The answer is when it's this one. What does that mean? I have no idea but it sounds good in my head, so I'm keeping it.
During the summer here in Denver, I've been using my Bonneville more and more and my car less and less. I've used my car for trips to the grocery store and to pick my parents up from the airport on a recent visit. In fact, I just put gas in my VW for the first time since May. May!
I forgot how expensive it is to fill the car up. I'm spoiled by $12 fill-ups.
I've been thinking that, besides a round-the-world trip or a twisty mountain road, the holy grail for a motorcyclist is to ditch the car and keep the bike. It's a tempting and romantic idea, I'll admit.
It's something I've thought about quite seriously and I've reached a conclusion: I couldn't do it.
Never mind the winter weather and cold temps, I couldn't do it because a car is quite convenient. Besides keeping you warm and dry, a car can haul things and carry extra people while still being fun. Last week I bought a rake and it would have been very hard to carry it home on my bike. I'm sure some creative genius is reading this and thinking they could do it but I'm a lazy genius. I used the car.
I'm also sure my parents didn't want to be picked up at the airport on my bike. Yes, I could have rented a car but I used my car instead. I ended up renting one anyway and it cost me nearly as much as a year's insurance on my car. Another plus for my VW is that it is paid for and it's also nearing the nadir of its depreciation.
But it's not just economics and convenience that influence me to keep my VW. It's mostly because I like the car and cars in general. I've been a car guy much longer than I've been a bike guy. My VW is quite fun to drive, even if its suspension is a bit soft and it rolls in the corners. The 1.8 turbo makes near-instant torque, a great whoosh from the turbo and gets good mileage if I'm light on the throttle. If I boot it, I can watch the gas gauge plummet. That's not so good.
It's also cavernous and comfortable. I drove it from Pittsburgh to Denver loaded with stuff (and my mom) and it averaged 32 mpg and neither of us were tired from the drive. The car never missed a beat the entire time. Cruising at 75, you could have a conversation at normal volume and just relax. My Honda Civic at 75mph was a nervous, noisy wreck.
I know this blog is supposed to be about motorcycles, but I just wanted to give big ups to my VW. I've had it for seven years and it's been a great car. It's currently sleeping under a car cover so the evil Denver sun doesn't kill its paint.
Whatever I replace it with has very big shoes to fill. In fact, I might not replace it with anything. I go to car shows and I look around dealers but I can't find anything I'd replace it with that doesn't have Ferrari or Porsche on the front. And, really, if I could afford a Ferrari or a Porsche, I'd just keep my VW.
I look around, think about how nice newer cars are and then I get in my 9-year-old VW and go home. I feel the same about my Bonneville. I look at new bikes, and there are some I really like, but I can't find one that I like more than my Bonnie. I very satisfied with both vehicles, if I'm honest.
Mick Jagger can't get no satisfaction, but I can.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Triple Trouble
In the 1960s, Triumph was at the top of its game. The company could seemingly do no wrong. Dealers couldn't sell the bikes fast enough, a never-ending supply of movie stars and other celebrities were photographed on them, and Triumph was winning races everywhere you could imagine.
While the public was buying every Triumph twin in sight, the company was working on a new bike, one that would set the world on fire like the Speed Twin did 30 years earlier. This bike wouldn't be a twin, however.
The story goes back to 1962 where one-and-a-half Tiger 100 engines were combined to form a three-cylinder power plant. The engine was modified slightly from its donors and then shoehorned into a regular Triumph frame, which was tested using lead weights to simulate the new engine. What resulted was a superbike, even though the thought of that didn't exist yet.
The three-cylinder engine was much more powerful and a whole lot smoother than its parallel twin cousins. It also showcased Triumph's ability to make the most out of what it already produces. Aside from a longer stroke, the new engine really was the tried-and-true Triumph twin with another cylinder grafted on. Twin cams actuated the valves just like on the twins and they were also placed for and aft of the cylinders. Hey, if it ain't broke...
Using essentially off the shelf parts meant that a three-cylinder road bike could be available to the public in no time. Triumph could once again put the world on its ear with a fast new bike, something that could further put the company above its competitors.
Sadly, it didn't work out that way.
