The most powerful members of Triumph’s new Bonneville family are the 1200 cc, parallel-twin Thruxton and Thruxton R. Final production specifications have now been released by Triumph for these models.
Triumph is claiming a healthy 96 horsepower (at a relatively low 6,750 rpm) and 83 pound/feet of torque (at 4,950 rpm). In other words, a torque monster that should be more than quick enough around town and on the highway. The 17″ spoked wheels carry tubeless Pirellis, and both models feature 310 mm dual front discs. The upmarket Thruxton R gets fully adjustable suspension (including Öhlins shocks) and Brembo monobloc front calipers. We can’t wait to swing a leg over these new models. Here are the specifications from Triumph.
| 2016 Triumph Thruxton | 2016 Triumph Thruxton R | |
| Type | Liquid-cooled, 8 valve, SOHC, 270° crank angle parallel-Twin | |
| Capacity | 1200cc | |
| Bore/Stroke | 97.6 x 80 mm | |
| Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | |
| Maximum Power | 96 hp @ 6750 rpm (claimed) | |
| Maximum Torque | 82.6 lb-ft. @ 4950 rpm (claimed) | |
| Fuel system | Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection | |
| Exhaust | Chromed 2 into 2 exhaust system with twin chrome silencers | Brushed stainless steel 2 into 2 exhaust system with twin silencers |
| Final drive | X ring chain | |
| Clutch | Wet, multi-plate assist clutch | |
| Gearbox | 6-speed | |
| Fuel Economy | 4.6 l/100km / 61 MPG (claimed) | |
| Emissions | EURO 4 Compliant, CO2 – 106.0 g/km | |
| Frame | Tubular steel cradle | |
| Swingarm | Twin-sided, aluminum | Twin-sided, aluminum – Clear anodized |
| Front Wheel | 32-spoke 17 x 3.5in | |
| Rear Wheel | 32-spoke 17 x 5in | |
| Front Tire | 120/70 ZR17 – Pirelli Angel GT | 120/70 ZR17 – Pirelli Diablo Rosso Corsa |
| Rear Tire | 160/60 ZR17 – Pirelli Angel GT | 160/60 ZR17 – Pirelli Diablo Rosso Corsa |
| Front Suspension | Kayaba 41mm cartridge forks, 120mm travel | Showa 43mm USD big piston forks, fully adjustable, 120mm travel |
| Rear Suspension | Kayaba twin shocks with adjustable preload, 120mm rear wheel travel | Fully adjustable Öhlins twin shocks with piggy back reservoir, 120mm rear wheel travel |
| Front Brake | Twin 310mm discs, Nissin 2-piston axial floating calipers, ABS | Brembo twin 310mm floating discs, Brembo 4-piston radial monobloc calipers, ABS |
| Rear Brake | Single 220mm disc, Nissin 2-piston axial floating caliper, ABS | |
| Length | 2105 mm (82.9 inches) | |
| Width | 745 mm (29.3 inches) | |
| Height | 1030 mm (40.6 inches), without mirrors | |
| Seat Height | 805 mm (31.7 inches) | 810 mm (31.9 inches) |
| Wheelbase | 1415 mm (55.7 inches) | |
| Rake | 22.7º | 22.8º |
| Trail | 90.8 mm (3.57 inches) | 92 mm (3.62 inches) |
| Dry Weight | 454 lb. (claimed) | 448 lb. (claimed) |
| Fuel Capacity | 3.8 Gal. | |
See more of MD’s great photography:
Better than Kawasaki W800 and CB1100. If small boys ride Hayabusa, why I can’t ride that thing.
What I would like is this engine, and maybe some suspension and brake upgrades, in a model that looks like the standard Bonneville Street Twin. I guess the base Thruxton is pretty close to that, if they gave it a better looking tank (like the one on the Street Twin), seat (ditto), a tubular handlebar and ditched the silly-looking bar-end mirrors. Oh, and cast wheels, too.
you know it’s funny but now that you mention it, guys might be buying the base model and de-caféing it with higher tubular bars and regular mirrors and a flat seat to get the 96 hp in a standard type bike. That would look good. Maybe some knee pads and some pin striping on the tank. I could see doing that.
