A redesign of the Triumph Rocket 3 has been in the works, and Triumph has now released photos of the new Triumph Factory Custom (TFC) version of the Rocket (see pictures). According to Triumph, the already-incredible 2294cc triple engine has been “transformed” in the new model … perhaps making more than the currently claimed 148 horsepower and 163 foot/pounds of torque.
The new bike looks lighter than the claimed wet weight of the old model (736 pounds) and features a single-sided swingarm, among other changes.
If you want one of the TFC versions shown, they will be limited to 750 units, and likely very pricey. Stay tuned for an announcement from Triumph on May 1.
See more of MD’s great photography:
Does the rear end look like it took some style cues from Ducati’s Diavel? And I mean that in a good way.
It’s just the single sided swingarm that gives it that look.
I don’t recall Triumph ever copying someone’s design.
While I agree with your second statement, I think the overall design treatment on the rear is highly reminiscent of the Diavel. Fender, abbreviated tail, swinger, fat rear tire all call to mind the Diavel. Doesn’t mean it’s a copy, but it’s definitely similar from where I’m sitting.
Looks similar to me as well.
There’s nothin’ new under the sun or under your ass.
Companies have been stylistically ripping off HD for decades. Anything that succeeds (i.e., appeals to buyers) is likely to be copied out the wazoo.
Great looking big bore bike.
170 torques! I need a tire budget to go along with this bike. I can’t wait to
see the production version minus all the expensive bits. I hope its a bit
more reasonable. My pockets aren’t that deep.
That’s about 20 or 30 ft-lb more torque than most people push out on a bicycle. I think the tires are more concerned with power and weight.
Much better than a Boss Hoss
The Hoss was even uglier than this pig. Isn’t that the point? Build big and ugly motorcycles that grab the wrong kind of attention for attention seekers. So the Hoss wins since it will always attract more rednecks in the bar parking lot. Money well spent on the Boss Hoss, yeeaaa!
Nothing exceeds like excess.
I’ve always dreamed of Indian four’s. What were they? A girlie 1300cc. Seventy years ago is a long time ago. I would also like to mention the Henderson 4. Maybe not something to the liter riding public but 35 or 45 hp. Fagedabodit. Why do i want a rocket 3? It’s missing a cylinder. Its not as svelte as the above. But hot damn it presses my buttons.
Any how I recall a wise one that claimed once an engine get’s over 500cc max per cylinder it gets harder to make it perform. Who gives a damn if it’s an inline? What’s next a 3 liter 4? I’d be happy with much less but I probably should have been born before the fifties.
Getting the Rocket 3 off of the side stand was always an issue with me. Never mind picking it up off the ground. Just put that engine in a trike for me.
An R3 test ride will make your face hurt from grinning. It’s my favorite demo bike. It’s very deceptive, smooth roll on in three gears and you are at 80
SR
Bandit 1250
Gad Zooks ! I just thought of a very good use for this 3 holer. Picture this . A summer NIGHT with a hunnert plus mile route around the San Bernardino mountains, hi desert country, fast like a bunny, high beams all the way, non stop . Smooth strong solid . A runner. OK, I NEED ONE.
Like a 2 wheeled freight train
Some people still think that bigger is better. That was true back in the ‘70s when I started riding, but times have changed. Many bikes with less than half the engine size would leave this way behind. Having said that, it is a nice bike and I wouldn’t criticize anybody who buys one. Just don’t come to me bragging that yours is bigger than mine because mine is much faster, and because it is much lighter it is also much quicker, everywhere.
+1 You said it better than I was gonna.
I’m not into the “power is everything” type of bikes, but after doing a demo ride during Daytona bike week several years ago on one of these I was certainly impressed with the torque level. Wow!
Most people dont want something that is fast OR quick. That said, 148hp means this will accelerate twice as quickly as any Harley.
Agreed. My favorite bike now weighs < 300#. I also have an 800# tourer, but when I want to have fun I jump on the lightweight and blast around town. No more 1000# behemoths for me.
More power than a vintage John Deere. Maybe they should paint it green, with yellow rims.
This is a poser bike, pure and simple.
It’s designed to ride down to your hangout for the dick measuring contest. And you’ll most likely win.
In this case the rider can be like Milton Berle and just pull out enough to win…
This motor and chassis needs to be in a nice touring rig with a 7 gallon tank, electronic cruise control, ABS, TBW, heated grips and seat (with a pillion section), windshield, bags and quick detach trunk. Think Road King with plenty of testicular fortitude.
