Just received email from Triumph - has to be teaser for new Big Bonnie

[Cam3512]

There are plenty of new, more "bug-like" modern designs out there.  These retro bikes are but a small segment of the models.  If you feel bad about it, go buy something else.  IMO, the '60-70's was the pinnacle of car and bike design. 

[Kev m]

And by design I hope you mean esthetics... If so I might agree.

[Cam3512]

And by design I hope you mean esthetics... If so I might agree.

Both.   

[jas67]

There are plenty of new, more "bug-like" modern designs out there.  These retro bikes are but a small segment of the models.  If you feel bad about it, go buy something else.  IMO, the '60-70's was the pinnacle of car and bike design.

And by design I hope you mean esthetics... If so I might agree.

 :1:

To clarify, I would stay late 60's to early 70's was the pinnacle of car design ( aesthetics ), while on the motorcycle side of things, I'd say 50's to mid 70's.    Of course, the British bikes, by and large, looked very much the same aesthetically from the late 50's through the 70's, the Japanese pretty much copied that look, eventually adding two cylinders.    There were some very good looking small single cylinder bikes coming out if Italy in the 50's.    Both Moto Guzzi and Ducati were making some very good looking twins in the early 70's, but Ducatis got kind of ugly in the mid 70's, with the 860GT.

BMW's looked pretty much the same from the early 50's until the /5's debut in 1970.    This was, IMHO, a very good looking design, although the /5, is arguably also a good looking design, albeit, not as good looking as a Guzzi loop.

Cars started getting pretty ugly by the mid 70's, esp. with the US mandated big bumpers.

[Kev m]

Both.   

If by that you're lamenting the loss of chrome cylinder bores, weak cable actuated brakes, points ignitions sure to family without frequent attention, etc. Then I have to disagree with you.

Modern bikes (retros included) are generally more efficient, capable, and robust than any now antiques were when they were new.

Your Ambo or Jay's /5 are beautiful, but they can't hold a candle to their equivalents today.

Functional design has not stood still and that's a good thing.

[jas67]

Both.   

Functional design has not stood still and that's a good thing.

 :1:

The early days of emissions controls on cars while still have carburetors was a dark time performance wise, but, the advent of electronic fuel injection was able to overcome that.   Also, you definitely have to admit that modern cars are way better from a corrosion resistance standpoint.   In the North East in the 70's cars would start to rust out in as little as 6 or 7 years (I'm talking with rust through HOLES).     Now, there are lots of 15-20 year old cars without any outwardly visible rust.    With advances in both synthetic lubricants and the design of the power trains themselves, modern cars require far less maintenance.   Oil change intervals are much longer.    Spark plugs last much, much longer.   Computer-managed fuel injection and ignition require no "tune ups."    Cars used to require frequent "tune ups".    Now, for the most part, it is just fluid changes, brakes and tires for the first 100-150k miles.    Speaking of miles, in the 70's, a car was considered worn out by 100k miles.   Now, that number is more like 200k miles.   

Motorcycles have also benefited from these advances.    Aside from valve adjustments, and chain maintenance (for those with chains), they require less maintenance, and last longer as well.

In the 70's many motorcycles were considered worn out by the time they had 20k miles on them.  Yes, there were some stand outs, like BMWs.      Now, most motorcycles, with proper maintenance, can much further, some go over 200k (Gold Wings, VFRs, BMWs).

[Kev m]

Cars started getting pretty ugly by the mid 70's, esp. with the US mandated big bumpers.

Speaking just aesthetically enough though there are plenty of modern cars with beautiful designs, not all of which are retro.

The current WRX and XV are pleasing shapes, as is the Focus RSb and ST for examples. The Jaguar F-Tyoes are down right beautiful. Good about assume Alfas, hell even the Tesla.

On the truck side the Tacoma, some Fords (especially the Raptor), the Jeep Wrangler (ok, arguably retro in some ways, maybe tech more than aesthetics lol).

And designs aren't all boring either. My Juke (I should say Kelli's Juke) is very polarizing, but it's organic. Most love it or hate it, some call it a frog or gator, but it's got lots of natural lines and curves, some unexpected for a car.

[Kev m]

The early days of emissions controls on cars while still have carburetors was a dark time performance wise, but, the advent of electronic fuel injection was able to overcome that.   Also, you definitely have to admit that modern cars are way better from a corrosion resistance standpoint.   In the North East in the 70's cars would start to rust out in as little as 6 or 7 years (I'm talking with rust through HOLES).     Now, there are lots of 15-20 year old cars without any outwardly visible rust.    With advances in both synthetic lubricants and the design of the power trains themselves, modern cars require far less maintenance.   Oil change intervals are much longer.    Spark plugs last much, much longer.    Cars used to require frequent "tune ups".    Now, for the most part, it is just fluid changes, brakes and tires for the first 100-150k miles.    Speaking of miles, in the 70's, a car was considered worn out by 100k miles.   Now, that number is more like 200k miles.   

Yup, this...

[oldbike54]

I love the look of the left side of the engine. It reminds me of my 78

 Your 78 what ? Oh ... RPM record 

  Dusty

[jas67]

Speaking just aesthetically enough though there are plenty of modern cars with beautiful designs, not all of which are retro.

Absolutely.    The 80's weren't just a dark time for performance, but, Italian supercars aside, most cars were boring boxes with ruler-straight lines and sharp corners.
There are definitely some beautiful designs today.

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

If by that you're lamenting the loss of chrome cylinder bores, weak cable actuated brakes, points ignitions sure to family without frequent attention, etc. Then I have to disagree with you.

