A few weeks ago, we wrote about the recent sales success of Triumph’s new three-cylinder cruiser, the Rocket III. Other manufacturers have tried and failed to capture the market with cruisers which used an engine configuration different than the usual v-twin lay-out.

We asked readers whether they felt that the Rocket III’s success would open the door for other manufacturers to produce new cruisers using non-traditional engine configurations, or if Triumph was the only manufacturer with the unique marketing cachet to pull off such a bike. Here is what they had to say:

• In cruisers displacement is king. It even trumps configuration. 2.5 litres of V-4 or even inline 4 would sell. See Boss Hoss for details.
• Apparently so. I have always wondered why there is no such thing as an inline 4 cruiser. The engine in my Suzuki Bandit would, IMO, make a great cruiser engine. I found a custom shop that will build me a soft tail style frame to accommodate on (Suzuki 1200). It only takes money!
• You’re probably right on this. I’m not a cruiser rider, but only Triumph has a long history(`68) of successfull street tripples too, so they can pull it off as long as it’s an inline version. I think if Triumph made a smaller version of the Rocket 3, they could sell even more of them.
• Ah….excuse me. Are you forgetting the Yamaha Venture and Royal Star series, the Honda Valkyrie, or the legendary MR. Max. (V-Max)? Last time I checked those were not v-twins and most of the moto-journals refer to them as cruisers, power cruisers or touring cruisers. All pretty succesful bikes during their peak years. No, a cruiser does not need to be a V-Twin to be succesful.
• hi there, it will definately be interesting to see if triumph’s rocketIII is a successful product sales-wise. things may be openning up in the cruiser market to appeal to customers who may’ve not considerred a cruiser at all in past years.
  
  that said, historically i think it’s evident that non-twin’s don’t fair that well. look back at the honda valkyrie. while it’s got a “cult-following” of sorts, i wouldn’t really call it a successful product.
  
  cheers and thanks for the interesting site!
• Obviously the Rocket II and possibly the semi popular Valkyrie can alter the rules, but in my opinion any engine different from a V-Twin must have mega displacement. Lots of torque and a deep rumble are part of what a cruiser is in most people’s mind. A V-Twin is the best way to get those results.
• It is sad, but at least the manufactuers must think so. I for one, love the V4 configuration for the ultimate in motorcycle power plants, cruiser or non cruiser. The balance of power, torque, reliability makes it top notch for me. I love when bikes are designed from a fresh slate. Look at the Valkyrie, the Magna, the almighty V-Max. These are some of the coolest bikes ever made and the 1st two are already discontinued. If Harley wasn’t such an icon for “the real bikes” (what a sad joke) we would have many more choices of design.
• Don’t forget about BMW’s flat twin R1200C. To me the most reliable, best handling cruiser. You have to change the pipes if you want some real twin noise though!
• People ride cruisers for a number of reasons and I’m sure the V-Twin is it for some—like the steam locomotive, its understandable, simple and has a long heritage. At the recent DC motorcycle show I was disappointed to see how much overweight copycat “me-too” rehash of the old Harley theme there was. Booooring….
  
  BUT some people also ride cruisers because of the slower pace…no need to keep up with the sportbike guys. Or the more comfortable ergonomics.
  
  As long as its an attractive engine that would, as Chris Bangle of BMW put it, recognize the “emotion in the materials” I think it can power a cruiser. BMW’s boxer twin, the parallel twin of the british 650s and even Honda’s flat six all made good cruiser engines. As with the ipod, design matters.
• Why does it have to be anything “typical”, or “conventional”, at all? How about some fresh ideas altogether? I am disappointed that I haven’t seen anything more on this configuration, the Feuling W3. I would love to see new ground broken, instead of re-hashing the existing designs.
• Personally, I think Honda did a great job with the Valkyrie. Using the opposed six cylinder motor from the 1500 GoldWing was a fairly radical departure, yet worked very well in providing style, power, and just enough of a step away from the mainstream to make it significant. I never was crazy about the BMW’s take on cruiser style with its various R1200 iterations, but it’s all about taste, isn’t it? I’d like to see more manufacturers make bold statements like Honda and Triumph. Maybe a V-Four or V-Six is called for next. Perhaps Honda could use the ST1300 motor in a cruiser frame and give Moto Guzzi something to think about. Thanks for a great website and the chance to express opinions like this. Keep up the good work, and ride safe!
• I always considered myself anti Cruiser. That is until I laid eyes on the Rocket in September. I returned to the dealer two days later and purchased mine. It’s a real thrill ride plus it doesn’t look like every other cruiser.
• Why not another Valkyrie. Honda is stepping on their weenies by not developing true replacement for the Valk. An 1800 tourer/interstate or even larger displacement V6 would be a strong seller as evidence by the strong resale value of all used Valkyries. Come on Honda get with it.
• Triumph is selling rockets because they are the most power least weight lowest price available in that class. They are high value for what you get. A rocket costs less than a v rod and has cruiser cool. When someone builds a 500 pound cruiser with significantly more power and torque than a Harley it will sell. The moto morini 1200 would kick ass if is available in numbers for less than 10 large. Same with the benelli TNT. Probably these will not break sales records because they are low value for the money.
• As a V-max owner, I am especially tired of the same old Harley cloned V-twin motorcycles that everyone seems to demand. I grew up in the 80’s and remember a time when V-4 where hot and abundant. Why can’t a Rocket III
  (triple) or a V-4 become more main stream? Is it the sound? Does it make a person more noticable or better if he or she can be heard from a mile away?
• Hmm.. I once came across a site on the net of some guy building inline 4 choppers, now that sounds interesting. I would much rather get an inline for cruiser than a v-twin, its all about the power (and torque of course).
• The Triumph Rocket III is a success because it fulfilled the “other” prerequisite of a cruise: It has to be obscenely big in every way. If the Triumph was a 1000, 1200 and probably even a 1500, all of those Rocket III’s would still be sitting on showroom floors.
• …Oh yeah, I tell you, I’m not a “cruiser” type of guy at all, but you know, it doesn’t matter
  what Triumph makes, it’ll have lots of positive, epic intangibles about it. I guess I’m a real
  grandpa dinosaur (what I really want is a Magni Agusta) but Japanese bikes will never have
  the charisma of European bikes. Well, maybe one Mike Hailwood’s six cyl. 350s (dare I
  say Honda) would make it in my book of fine mounts.
• Wrong! Although the market has driven the saturation of V-twins in the market, there are still those of us that like a little sport in our cruisers. There is no mistake we V-4 aficionados are in the minority but that’s OK because we like it that way. I own a Honda Magna and wouldn’t trade it for a garage full of today’s V-Twin cruisers. It has fallen victim to the market and ceased production but hopefully the Triumph will break ground on a new wave of riders. The only thing I would trade my Magna for is a new breed of Honda V-4 sport cruisers.
• I believe that Triumph can get away from the only v-twins belong in cruisers just because they have a long history of not copying Harley. The Honda Valkerie is an excellant motorcycle similar to the Rocket III but it is not a leader in the power cruiser market. The only reason I have for this is my emotional reaction to the two non V-twin bikes.
  Emotionally I see the Valkerie as just a Gold Wing with different body work similar to the different GM car models.
  Boring! When I look at the Rocket III, my reaction is here is a daring gamble by Truimph and a very exciting bad boy bike. Not logical by any means but then how many of us buy a new motorcycle using logic.
• Triumph owners/devotees love the triple engines because they know of their goodness, but I’m not so sure other brands would be successful building a three cylinder cruiser.
  
  I don’t think Yamaha’s V4’s are selling as good as their V-Twin Road-Star or V-Star lines. Other big cruisers with alternative engine configurations have done OK (Honda Valkyrie) but the manufacturer decided kill that model and better stick with a V-Twin (VTX models), that should tell us something.
  
  Triples rule… if you are open minded enough to appreciate them. Most cruiser buyers want tradition/classic looks and are not so open minded when it comes to the bike they’ll buy.
• Cruisers could have any engine. Just get the style right. Somebody will buy it. I think Harley’s will alway’s have to be a twin. A Harley just sounds and looks right as a twin. I would like to see a high performance 4 cylinder in a cruiser frame..long and low with a nice inline four. I liked the Denny Berg custom where he took a CB-750 Honda engine and put it in a custom frame..lot’s of chrome and nice paint..The Honda engine was a plus.
• You’ve also got the six cyl. from Honda in the Rune. Although the Rune is a monster cruiser, you could see a smaller version of that engine (smaller displacement or 4 cyl.) placed in a new frame.
  The main allure (besides the look) of a cruiser is the exhaust note. Up until now the most pleasing throaty flavors of that are acheived with a 2 cyl. bike. Seeing as the technolgy of the V-twin has about reached the limit in all areas but displacement, the next logical evolution will be to more cylinders yet with much engineering and refinement devoted to the sound.
  No one want’s a cruiser that sounds like a 4cyl. sportbike. They want something more “chuggy.”
• Cruisers don’t have to be V-twins. Before there was the Rocket III, there was the Magna. It sure seemed popular enough until the late 90s. It lost favor during the “power cruiser” craze. Why? Was it not powerful enough? It had the same sort of high-revving powerband as the V-Rod. But Honda refused to give it a top-notch frame (ie an aluminum frame like the Warrior), thick USD forks, and sportbike brakes. If Honda were to take the engine from the ST1300 and drop it into a chassis like the Warrior, they’d have a top-notch four-cylinder cruiser. Not a boat like the Rune, but a powerful, high-revving cruiser that could actually handle as well.
  And as a closing note, it’s worth noting that even Indian used an inline-four engine for a while.
• I think this is a problem that over the last years has helped Harley Davidson tremendously. Every V-Twin going down the road is viewed by the general public as Harley Davidson. No matter how big the company logo is on it. Harley doesn’t need much advertisement as all Japanese folks are effectively doing it for free.
  
  Triumph is doing the right thing – brake up with confirmity. Even so it will never outsell the V-Twin’s, it is proof that you don’t have to follow. BMW did have arguable not much success with their cruiser, but that has multiple factors. It was something that smelled to much “me too” with a difference – nothing unique and appealing about it. Honda was successfull with the Valkyrie as well – another cruiser with a difference.
  
