New 20 ounce tumblers available now! Forum donation credit with purchase. https://www.wildguzzi.com/Products/products.htm#Tumbler
And that 100 MPH lap was on the old water pipe and brazed cast steel frame. Triumphs are one of the rare items that the product far exceeds the sum of it's parts. The forks flex,the frame flexes and they bounce around but the machine stays on course and is never intimidating. The rider knows exactly what the bike is doing at all times and they can be ridden at the limit.... Pete my comment about the Norton was mainly about high speed stability in a straight line. My "dead" remark was no rider feedback in turns, most likely from the Isolastic issues...
Actually the Triumphs (and BSAs) built with the shuttle valve forks and gas Girling shocks were decent handling bikes . Also didn't hurt that the Evergreen Percy Tait was "up" on the Triumph . Maybe one of the greatest production based racers ever . Twas him that helped Yamaha sort the 650 twin in the mid '70s . Rough , what are your plans for the Triumph now that it is retired ? Dusty
Didn't the engineer that designed the Triumph twin state that 650 was the largest engine size practical and effective for his design? Or maybe I dreamed it up?
That "faster" thing is going to get people talking .... ! Problem is, what are the chances of getting a 750 Commando and a 650 SS on the same track at the same time so that the statement could be verified? In the meantime, I don't think so!Lannis
Period tests suggest that it was. Can't remember the figures but Jay Leno talks about 119 mph for the 650SS. Don't think any Commando is close to that. There is a fellow over on the Commando forum who owns both bikes and who could settle this argument but don't think he hangs here. Point is that 650cc is plenty to get down the road in fine style without shaking your nuts off!!
I ride a 72 triumph and a 75 guzzi The triumph rides like a 1950s bikeThe Guzzi rides like an early 90s bike
Timing slips on a track or it didn't happen.Lannis
And around 1977 Cook Neislson said the 71 and up Triumphs was still one of the 5 best handing bikes in the world at that time...Anyone know the other 4?
Hmm , Cook may be a bit off there , the '71 models were not really good handling bikes . The forks were too long which made them handle poorly . That , combined with over sprung under damped suspension caused the '71 and '72 models to act weird . The old Triumph guys I was hanging around with at the time hated the early OIF bikes , cussing BSA for screwing up what had been a nimble solid bike . As for the good handling bikes in that era , Tonti frame Guzzi , Ducati , the RD series Yamaha , the 3 cylinder BSA and Triumph models , which were still built on the old chassis which Cook may have been referring to , and maybe the BMWs (gasp) . Oops , forgot the 500 CC Triumphs , they were also never Umberslade Hall mistakes . Dusty
Cook may have been referring to the T140 750.......My memory thinks, Ducati bevel drive twin, Triumph 750, Yamaha 350,I believe the Guzzi 750 S and one more I can't remember.. 71 and early 72 Triumphs had very high seats ...The 750 Trident factory custom Hurricane had longer fork tubes... In 73 when Triumph introduced the 750 with a disc brake it was the same basic frame as the late 72 with lowered seat rails. The late 72 frame was the same as the 71 frame other than seat rail position. The T140 fork yokes are about 3/4 inch wider to accommodate the disc brake. The fork tubes are the same diameter with slight detail differences but I do believe they are the same length.
Hmm , Cook may be a bit off there , the '71 models were not really good handling bikes . Dusty
On the other hand, Cook Neilson won Daytona in '77 on a bike he and his team built, so I'm going with Cook on the handling thing ...... not sure why, just a hunch ....
Well yes I was serious and not trying to be a wise a$$. It just seems like there was a lot of feather-bed frames missing engines in the "old days" and it seemed to be the thing to throw a Triumph in them. Now maybe a Norton just wouldn't fit in a Triumph frame and that was the simple reason but it's never been explained to me.
I've seen Tribsas , Norbsas , Norvins , even one Norton framed bike with a GS 750 Suzuki motor.
Not doubting Cook's abilities , just the idea that a '71 Triumph 650 was a great handler . Seems to me I remember him calling Vincents way over rated also :o :D Dusty
Magazines loved the handling of the OIF's when they came out in 71. ...They didn't like the tall seat and the stuff Triumph didn't fix...To be honest I prefer the late 60's pipe and lug frames to the OIF's...Not because they handle better but they "feel" and look better.. Cook and Shilling were very critical of bikes in the 70's and constantly blasted the Asian machines for poor handling. When Neilson says a bike handles well he mean on a track or mountain road at the the limit of his and the bike's ability. You are right, the earlier OIF fork tubes are shorter... by 1/8 inch.. The real difference is the top yoke. 71 and 72 have the tapered tube fit. The 73-83 have straight tubes that can be slid up into the top yoke like most other bikes.
Ah have a heart OIF?? That's worse than the military. Curiosity, IJOOTT,AIHTN, I'sKMA. For us that are new to this sport, please 'splain OIF!?
Page created in 0.104 seconds with 24 queries.