Teased in earlier videos, the 2022 Triumph Tiger Sport 660 debuted in production form earlier today. Using the same 659cc triple from the new Trident, the new Tiger gets upright adventure-style ergonomics and wind protection.
Designed primarily for the street with 17″ wheels, the ride-by-wire throttle allows riders to select from Road and Rain power modes, each with unique traction control. A colorful TFT display is part of the bargain, which is priced at $9,295 MSRP.
Although the suspension is non-adjustable, it includes a quality Showa Separate Function Fork. The chassis is borrowed from the Trident, but adapts a longer swingarm and stronger subframe.
Fuel capacity is a reasonable 4.5 gallons, and wet weight is roughly 455 pounds (claimed dry weight would be 425 pounds, or so). The Tiger Sport 660 should be in U.S. dealerships in February of next year.
Here is a link to the Tiger Sport 660 web site for additional information and available accessories (such as luggage). Take a look at the photos and videos below:
Changed my mind. I had intended to buy this bike. I just rode a friends Trident and have totally changed my mind. Based on the low-end throttle response on the Trident, I just don’t see this engine (although well-suited for a mid-sized urban bike) working well on a sport-touring platform. Time will tell but I decided to wait and see. Maybe the old adage “No Replacement for Displacement” might be true in this case. Side note: I have a BMW F800GT that has acceptable torque and decent performance. I thought the Tiger 660 might be a replacement but after riding the Trident, I have my doubts. I realize these are two distinctly different bikes, so I’ll wait for real-world road tests.
There is another reason not to be too excited about this otherwise good looking model. It you plan to use it in city traffic only, you may be fine – this is what it is intended for.
But it is NOT a true sports-tourer, therefore I do not see reason so conspicuously to hook luggage on it. Why? Because is has uncommonly steep steering (at around 23.5deg) and correspondingly short trail. With this it will require lots of attention on the straight road – it may feel uncomfortably jittery, not conducive to longer trip comfort. Anyway, my two cents.
It runs 3.8 inches of trail which is pretty standard. Perfectly stable for sport touring duty, though it might feel a little pitchy if really hard on the brakes.
Just don’t shift so much. Allow the engine to rev freely and don’t lug it in higher gears. This engine has plenty of poke to push you and the bike along at alarming rates, apparently it’s better than the original Street Triple engine.
Never mind that, I have been reading reviews where the comparisons were between a restricted (77hp) version of the Street Triple vs the Trident 660. I didn’t realize Triumph would replace the powerful 675 engine with a OK 660 engine. Still, an 80hp, 450 lb bike is plenty fast for touring and commuting.
There is a reason the parallel twins are becoming popular. They are making the term “you just have to rev it” a thing of the past. Some people will miss it. Most people won’t even notice that it went away unless they are reminded of it by riding something that doesn’t work “properly”.
Great point Mick. I have had 2 Yamaha FJR1300’s, several Honda VFR’s (all pre-2002), Ducati’s, Boxer BMW’s, and singles. Basically, all engine configurations other than a Guzzi. I wasn’t sure if I could love the BMW F800GT engine but it has grown on me and I really enjoy the power delivery now. It’s a nice package, if you can only own one bike.
The Tiger 660 might be geared or tuned slightly different than the Trident but as I said, I’ll wait and see. For now, the GT keeps me happy.
Times have changed from when a motorcycle had two wheels and an engine. No one complained about accessories. Add your own! Make it your bike!
I get that Bob.
I also get wanting to just buy something at a dealer and be able to use it unmodified, like I did with nearly all of my off the rack or used street bikes.
A 1935 HD 45 (call it a 750) weighed 390 pounds. The thing that I refuse to accept is a bike with less displacement fifty years later weighs more.
Accessories? Meh. Give me something compelling to accessorize.
The Tiger may have les displacement and more weight than the Harley but I’m pretty sure it can run circles around it all day long. And lets not talk about reliability.
My dad rode a 1941 Harley 45 until about 1972 iirc when he downsized to an R5c Yamaha. I think we had to rebuild the top end of the Harley every 10K miles and rebuilt the bottom end every 20K miles. The Yamaha wasn’t much better, but top ends were easier.
I was in my teens, but it sure SEEMED to me like the Harley weighed a lot more than any modern bike lol. Steel frame, steel 2 pc tank, steel fenders, fat 16″ tires.