  I wish Japanese manufacturer would start thinking outside the box again. When they captured the motorcycle market that’s how they won. Yes, the cruiser can be something else than a V-Twin (or can it?)
• I believe a straight engine ala the old Indian four can be a success. I personally like the flowing lines of the form, rather than just the engine layout.
• Although I am a big fan of V-Twins, I think cruisers can succeed with any type of motor so long as it “feels right” for a cruiser. Give me strong low-end and midrange and I’d be happy. The Japanese manufacturers in particular should break out of their Harley wannabe molds. Where they have recently, they have had success, and there is no reason to say this can’t continue. I do feel Harley needs to stick with the V-twin however.
• The only thing explaining why Triumph can get away with a triple in a cruiser is that this bike kicks ass! Those who are buying the Rocket III get what they asked for: A cruiser that actually has performance. I don’t think the Harley crowd is very impressed with the Rocket III ’cause all they want is the “look” and the Triumph doesn’t quite fit into their description of “THE” bike. Hell, they even lift their nose over the V-rod, even if it is a V-Twin, even if it is a HARLEY-DAVIDSON!! Just ’cause it’s not a pushrod engine and “oh my god”
  it’s got that “ugly” radiator!!!! I think Triumph will sell the Rocket III in large numbers and it will be around for a long time (If I would buy a cruiser, I would certainly consider the Rocket) but I don’t think Harley sales will actually suffer from Triumph’s great bike. As they
  say: “I’m sure there is room for everyone!
• Nicely put. I don’t care for V-Twins which is why I am still riding my Honda Valkyrie. I only have about 74,000 miles on it, so it should last quite a while yet. The Rocket III is the first bike I’ve seen since the Valkyrie that has instilled me with a case of MotoLust. I will wait around to see if Triumph does a nice job on one with bags and a shield before I make decisions.
• What it means is that, initially, Triumph will sell the triples with success..
  But, just like the glamour and pizzazz that accompanied their Triumph Bonneville return in the late nineties, the flash will not be as bright a few years down the road. The triple will remain a mainstay in the Triumph lineup, but will not rival V-twins for the cruiserdome title. Look for the want ads about a year from now and notice how the prices of the triples will have come down and also the numbers of used triples on the market.
  Just as everyone thought the Valkyrie was the successor to the crown, V-twins will still dominate because of looks, sound, and tradition.
• V twins Are all right but no power v 4or v6 or flat6 after all the bottomline in a cruser Is power bring back the Valkrie Marv
• Nope, although I have a VTX 1800 which is a v-twin. It does have to have the long, low look and have at least 80-100 horsepower (more is better).
• I owned a Valkyrie for about 5 years & loved it.
  What a wonderful bike – and it always turned heads.
  Although the Rune is a helluva bike, I’m more than a little disappointed to see the Valkyrie discontinued without ever seeing the benefit of the 1800 motor.
  
  
  I also really like the Triumph Rocket III.
  With no more Valkyrie offerings, the Triumph becomes very attractive.
  My vote is that manufacturers continue to offer comfortable, cruiser styled bikes with powerful, multi-cylinder engines (more than 2).
• I don’t think a cruise HAS to be a V-twin. I think a cruise has to have style that makes a impact. Love it or hate it, the Triumph Rocket III makes an impact, as does the Honda Rune. The BMW R1200C, while a fine motorcycle and attractive in some ways, didn’t bring any impact. The Victory Hammer makes an impact and it’s V-twin is an afterthought. Next to make an impact as a cruiser? How about Honda with a retro 60’s/70’s not too radical chopper powered by a CB-styled transverse 4 of about 1400cc? Surely someone could make a great 1000cc cruiser single- the new BSA Goldstar?
• hello to america! i’m driving a suzuki ls 650 savage. i guess this shows that to my mind cruisers don’t have to be V-Twins. although you could say that the savage is rather a chopper than a cruiser.
  i would appriciate the manufacturers to create new concepts for cruisers. so i like triumphs idea to use a triple. but this one is really ugly. it looks like it has been taken from a modern car. it should look like being aircooled. e.g. like a retro-indian-four.
  best wishes from germany your daily reader
• No, it does not. Will it be in the mainstream of the cruiser market?
  Probably not. It would most likely create another niche market. Bikes such as the Valkyrie, Magna, Maxim X, Eliminator and the long running V-Max all were accepted. The issue was, other than the V-Max, there was not enough followers of the bikes to warrant their continuation. The issue is now that niche bikes are starting to be very well recieved by the US consumers. If they pick the right mixture of engine and chassis performance, a manufacturer could have another V-Max on there hands which, at 20 years of production, is incredible given they only did a couple minor updates to the machine thru the years.
• V-Twins are boring…
  Best cruiser of all times is the Honda Valkyrie (1520cc, flat 6 engine)…
  Rocket? Well, we’ll see….
• Whether a cruiser has to be a V-Twin depends on the market segment.
  
  There’s a segment that is only going to buy a Harley-Davidson, for example. Here, another manufacturer need not even consider engine configuration, as that is not the actual issue.
  
  Among those buyers willing or preferring to buy other than Harley-Davidson, I don’t think it’s at all the case that a bike must be a V-Twin. If the styling and performance is appealing, the engine configuration can be different. However if a bike is fairly generic anyway, then better sales can be expected if it fits into the cookie-cutter mold, which is V-Twin. This is particularly true with the market segment which wants a near clone, except better quality and performance, of a Harley-Davidson.
  
  But could Yamaha, for example, not succeed with an all new V-Four V-Max?
  I believe they could. Could Kawasaki succeed with a 1600cc inline Four Eliminator that had its own bold style? I have little doubt. Could Honda succeed with an attractive Flat-Six priced competitively with other bikes instead of in the Rune’s territory? Of course.
  
  And can Triumph succeed with the Triple? To a substantial extent, I expect, even though the engine is quite ugly, which has little to do with its configuration but simply what they did with it.
• think if you are hung up on the hard a– image
  such as Harley promotes you need a v-twin.
  If you can focus on other attributes of the motorcycles art form ,other motor configurations are acceptable.
• If a manufacturer feels compelled for perceived sales advantages to ride on Harley’s coattails, then its cruisers must be V-Twins. However, with ever-increasing variety in the types and categories of motorcycles available, it bears to reason that there are more niches available to fill.
  
  I always thought that the cruiser/chopper experiments in the early 1970s using inline air-cooled Japanese fours looked great. Seeing those four chrome exhaust pipes curving out from the front of the engine gave them a powerful look. And with the right exhaust system, inline fours can put out some beautiful music.
  
  Do cruisers have to be V-Twins? I see no reason why manufacturers should limit themselves to that narrow configuration. With all the motorcycle shows available each year, it wouldn’t be hard to test new concepts. Even if they didn’t go into production, there’s no harm in taking a peek and seeing what they would look like.
• The answer is, Yes.

  Triumph Rocket III sales won’t last year in and year out. Harleys will just keep selling and selling and selling, despite a rotton economy, despite egregiously high prices, despite pitiful performance of stock machines, despite anything… until the Vietnam Veterans get too old to ride. Then Harley sales will go from 60 – 0 overnight and that will be the end of that.
  
  Let’s see. The Vietnam Vets currently range in age from about 50 to about 65. I estimate that when they hit about their late 50s, say 58 or so, they will begin to slow down buying Harley Davidsons. At that point, the Harley era will seriously end. That means V-Twin dinasaurs will rule the Earth for maybe eight to ten more years, then die out suddenly when the demographic asteroid strikes and wipes them out. I imagine a lot of Harley dealerships will close and a lot of related jobs will disappear, too.

• The only “Cruiser” I would buy would be something like the Suzuki “G-Strider” concept.
  That had a flat twin, but I reckon it would be better with a boxer 4.
  Perfect vibes, grunt and top-end rush.
  Please Suzuki!
• WITH 2300 c.c. DISPLACEMENT AND BULLDOZER LIKE TORQUE, ANY CYLINDER LAYOUT WILL WORK. BOY CAN THAT THING PULL.
• Absolutely not!
  Harleys are miserable bikes performance-wise – why should Asian & European cruiser manufacturers mimic the weak narrow-angle pushrod air-cooled V-twin(kie)s that I’m embarrased to call American machines?!
  Gimme a growling V-4, a screamin’ I-4, a triple – anything but another slow, boring cookie-cutter Harley wannabe…
• I see no reason why cruisers need to be V-twins. A V-4 can look a lot like a V-twin but can be smoother and more powerful. As displacements have hit the two liter mark, I think a V-4 could be very attractive. The V-twin is OK for short rides, but for long rides, a four or six cylindar motor is better.
• What about the Magna 3 rd gen V-4? or the new Royal Star Tour Deluxe 1300 V-4 from Yamaha?…. aboslutely bullet proof / big horspower sport cruiser / big touring boulevard cruiser styles… the lastet V-Rod twin from Harley is categorizing after the Honda Magna “sport” cruiser enthusiast with higher more tuned riding suspension…
  