I notice now that Triumph has a Thruxton “Black” model that comes with a regular seat, so I guess maybe the humped seat is an option or something. I don’t care for the look of the humped seat, myself. And I really would prefer an option for alloy wheels, rather than spoked.
OK, to be fair, I’m not likely to be buying one of these. If I was about to go out and lay down this sort of money I’d probably spend it on something else. I guess time will tell if other, truly interested buyers want something like what I’ve described, which is just my taste. I’m sure these bikes will appeal, as is, to many riders, although I wonder whether the desire for retro-looking Triumphs is quite as great as it once was – many of the guys who actually owned bikes like this in their youth are, honestly, getting a little past their prime bike-buying and riding years.
Been waiting a long time for a bike that hits all the sweet spots. Really Really looks like a Triumph, excellent fit and finish especially the engine. Modern electronics, ABS etc. weight under 500 lbs. 96 horsepower 82 lbs-ft tourqe, 6 speed , tubeless wire wheels , it just goes on and on. I don’t think theres a retro bike thats competes with this. Congrats Triumph your going to sell boats loads of these.
PS Forget these tank seam nerds , I mean really, all you got to complain about are TANK SEAMS?
Personally I couldn’t care less. Just having fun with it. Never gave them any thought. But to answer your question, that is not all they have to complain about. Just give em a day or two.
I know. I think the fork reflectors and phony covers over the exhaust pipes are worse than the tank seams. This is a good looking bike.
I didn’t realize how ugly my bike was until I read this article about tank seams. I didn’t even know how much I hated them until this article on seams brought to my attention how ugly and cheap looking they are. Bye, bye CB1100F!
ladies and gentlemen dinner is served, on tonite’s menu…
HOTCAKES.
disclaimer: get there early, supplies are limited.
Bon Appetite ! Norm. Triumph is going to have winner for dinner… Lol. .
I’d consider the suspension upgrades on the R model as mandatory, given the HP figure. I think they took retro too far with the twin piston calipers and basic emulsion rear dampers on the base model.
Hey, they were good enough for Slippery Sam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_Sam
I don’t think he had a choice. His bike also made 10 less horsepower and randomly dumped oil 🙂
I agree that these bikes look more like the Ducati GT1000 than any Bonneville. And that the tank seam is inexcusable. My own sweet spot is the standard Bonneville, which actually looks like a Bonneville. It reminds me of my favorite pic of Mike Hailwood riding a ’69 Bonnie (British tank) with female passenger. Looks like Mike had a great day. And to be comfortable, I must sit upright like an Englishman, not kowtowing to the Gods of the Wind like some savage. A high torque motor with a lower compression ratio is going to last longer and be more pleasant that a higher strung race bike. Much better for a passenger, too. At my usual rate of progress, the Bonnie is all I would need. Unless my hair was on fire, or I was attempting to outrun the authorities due to innate criminal proclivities, I doubt I would need the extra performance of the Thruxton. You speedsters with bulging pockets can race me to the next gas station. I will cruise on by and laugh at my lower fuel usage.
That’s a gorgeous bike. The tank seems don’t bother me much. It’s useless in the Northwet due to the very short dry season we have, but for the southern states, it’s a damn fine looking bike.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of bike IS useful in the northwest?
Exactly. I still got wet whenever I rode my ST1100, ST1300, or any other faired bike in the rain. Maybe a knobby-tired dual-sport with ABS would be the best rain bike, but does it really matter?
For what it’s worth, my overall level of soaked-ness has varied greatly between bikes I’ve ridden. WR250X? Soaked down to my core in seconds, literally. ’95 GPz1100? I’d stay more or less dry for a significantly longer time, provided I wasn’t wearing mesh gear or something.