Mickey, In 72 most bikes were 2 stroke. Rebuilding was easy. Rings and valves. Yamaha was not a touring bike but some of us used them as such. Honda 305 and 350 were smooth riding. Harley seem lightest because everything was taken off that didn’t make it run. Thus bobtail!
Wow Nik. You really think so? What an amazing revelation. Who would have ever thought?
You’re right Fred. I really screwed up the math. I am unhappy with the street bike market and see absolutely no reason to be grateful. My riding buddies have been on my case to buy a new two up bike. But there is nothing on the market that sparks any interest in me whatsoever.
I did inquire about an 1100 Hypermotard S Evo Corsa, the last thing with a throttle cable. But it sold the day before. Oh well. It was kind of a make do in a bad situation thing anyway.
The wife can’t get me to buy a new truck either. Man those things are getting ugly while they turn into cars.
Mick, you still come across as really unhappy, rather than grateful. If you prefer to ride 85+ year old bikes (check your math – 1935 was well over 50 years ago), feel free to do so. Just don’t expect many people to agree with you. The constant whining really gets old.
If you can’t find a motorcycle on the market today that you would enjoy owning and riding, then you just don’t like motorcycles.
Some people just aren’t happy unless they’re mad.
Why is it so hard to accept? What parts of the new bike weigh more than corresponding parts on the old one? What parts on the new bike don’t even exist on the old bike, yet greatly contribute to the new bike’s performance/handling/rideability/what have you?
Don’t you think that if weight was the only engineering problem, it would be well solved by now? Do you really not think current bikes don’t offer vastly more despite and possibly because of their weight _increase_?
That’s just it. Why is an 85+ year old all steel bike lighter than a new one? The only thing you can really point to is a rear suspension system on the new bike. A ’35 Harley had a crude front suspension system, made from steel components.
What do you have? Wheels? No. Frame? Are you telling me that a new frame with a rear suspension system is going to weigh a whole lot more than an 85 year old all steel hard tail? KTM makes light weight steel chassis all day every day. Japan makes them from aluminium, in general.
So wheels, nope. Chassis, nope. What do you have left? The engine? Are you kidding? Tank? Fenders? I guess there’s a battery. But really?
I get it that street bikes need to have a certain amount of weight so noobs can ride the freeway and not get blown around too much by trucks. But I bloody don’t. My personal street bike weighs less than 300 pounds and I have no issues.
I think the street bike industry has the bulk of its buyers cowed. For about $12K you actually can buy a 58hp street bike that weighs under 260 pounds from KTM. I has short maintenance intervals and of course the gas tank, like every other bike on the market, is too small for this crowd. Remember that the KTM has a steel chassis.
OK. So you have a rolling chassis. Making one of a different shape and size should be a push. Maybe you want bigger brakes or whatever. Call it ten pounds. That’s a whole lot of brake and gas tank. How much more does the engine need to weigh to get longer maintenance intervals and a bit more power. While you’re at it I’ll let another ten pounds slide on the chassis to handle more power. How much more does that engine need to weigh? There is an article below that has some general parameters. But you would have to get pretty extreme to insist on 100 pounds. 100 pounds of steel is still a pretty large hunk of metal to work with. And still you have a 380 pound motorcycle.
My opinion about why street bikes are so heavy is illustrated right here. People are quick to apologize for the industry and are generally hostile towards people like myself who question it. They don’t make lighter street bikes because they clearly don’t have to.
https://vehq.com/how-much-motorcycle-engine-weigh/
Because the 85 year old all steel bike has thin-tubes, small frame, and handles like a wet noodle.
Sure it does. But a 2022 500 EXC doesn’t. And it has twice the suspension travel as the average street bike, giving the wheels a lot more leverage on the frame. It has more than 2.5 times the power and weighs more than 100 pounds less. It has everything one would expect from 85 years of progress.
But it’s a rare bird in the street bike market isn’t it? Most of the street bike market is cluttered with ridiculously heavy bikes that most of the street bike buying public will defend from people pointing that out.
Excellence is nearly non-existant in the street bike market because only crazy people like me call for it. Everyone else is willing to accept and defend mediocrity.