  Cruisers must be V-Twin?… ha!… jst wait for it V-5 !! 180 horsepower out of the box “convertible boulevard / sport cruiser”… not everyone wants to be dressed like a ‘b’ movie bad boy /girl hoodlum… ruining their kidneys … dieing from helmet ( less ) vanity unnecessarily…… kevlar is just as cool as leather…. people want “cache’ “/ attitude… it’s more than just V-Twin mentallity…
• Enough with this v-twin nonsense already. The only reason they invented a v-twin is because it fit into a bicycle frame! So let’s get over it and build something useful and practical. We don’t need any more 700 lb bikes with 60 horsepower that can’t turn, stop, or do much of anything else besides make noise. Hey, you asked for my opinion.
• Ever heard of the Valkyrie, the most incredible, and rideable cruiser of the decade?
• When I think of a “Cruiser” I think of the visual, and riding style first, then the engine type, if at all.
• just means, that unless ya wanna build a bike at least 2300cc, ya better stay with a V-2win
• Not being a cruiser type I probably shouldn’t comment but I think the Triumph shows that people in the motorcycle industry and press (and to be honest, people like me) should not be so quick to say any group is a bunch of sheep. Even the most hidebound motorcyclists (cruiser and sport bike
  riders) can be open to a new idea. The triple is not successful because it has three cylinders or is made be Triumph, it is successful because a fairly large number of people are willing to pay the price Triumph is asking for the bike. The only question left is how long the bike will the bike continue to sell well.
  No matter what the marketing types try to convince people, they do not have god-like insight into consumer’s minds. I’m sure Ducati’s marketing types said the Monster would be a dismal failure, I’m basing that in the fact they couldn’t even get the budget to build a new rear sub-frame but had to do some creative design work to use the Supersport part. I understand the Monster line is about the only bright spot in the Ducati sales report this year, more than a decade after it was introduced. These are also the people who said the FJR1300 would never sell in the US, naked bikes would never sell in the US, nobody in the US wants a mid-sized V-twin (Suzuki 650), no Japanese adventurer tourer would sell in the US and many other stupid things.
  I don’t have any use for the Trident but it seems lots of other people do, more power to them and to Triumph for having the guts to make the bike. A Moto Guzzi rider
• There are many water cooled v twins at present, but what one has to ask is what’s the benefit of a v twin and water cooling. Water cooling allows the manufacturer to pick any engine configuration they want. The main purpose of a v twin is to separate the cylinders for better cooling which is not necessary if you are using water cooling. An inline engine has unique characteristics which lends itself to such things as larger displacement. The more options a rider has the better but I will always be a v twin air cooled rider for personal reasons. Air cooled motorcycles should be cheaper to purchase because less machining is required to produce the motorcycle. I just enjoy the deeper involvement of a rider to the machine when using air cooling. If it’s air cooled it’s got to be a v twin or parallel twin otherwise the inside cylinder is going to cook.
• Something tells me that Honda sold way more Valkyries than Triumph will ever sell Rocket 3s. The mold has already been broken. Yamaha has produced a bunch of V-4 cruisers over the years, and I just don’t think that they are not through yet. BMW even sold a quite a few of their really weird flat twin cruisers before they realized that they had drifted (pun intended) far afield from their expertise in producing sport touring bikes. Without doubt the majority of cruisers will be V twins in the coming years, but there is definitely room for those who don’t have their noses planted firmly up Harley’s posterior.
• A cruiser is mostly about style and attitude. A deep authoritative masculine engine sound is an essential part of the cruiser experience. I think buyers would accept a different engine configuration IF it evoked the right emotional feel. However I think people would need to experience a different engine configuration before they would consider switching from the familiar, well accepted V-twin. Yamaha’s royal star with a V-four sells well and sounds great. I do not think the V-twin is essential to market success but the right emotional response to the motor’s sound is. I am very curious about the sound of Triumph’s triple. I would NOT buy one without hearing how they sound. And I would not buy one if it didn’t sound “good”.
• I think that Triumph does have the right to try something different. But that doesn’t mean nobody else does. The Honda Valkyrie was a successful cruiser with a flat 6 engine. Yamaha has a couple V-4 models now as did Honda in the 80’s. The BMW cruisers, while not as successful as hoped were well received with a boxer twin. There were many power cruisers in the 80’s based on in-line 4s. If a modern liter motor were put in some kind of cruiser or chopper some would buy it. Maybe the manufacturers just find it easier to copy than compete. I, for one, would love a big twin, say 1500cc, that looked like a Bonneville on growth hormones!
• A cruiser has to have horsepower – this is the rule.
  If a cruiser is capable of beating any standard 600cc japanese bike at the traffic lights, it will sell.

  Even if it is twice the price. Even if it has no V-Twin. Even if the sound is poor. Even the styling is neither modern nor elegant.
  Even if there are no test rides possible before buying. Even if it is from a company the customer does not know yet.
  
  The company that provides a 140+ HP Cruiser first, simply wins in any case. That’s just it – the winner was Triumph.
  And since years i wonder, why so many manufactorers just don’t get this very simple point. It’s almost unbelievable!
  
  But in fact, it is even worse. They did not even have to get the point: the V-Max is selling since 20 years, it was always there!
  And for some obnoxious and queer reasons, its success has not been appreciated.
  It has not been replaced with a better model, the flaws in the frame design were not removed,
  there was no real attempt to outperform it by any competitor, and the voice of the customer was ignored for all this time.
  
  And now, after 20 years of the V-Max – aging and selling and becoming a legend, it has to be a small company
  like Triumph to provide the only better heritage model, and the only competitor at the same time! Good morning, Japan.

• Dirck, the “cruiser” phenomena started as the Japanese manufacturers tried to cash in on Harley-Davidson’s popularity. Now “cruisers” are built by everyone, even BMW, which went their own way with engine design. Triumph is doing the same and being successful at pushing the “cruiser” definition away from the Harley V-Twin mold. I think most Harley riders think of their bikes as Harleys, not “cruisers.” Cruisers can be anything, look at the Valkerie (sp?), the Royal Star and the Rune. One thing stands out now, a “cruiser”
  isn’t a Harley, and vice-versa. There are Harleys and there is everyone else. Like Porsche used to say, “There is no substitute.”
• Hell no. A V-4 is where it is at!
• Better not ask me, I ride the best cruiser made, Honda Valkyrie. Flat six power rocks.
• Yes, to sell meaningful numbers of cruisers in the U.S. it takes a v-twin. Evidence? Harley sales are up (again), BMW has quit the cruiser scene, the Honda Valkyrie is gone. Guzzi cruisers are a boutique brand for urbanites that sell in miniscule numbers. Brit bikes with vertical twins are an interesting standard, not cruiser, niche. The Rocket? A curiosity that will doubtless go the way of the Valkyrie. That is, a few years of interest and then everybody who wants one (and that won’t be many) will have one.
• Does it have two wheels? Yes. Does it have an engine? Yes. Does it go? Yes….. lets ride! Why bother with the type of mil the motorcycle carries, if it goes, ride it! We are so caught up in the “It has to be this, it has to be that concept.” I say, “Break out of your four walls people and enjoy life for a change, really whats the big deal!”
• The cruiser market is so big & with so much v-twin copying one would think that more manufacturers would try & step out of the v-twin mold more often just on the outside chance that a different engine configuration would catch on. Keeping in mind that this hasn’t panned out for Honda(Valkyrie) but has in the Magna & other V-4’s(Yam Venture). I tell you the only cruisers that catch my eye, & I’m not a cruiser fan at all, are the 3,4 & 6 cylinder cruiser models. Performance cruisers deserve more than 2 cylinders as well.
• Simple, the rocket its so noticeable for its power and features (2+liters in displacement), that its a big dog simple, that the v-twin rules does not apply.
• I think that a manufacture has to stick with their history. Triumph can get away with it. Most Asian makers have no history so they just pick up with what is the norm at the time. Now I would like to see Yamaha put their balls in the breeze and make a new V4 VMax. It is their history the bike is not a copycat. I think the public would accept it the same as Triumph making a triple. The VMax deserves a killer update. No compromises, just a bad ass POWER cruiser. They could even try to drag race it (I am unsure if there is a class). They may even want to make the new one handle. If I were in the right tax bracket it would be my second bike.
• Me thinks you forgot about the Valkyrie,,, not a V not a twin,, but twice what the rocket 3 is,,, F-6 rulez
  
  o yea and another thing
  
  Between 1997 and 2003 Honda had what was declared the “Cruiser of the Decade” in a Flat 6 Valkyrie. The problem that I believe that it is no longer in production is that the man responsible for it was killed in a motorcycle accident and no one at Honda wanted to take the ball.
• First, I don’t like cruisers. Maybe if I was going to have a baby and didn’t make the hospital.
  Triumph has a winner. Would be okay for me if the riding position was modified to lean forward. The way it is now (turd pounder) I would never buy a harley..
  Why is it most harley riders look like they are homeless.
• Enough with the v twins. We need more multi cylinder engines bikes like the Valkyrie.
• I like the torque of big bore V-twins, but I believe there are other ways to achieve good torque values without a V-twin. I am something of a rebel as I like quiter bikes and I value handling, braking and comfortable ergonomics right up there with torque. For instance, the Kawasaki police 1000 could be a great cruiser if it were done up right. I think some of the BMW bikes woudl make good cruisers as well.
  
  For me, riding comfort, refinement, handling, braking, adequate horsepower and torque all exceed an overly low slung seat and adherence to the Harleyesque form.
  
  
  The current crop of Yamaha V-4 cruisers are way too heavy and bulky for my tastes, for example. On the other hand, I want my machine to be substantial enough so that it is stable yet comfortable for longer trips as well as the shorter ones. The V-4 configuration has great promise as does the inline 4. But most of American riders, I believe, are very strict conformists (at least in my chapter of Southern Cruisers and in nearby chapters of other motorcycle clubs/groups), giving only lip service to the “rebel mysitque”.
  
  I very much like Dave Hough’s common sense, non-conforming, approach to motorcycles.
• Re who can build a cruiser: Triumph can build a triple, Yamaha can build a V-4, Honda can build a flat-6, BMW can build a flat-twin, Guzzi can build a wrong-way V-twin…Maybe you meant “Harley clones can only be V-twins”?
• I believe for the most part a cruiser with something other than a v-twin is not something many manufacturers will be able to get away with right now. The Rocket III is quite a novelty, but it has power to back it up. I think that’s the real key. If you’re going to do something different, it has to be better than what’s already being used. Not just different for the sake of being different.
  
  At the moment I’m riding a friends TT600 now and then to get my fix of riding until I’m able to replace my stolen CBR600RR in a few more months. I’ve gone with her up to the local Triumph dealer on more than one occasion and have gotten to hear about these motorcycles first hand from people who own and love them.
  There’s one guy who loves to take his out and blow the doors off Porsches, being a Porsche owner himself. There are many others who own this motorcycle for the awesome power (not to mention the looks).
  