One thing I’ve learned over the years – aside from full rain gear, “waterproof” gear isn’t waterproof, it does have a level of intensity and length of precipitation where it’ll start to soak through. I rarely needed rain gear on the GPz – the “waterproof” gear was enough. On a Speed Triple, WR250X, or GS550E, similar gear is good for only minutes before feeling the chill of cold rain down your pants! Heavy rain gear was necessary to stay dry for a couple of hours at a time.
What motorcyclist living in that environment wouldn’t buy and carry the best rain gear money can buy knowing that on any given day a toad strangler could pop up, regardless of the make or model of motorcycle he’s riding. Other than one BMW scooter, I don’t think any motorcycle has a roof, and you have to stop sometime in which case the rain is going to be coming straight down on your head.
BMW R nine T or Thruxton R…Decisions, decisions, decisions…Good one either way!!!
Put the Moto Guzzi Griso in your choice. it could be your final decision
It seems nearly everyone agrees that the overdone tank seams diminish the aesthetic appeal of the bike. This is true on these Triumphs, the current/previous CB1100, and countless other modern offerings.
What I’ve never read or heard is an explanation for why these seams are there in the first place. Not all current bikes have them, nor did all the bikes from the past have them. It can’t simply be a cost issue, not when they appear on bikes that otherwise seem to spare little to no expense in the detailing, such as the CB1100. If a seamless tank costs more to build, fine, add another $100 or whatever to the msrp. No one will complain.
It also can’t be someone’s idea of a design preference, not when nearly everyone complains about them. Even the slightest bit of market research would tell the manufacturer that people greatly prefer the look of a smooth, properly finished tank. More importantly, those fugly seams don’t have to be there. They simply don’t.
And we’re not talking 250cc dual-sports here, either. Nor are we talking Honda Rebels or Suzuki GN250s. No, with bikes such as these Triumphs or the CB1100 we’re talking about bikes that are marketed almost entirely on their visual appeal. That’s their selling point: style over function. There are plenty of better choices out there, if the goal is to purchase the best-performing/most comfortable/strongest value motorcycle. People buy these modern retros strictly because they look cool.
So, again, what’s the story with these infernal tank seams? I would love to hear a manufacturer’s justification for why they choose to compromise their very meticulous design aesthetic with such a glaring visual blight.
Just to be clear, however, regarding the stupid tank seams…
While they are, indeed, utterly unnecessary and quite annoying, they are in no way a deal-breaker. I mean, come on. Get real. In the overall scheme of things, these remain very beautiful bikes, only slightly diminished.
Agreed.
No, sorry not agreed by everyone. I think they are fine and the green one looks especially good to me. Look back in history and you will find no shortage of tank weld seams on most brands of bikes including vintage Triumphs, BSAs, Hondas etc. that had one right down the middle for god’s sake. You think those are tank seams? These are some tank seams:
http://michaelsmotorcycles.com/bsa%20gas%20tankl.html
Which is why I went out of my way to avoid painting everyone with the same broad brush by including the very conspicuous qualifier, “nearly everyone.”
🙂
Who said tank seams weren’t present on older models? Not sure exactly what you are debating.
Not a deal-breaker but I agree with VLJ….just curious why they exist?
Most builders – pictures of whose work probably comprises the idea of what eye-appealing, “classic” bikes look like in the minds of most of us, even for those who might have grown up with these bikes – fold the seams or make custom tanks (with the welds ground down).
I suspect the vision of these bikes in our minds creates some unfavorable bias towards the humble seam.
The seams on that BSA tank are neat & make it a very distinctive tank. I like them.
“People buy these modern retros strictly because they look cool.”
“Strictly” for appearance? Now, that is a stretch!
Not really. There are any number of bikes that will outperform the Thruxton while also being equally comfortable. No one buys a Thruxton because they think it’s “better” than, say, a Street Triple R or Speed Triple, never mind something like a Super Duke R or Aprilia Tuono, all of which are far more comfortable than the Thruxton. Same goes for the R-Nine-T, relative to the R1200R or S1000R. Certainly the CB1000R outperforms the CB1100 in every performance criteria, although the CB1100 is more comfortable.