I think that’s the problem with going light. You begin to realize that lightness is the key to performance, not power. I have been ruined by my 690. It is by far the fastest bike I’ve ridden but nowhere near the most powerful. Everything else I test needs to unfairly compare to this bike and comes up short when trying to negotiate through a road or course as quickly and easily as possible. I’m afraid to try the 500 but I used to own a pumped KLX300R that was 100 pounds lighter than my Duke. Fortunately, I kept knobbies on it even though it was plated for the street. That bike was about as quick as a GSXR600 and street tires would have meant it would have ran tight circles around one. I’m starting to come around to accepting other bikes and their shortcomings, mainly because I have 8 other bikes that need to be ridden and many people often trade rides with me to try out the Duke. Maybe nothing else will compare but the Duke is already three years old and getting older. There are other bikes that look better or are more comfortable, have a smoother or more torquey engine or a more protective fairing. I can appreciate these bikes for what they offer and realize that I don’t always need to expect better performance out of them. It’s just nice to ride something different once in a while and see what I can get out of them.
Mick, I looked up the specs on “your” 1935 H-D 45 RL, and the bike that impresses you really doesn’t hold up. 18.5-25 hp, depending on the source. 65-70 mph top speed. Expanding shoe front brake, Contracting band rear brake. 3-speed transmission. No rear suspension. No passenger accommodations. Single downtube frame. No mirrors. No electric starter. No turn signals.
This really doesn’t compare well to any modern 750. A better comparison would be the TW200 – same power, same top speed, only 278lbs wet, with better specs on everything.
The R3 makes 36+ hp, has way better performance (100+ mph, great brakes & handling, etc), and weighs 375 pounds.
You are simply being disingenuous with your whining.
It’s always the same. He finds obscure examples of street legal bikes that are some arbitrary weight and displacement, usually bikes that weren’t really any good when they were new.
Here’s the thing. There are a few bikes that light and they’re mostly not good enough in so many other ways to be good street bikes.
Mick, we get it, you like riding a dirt bike but a dirt bike with street tires isn’t a good street bike, it’s just light. That’s all. If you don’t own the KTM Duke 690, you’re just complaining disingenuously because it is what you claim to want.
Fits into the exact same slot as the Yamaha Tracer 700, except this one is actually available in the US. I would take the Tracer if only for the dealer access and the better shaped seat. Suspension can be upgraded. Maybe if Triumph finds a winner in this one Yamaha will bring us an upgraded MT-07 or Tracer. Probably not, though.
I wonder if motorcycle styling will ever recover. Or are vestigial tail sections going to be the norm like half ton pickups turning into cars with open trunks.
I’m sorry, but my pickup will always have a minimum 8 foot box and my motorcycle will always have a tail section that will keep the mud off me without resorting to some weird dangling thing off of the back.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but can you pick up your pickup?
Are you implying that you can lift yours? That would be something.
Ain’t nobody gonna lift a 3500 crew cab D-Max.
If I had to, I could probably load my personal street bike into my pickup without a ramp. But it is not an off the rack street bike. There are plenty of guys who can lift it. I’m too old to pull that stunt.
I like this motorcycle.
I would like to see Suzuki do this to the S750.
Closed-course demo weekends for street bikes really do need to become a thing somewhere near me.
That has got to be the tallest, most jacked-up tail section in the industry.
Fully agree.
And, why? Why are manufacturers doing this? Is there a new reg somewhere in the world that requires the brake light to be that high? Otherwise, what purpose does putting the tail section so high up have?
Maybe they’re finally recognizing that the vast majority of motorcycles passengers are much shorter than the drivers?
I agree, it looks odd.
Yeah-could throw a midget through there! Can you say that??
Very disappointed. I had my checkbook out, but the seat height is an inch taller than the 850! I just don’t get it. Honda did the same thing with the CB500X.
The seat height is an inch taller because the suspension travel is an inch longer a 5.9″ whereas 4.5-4.75″ is standard fare for street bikes of this look.
Must be planning for a more dirt orientated version. Why else make a smaller bike taller.
Comfort.
The Versys 1000 used to be an overgrown more upright version of the Ninja 1000 before it went luxury. The main difference was 1″ in travel for more comfort but not a hobby horse. A good cross between a street bike and Adv. It was a truly enjoyable test ride that I could have easily gone coast to coast on.
The S1000XR is just an overgrown race rep.