  I’m a sport rider at heart, but there’s something about the Rocket III that I definitely like. Perhaps it’s the power. Perhaps it’s the oddity of the 3-cylinder engine. Perhaps it’s the fact that the 2.3 litre engine has more displacement per cylinder than my 5.0 litre V8 Mustang GT’s engine, not to mention more total displacement than many cars on the road these days. Whatever it is, I know I would enjoy that motorcycle.
• I remember that Kawasaki had a great deal of success with the LTD series of “cruisers” way back when. However, Kawasaki did not understand why it was successful and managed to screw it up. They thought the bike was popular because it was built in limited numbers (that is where the “LTD” name came from). The reason it was popular was that it looked good, had performance, reliability, fat tires and a low seat height. If they had developed the bike in the right direction, maybe all cruisers wouldn’t be v-twins, now.
• The cruiser category, as defined & accepted by mainstream riders, was created in the eighties. During that decade, there were a wide variety of engines, including perhaps the most venerable Japanese cruiser, the V-Max.
  With that one exception, there has been nothing from cruiser-land to tempt me ever, either rationally or emotionally. I believe the performance end of the category is ripe for morphing with standards/nakeds. A renewed V-Max, the MT-01, or a Suzuki B-King would be fine examples. One of the things I would respect most about these is their design integrity and style. They are their own designs, and not simply trying to be some credible variation of a Harley.
• I think Honda better bring back that the Valkyrie, the Cruiser of the Decade, before some other manufactuor steals all their customers.
• I think that the largest market for cruisers will remain big twins.
  I also believe though that there is another market for cruiser styling but with alternate powerplants.
  Witness Honda’s 750 Magna, sold from 1994 to about 2000. Honda sold quite a few of those and rightfully so, that V4 was a great motor, the bike handled pretty well and the styling was unique and, to my eye at least, quite pleasing. I had one for about a year and sold it while attending school.
  I always thought that if Honda had followed through on a large displacement version of that bike, perhaps a 1200 cc version with a shaft drive, that it might have had a pretty good run.
  I think given some of the changes that seem to be brewing in the cruiser market it appears that some new blood is about due. Motorcyclists usually want something that stands out, new and unique. Triumph gave them that with the Rocket Three.
  Will these ‘alternate cruisers’ take over the market?
  Doubtful, I think they could find niches here and there though.
  I know the local Triumph dealer fairly well. He says that some of the people buying the Rocket III are people who own Harley tour models, large people who crave more power than can easily be gotten from an HD for two up touring. According to him the biggest gripe from a lot of his customers is the lack of touring oriented accessories for the bike.
  Interesting and food for thought.
• I will resist buying a v twin for as long as my Magna (v-4) and Valkyrie (flat 6) continue to have heartbeats. None of the v-twins on the market in comparable sizes give the performance, reliability, smoothness, and flat-out fun of the above bikes.
  
  I am probably going to be riding the Magna and Valk until Honda or someone else decides that performance and cruiser can be printed in the same sentence. That the Motorcycle press has failed to point out the loss of true performance in cruisers is beyond me.
• You suggested that V-twin engines are the way to go for cruisers. I mostly agree, but keep in mind a few other notable exceptions, the Honda Rune and the BMW R1200C. The Honda Valkerie also comes to mind, which is even a great handling go-fast bike, amazingly.
• People don’t believe that anything other than a
  V2 has torque. Sure, it’s not true…but not too many years ago it was true… It’s hard to change the publics minds about stuff.
  Also, the sound of a V2 gets quite a few buyers….it’s gota have that sound…or close to it anyway.
  I like the V2 sound myself…but that’s all I like about them…oh, and the torque. But my ST1300 makes plenty of torque.
• I think Triumph can get away with it because their triple is 2400cc. In other words, the biggest displacement production bike you can buy. If it was a “normal” (whatever that means) displacement bike I don’t think it would be selling as well.
• so is the v-max a cruiser? Definitely a successful offering in a v-4 configuration. Same for the magna, which sat unchanged in the honda lineup for 10 years.
• Interesting statements concerning cruisers. I personally bought my Magna because it wasn’t a v twin. Granted v-twins are the “in” thing, I wanted something that in no way could be mistaken for a Harley or a Harley clone. Although sales reflect that the majority of buyers want a v-twin, I’m just not sure what the attraction is. I’ve ridden several and the vibration is enough to rattle your teeth. The v 4 of the Magna is smooth throughout the powerband.
  I’m only hoping that Triumph is successful with the rocket. Perhaps this will show other makers that there is a market for something different.
• — A style of motorcycle generally equipped with a low seat and pullback handlebars. This style of bike predominantly stems from the customizing of standard American motorcycles in the ’60s and ’70s. www.ama-cycle.org/roadride/Glossary.asp
  
  I don’t see “twin engine” anywhere in there.
  
  This is my Honda Valkyrie, I have been riding for over 40 years. This is, by far, the best long bike I have ever owned. Smooth, fast, comfortable and different. The last word is my favorite adjective. When I park among a sea of Harleys, people all gravitate to my bike as if hypnotized by its beauty and powerful presence. It was voted “Cruiser of the Decade” for a reason. If cruisers are about custom motorcycles, the Valk is one of the most easily personalized mounts on the planet. My club, the Valkyrie Riders Cruiser’s Club (VRCC) often meets and there are sometimes over a thousand Valks lined up. You would be hard pressed to find two alike. Unlike the Harley folks, we even dare to dress and talk differently 🙂
• Seems to me you forgot the Valkyrie………quite a few of them were sold and anywhere you go they still command respect in the cruiser world…
• I have a Valkyrie Interstate and love it. It goes, handles well, good for touring and looks great. Even Harley guys like it. Only other cruiser that I would consider is the Yamaha Royal Star Tour Deluxe, a V-4. V-Twins are way over-priced. All you are getting is something that goes putt-putt or potatoe-potatoe. I’d buy a scooter before I’d buy a V-Twin.
• I applaud Truimph for the Rocket III bike and BOOOO Honda for giving up on the Valk in its original design. The Valk may not be as fast as the Rocket, but IMHO it was a better motorcycle design. It had more lean angle and was another example of how well Honda Engineering is. Honda seems to be thinking that their bikes need to be not quite as reliable as they used to be and needed to engineer more maintenance into their machines. That fits well in a lot of todays market demographics since many buyers today think a screwdriver is what their girl friends drank in college. As I give 5 minutes of my time ( before I change the channel ) to OCC and other similar bike shows on the tube, it seems to me that as much as they want us to marvel at how different and unique a bike that they are building is, it really looks just like the one they built on the show before. Yeah, it is a different color and it has a couple different angles and somebody casted a fireplug and made a carburator out of it, but they are not that dissimilar than others before. The custom thing is just like going to a HD event where you can find 20 or more bikes that are exactly the same. I would be afraid I wouldn’t know which one was mine. And yet the owners think they are really cool rugged individualists as they march in lock step in there orange and black uniforms. I know I ride more in a week than many ride in a year, yet they are the cool bikers. The other companies should head in another and better direction and leave antiquitity to HD, but they won’t. My nickels worth
• I personally don’t care if it’s a v-twin or even a 2-strokes. If it looks cool and sounds cool, I’ll ride it.
• YEAH, I SUSPECT TRIUMPH HAS A NICHE WITH THEIR TRIPLE AND CAN GET AWAY WITH BUILDING A CRUISER WITH THREE CYLINDERS. PLUS, THE ROCKET III IS ALL NEW, SO – THE NEW MAY WEAR OFF AS WELL AS SALES. THE V-TWIN HAS A LONG TRACK RECORD. THEY ARE BIG, HEAVY AND SLOW; AND THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT………………………NOT ME THOUGH.
• The V’s are alright if you like having a bike to cruise down to the local bike night. If you love to ride (and I mean around 12000 miles a year just riding weekends) then a V is not for you. Test ride the V bikes. Not just around town but go 500 miles on one and then try a Valkyrie. Once you go flat six you never go back. Just my humble opinion.
• I have always liked the Honda Magna and now the latest incarnation of the Yamaha V-4 cruiser. They sound great and seem to have more rev range.
• Its not the engine, its the attitude. Unlike earlier Japanese chopper interpretations, the Triumph looks like a what most people think of as a chopper, regardless of the engine configuration.
• Harley, the Japanese Big 4, Triumph, BMW, and the Italians probably spend enough money on probing the psyches of potential bike owners to balance the California state budget. You might try to interview some of the marketing people connected with these companies. Might make a good story or three.
• The Triumph Rocket III succeeds because it is an inline, rather than a transverse triple. The visual cues take you back to those long-ago inline fours from the likes of Indian just around WWII.
  
  And while we’re on the subject, the flat-six Honda Valkyrie did OK. In that case, the visual message was more like “If you always secretly wanted a Boss Hoss but were too scared, have we got a bike for you …”
• I ride a Honda Valkyrie and I understand why V Twins are so popular, no balls. The Valkyrie will out perform and cruise anything (stock) In it 1520cc class.HDs without a stage three kit need not apply,The flat six engine is the smoothess and most dependable running engine arround.Whether you cruising 55 on a back road, carving a curve up, or running the superslab at 85 or better it has it all. I have 32K on mine and have only owned two and a half years, the only maintance I have done to it is brakes airfilters and tires. You can keep you two lungers and vibrating paint shakers and I’ll keep riding the best.VALKYRIE CRUISER OF THE DECADE VRCC 22OOO+ strong.
• Well, if it’s a Harley cruiser it has to be a V-Twin..and until two years ago, an air cooled one. I don’t think engine configuration has as much to do with it as hot-rod “feel” does. Honda’s Valkyrie did ok, I think the Honda name was a bigger hurdle than the flat 6 motor. I think Triumph’s triple will do fine. Remember Kawasaki’s Eliminator series?
  I don’t think anyone would mind that today..in fact a 160 HP inline four in a cruiser frame may not be a bad idea…
• Gotta be a V-Twin to be a cruiser? You guys must have been smoking weed for the last decade. Anyone there heard of the Honda Valkyrie? Too bad Honda follows your line of thinking, killed the Flat 6 Valkyrie for the “I wish i was a HD” VTX, such a shame.
  
  
  Good luck to Triumph on the Rocket III, it’s a phugly bike, but its no STINKING H.D. V-Twin clone.
• Is a V-Max a cruiser? That’s been fairly successful, and it’s definitely not a v-Twin.
• I’m a Triumph rider myself, although it’s a 2002 Sprint ST and not a Rocket 3. I don’t think that you have to have a V-twin to have a great cruiser bike. Look at all those Yamaha’s, Kawasaki’s and Honda’s that came out in the 80’s and 90’s that were marketed as cruisers.
  