What makes the Thruxtons and CB1100s and Ducati 1000 Classics of the world truly compelling are their looks, plain and simple. That’s the starting point, the lure. From there, we look to make the details fit our needs while rationalizing away its relative deficiencies.
I would agree with this for the most part. Although I would add that a number of bikes appeal both in terms of their classic looks and the accompanying level of comfort provided by their standard upright riding configuration. Examples would be bikes such as Honda’s CB1100, Triumph’s Bonneville (now represented by the Street Twin), Moto Guzzi’s V7 (Special, Stone, etc.) or even Ducati’s GT1000 Touring version.
I don’t know why those seams persist on high-dollar bikes. They could still use the pinch weld method for production efficiency and then spend a couple of minutes to roll the seam. Heck, I can roll a tank seam by hand with a large pair of pliers in 20 – 30 minutes. It would be a quick job with the right machinery.
I suspect the reason they still allow seams through production is because of what you said in your followup post – it isn’t a deal-breaker.
Moot point I guess. Personally tank seams just never bothered me. I have had both seamed and seamless and in the end it mattered not, and when I think back over the many bikes I have owned I couldn’t tell you which ones had seams and which didn’t. As a matter of fact I have two in the garage right now, one I know has seams cause you guys have complained about them on that model. The other, having owned it for 8 years and 70,000 miles I have no idea… I’d have to walk out to the garage and see.
I do agree with VLJ ( again) that most of these retros are bought on eye appeal rather than strictly what they will do. Lots of bikes will do what they do, the justification for buying comes from the looks.
Also, the type of bike greatly determines the impact of aesthetic minutiae. On your ST1300, for example, no one will really care about something as nondescript as a visible tank seam. Same thing with an XR650, or a V-Strom, or a Vulcan 650. On something intended to highlight the aesthetic in general and the gorgeous tank, specifically, such as the CB1100 or any Bonneville, yes, such small incongruities take on much greater importance to many people.
I don’t give it much thought either on most bikes, but I agree with VLJ concerning these fairly expensive bikes whose primary selling point is aesthetics that the seam can be a bit unsightly. If something draws the eyes away from the flow or focal point of a design, that is usually considered a fail the the design world.
Frankly, the seams on this bike aren’t bad in my opinion, not to the point of being distracting like they are on the Yamaha Bolt for example. But for a moderately expensive work of art like this, I’d pay extra $ to ditch them.
I also don’t think that the seams on your CB1100 are in the least bit offensive, though you can make an interesting comparison between the yellow-tanked “Concept CB” (which has rolled seams) and the production CB1100.
I don’t think it’s nearly everyone, just those who have made the conscious decision to be offended by tank seams. I think there’s a large contingent of people who don’t even notice or care that the tank seams exist. Perhaps they just haven’t been educated as to why tank seams are such a visual blunder, or perhaps they’re not looking for nits to pick. Honestly, tank seams, or the lack thereof, are a non-concern for me. It’s sort of like how some people get all worked up about the gap between a fender and tire on a car, and think a car only looks good if it’s lowered. They’re essentially creating their own meaningless bias and then judging everything based on that one meaningless aspect.
I guess we can simply dismiss the whole “seamless design” compliment from the general vernacular, then.
Motorcycledaily.com, the new arbiter of language! Nice!
lol!
THAT, my fellow Americans, is a beautiful motorcycle.
Fantastic. I hope Triumph sells a zillion of them. The R model is perfect. Excellent work Triumph.
The tank seam ruins the look of the bike. The original Bonneville didn’t have a tank seam. The America doesn’t have a tank seam. For $15K you’d think they could eliminate the tank seam.
I can get a lot of different motorcycles for $15K.
Counterpoint: I really, truly, can’t comprehend that people take tank seams as such a critical element of bike design, as anything more than a total non-issue. The small 3.8 gallon tank is of much more importance.
Jamo, have you actually looked at a “59 T120? It has a tank seam right down the middle on top where the rider gets to look at it all the time!