Triumph has a couple too.
These kind of bikes make good sense for commuting and traveling if you don’t want an adv or bagger.
Needs more beak. Think Alec Baldwin’s chicken face in Beetlejuice. Also, tail end of bike is just too low. I need my tour pack trunk above my helmet like a bark scorpion stinger, and I need more space between fender and tire since thats where my pet kinkajou hangs out.
Your irony is palpable. Twisted, but palpable.
I don’t get the hate for “beaks.” It looks like every other sportbike on the planet with just a little taller suspension.
I think the flat nosed pugs are the ugly ones. And it’s not that they are, they just look weird to me. If that’s how all sportbikes looked, I’d probably think beaks looked weird.
Rear looks fantastic with the bags on. So buy some, ride somewhere, and stop worrying about your vanity.
You think that rear looks ‘fantastic’, huh? There is indeed a butt for every seat I suppose. Skeletal anorexics in front of mirrors see ‘fat’, but are there enough of them to support a product line? Puzzling. But this jacked seat fad is not clinical illness, it’s a sign of the times: “…what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right; that black is white and white is black; bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter…”.
Looks like a Versys with a triple, smaller tank and a slightly less “Versatile” subframe…
Unless you need the subframe and tank, that’s high praise, btw…
Just like on the Versys, I’m concerned about tall, short wheelbase, high COG (when loaded) and a linkageless rear end. Pitchy bikes are not my thing. Which is why I personally would likely put up with the slightly slower handling of the longer VStrom and NC, in exchange for their flatter running.
Look at the side view. 1/3 of the total seat length is a flatish area for the rider to be locked into one position, 1/3 is reserved for the milk crate yards above the rear axle, and ( this is the truly stupid part ) 1/3 a 45 degree useless area betwixt the butt and the milk. Now I know how weak wristed and concerned modern riders are about staying with the wheelie prone super powerful bikes today, but the otherwise uselessness of this styling exercise does nothing for long ride comfort or weight shifting as required. As previously referenced here the image consciouse modern rider looking for a 14 inch rear wheel travel look in a street bike probably wants their milk crate high up, to impress the girls. Cripes almighty, when will impractical design stop.
That’s why there’s a company named Corbin.
Good luck with a un-sub frame that has a 35 degree slope.
$$$ too.
I like it. For me, it’s coming down to this or the 650 VStrom
I thought we already commented on this bike. This is the “Tiger Cub” everyone was clamoring for when the 1050 Tiger was new. It does seem pretty tempting but so does the Guzzi V100 or the Aprilia 660. I’m glad to see the return of the Sport Tourer. Now I just need to figure out how to take more time off work for road trips.
So many newer bikes have this general size and set-up of windshields. (just referencing the clear upper part of the fairing/shield) Looks to me like they would be too small to do much good but big enough to have some buffeting issues. Anyone care to comment about how well they work on any other bikes?
Cut off the vertical lip straight across the top, then get a ‘Laminar Lip’ accessary windscreen aftermarket gizmo, install carefully, ( the stick on thingies really do stay attached at speed ). If the overall now, screen height is appropriate for your height, you’ll see above the plastic with NO wind on your helmet that you can feel and no noise or buffeting. Almost all stock bikes are not aerodynamic above the fairing windscreen, which should include positive pressure behind the screen.
I did this with a V Strom, and a Kawasaki ninja 650 windscreen, using a Guzzi Breva Lamina Lip. Worked perfect at freeway speeds in California.
Clarification – Used the Ninja 650 Lamina Lip on a Ninja 650 windscreen, which replaced the stock V Strom screen. Used the Breva Lamina lip on a Givi windscreen on a Triumph Scrambler. All worked great.
Too price-point. Need a higher spec model.
That thing must have about 14″ of rear wheel travel. Does the top box include a collapsable stool.
Tall seats and lots of legroom are a great thing! There are plenty of bikes out there for people with shorter legs.