  They might not message up to what coming out of Milwaukee now but they did sell a lot of them. I think that if the bike is comfortable, relatively powerful(at least by cruiser standards), has good eye appeal and has that all important “character”, then I think they’ll sell whatever they make. Who would have thought that cruisers from Japan would be selling so well now. I know that most of the most popular are still V-twins but they aren’t Harleys. In their own way, they are better. Look even MotoGuzzi got picked as one of the most popular cruisers a few years ago!
  
  
  I think, more and more people are buying what they want. Take a good look at the V-twin crowd, they ain’t getting any younger. Although my age should dictate that I buy a cruiser bike, I wouldn’t trade my Spint for any of them. Does that make me crazy or just an individual in a market where clones are being told what to buy in order to be cool. I guess I’ve just been riding bikes for too long. I ride what I want, where I want and how I want to! On my Spint, I can tour, go way too fast, stop, handle or even just cruise around. Yep, I wouldn’t trade my 3 cylinders for anybody’s 2cylinders!!
• Hi there. What about Honda, they built cruisers with different engines.
  At least in the past, let’s hope they carry on. I think manufact. should try not to clone or duplicate
  like they do now. If u have sean one cruiser, well you´ve almost sean em´ all .
• To succeed in the cruiser market, a non-v-twin will have to offer something that a typical v-twin does not. Still, the odds are against it. Harley defined what a cruiser should be and every successful cruiser since has followed that model. The engines and drives have differed, but the basic fat, v-twin, feet forward design has been retained. Probably the most successful exception was the Honda Valk, but it has also been removed from the market.
• The “Cruiser of the Decade” isn’t a v-twin. The one pictured is a ’97 GL1500-C with over 122,000 trouble-free miles on her.
• The Valkyrie was cruiser of the decade and it was not a V Twin
• The majority of cruiser riders are conformists. Moto Guzzi has been producing cruisers that accelerate, corner, and stop in a manner well beyond the capabilities of other cruisers on teh market, and have been met with lackluster sales. Meanwhile the big four produce heavier bikes each year that sell well, as long as they include a traditional V twin layout. Function means nothing to the cruiser market, image is everything. Even HD with their non-traditional looking V-rod has not been a sales success. Triumph will sell a few bikes, Yamaha sells a few V max’s, but they will continue to be the minority simply because the buyers aren’t nearly as individualistic as they like to say they are.
• I own a 2003 Honda Magna, specifically because it is NOT a typical v-twin cruiser. It is a V-4 that is as smooth as silk, and much more powerful than most V-Twins. I would like to see bike makers produce lighter, higher performance cruisers, and if that means engine configurations that are not V-Twin, that’s fine with me. I love the V-4.
• Triumph can get away with a triple cruiser because of 2 reasons: 1) Triples are their signature engine design, and 2) the displacement on the thing is enormous. I’d love to have one just for the novelty of it, let alone the shove you’d get when you get on the gas. It’s unique, which I think accounts for a large part of it’s success, more so than engine design.
• I am the very happy owner of a Valkyrie Interstate (2001). I am not just happy I love this bike/
  As you are aware the Valk has a six cylinder flat6 engine which develops about 100rwhp in the stock configuration. Of course blown Valks have more HP
  From what I understand the Valk was the brain child of a gifted member of Honda, who unfortunately passed away shortly after the Valk debut. He pushed hard for the bike and when he passed its main advocate now gone Honda naturally moves away from the naked goldwing which the masses were clamoring for.
  This bike is bulletproof, doesnt shake you like a v twin at speed on long x country rides and is pure joy for rider and passenger
  When Honda built it, the masses came but Honda went toward the Rune (pretty-but who has $25,000 for a bike ?) and is suffering for it while other manufacturers move on with cheaper bikes that dont handle near as well. I
  IMHO If Honda went back to the basic design, maybe put their 1800 GW engine in a Tourer, Standard or Interstate, with or without the ABS , reverse, cruise and do dads they could sell more than the Ohio plant (YES VALKS WERE MADE IN AMERICA!!!) could sell in no time flat. And we love being able to say OUR BIKE IS MADE HERE
  Ever hear 6 carbs when you accelerate from say 40 to 70 to pass a slow mover WOW and it only takes a couple of seconds to do AND you dont have to drop to 4th if you dont want to..
  With snow on the ground and bike in garage I still feel the goosebumps.
  You can tell the Valkyrie riders cause they are the ones with the big smiles, they dont scowl like vtwiners on those long rides cause they are comfortable and on top of the world.
  Like walking down the street with the beautiful girl, everyone, even my Harley friends stop smile and nod their heads. The Triumph is interesting, but its not a beautiful girl – and time will tell how the engine holds up.
  I also have a vtwin but riding it…is…not like riding the Valk…it is being like everyone else- for me Im happy to be different and love the Valkyrie and what it gives to me.
  And since its a Honda when it has 200,000 miles on it I will still be riding it like when it was new
  just my 2c
• I think Honda proved the maxim in general with the dismal sales of the Valkyrie compared to the VTX models and smaller VpTwin cruisers.
  
  It’s too bad but Americans are fickle and easily led by the “Harley”
  mentality to think only in terms of engine style. BMW no longer makes the cruiser line, probably a victim of slow sales also. After breakfast today several of us motorcyclists visited a local dealer
  (Kawasaki-BMW-Suzuki) and there were four or five BMW cruisers on the floor, some of them 2003 models. All were new and most were being discounted substantially.
• I don’t think Triumph’s success is a fluke; I think they just took another page out of the same book. The current V-twins evoke the style and feel of the classic developmental period in large motorcycles, say 1930-1950. Most were V-twins, Indian, H-D, Brough-Sup, for example. There was another model, not as long lived but highly regarded in its day, of the inline 4 popularized by the Henderson. I find the triumph very reminiscent of the late Henderson even though it’s much bulkier. I think a longitudinal inline cruiser could be a very suitable alternative to the V-twin, sharing the retro glory equally.
• Absolutely wrong. Valkyrie is definitely NOT a v-twin, and was cruiser of the decade. Enough said.
• Did you forget flat twin?
• The 1983 Honda CB1000 Custom style if coupled with a modern potent inline 4 cylinder fuel injected engine is my choice. An upright sitting position without any compromise toward belly crawl sport The V Twin engine rear cylinder has forced the seat to be low and behind it causing the feet to have to come forward. I guess it would be like an FJR1300 with a round headlight and an exposed engine WOW
• It is a shame that some folks think that a whole genre must be a copy of the HD V-twin! Congrats to Triumph and their initial success with the Rocket III. As a proud owner of a 1999 Honda Valkyrie Standard powered by a 1520cc Flat 6 cylinder, my comment on the premise that a cruiser must be a v-twin is “boring!”. If Honda ever comes to their senses and renews production of the “Cruiser of the Decade” I may buy a new bike, but if not, I will not join the V-twin cult and drink the Kool-Aid. Anyway, shame on Honda and more power to Triumph!!
• The look; the horse power/torque; the sound; and the price. If you got the right mix, the engine could be a three, v-four, a straight four, etc., and we will come and we will buy. The sales tell the tale, Triumph got it right. Get the mix wrong and your v-twin will collect dust on the showroom floor.
• Wrong. Have you ever heard of a Honda Valkyrie? Cruiser of the Decade.
  Why would anyone want to ride a 2 cylinder, when the real bike is a flat six.
  Two cylinder, air cooled , belt drive engines are made to mow the yard with.
• Clearly it depends on the target market. If a manufacturer is trying to get some of the massive Harley market share, then naturally a cruiser should be a v-twin. Let’s face it, the Japanese big four have really ramped up efforts in this space in recent years.
  
  However, if a manufacturer is looking to build a cruiser on their own, no. The individualist who looks for a bike based upon its own merits won’t care if it’s a v-twin, v-four, or even opposed twin (I doubt a radial-seven would make the grade though).
  
  BWM has made a decent amount of money on the R1200-C, the bike featured in the James Bond film. As most BMW fans know, that’s probably the poorest handling bike BMW has released (although it will out-perform a Harley in the twisties). Yet it makes money- Why?
  
  Cruisers are about image, style, that “bad to the bone” image propagated by movies such as “The Wild One”, “Terminator 2”, and the aforementioned Bond film. Looking cool and appearing tough is a real thing (at least in the U.S., I can’t speak for other countries), no matter how frivolous it may seem.
  
  This begs the question of “Why is Harley the defacto standard in “looking cool” and “bad to the bone?” There was a time when Harley was the only U.S. manufacturer, and back then they were probably some of the most powerful bikes (I’m talking about the days long before Honda came out the CB-750). But times have changed: The Japanese, Italian, and English bikes greatly outperform the Harleys in almost all areas, even when taking into account Harley’s recent technological advances (fuel injection, 4-piston brakes, etc). Even the Yamaha V-Max (which is still basically 1985 technology) will crush a V-Rod in many ways.
  
  Clearly marketing, brand loyalty, and sheer traditional public opinion play a huge part in keeping Harley (and thus, the V-twin cruiser) at the forefront of the public’s mind.
• While there’s no doubt that V-Twin cruisers have proven to be the best sellers, a couple Honda non-vtwin cruisers have proven successfull enough to warrant many years of production (and if success is measured by performance rather than sales, they have beat most vtwins). To say that a cruiser has to be a vtwin to be successfull, is similar to saying American beer has to be watered down and tasteless to be successul (there are untold number of microbrewers finding success despite sales that are a fraction of the big three).
  
  In particular, the Valkyrie’s flat-6 had a good strong sales run and its riding characteristics melded Gold Wing engine performance with a cruiser image. The bike has a devout following and several people have customized the bike with fancy paintjobs and even superchargers and nitrous – a success in the eyes of many.
  
  Honda’s other little gem is the Magna which has been in production from
  1982 until just recently. The combination of a interceptor-based v-four (in various displacements, from 500cc to 1100cc) in a light motorcycle with a decent suspension justified it’s 22-year (or so) production run.
  Those of us to own them understand that the Magna’s aren’t the status symbols that VTX’s and Harley’s are, but will spank most vtwins in acceleration and handling. There is a lot of evidence that supports the Magna as the original performance cruiser. While not a sales leader, the performance, history and long production run certainly makes the Magna’s a success.
  