In a case of foreshadowing, Triumph made one of the many decisions that eventually put the company on the brink a few years later. Instead of getting the bike out to the public quickly, it was decided that BSA, Triumph's parent company, would get a version of the new triple. In theory, it was supposed to be a badge engineering job but it went horribly wrong.
BSA wanted some uniqueness to their model and required the engine to be sloped forward, unlike the bolt-upright Triumph version. Another issue was the commission of Ogle Design to style the bike. Instead of the classic Triumph look, an attempt at a squarer, modern design was used. This not only further delayed production of the bike, it also added unnecessary weight to the machine. The bikes also used different frames, further differentiating themselves.
So they were badge engineering jobs that were almost completely different. It's not hard to see why BSA and Triumph would be in a financial bind in a few years.
When the bike finally came to market in 1968, it really did create a polarizing effect, though not always in a good way. The triple twins were badged as the Triumph Trident and the BSA Rocket 3.
The bike was very fast; its 60hp would easily push the bike over 100mph. Tuned versions of the triple would nudge 140. The Rocket 3 won a number of races at Daytona in the early 70s and set speed records that stood for a number of years. The triples didn't lack in performance.
While it had a four-speed gearbox like its twin-cylinder brethren, it had a dry clutch instead of a wet clutch. Also the clutch wasn't where it normally was on a Triumph twin. Mounted on the left was instead a shock absorber for the transmission.
The real shock was reserved for the styling. The classic Triumph teardrop look was replaced with a square tank known as the "bread box" and "ray gun" silencers. It was a huge departure from the Triumphs of yore. While the public was impressed with the performance, they didn't warm to the controversial styling.
Perhaps the biggest blow to the new triples was Honda's CB750, which debuted just four weeks later. The CB750 was a high tech showcase with a front disc, overhead camshaft, electric starting and four cylinders. Also, Honda used horizontally split crankcase, which meant less oil leaks. Rubbing salt in the wound was the fact that the Honda was cheaper and faster than the triples.
The triples were never a sales success. In order to boost sales, the bread box look was canned for a more traditional Triumph look. A fifth gear was added, as was a front disc brake, to better help the bikes compete with Honda and the new Kawasaki Z1. With the closure of BSA in 1973, the Trident was left to go alone against the Japanese.
In a last hurrah for the triple, a Triumph Trident T160V was produced from 1974 to 1976. The T160 featured many improvements and changes, such as forward sloping cylinders, front and rear discs, an electric start (finally) and left side shift. In all, it was too little too late. Few were produced and the triple was soon retired to the history books.
Personally, I like the styling of the original Trident and Rocket 3. I also think the Rocket was the better-looking of the two. What I like most is that it was such a departure from the classic Triumph styling. If you look quick enough, all the Triumphs from that era look the same. They look great, don't get me wrong, but it's also a boring to have a range of bikes that all look exactly the same except for the color.
The triples were halo vehicles for Triumph/BSA and special styling should have been part of the package. The later redesigned Trident looked like a Bonneville with an extra cylinder. Its uniqueness was gone.
Besides, too much emphasis is placed on the styling of the triples for their lack of sales and not enough is placed on the fact that they were old bikes when they were new. Triumph and BSA were content to trot out the same old bikes with the same old problems year after year after year when Honda came along and showed everyone what was possible. I know it's been done to death but if there was any one example of why the English motorcycle industry collapsed, the triples are it.
Bureaucracy and bad decisions delayed what could have been a sure-fire hit. With some development, a 140mph monster could have been built and history would be completely different. Triumph/BSA should have spent the extra 18 months developing the bike instead of designing two different bikes that were supposed to be the same.
While the public was buying every Triumph twin in sight, the company was working on a new bike, one that would set the world on fire like the Speed Twin did 30 years earlier. This bike wouldn't be a twin, however.
The story goes back to 1962 where one-and-a-half Tiger 100 engines were combined to form a three-cylinder power plant. The engine was modified slightly from its donors and then shoehorned into a regular Triumph frame, which was tested using lead weights to simulate the new engine. What resulted was a superbike, even though the thought of that didn't exist yet.