As a person of shorter stature I disagree. Bikes with a seat height of 30″ or less are as rare as hens teeth. From my perspective there are a ton of bikes out there for tall people, hardly any for us short people.
should add * that isn’t a cruiser
I guess it depends on how tall is “tall”. If you happen to be 6’3” with a 36” inseam there are very few bikes that won’t make you feel like the proverbial circus bear on a tricycle. Cruisers are about it, and even then you might need to swap the stock seat for a “tall boy” model. Once had a R1200GS with the optional tall seat which I installed in the highest position. Also had aftermarket footpegs that were 1” lower. I’d say that bikes are made for “average” sized riders, if you’re too far from average in either direction your choices are going to be limited…
Any adventure bike should do. I watched a guy about 6’6″ once flatfoot a BMW 1200 RS adventure. When I sit on the seat of that, my legs dangle about 6″ from the ground on each side.
This is BS. Most bikes these days have not only a low seat but it’s a nutbuster with foreward slant so everyone can flat foot (unnecessary but noobs are freaked out and I guess stay that way) too.
Not BS. Been riding for 20+ years and have a bike with 32.5″ seat height. On my toes at a stop, but dropped it again while stopped because a little gravel made my foot move. It must be a challenge for motorcycle manufacturers to have a more flexible seat height.
Long suspension travel is excellent for soaking up bad road surfaces without disturbing the handling or the rider’s comfort. Try it, you’ll like it.
Judging by the amount of exposed slider tube on he fork, this doesn’t look to have much more than the 5.5” most other street bikes have.
The impression of height might also be a little bit of an illusion. The pillion is high but the exhaust doesn’t look to be very much higher off the ground than a conventional bike’s either.
Love the look of this. Just wish they would make a 1200 version with a bigger tank. I’m looking for a 800-1,000/day bike that’s not pretending to be a dirtbike, doesn’t weigh 600 lbs, and has a 250+ fuel range. I don’t get the middleweight adventure/sport touring bikes but maybe that’s because riding in the western US is very different from other markets. Where are the updated real sport tourers? I remember drooling over the VFR800, Blackbirtd, Sprint RS, Duc ST …
To each their own, but I don’t think I need 1200cc to do LD riders in the western US. My CB500X will do that routinely. I like this option as my only true gripe about the Honda is its relative lack of power. The Tiger Sport nearly doubles it and I’m hopeful that the charging system is up to the task of heated gear, grips and good aux lighting. Tank range may be short but I’d add aux fuel to just about any bike anyway.
they do make a tiger 1200 and you are in luck the updated version is imminent, although twice the price. Yes big bikes are better for long days
Adam from UT, You are probably looking for a BMW 800. However I’ve traveled most of the roads and paths of Utah, and SW on a Sportster 1200. About 550 lbs dry (4.5 gallon tank and 210 mile range) with street tires. It wasn’t always easy but possible. A quote from the service manager in Washington, Utah said “More parts that fall off the better a Harley runs.” I lost a lot of parts that trip through monument valley and arches.
Decision made. Ordered today!
CONGRATS! Hope you enjoy it to the max.
Alright. It’s an interesting bike. 👏👍🍻
I can’t believe all the comments praising this bike’s looks! That gawky fairing jutting way out over the front fender looks ridiculous. You guys routinely criticize the looks of a boatload of bikes that look better than this one. Best get those eyes checked!
No beak, no insect-face, no strange lights, no offroad radiator flaps, no oversized mufler, no vintage, or industrial styling. Yes, it is really good looking motorcycle.
Just as I was sliding the Visa for a new Yamaha Tracer 9 GT, this shows up for $5K less. To shave off 60 lbs and for $5k in the pocket I’ll accept less power and technology.
Looks great. Good specs, good price, fairly adult looks. I would have a hard time picking the V Strom, Versys 650, F900, or Ninja 650 over this.
Looks like a 2006 FZ1 from the side.
agree, although not a bad look.
The dressed one looks surprisingly nice.
Lousy dealer network here as well. We had a good dealer where I bought my 2003 T -100 but apparently he and the parent company couldn’t get along, so a Ford car dealer picked up the line as a side thing, and they are pretty poor as a motorcycle dealership. Still my brother bought a T-120 from them in 2016 as they are the only game in town now.
Too small of a fuel tank and no cruise control take a large chunk of touring out of this motorcycle…
Amen to that.
I’d get one if cruise is optional. And that’s with poor dealer support in my area. That bike is lighter and has more power than a Versys. Just about perfect from a power/mileage standpoint. BUT…. no cruise = no sale.