  Other manufacturers have had some success with the likes of Yamaha’s Royal Star (v4), Kawasaki Eliminators (i4), Yamaha Maxim’s (i4), Savage
  (thumper) and BMW’s r1200c (horisontally opposed twin). Others didn’t do so well – such as the Suzuki Madura (v4) or Triumph Bonneville America (parallel twin). Let’s not forget the legendary Yamaha VMax – if we can figure out whether it’s a standard or cruiser.
• What cave have you been hiding in since 1997. Thats when Honda introduced the surperb Honda Valkyrie. This bike completely re defined what a cruiser is. Although getting long in the tooth now and discontinued, there is nothing out there that comes close. Most bikes excell in one or two areas, but the Valk excells in all of them. Beg, borrow, or steal a good one and give it a try. You will be amazed. 2K Valkyrie Interstate, 97 Valkyrie custom.
• I think it is cool that Triumph built a 3 cylinder cruiser, but…the Rocket III has got to be the ugliest motorcycle I have ever seen. I saw it at the DC Cycle World show recently and I couldn’t believe how ugly it is! But, it had potential customers climbing all over it. So what do I know?
• I think the Triumph Rocket 3 transcends the ‘cruiser’ label because it is built by Triumph and because it is not a ‘cruiser’. If Honda and Kawasaki built modern versions of the V65 and 900 Eliminator they would sell as well or better than the Rocket 3. The same would be true for an updated VMAX. Also, if Honda or Kawasaki built a very affordable ‘soft-tail’ version of the inline 4 choppers that ruled the streets in the 70’s they might sell very well.
• Between 1997 and 2003 Honda had what was declared the “Cruiser of the Decade” in a Flat 6 Valkyrie. The problem that I believe that it is no longer in production is that the man responsible for it was killed in a motorcycle accident and no one at Honda wanted to take the ball.
  The following is a letter that was printed in another magazine that will explain:
  A letter posted at motorcycle consumer news on line.
  

  “Interesting that maddjack would note that “Honda never really marketed the Valk.” I’ll tell you a story, strictly from my own perspective as a “kind-of” insider:
  
  Of course, Honda did market the Valkyrie, but I agree, never with the kind of enthusiasm they often show for other bikes in their lineup. The Valk was pretty much the brainchild and “baby” of one guy at Honda who really believed in it. His name was Joe Boyd, but around Honda they called him “GL Joe,” because of his love of Gold Wings.
  
  The majority of the marketing experts at Honda never believed the Valkyrie concept would work, but Joe used his considerable influence and personal charisma to push the project through. Of course, the Valk became a success. Never a huge one, but a success nevertheless. And I personally believed that since Joe had proved so many people wrong, that those same people were reluctant to aid in the Valkyrie’s rise. Not that they intentionally stymied it, but I just don’t believe the project ever got the kind of all-out support it deserved, just because Joe had stepped on so many toes in his headlong push to make it a reality.
  
  Around the time the new 1800 GL was becoming a reality, Joe was killed in a tragic accident at the Honda test track. With his death, the prime motivating force behind the Valkyrie project died, also. I personally believe we’d have an all-new, radical, Valkyrie 1800 today, if Joe had lived. Not the Rune, as amazing as it is, but something much more practical and affordable.
  
  AS a side note,I would like to add that Honda paid a quiet, yet memorable tribute to Joe, for several months after his death. I rode with Joe a number of times. We were casual friends, and used to ride across the Mojave Desert together, as we both loved the old backroads out there. Along the way, one of Joe’s favorite things was to stop in at the tiny town of Amboy, at one of the last remaining original Route 66 tourist stops, Roy’s Cafe, and get himself a chocolate milkshake.
  
  If you remember, for about six months, several years ago, in virtually every major motorcycling magazine in the country, Honda carried a full-page ad with a picture of a Valkyrie, sitting under the Roy’s Cafe sign in the Mojave, with a setting sun in the background. It was a quiet, memorable tribute to the man, that was easily understood by those who knew him.
  
  Often, a radical or interesting new bike is developed primarily because one person, with the influence, drive and passion to see it built, puts his weight behind the project. Love it or not, such was he case with the Rune, which had Honda VP Ray Blank as its “Angel.” One could say the same of Pierre Terblanche, and the Ducati 999. And such was the case with Joe Boyd and the Valkyrie. Whether such bikes are a design, marketing or financial success is really irrelevant — I think — What is important is that we have an industry in which such things can happen, because they push the envelope. True innovation rarely comes from a committee decision.
  
  Enough of my maudlin remembrances. Just thought you might find it interesting. Fred Rau”

  Now if Honda had continued to market the Valk I believe that it would run circles around all the V-Twin Harley want-a-be’s. There is an unlimited amount of customizing that can be done to them where they don’t look just like the one down the street. Need proof? Just go to: http://www.valkyrieriders.com/justpics/ and you can see what I mean.

• As a general rule, yeah. There is another exception to this rule though. The Suzuki Boulevard 40 (Savage) is another motorcycle that is ignored by many, but Suzuki seems to sell enough to justify keeping them is the show room. I’m a big single fan, but too short to ride a KLR650, so the Savage suits me just fine.
• For years I have wished the Big 4 would give us at least one 4 cylinder cruiser per manufacturer. I grew up around late 70’s Suzuki standards like the 2 stroke 550 and GT750 “water buffalo” triple and 4 stroke GS 850 and 1000. Remember the ultra rare yet spectacular Yamaha 1100 Midnight Special? To me, those bikes have ten times as much nostalgia and sentimental value that the current crop of Japanese panhead clones will ever have. And at that time, narrow angle V-Twins meant engine leaks, blown lights, lost turn signals and license plates, as well as a few cultural implications. Sure, those issues have been straightened out on both sides of the Pacific now, but it will probably be impossible to convince people like myself that that engine arrangement is in any way superior to an inline design. The Japanese now have about 50 years of customer experience in the American market and as “in” as retro bikes are now, the only offering they give us from their own motorcycle heritage is the venerable Kawi ZRX and a V-MAX that has received so few updates it should probably be considered retro at this point.
  
  If the current crop of Baby Boomer cruiser jockeys are re-living their “Easy Rider” era fantasies (humourously mostly on bikes with a 40’s, not 60’s influence) my back and knees are about ready to step off the pure sportbike and relive a late 70’s early 80’s era vibe. The proper retro Japanese standard/cruiser should have a torquey 750-1000cc engine focused on real world speeds, dual discs up front, metal gas tank with a flat, squarish shape, cast wheels with some competent white-raised letter Dunlops, a flat or gradually stepped-back one piece seat with sane ergos and in total, weigh less than 620 lbs. Fit and finish would have to be top knotch and use of plastichrome, or even too much genuine chrome would be strictly forbidden. All of this should go right around $7000, or a little more if you choose something from the line of period correct accessories.
• Sure if you like riding a H-D clone.
  Sure if you like posing at the bar.
  Sure if you’re so individual you want a bike like everyone else
• If you are just talking about the typical medicore excuse for a cruiser motorcycle, then perhaps you are correct.
  
  
  If you are referring to the motorcycle that was declared by , uh, another magazine to be the power cruiser of the decade, well, look no further than the Honda Valkyrie. Beautiful flat six cylinder that eats the rest for breakfast when it comes to power and comfort.
  
  At least it did, until Honda dropped the ball and favoured the VTX V-twinkie.
  
  
  I guess that ball is in Triumph’s court, afterall.
• I am not convinced that a good cruiser needs to have a v-twin. My 2004 Kawasaki Vulcan 500 is an absolute blast to ride, its Ninja-derived inline twin has terrific performance for its size.
• V-twin cruisers are beginning to bore the hell out of me(except Moto Guzzi). I’m glad to see that Triumph is going their own way with the Rocket 3. It would be interesting to other bikes from Triumph with that 3-cylinder engine.
• The only reason the v twin is a sucess is that most of the custom bikes out there are v twins. Harley Davidson also amounts for lots and lots of bikes sold. For the most part I really think some of the Harleys are nice to look at they still can’t compare to the bike I’ve been riding for the last 3 years. Most Harley guys wouldn’t even try it for fear of saying what they thought secretely all along, that wow ,what a motorcycle. Oh yeah I ride the cruiser of the decade if you didn’t know it yet, a Valkyrie
• good question. but should all sport bikes be inline fours?? i think the more untraditional something is the more it sparks interest for that particular item. i think honda has several models that are not v-twin cruisers and they probably do really well with sales. i also think that making a cruiser with out the traditional v-twin engine, you are also catering to more customers. the people that don’t a v-twin cruiser, and also you might change people that are v-twin fans.
• I just traded my V-twin in for the 2005 Yamaha Royal Star Tour Deluxe.
  Looks like a cruiser to me. Very comfortable, smooth Cruiser/Tourer in my opinion. I think there is a market for a Cruiser that is not a V-Twin.
• Do cruisers have to be V-twins? Of course not, but here’s why V-twins make the optimum cruiser:
  
  The typical cruiser buyer wants three things from his bike: style, a way to socialize, and a means to connect with his inner soul. Stylistically speaking, a V-Twin appeals to the cruiserphile because each cylinder is a distinct visual element which makes the motor a signature feature of the motorcycle. From our childhoods we recognize engines by seeing a finned metal barrel. We associate that image with motion, whether that memory was from a picture of a piece of farm equipment or the tiny engine of a model airplane. This image association is important because most cruiserphiles buy a cruiser to (re)create the feel of a simpler time in thier lives, that feeling from childhood (nothing wrong with that). Three, four, and six cylinder bikes must visually cram the cylinders together due to space constraints on a bike, thereby diluting the visual impact of each cylinder.
  Why not a single then? Afterall, it could be argued that a single has the most elemental visual impact of all. The answer is, that stylistically speaking, a V-twin allows the designer a way to point the viewer’s eye to another important engine design element: the crankshaft. Even though we can’t literally see it, our mind’s eye knows it’s there because those two big jugs are pointing right at it and, by golly, there’s going to be some serious torquing going on down there tonight on the boulevard! I suppose a radial triple, four, or six ala World War II open-cockpit airplanes could make a suitable visual statement on a cruiser, but you go ahead and try.
  So, when it comes to style, V-twins rule.
  
