.
On the other hand it was easy to go through a corner on the Triumph with the bike in the "power band" ready for a fast exit, where as doing this on the Honda requires a very steady throttle hand so as not to upset the balance of the bike, but once used to it the throttle can easily be used to alter the bikes line through the corner if required.

If I owned the Triumph I'm sure my riding style would adapt to the different engine / gearing characteristics. It was certainly easier around town to get pull away quickly and smoothly. The exhaust sounded very nice. I'd describe it as a slightly detuned sportsbike thats gains in the midrange as a result, but doesn't have the over rev of the Japanese bikes.

The clocks looked a little dated, and there was a slight vibration through the left foot peg at 6,000 RPM, apart from that I can't really say anything bad about it.

The Triumph ST has had nothing but good reviews here in the U.K. and is currently outselling the Honda VFR800.

Guess I'll just have to try and get a test ride of the Daytona 955 or the Sprint ST on my quest to find a bike that suits me for the next few years.....maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it

 

I like Triumph bikes. I'm looking into buying this 1968 Triumph Tiger. Its in Colorado and I'm not sure if it'll be too much trouble trying to get it registed in California. Thats the only thing holding me back. The the bikes are nice.