Give it 30,000+ mile valve check intervals, minimum 45 mpg (US gallons) and affordable rubber that lasts at least 10,000 miles and I’m in for the win.
I imagine it’s red line is not too high. Why not go with hydraulicly adjustable valves like the Honda 750 Nighthawk?
Indeed this stonking motor would make highway cruising a breeze. With proper gearing it’ll be blasting down the highway at not much RPM above idle.
I agree that hydraulic lifters would be preferable but just trying to get a manufacturer (outside of Harley) to do just that seems impossible. Look at BMW’s sacred cash cow of OUTRAGEOUS maintenance costs and you’ll know why.
This motor in a touring rig does NOT need to rev to the moon. It needs to be able to ride there and back without having to have a brazillion valve check/adjustments (or new tires, LOL!) along the way. 😉
Well said, sir.
In that case I’ll take two.
Then it should be easy to convince the wife to purchase :-).
Not sure if promotion or complain…
Like someone suggested, they should use that engine in a tourer.
Not a bad looking steed. Still don’t like those behind the tire lic plate holders even if they are necessary. Just stupid looking, and it looks like that one has tiny turn signals on it. Tank shape is nice.
Hmm where have I read that before?
The only reason these lame license plate things are necessary is because of the lame abbreviated seat/tail section they have. If you put a regular full seat and a real – keep the water off your back – rear fender, they can put the license plate where it belongs.
The TFC version of the Thruxton is priced at $21.5K US/$23.5K CAN, with 220 total units coming to North America (200 US/20 CAN). Really not too bad for the quality of machine these TFC bikes appear to be. I would suspect the price of admission for this TFC RIII will be north of that.
How long ago did Honda make the Valkarie?
Not long enough.
First introduced in 1996-2003
reintroduced in 2014
Seems a waste of a great motor and chassis with shaft drive for 2 up tourer to rival all others. Well I can dream suppose.
I have had numerous cars with smaller engines than this bike, but does look good except the turd hanging over the rear tire.
All, please keep in mind that this is a TFC (Triumph Factory Custom) version of the Rocket 3. Thus, I’m pretty certain the standard version will have pillion accomodations.
Much cleaner, well proportioned design than the Diavel and new Valkyrie. It would be nice if they had figured out a way to support a passenger. Seems like there’s plenty of room for a longer seat.
Looks like a modern version of a 90’s Kawasaki 900 Eliminator.
Looks rather dainty. Maybe I’ll see if my wife or daughter is interested.
This new triple looks fantastic. It really makes the outgoing model look pretty horrid.
When Kawasaki’s KZ1300 liquid cooled shaft drive I-6 arrived, most thought it would stand as the all time heaviest naked (about 700# full tank). I doubt anyone foresaw bikes like this Rocket 3, w/half the cylinders and 80% larger engine displacement.
We thought Honda’s original GL1000 Gold Wing was heavy for a naked, but it was less than 650# w/a full tank!
Harley meets Diavel meets Triumph – these guys are drinking too much craft beer.
I think you meant Dull-vile 😎
I guess I need a sidecar to ride my better half. 750lb one seater, and the new Grom has seat plenty big enough for 2. Strange world indeed.
Love it. Triumph can do no wrong these days!
I would rather have a Diavel.
Yamaha, please update the VMax. I would read every word of a Rocket III/VMax/Diavel shootout.
That’s a big ole bike. Triumph is on a role.
Its big, heavy and impractical. So why do I want one so badly?
My fingers resist typing this, but I like it.
Makes the Diavel look like a mid size, no small feat!
I’m not a Cruiser guy but if style sells this ought to be a winner. Especially if they capture the triple sound.
Who really ever needed a v eight. Triumph you are the Boss. What a beauty.
Count me amongst those with raised thumbs.
no one cares about a pillion anymore…its sad
MGTOW. Word.
not everyone has swallowed the red pill 😉
Amen!
Wish they would show the intake side of the bike. The old version was sort of unattractive with that weird chrome cover.
Maybe the Chinese could land a rover on the dark side and send some pictures.
This is a beast of a machine that has some nice appeal. I hope they just didn’t give it a tiny fuel tank.