  How on earth does a V-twin help the cruiser buyer socialize better? Well, my friend, after a few beers down at the local watering hole, a V-twin doesn’t have to be explained to the opposite sex. She wants you, the stud biker, and nothing says “stud bike” better than a V-twin. To a few gearheads, they could wax poetically all night long about how an inline- four could achieve higher horsepower via high rpm’s and short stroke, but a horny girl’s hormones don’t give a rat’s behind about such inanities. All she cares about is the pounding and stroking imagery/sensation evoked by that ‘thar’ long-stroke V-twin. Smooth is out. And threes, fours and sixes are smoother than a V-twin. What about a single? Well, if you were a young girl at the aforementioned watering hole, would you, hypothetically speaking, choose the stud biker with one big penis,, or two big penises?
  And what about the girl cruiserphiles? Surely they need not buy a V-twin penis-extender because they don’t have penises, right? Wrong. If you’re a typical female cruiser buyer, you have a little bit of insecurity about entering this male-dominated realm of cruiser-lifestyle motorcycling. The last thing you want to do is buy ‘the wrong’ motorcycle. A V-twin it is, I guess. If you,re the rare gal who happens to laugh at face of insecurity, then I’ll probably see you in the canyons and the track on your inline-four sportbike. (Let the flames begin…)
  
  Alrighty then. All those wishing to channel to your inner soul please form a neat line to the left, over there by the V-twins. What is it about V-twins that invoke this connection? Surveys have proven that humans, when asked to point to where their soul is located, would point in the direction of their hearts about 99 times out of 100. I’m not sure I know why, but I do know that out of all the engine configurations I’ve ridden, the slow-revving V-twin seems to mimic the beat of the human heartbeat more than the others, partly due to speed and partly due to rythm. Hear “potato…potato”, feel “lub,dub…lub,dub”. Path to inner soul complete.
  Gateway to inner child accomplished. One more satisfied cruiserphile.
  
  Motorcycle Daily continues to satisfy…daily,
• That may be true of the market right now but I certainly do hope it opens to other engine types at some point. But it’s the “me too” syndrome that exists today. Why would so many people want to all look alike?
  
  
  Unlike most cars the engine is also a focal point on many bikes. V-twins look great in traditional sense but must we all be traditional, or make ourselves look as if we’ve belonged to some group by merely buying into it? I think it says something about the human condition – today.
  
  
  I look forward to more engine types as people pull their heads out of the sand and realize that other engine types offer qualities too that aren’t usually offered in the V-twin layout. Triumph has a very unique product and I believe that is driving its sales. If it sticks we may see more.
• For max sales, I do not think people will go for something which does not have the “H-D” look. From a personal standpoint, I will not consider buying a cruiser until something comes out which has the foot pegs in a proper location – ie I hate the foot pegs so far forward that they are essentially where my hands are.
• After owning lots of motors over the years, my last bike was a Yamaha Road Warrior. It had “decent cruiser power” combined with an extremely uncomfortable riding setup. V-twin cruiser bikes are more a life statement than riding discipline.
  I’ll take a heavy standard bike (liter class or better) with mid foot pegs or even rear sets over any laid back cruiser. Where is the Honda CB 1300 or Suzuki GSX 1400?
• I think that the perception of “cruisers” has been skewed by the Harley-Davidson marketing Juggernaught. If you look back there is plenty of precedent for non-V-twin cruisers. Triumph has parrellels, There was a Ducati V-4 Apollo back in the 60s, thirty years before the Royal Stars and Magnas. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had a tire that could withstand it? Indian had its inline four, BMW its boxer twin, and then you have wierdness like the Boss Hoss (debatable as a motorcycle, except as a maybe in the abstract) and there are many cruisers out there that are singles. I think the loyal Valkyrie riders would have a different perception of what a “cruiser” is too. If you look at all these different configurations through the lense of what a “cruiser” is supposed to do( generally speaking, look great, ride fairly low, have plenty of torque, a pleasing sound, and have relaxed riding posistions) almost all of these alternitives are sup! erior dynamically to the archaic Harley. What they do not have is a hundred years of movie, magazine, music, and culture perpetuating the image. So maybe you should have two kinds of cruisers “Traditional” and “Modern”…For some a cruiser will always be air-cooled pusrods with acres of crome and ear drum pounding sound. Apparently that is a lot of people if you look at “Traditional” cruiser sales. People are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for custom built “motorcycles” with no gorund clearance and wheelbases like my pick-up truck, and it is the most lucretive market for the other big manufacturers, in America at least. If you read the European magazines they continue to shake their head at these things. The thing is, Americans just love them. You don’t get waved at and have girls beg a ride on a Honda. Once in a while you get a wave on a Triumph, but that is always a guy with a beard and a bullet-style helmet. So maybe you can move the Traditional cruiser into the “statement” category and let the rest move on. I am looking for a used Valkyrie.
• Not exactly. Some of us really like the V-Twin sound (sounds more like a muscle car). We like something that looks good (Harleys do have a very “clean” look without hoses etc), sounds good, is relaxed on the highway, but can really bark when you want it to, and something that has gobs of easy-to-find torque. The sound should be deep-toned, thumpy, mellow (not ping-ping-ping), it shouldn’t sound wheezy. Big pistons/displacement are a good place to start, regardless of the configuration. I personally like twins of all sorts (I’ve owned metric twins, including a Ducati) and I’ve owned a Triple (Triumph Sprint RS 955cc). I liked the way they all sound. But sound is a consideration for all cruiser owners. For example, I currently ride a Honda 1100, but I like the way Kawasakis sound better. I still bought the Honda for other reasons, but sound is a big part of the picture. Past V-fours just didn’t have a strong sound, even though many of them would blow the doors off almost all twins. The thing I liked about the Triumph over inline fours is the deeper tone, exotic sound you got from the triple. I think the Rocket III has the potential to have a very exotic, “get outta’ my way” sound with aftermarket pipes and the “loud-handle” turned all the way up.
  
  
  I’m not a NASCAR fan, but I even like the sound of those things ripping outta’ the pits onto the track. The sound, the thrust that MUST be associated with it, and the fact that Triumphs (current products) are very reliable, well made, bikes made by a whole company of people who ride, makes it appealing to me. Let’s face it, Triumph works out all the little details on their bikes. These people ride year round, they are a biking country that looks at it is a sensible form of transportation, not just a recreation, and they are very matter-of-fact about it. They don’t buy a bike simply for the “pose” factor (I’m sure there are exceptions). The thing about the Rocket III that I don’t understand, is that the bike is obviously targeted at an American buyer. It’s HUGE! However, they forgot one VERY important part. The engine may be huge, but it is UGLY. It looks like it came out of a farm tractor. People that are going to buy a bike that big, consider the size to be one of the biggest reasons they buy it (size is important for bragging rights and how it looks). But, when people come to see it, they will see that massive, ugly motor. I would buy one to ride, because it must be a hoot. However, I wouldn’t buy one as a cruiser, because it doesn’t look good. I can’t get past the looks of that motor, even if the rest of the bike is styled well. The point is, even Triumph is going to have a hard time selling it in the long haul because that motor is not attractive. They will sell the “early adopters”, and the magazines might help them sell a few more. But until they package it in a non-cruiser bike, that motor is NOT going to sell in the long haul as a cruiser. But, it won’t have ANYTHING to do with the fact that it’s not a twin, it’s just ugly…There is definitely a customer base for non-twins as cruisers, but it still has to fit all the cruiser requirements. The twin formula is hard to beat, but as more people demand more performance and usability, other platforms may have to be considered.
• Your question made me think back fondly to the early eighties when the “specials” and “customs” were all four cylinder bikes with a nice rush of low end and decent power up high. These were comfortable bikes with great riding positions, and, they didn’t weigh 800 lb’s!!!!
  
  
  People that buy big cruisers today want to be looked at more than they want to be able to throw on some saddle bags and and use their cruisers as a tourer on the weekend. They WILL buy the Harleys and the hardtail customs and the Metrics if they’ve got big, booming twins in them so they can be different but not toooooo different.
  
  My “v-twin cruiser” would be the MT-1 that combines the “bad to the bone” twin and the even badder sport hooligan attitude. Just make sure you give me room for my 45 year old knees to bend a little and we’re fine. My two favorite available cruisers are the Triumph America Speedmaster (what great style in a usable package) and the old-school Honda Shadow 1100. Both of these bikes will actually go around a corner, get 45mph, and look great in my garage. Even better, I can buy one of each for the cost of an Un-customized Harley!
  