I too cant understand those that look at a bike like this, and get offended by “The Tank Seam”. Then, profess how it ruins the whole bike. Get Real. How tacky, really, is that what is important to you? People like you cant see the forest for the trees.
3.8 gallons? What in the world were they thinking? Many people ride their bikes further than to the local pub for fish and chips and a pint! My past 2010 Triumph Scrambler had the 4 gallon tank and only got 40 mpg—not good. My current 2012 Triumph Rocket 3 Roadster gets over 40 mpg and has a 6.5 gallon tank, which I appreciate. As usual though for Triumph, the bikes are stunning:)
if you have ~ 15 large hanging around to buy a motorcycle, is this what you would drop your dough on….if I did spring for this, I’d have no more money to roll around naked in anymore….
Yay, I heading directly to Triumph right now for one…
Oh snap… I failed miserably, did the wrong turn somewhere and I ended up buying a better braking… better accelerating… better looking… more reliable… better dealer network… CB1100… maybe next time
“better looking…more reliable…better dealer network…”
The CB1100 clearly offers a better dealer network. Looks? That’s up to the individual, but both are gorgeous. Reliability? Just on reputation/past history I would likely give the nod to the Honda, but Triumph builds very reliable bikes too.
“better braking…better accelerating…”
Braking? Not a chance. The Thruxton R has radial-mounted Brembos, steel-braided lines, much grippier rubber, and stouter forks. Acceleration? Either Thruxton weighs much less than the Honda while also boasting greater (claimed) hp and torque.
VLJ is correct. They are both beautiful motorcycles (I like the looks of the CB1100 better), but as far as the Thruxton goes, it clearly has better “numbers” except for price where the CB is better.
I don’t think many will be pleased that peak horsepower comes in under 7,000 rpm and I’m guessing redline about 8500rpms, but that will actually make the bike easier to ride fast.
(admittedly coming from an owner of 2 CB1100’s)
I’m guessing it won’t rev much past 7000 rpms, but I could be way off there. Even if it does, it’s state of tune implies that you won’t gain anything by doing so other than make noise.
I’ve owned a Buell XB12 which claims very similar power (both in total output and delivered at roughly the same rpm.) That engine was about as exciting as a brick. A pretty fast brick, but a brick nonetheless. As soon as you thought things were getting interesting, you were into the rev limiter. A Ducati Monster 1100 doesn’t make any more power and really isn’t any faster than the Buell, but it managed to FEEL twice as fast despite only revving to around 8500 or so. How power gets delivered is important.
While I think the Triumph is pure eye candy and would never dismiss it without test riding it first, I suspect it isn’t for me. But that’s okay. I’ll get plenty of pleasure just seeing some on the road.
Me too Jeremy. Love seeing beautiful motorcycle no matter who makes them or how many horses are pounding the earth.
Btw saw my first Diavel on the road yesterday. Guy was getting gas right next to me. It really was a pretty bike, odd looking being so low and long but pretty nonetheless. Bright red, vivid white and black. Sounded pretty good too. Not a bike I would care to own, but man it was pretty.
I imagine you’d have the same complaint about no upper end hit with these that you had with the CB, but it seems a lot of bikes are headed that way, at least ones that are not super sports
I think 100 rwhp with 75 ft-lbs of torque is fairly close to the literbike sweetspot for most rational people who still want a bit of sporting excitement in their rides. 100 rwhp ensures at least a decent top-end rush, and 75 ft-lbs of torque means the thing will always have sufficient pull to tackle any task with authority.
For most street riders who don’t require the whole supersport experience, those numbers seem to hit the mark. This is particularly the case with upright naked literbikes, whereby 150 rwhp is just a matter of how much overkill/bragging rights does one need to be satisfied?
VLJ – I would agree with you: the 100 rwhp mark is a sweet spot for me. I’ll frequently want for more on an 80rwhp bike, but very rarely with 100rwhp on tap. It isn’t so insane as to be unusable on the road, and it is enough to still feel exciting. Anything more is certainly welcome but superfluous for me.