The three-cylinder engine was much more powerful and a whole lot smoother than its parallel twin cousins. It also showcased Triumph's ability to make the most out of what it already produces. Aside from a longer stroke, the new engine really was the tried-and-true Triumph twin with another cylinder grafted on. Twin cams actuated the valves just like on the twins and they were also placed for and aft of the cylinders. Hey, if it ain't broke...
Using essentially off the shelf parts meant that a three-cylinder road bike could be available to the public in no time. Triumph could once again put the world on its ear with a fast new bike, something that could further put the company above its competitors.
Sadly, it didn't work out that way.
In a case of foreshadowing, Triumph made one of the many decisions that eventually put the company on the brink a few years later. Instead of getting the bike out to the public quickly, it was decided that BSA, Triumph's parent company, would get a version of the new triple. In theory, it was supposed to be a badge engineering job but it went horribly wrong.
BSA wanted some uniqueness to their model and required the engine to be sloped forward, unlike the bolt-upright Triumph version. Another issue was the commission of Ogle Design to style the bike. Instead of the classic Triumph look, an attempt at a squarer, modern design was used. This not only further delayed production of the bike, it also added unnecessary weight to the machine. The bikes also used different frames, further differentiating themselves.
So they were badge engineering jobs that were almost completely different. It's not hard to see why BSA and Triumph would be in a financial bind in a few years.
When the bike finally came to market in 1968, it really did create a polarizing effect, though not always in a good way. The triple twins were badged as the Triumph Trident and the BSA Rocket 3.
The bike was very fast; its 60hp would easily push the bike over 100mph. Tuned versions of the triple would nudge 140. The Rocket 3 won a number of races at Daytona in the early 70s and set speed records that stood for a number of years. The triples didn't lack in performance.
While it had a four-speed gearbox like its twin-cylinder brethren, it had a dry clutch instead of a wet clutch. Also the clutch wasn't where it normally was on a Triumph twin. Mounted on the left was instead a shock absorber for the transmission.
The real shock was reserved for the styling. The classic Triumph teardrop look was replaced with a square tank known as the "bread box" and "ray gun" silencers. It was a huge departure from the Triumphs of yore. While the public was impressed with the performance, they didn't warm to the controversial styling.
Perhaps the biggest blow to the new triples was Honda's CB750, which debuted just four weeks later. The CB750 was a high tech showcase with a front disc, overhead camshaft, electric starting and four cylinders. Also, Honda used horizontally split crankcase, which meant less oil leaks. Rubbing salt in the wound was the fact that the Honda was cheaper and faster than the triples.
The triples were never a sales success. In order to boost sales, the bread box look was canned for a more traditional Triumph look. A fifth gear was added, as was a front disc brake, to better help the bikes compete with Honda and the new Kawasaki Z1. With the closure of BSA in 1973, the Trident was left to go alone against the Japanese.
In a last hurrah for the triple, a Triumph Trident T160V was produced from 1974 to 1976. The T160 featured many improvements and changes, such as forward sloping cylinders, front and rear discs, an electric start (finally) and left side shift. In all, it was too little too late. Few were produced and the triple was soon retired to the history books.
Personally, I like the styling of the original Trident and Rocket 3. I also think the Rocket was the better-looking of the two. What I like most is that it was such a departure from the classic Triumph styling. If you look quick enough, all the Triumphs from that era look the same. They look great, don't get me wrong, but it's also a boring to have a range of bikes that all look exactly the same except for the color.
The triples were halo vehicles for Triumph/BSA and special styling should have been part of the package. The later redesigned Trident looked like a Bonneville with an extra cylinder. Its uniqueness was gone.
Besides, too much emphasis is placed on the styling of the triples for their lack of sales and not enough is placed on the fact that they were old bikes when they were new. Triumph and BSA were content to trot out the same old bikes with the same old problems year after year after year when Honda came along and showed everyone what was possible. I know it's been done to death but if there was any one example of why the English motorcycle industry collapsed, the triples are it.
Bureaucracy and bad decisions delayed what could have been a sure-fire hit. With some development, a 140mph monster could have been built and history would be completely different. Triumph/BSA should have spent the extra 18 months developing the bike instead of designing two different bikes that were supposed to be the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