Agreed about that left side. The other boil on the ass was the size and overhang of the radiator, which made the proportions of the bike look twice as big from different angles. Will be interesting to see if this was mitigated.
You have to hope that weedy-looking side-stand is strong enough! I recall sitting on the previous version and having trouble just getting it to vertical, it was so heavy.
They finally replaced that butt-ugly tractor looking exhaust. This is a significant improvement from that standpoint alone.
A whole lot of Ducati Diavel goin’ on here!
… that and a little MV Agusta in the exhaust design too. Hmmm, almost would think these might be made in China, the home of the copy cats. Nah, surely not. 🙂
What a monster. Triumph is seriously on a roll, making distinct and attractive bikes. If this appeals to you take a look at leftover Valkyries, there are amazing deals to be had.
My local Honda dealer has (or had) around a dozen leftover Valks at around $9-10k last time I checked. I was tempted…that’s an awful lot of motorcycle for the money. Unfortunately, they only had the non-ABS models, and I really want my next bike to have ABS.
I test rode one and it was a dream. So smooth. Nice rumble. Like having a vintage Dodge pickup motor under you. RumbleRumbleRumble.
Butt ugly. Only the butt, the rest looks great.
Tank….agreed – put a proper fender/passenger seat on it. They should offer both solo and pillon seat/fender option. IMO
Wowza!!! That is a tough looking bike. Really appeals to my machismo.
Now this is a motorcycle that really needed to loose the rear fender for a lighter look. It works to make this bike look light enough to maneuver about some. Nice.
Single sided swingearm must be a confidence thing extreme. I wouldn’t.
Reg,
Couldn’t agree more. For years I’ve been waiting for the wheels to break off my cars. trucks, tractors etc.. I guess you just have to trust the lug bolts. Scares me too.
It’s not about the lug bolts, after all the original R80GS had just 3, it’s about the swing arm and axel. All metal bends if it is allowed to. Why put an asymmetrical bending load on the upsee downsee parts ?
For darn near 20 years, the Gold Wing has sported a single sided swingarm with nary a problem.
Goldwings, VFRs, multiple Ducatis, BMWs, Speed Triples, most shaft-driven bikes. I don’t think the single-side swingarm is all that risky. Seems to be proven tech for street use.
Just a passing fad for the stylish.
It’s sure nice when the rear wheel has to be removed. Gosh, I’ve never been called stylish, usually much worse.
So is this dang computer trend.
So is this dang computer trend.
A worthy shot across the bow of the Star V Max. Other sites are reporting 180hp/170ft-lbs. Looking at the numbers it should be good for a sub 11 second quarter mile.
I am looking forward to the shootout.
Yes! Thor’s Hammer with a twist grip! These things are huge fun to ride, a roll-on drug habit. And it stops & turns better than you might think, just plan ahead, because it builds speed deceptively fast. They just keep pushing like a solid rocket booster.
Stock up on rears, Brown truck ’em to your destination for return trip. Kids will get bald rears for Christmas.
lol
Pretty far from the kind of bike I ride but that’s a pretty excellent expression of a “muscle cruiser”.
A lot of heat between the legs.
Does that mean you like it?
I test rode the old one once and can confirm that those three exhaust headers do, indeed, throw off a lot of BTUs. I hope the new one does a better job of containing the heat. If not I guess there’s always asbestos wrap.
Asbestos wrap….for your leg?
No. For the header pipe.
They did a nice job of it in my opinion. I like it.
Looks like (from the seat back anyway)a Ducati Diavel rip off.
Sort of what I was thinking. Triumph had a huge opportunity to push their own design language, but huge portions of this bike look cribbed straight off of the XDiavel. To me, most of it looks good until just aft of the rider’s seat, and then degenerates from there.
One thing I really have to wonder about – have they put any effort at all into taking any mass out of the engine itself? The bike -looks- a lot lighter than the old Rocket III, but it’s always looked like most of the bike’s mass is in the engine and transmission…
I wasn’t a fan of the previous version’s looks. This one has me wishing the local Triumph dealer was still in business.
Not a bad looking steed. Still don’t like those behind the tire lic plate holders even if they are necessary. Just stupid looking, and it looks like that one has tiny turn signals on it. Tank shape is nice.
Funny, I had one of the original Rocket 3’s, a 69 BSA 750. A true 130 mph machine. In this new Rocket 3, each piston displaces more than all three pistons in the Rocket 3 that I owned.
This thing is a monster.