As far as peak torque goes, I personally prefer more rpm to make my hp than torque, but that is just me. I don’t need much power during normal “cruising” engine speeds and can always dial some up with a downshift if needed. I typically only call up the power for fun, and fun happens above 7000rpm in my book. Street Triple, Monster 821, FZ-09 – those engines feel great to me.
Mickey – Yes, I just don’t care for a bike that makes all of its power down low. It lacks excitement, and excitement is the whole reason I ride motorcycles. I am definitely partial to power being delivered on the upper end of the rev range, preferably with a little bump in the torque curve somewhere around the 6K – 7K rpm mark to announce that the transition from Dr. Jeckyll to Mr. Hyde has been activated and that good things are about to happen. Maybe I’ll outgrow that one day, but I haven’t yet (being just a pup, lol.)
Nice bike. Make sure to strap a milk crate to it to complete the look.
This is the competition to the Project 156 everyone was expecting. I like it.
I hate to disappoint but the tyres are tubed NOT tubeless.
The tires are tubeless…
The rims aren’t.
Well Tod that’s splitting hairs. Ok then, the Tyres have a tube in, is that clearer for you?
Well Todd, that’s splitting hairs. Lets make it cleare for you, the Tyres have a Tube in. Does that help?
Am impressed. Retro looks, ABS, tubeless tyres. Triumph has hit a home run with the Thruxton. My only beef is the flange on the tank. Other than that, I really like it. I think the new Bonnies may eat into HD Sportster sales.
I like the stock bar end mirrors. Not a huge fan of the ohlin gold on this bike; hopefully the base model has more than adequate handling.
Very nice looking bikes.
Only 3.8 gallon tanks? Someone really wanted those large knee indentations. And what’s with the “dry weight” crap? Oh right, with those small fuel tanks they ran out of gas on the way to the photo shoot.
Oh cry me a freakin a river.
My local dealers website shows the standard model priced starting $12,500 and the R model at $14,500. A big jump over the previous model but looking at the stats, a much more capable and improved motorcycle everywhere.
12,500 for the basic… ouch!
I agree. That’s pretty steep.
Could this possibly mean that some guys here might finally actually pony up some bucks for a new bike instead of always submitting some comment to the effect of “if it only… (fill in this space with any number of excuses)”? LOL
From a visual standpoint, these bikes still remind me more of a Ducati GT100 than a Triumph Bonneville. But overall, nicely done Triumph.
Amen!
“these bikes still remind me more of a Ducati GT100 than a Triumph Bonneville”
I agree. The T-120 looks more like a classic Bonneville.
Holy crap….steep rake and short trail! 96hp is better than I expected.
Nice looking bikes! Modern update of classic styling! not overdone, just right…
Can’t wait for the limited edition Guinness Stout Thruxton! Should sell as well as the Indian!!
Guinness is Irish, so it won’t happen. Perhaps a Young’s Double Chocolate Stout edition. But I like your thinking. 😉
A proper Brit bike should have a brown seat and real wood tank inserts for the knees.
Nah, I just don’t care for the styling and still prefer the Kawasaki W650/800 in a classic twin. At least 96 hp makes more sense than restoring a 45 year old Norton.
The W650 is closer in style to the regular Bonneville model. On the plus side, if the Kawasaki is your thing, you can probably find a nice, used one for about 1/4 the price of a new Thruxton. We all win: you get a cheap bike and there are more Thruxtons available for the rest of us. 🙂
I may be tempted. I’ve always wanted a naked bike that looks great and would be fun at a track day. I’m no longer interested in 10/10ths speed. The late 70’s Superbike look is more my speed but the Japanese show no intent of bringing it back.
Final drive: X ring chain
What? Seriously?
As opposed to an English Leather strap drive?
Belt drive would seem out of place here… Shaft drive would make it heavier… Chain is just fine for the sporting intents of this model. Although it would be tempting to throw a small windscreen on it, some soft bags on the rear and take off for a few days.. Then the biggest complaint would be the 3.8 gallon tank.