  Rants over, thanks for a great motorcycle page!
• A cruiser does not have to be a v-twin.It does need personality though.Like Big power,not just copycat looks.Yamaha has been making money on the VMax for 20 years.
• Personally i prefer the old Bonnie, i think that the Triumph rocket III sells well ’cause it is the biggest engine on the market today.
  you know, that “bigger is better” old rule…
  If it had been a smaller engine, let’s say 1300-1600 cc, it would haven’t been so popular.
• Thanks for making my “home page” something I look foward to every single day.
  In response to your latest readers feedback on…”A cruiser has to be a twin, right??”……I average 30,000 miles per year on my motorcycles and in that time I meet quite a variety of motorcyclists. The cruiser market is by far the largest group on the road. Some of these folks certainly do enjoy the ride, tour and comute on a daily basis. However, my finding is that most cruiser riders are more concerned about the “image” and the whole experience that it brings. Custom cruisers, loud pipes, chrome, choppers, super wide rear tires, ape hanger bars,custom paint jobs, the V-Twin sound, it’s heritage as a true american symbol, the leather and biker crowds are all what brings this group together. Because of this image….the american market for “V-Twin” cruisers will always be strong.
  In the last few years this market has really appealed to younger riders also. Young adults are buying in to this “Bad Boy” image as a source for attention. I say these things not because I am predjudice, but this is what I see out on our streets. In fact, I owned a Harley(1980 FLH), but grew tired of the expected image from all other cruiser riders. I didn’t fit in with my full riding gear, riding safety practices, and the fact that I did not participate in huge side by side group rides to the local bar or hangouts.
  Bottom line….unless you can change the way millions of Americans think, convince them that it is indeed COOL to ride anything, from any brand, with any engine configuration, and change the age old past time “bad boy biker image”..then it’s just not going to happen.
  In conclusion I would like to give thanks to Triumph for going their own route and building a great road going cycle that actualy works. If I had room in my garage, i’d be proud to own one.
• Absolutely not !!!!!!!! I own , what I believe is the ultimate cruiser, and it is not a twin ! I own a 1999 Honda Valkyrie Tourer. The flat 6 is so smooth and powerful ( nearly 100 hp on the dyno). I would buy another in a heartbeat if Honda would re-introduce them ( perhaps as an 1800 ? ). The power and reliability—–I’ve seen Goldwings with the same powerplant have over 500k miles on them————just can not be beaten. So while others try to go ” potato-potato” I just “woosh ” by them !
• I really don’t think the 3 cyl Triumph Rocket is going to sell enough to keep it alive long. To different and expensive. Look at Yamaha’s history of too different and too expensive for it’s time type of bikes. Plus, most people want that V-twin retro look with loud pipes , sad to say.
• I think manufactuers are missing a good bet by not making a mid-sized parallel twin cruiser. I think the Kawasaki Vulcan 500 is a slick looking bike. Something like that in a 650 or 800cc machine, stretched out for full-sized folks, would be a dream machine.
• Cruisers do not need to be V-twins. At shows I have been to in the U.S.
  have featured bikes with Triumph vertical twins and even polished Honda Nighthawk 750 motors. What V-twin cruiser is unique by any major manufacturing company? None. I personally do not care for the Rocket III but I applaud Triumph for sticking to their guns and manufacturing such a bike. A chromed or polished Honda CB1400 motor or something of that nature in a cruiser style bike? That may be worth a look.
• I think the success of the Rocket reveals the market’s desire for something truly different.
  Congrats to Triumph for daring – though that tank sure is butt-ugly!
  
  With this type of bike and riding, what’s mainly important is Looks, number one and Torque, number two.
  Any type of engine configuration that looks and sounds badass and pulls like a freight-train will get you street cred – especially the more rare, exotic and exclusive you can go.
  
  Sure, a V-twin it is what most people think about when they think ‘cruiser’.
  But, that traditional cruiser market is aging rapidly, and in 10-15 years (if they make it) we’ll have a generation of bikers weaned on Gixxers and R-1s – to whom Harley-Davidsons won’t draw images of Easy Rider or Hell’s Angels, but of weekend Rubbies and Retirees.
  
  Besides, by then the cruiser market will probably have tanked anyway, as retirees will flood the market with used bikes that they’re forced to sell, just to make up for the fact that Social Security has run out of money.
  
  Just a thought.
• Valkerie, 6 cylinder, 100 horsepower, 100 ft pounds of torque looks great.
  I love mine…..
• Personaly, I don’t think a cruiser does have to be a V-twin, and I would love to see a little more variety in the market. I think that Triumph does have an easier time pulling off the triple because of there history of using triples, and because they actually made that monster work. As a cruiser owner (I’ve had five different V-twin mounts in the last 7 years), I wouldn’t mind seeing some alternative engine configurations to choose from. A good V-4 or inline 4 could set up pretty nice in a cruiser chassis (imagine a VFR or ZRX 1200’s powerplant in a or a light wieght and agile crusier with good break and suspension components). Yamaha got a 20 year run out of the V-max with little to no major updates (I still think it is a great bike). I wounder if that would have happend if they had some competion? Unfortunatly, I think that as long as V-twin cruisers keep selling like they do, we won’t see too many manufactures breaking the mold.
• i think the succes of the v twin lies in it’s simplicity, unique sound, and symetrical twin cylinder look. starring at my honda 750, i can barely see much of the engine. in motorcycling world, looks are as important as performance.
• Cruisers are about fashion and fashion is a strange thing to apply to the building of motorcycles. In general cruisers are over-weight and ill-handling machines. I will never understand people who chose fashion over safety. I ride a V-Strom. Motorcycle media reporters say “it’s ugly”, and I don’t get that. To me a bike should be bought to serve the function that the rider uses it for. Cruisers are like high-heeled shoes. Yea high-heels are shoes but they aren’t much good for walking. Fashion is fleeting—but good engineering will endure. I hope motorcycle companies build the best motorcycles that engineering can create, and leave fashion to women’s cloths and shoes.
• I think what appeals to buyers about the Triumph is its biggest-ever engine and colossal power. It certainly can’t be the looks.
  
  As for the Japanese manufacturers and their legion of V-twin cruisers, I think they took the easy road and sold themselves short. For a while, they were building cruiser-ish bikes with big 4-cylinder engines that, at least in the performance department, kicked ass and took names. Remember the KZ 1100 LTD? The Honda v65 Magna? The Suzuki 1100 L? The Yamaha XS 11 Special? All of them quicker than just about every cruiser on the market today.
• Cruisers are a laid back style with a low seat. V-twin engines provide a design that allow for that style. however other engine layouts are not ruled out, as long as the frame is designed for that low laid back style. Frankly, I think that the Suzuki Burgman 650 could be just as good a cruiser as a v-twin. If Suzuki had decided to make the G-Strider they would have been good cruisers. A little imagination and a laid back attitude is all you really need to have a cruiser….and two wheels.
• Triumph can get away a three cylinder crusier only because it is such a honking big monster. For example, if Hyosung made a 3000cc Wankle engine crusier, it would probably sell too.
  OTOH, it doesn’t matter; cruisers are not for motorcyclists anyway. Crusiers are instead for motorcycle socialites.
• Hmmm….not a raving success but I bet Yamaha has sold more Royal Stars V-4s then Triumph has Rocket III has or will.
  I own a Yamaha RSTD and to me it is a cruiser as much as my Honda ACE Tourer or Yamaha V-Star was.
  We have had this HD V Twin mindset pounded into our brain about the being original, being a legend, being the only thing to ride. A cruiser can be anything you want it to be, engine layout is a small portion of the whole mix.
• I couple of years ago I was working for a now defunct BMW dealer here in Oregon. I went to work the International show in Seattle. I got to talking with our regional sales rep and he told me BMW couldn’t figure out why the new
  R1200 Cruiser wasn’t selling. I told him to come with me and I would teach him way. We went for a walk and we came to a booth. I told him look at these Harley’s , no wait these aren’t Harleys they are Hondas. We came to the next booth and I told him, Look at these cool Harleys no these aren’t Harleys they are Suzuki’s. Huh We went to the next booth and I told him look at these cool Harleys no wait these aren’t Harleys they are Yamahas. Next booth we came to was Harleys and yes they were very cool. Next booth we came to we saw these bikes and I ask him what the heck are these odd motorcycles, they must be BMW’s they don’t look like anything else. Lesson taught. But BMW still hasn’t learned. Moral is the American public likes Harleys. If they can’t afford one they buy a look alike. End of story. Good luck to Triumph. I would like to have one just to say I have a bike with a motor in it bigger than my Toyota truck.
• The Magna and V-Max lines have been around for years. And what about the Valkyrie ? It seems you left somne pretty good bikes out of the equation.
  The novelty of the Rocket 3 is it’s massive displacement. I bet it would not sell very well if it displaced less than 2 litres.
  I think displacement has become more important than configuration in the cruiser engine world.
  By the way, I love my Valkyrie.
• Heritage seems to play a very import role in the successful marketing of cruisers. Remember that the cruiser industry, as we know it today, basically got started because other motorcycle companies wanted a piece of Harley-Davidson’s action. H-D’s marketing relies heavily on its own heritage. What single item more definitively represents Harley-Davidson’s heritage than the narrow angle V-Twin motor. So, by using v-twins the majority of cruiser manufacturers have (for the lack of a better term) “adopted” Harley-Davidson’s heritage.
  
  By selecting a Triple to power their Rocket III, Triumph has courageously chosen to draw on their own heritage instead of Harley-Davidson’s. Fortunately, they were also smart enough to realize that heritage, alone, might not be enough. Triumph wisely decided to hedge their bet. They insured themselves a great deal of press coverage by making it the “King of Engine Displacement”. More importantly, Triumph understood that no amount of press coverage would help them, if they did not engineer the Rocket III to be a well-rounded and enjoyable machine. I’ve ridden one, and it certainly is. The first time I grabbed a big handful of throttle… I grinned so hard I almost sprained my face!
  
  I think that introducing a new cruiser that was not powered by a v-twin engine was an opportunity uniquely tailored for Triumph. Actually, deep down, I would really like to believe the motorcycle buying public would welcome any bike that is as well executed as the Rocket III, no matter who makes it or what kind of engine it has. However, the reality is, some manufacturers probably would have a hard time selling cruisers powered by anything but a “tried-and-true” v-twin.
  
  That said… I do see a couple of potentially lucrative (non v-twin – heritage based) marketing opportunities that continue to go unexploited.
  
  
  The most obvious one is a replacement for Yamaha’s legendary but aging V-4 powered V-Max. I believe a sequel could be very successful for Yamaha, if it remains true to the original V-Max formula. A menacing-looking, V-4 powered, bruiser that is purpose-built for all-out straight-line acceleration. Like Triumph, Yamaha could take measures to improve their chances of marketing success. Triumph chose to make theirs the “biggest one” on the market. Surely Yamaha could engineer a V-4 powered machine that could match, if not beat, the fastest accelerating motorcycles currently available (0-30, 0-60 and 0-100). Such bragging rights would almost certainly generate a lot of sales.
  
  Next, I believe Honda could develop a considerable following for a more mainstream Valkyrie replacement. The Rune is undoubtedly awesome, but for the “average Joe”, it’s a little over-the-top and way to expensive. I envision a stripped-naked design reminiscent of the original Gold Wing, the 1975 GL-1000. Can you imagine an ultra-clean, but up-to-date bike with that huge 1800cc flat-6 showcased in plain view? — Especially if Honda made it look more like a “classic” engine. This means no shapeless plastic and aluminum covers. Instead, design some attractive intake runners, valve covers and exhaust headers. Most importantly, try to keep the price reasonable, somewhere in the ballpark of the Rocket III’s 15K-16K.
  
  Well, that’s my two cents worth…

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.