Didn’t you manage to ride nearly your entire life without electronic cruise control? Are you really trying to say that you couldn’t still do so now, or make do with a Throttlemeister, Vista Cruise, or some other mechanical throttle lock-style cruise control?
First-world problems much?
Come on.
Once you’ve had electronic cruise, it’s nearly impossible to go back, especially if you like to take long trips. I’m with you, Dave and Jeff.
This is a nice looking bike though, and seems like a good value. After the last upscale bike Triumph announced, I feared we may never see a decent priced bike from Triumph ever again.
I don’t know about ever going back. All my automobiles have had cruise control and dang if I ever used it in 35 years. Always someone too fast or too slow around me so I need to manually adjust anyway. Same with the MCs and the throttle locks. Same reasons. Fine for giving the wrist a break on a 12 hour day but CC has been mostly useless in my life.
As much as I hate to admit that advanced technology beyond basic CC functionality is needed, I am admitting it. For me living in an overpopulated world of traffic even on interstates in the middle of the night, without the ability to automatically adjust for following distance (like on the nicer cars and SUVs), CC will continue to be useless for me.
Nearly impossible to go back?
It’s as easy as pie. You did it your entire life. People managed to complete Iron Butt Rallies for decades without it.
If it’s not on your handlebar, you’ll miss it for about one ride, then you’ll fall right back into what you’ve always done, no problem.
This is the epitome of much ado about nothing.
Everyone has their hangups. For me, it was always fuel range. For some, it is apparently cruise control.
The one that makes me laugh is the hangups on a gear indicator. Even with one and it reads “6” they’ll still toe it looking for 7.
Then there’s everyone’s other lame-beyond-belief “dealbreaker,” the absence of self-cancelling turnsignals. Every time I read where someone is getting their panties in a wad over that one, I just shake my head over how soft and pathetic our society has become.
Cruise control as a dealbreaker on a motorcycle is right up there with that one. It’s not quite on that ultimate level of lameness, but it’s not far behind.
Center stands is the other main one, but that one at least has some actual functional merit for real long-distance touring riders who might need to patch a tire or do a bit of maintenance on the chain following a rainy, muddy, or dusty ride.
we all have different wants…..
I’d rather have cruise control, gear indicator self canceling turn signals and centerstand than say a 6 axis IMU, a quick shifter, riding modes, programmable traction control, or a self lowering feature at stops.
…and I’d rather have a 5 gallon gas tank than a 4 gallon gas tank. I’d rather have mags than spokes, tubeless tires than tubed tires, I’d rather have a 30′ seat height than a 34″ seat height. I only want a windshield if it’s effective at stopping buffeting, otherwise I’d rather have it shield less. I’d rather have a torquey delivery than a peaky delivery. I’d prefer a pipe on each side but can live with it on one side. I prefer my paint to be bright and not dull, and I like a little chrome here and there.
We all have our preferences
It’s probably just because I don’t know many riders younger than mid-thirties, now, but it seems almost no one I know gives a flip about the electronics other than ABS except for the track day guys.
Preferences are fine. Everyone has different preferences.
We’re not talking about mere preferences. We’re talking about supposed dealbreakers.
I’ve always wanted my bikes to have self-cancelling turn signals, and I can’t understand why so few do.
But I’ve never not bought a bike because it didn’t have them.
Mickey –
You just described a Harley Road King to a “T”! Cruise control, effective (removable) windshield, self-cancelling signals, 27” seat height, mag wheels, 103# of torque down low, a pipe on each side and beautiful, shiny paint! Also has ABS which I find to be a great safety feature.
It’s getting harder to find bike’s that make sense in this world, but I do find the Road King to fulfill nearly everything I want/need in a bike.
Since the gas mileage is so pathetic, I’m with you on the tank size for touring duty. Even the GS Adv makes 42 mpg in mixed use despite it’s huge size, weight and double the torque.
But the cases look pretty good. Should be a fine over nighter or commuter.
Where is mileage stated? Looking elsewhere I’m seeing the Trident which this is based on reporting @ 55-60mpg.
If you follow the link to the 660 website in the article it shows 43.7 mpg (US gal) under the fuel consumption spec.
I’m no Nostradamus, but I predict in my 1st quatrain that Triumph has a hit on their hand with this motorcycle.
One would think, but given the petty criticisms here and the fact that sport touring has always been a very niche market in the states, they better sell a ton in Europe.