I see your point. No wind protection or accommodation for baggage and short fuel range is outrageous for a bike marketed as a Café Racer. What I can’t figure out is why Gold Wings weigh so much.
A café racer only goes fast, and only to the next Tea & Cake shop. Hence the name. Google ‘Ace Café’
So why then does it have to come dressed as a tourer???
You can buy a fairing. Did people tour on cafe racers?
I certainly toured all over the place on my SX600, a modern café racer. Yeah I was tired at the end of the day, but so what? I’d done some stuff and seen some things man……..
Used to tour on a Honda CX500 back in the 80’s. Nowadays you need at least 1600 cc’s and a full fairing just to get to the state line. Wusses.
Superior to an O-ring chain, what’s the problem?
Superior. Sure.
This is very funny. You pored through the specs and homed in on the type of rubber ring used to keep grease in the chain?
Upside down, big-piston forks, Brembo brakes, Ohlins shock…X-ring chain. It all makes sense now. You two enjoy the rest of your date.
What’s even funnier is how I pored and homed.
Exactly. We are in the best of times with so many great bikes and these same people pick them apart. Just ignore the hate and revel in the great choices we have today.
Yes. Pored and homed. What’s your issue with those terms?
It’s OK, Scott. Double meaning of words is what makes the English language so difficult.
Your dramatic license makes me chuckle. That’s all. You doin’ OK, Sparky?
Supposedly X ring chains reduce friction and minimize power loss have 1 1/2 to 2 times longer wear resistance. And better sealing performance than any other chain.
Last time I shopped chains no one in the crowd I ran with bought them because they weighed no less, gave no power gain and lasted no longer – they just cost more money. Maybe things have changed since then.
really? when was the last time you shopped for a chain? 1975?
a chain is never going to give you a power gain anyway. anything you put after the crankshaft, clutch, transmission, bearings, chain, is robbing HP no matter how incrementally!
Why yes, 1975 was the last time I shopped for chains. You’re amazing!
Right, picked apart by a bunch of experts who aren’t going to buy anything anyway.
Yep, superior. better sealing, less rolling resistance, better wear characteristics.
But gee golly gosh if it’s really holding you back from buying one then that’s a real shame, since there’s no option to change the chain once the manufacturer has attached it.
I don’t? Damn, that sucks.
If there was a point here….no one appears to be seeing it. Should it have had a non sealed chain for historical accuracy. Hopefully youre not a shaftard…
Peter Shaftard. That’s funny.
Even as long as I’ve been on the intertubulars, seen basically everything etc, a new kind of trolling.
WELL DONE!
Now get back under your bridge.
Thanks for stopping by, Tim.
You shouldn’t do drugs. Drugs are bad. M’kay?
Love the bike. I sat on the R and had a long talk with my local Triumph rep about it. IMO it and the V7 Griso share a similar niche in the market. I would like to see a shootout between the two. I would like to say the R9T is in that same niche, however it is a notch above the two in terms of power and likely handling.
I wouldn’t buy one, I ride mostly on the highway and a 3.8 gallon tank means that I would be realistically hunting for a gas station at about 90 miles unless I rode it like an old lady.
Wait, they are claiming 60 mpg. If they only get 45 you could ride 150 miles and still have a quart or so left. If it manages 50 then you could go a butt numbing 170 miles before gasing up. 90 miles, this ain’t no Sportster.
Upon second reading 4.6l/100km or 61mpg means their claims are based on Imperial gallons not US gallons. That meas they claim approx 50 mpg in US gallons. No way they will get that. Pushed hard, like other similar engines that bike will get 30-35mpg. I would expect the low fuel light to come on at about 125 miles in that case.
Looks like we were both wrong. Unless of course you ride like an old lady. 😉
So perhaps that means that the fuel capacity is also given in imperial gallons? That would make it about 4.5 US gallons. The world would be a better place if we all just went metric. 🙂
Agreed, the specs indicate imperial gallons for mileage. Does that also mean imperial for the fuel tank capacity, which would therefore convert to 3.2 US gallons?
That would convert to just over 4.5 US gallons.
Jeremy, yeah, looks like I was flipping the conversion factor.
However, I’ve seen some other 1st ride reviews which state a 14.5 liter tank which converts to 3.8 US gallons. So the spec sheet is using imperial gallons for gas mileage and US gallons for tank size? Odd. Regardless, that resulting range isn’t completely horrible, if gas mileage is really around 50 mpg (US).
Not horrible, but more range is always better in my opinion. I don’t know why, but I hate stopping for gas.
Looks like Triumph hit a homerun with the Thruxtons.
Tubeless spoke wheels, a big plus.
Looks like Aluminum hoops as well (not sure).
Tubeless? Nice!
They look like standard tube type rims and in the photo you can make out a tube valve stem. Other than tubed rims the only other spec that bothers me is the pin slider front calipers, boo. That said they are beautiful bikes and bound to do well in the market.
Well, bummer on both counts (rims and calipers). I guess we’re lucky that the standard forks aren’t damper rods.
My bad the release does say tubless. Those Angel GT tires are really good too. Put a set on my TDC last summer and they transformed the old girl.
Too bad about the brakes. As long as forks aren’t damper rods you can usually do something with them. Good shocks are always expensive. Depending on the prices the R model may be no more expensive than upgrading a Standard, plus you get Brembo’s.
I wonder about the tubeless claim too. Looks like standard spoke nipple placement as opposed to edge-of-rim or tab type tubeless spoked wheels.
And what’s the “pin slider” brakes issue you refer to?
Pin slider caliper are not ridgely mounted to the fork but slide laterally on pins. In practice they typically have less feel and power than solid mounted calipers like the Brembos on the R model.
Thanks Curly.
(Let’s find someone named Moe and we might have something)
Probably Alpina STS wheels, which has O-ring sealed nipple assemblies, like on the Guzzi NTX.
I had bad luck with them on my NTX (replaced 11 nipple in my 1st 1 1/2 months, others have had good luck with it.
Not sure which is worse… Alpina’s nipples or the rim strip on the KTM Advs.
The SV650 has sliding-pin calipers and damper rod forks. The setup leaves much to be desired, which is why there’s a cottage industry for various modifications and parts swaps. Alternatively, in that category, you can buy a used 600 race replica and be the hell done with it.
By golly, I think they nailed it!
Man, I love the looks of these Thruxtons. The “high power” version of the engine turned out to deliver right around where most of us thought it would, which isn’t very high-powered, IMO. Regardless, the bike should sell on looks alone.
British racing green, I like.
Something savage about this bike! Looks oldschool but has many modern conveniences. Not to mention displacement and gobs of torque as a nice addition. Great job Triumph, cant wait to see one at a RAT pack event.
All the best,
Aaron Lephart
WOW, very nice. Wonder if the T120 is going to have those same numbers?
At any rate they went straight after the retro market with good looking bikes, good crank hp and torque numbers, 17″ wheels so guys can get sticky rubber, ABS. (radiator looks well blended but still out of place on a Bonnie IMO)
Should be a real contender. Congrats Triumph.
I read another article that said the new new Bonnie was 18% less than the Thruxton because of less compression. Still 18% less than 96 is about 16hp less for about 80hp. Not bad for moving 480 wet lbs or so, even if it’s crank hp claimed. These are beautiful and finally desirable to me with more than 60hp of the old new Bonnie. I’m sure they will sound great with the 270 degree crank also. Trading in the Cb1100?
This makes a new Norton unreasonable.
Lol no I wouldn’t trade my CB, I love it. Bought an 03 Bonnie new, and my complaints were not enough hp and not enough braking. These answer both of those complaints. Although for the standard Bonnie 80 crank hp won’t be enough to topple the CB which guys have been dynoing at 85 ish rear wheel. Still has to be more oomph than the old Bonnie had, which was under 60 hp at the wheel.
Btw I sold mine to my younger brother who loves it and still rides it a lot. 40 something thousand trouble free miles.