Modern bikes (retros included) are generally more efficient, capable, and robust than any now antiques were when they were new.

Your Ambo or Jay's /5 are beautiful, but they can't hold a candle to their equivalents today.

Functional design has not stood still and that's a good thing.

The chrome bores were/are only an issue if the bike sat for long periods of time. If used regularly, the problem doesn't occur, at least not nearly as often. It's really only been an issue in the '90s onwards since so many "barn" bikes are being resurrected after having sat idle for decades.

Drum brakes can be made to work very well - maybe not as well as modern discs, but far from "weak". Of course, if one has no grip strength, then "juice brakes" are better. 

In the last 8k miles I've ridden my '71 Ambassador, I've checked the point gap exactly once. Needed no adjustment even though the last time it was checked was 5k miles prior. A tiny dab of Bosch Distributor Grease on the points cam works wonders. Not sure what that has to do with "family". 

More efficient? Depends on how you look at it. Both of my Ambos do 50 mpg and use no oil. Lower cost oil to boot and no filter to change. 

Capable? Again depends on your definition of capable. Ambos were used as fully dressed touring bikes and police bikes when new. Police departments must have thought they were plenty capable since they chose them over 1200 cc Harleys. They were not used as a fashion accessory or commuter bike like so many modern V7s seem to be. 

Robust? You've got to be kidding me? Every piece of the original V750 is way overbuilt (except maybe the headlight switch and fuse block  ). Almost no plastic, just steel and alloy. Nearly every part can be repaired/remanufactured. They were built to a high standard, not down to a price point. 

[Kev m]

The chrome bores were/are only an issue if the bike sat for long periods of time. If used regularly, the problem doesn't occur, at least not nearly as often. It's really only been an issue in the '90s onwards since so many "barn" bikes are being resurrected after having sat idle for decades.

Drum brakes can be made to work very well - maybe not as well as modern discs, but far from "weak". Of course, if one has no grip strength, then "juice brakes" are better. 

In the last 8k miles I've ridden my '71 Ambassador, I've checked the point gap exactly once. Needed no adjustment even though the last time it was checked was 5k miles prior. A tiny dab of Bosch Distributor Grease on the points cam works wonders. Not sure what that has to do with "family". 

More efficient? Depends on how you look at it. Both of my Ambos do 50 mpg and use no oil. Lower cost oil to boot and no filter to change. 

Capable? Again depends on your definition of capable. Ambos were used as fully dressed touring bikes and police bikes when new. Police departments must have thought they were plenty capable since they chose them over 1200 cc Harleys. They were not used as a fashion accessory or commuter bike like so many modern V7s seem to be. 

Robust? You've got to be kidding me? Every piece of the original V750 is way overbuilt (except maybe the headlight switch and fuse block  ). Almost no plastic, just steel and alloy. Nearly every part can be repaired/remanufactured. They were built to a high standard, not down to a price point.

I understand your skewed perspective because of your passion and work. But cherry picking how things can be improved or explaining why they broke over time or for differences in materials have lead to lower costs or lighter weights doesn't change the well documented fact throughout the industries I mentioned that motors/vehicles are better built, more efficient (power vs fuel consumption and emissions), and routinely last much longer with less intervention than they did decades ago.

[tazio]

that means that, at least in Europe,

this


will cost more or less like this


Uhmmm...

Lovely bikes, this being the "money side" photo of Griso.(I'll get me one, some day day..)

That said, both sides of Trumpet are freakin' gorgeous !

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

I understand your skewed perspective because of your passion and work. But cherry picking how things can be improved or explaining why they broke over time or for differences in materials have lead to lower costs or lighter weights doesn't change the well documented fact throughout the industries I mentioned that motors/vehicles are better built, more efficient (power vs fuel consumption and emissions), and routinely last much longer with less intervention than they did decades ago.

By writing "Your Ambo or Jay's /5 are beautiful, but they can't hold a candle to their equivalents today." you effectively narrowed the comparison not from the auto/motorcycle industry as a whole, but to a comparison of the original V750 to the modern V7 series.

I'm not the only one with a "skewed perspective". Have you ever even ridden a /5 or Ambassador? Yeah, thought not...

[Kev m]

By writing "Your Ambo or Jay's /5 are beautiful, but they can't hold a candle to their equivalents today." you effectively narrowed the comparison not from the auto/motorcycle industry as a whole, but to a comparison of the original V750 to the modern V7 series.

I'm not the only one with a "skewed perspective". Have you ever even ridden a /5 or Ambassador? Yeah, thought not...

No, it was just a relevant example.

And yes I've ridden a /5 though I didn't ride an Ambo yet I've ridden a right shift V7 sport. I've also owned some vintage bikes like a /7.

You assume too much.

Regardless you can't compare them to the modern equivalents as the modern are so much more capable it's laughable for the originals.

[Cam3512]

All I was saying earlier was that there IS a market for NEW bikes and cars that remind us of those we grew up with, and there's nothing wrong with that.  In MY opinion, the NEW V7's, Triumphs, Ducatis or Dodge Challenger, Corvette, Mustang, etc. don't come close to the originals.  I'd much rather ride and wrench on my '74 V7 Sport or '71 Ambo.  Not everyone get's that.

We've beat this into the ground before.  Let's just agree to disagree. 

[LowRyter]

hmmmm, this all looks soooooo familiar.  A high performing water cooled retro bike


mmmhhhh, where have I seen it?  Triumph?


hmmmm

[JeffOlson]

I don't know why, but retro designs simply appeal to me, whether we are talking motorcycles or appliances. I want modern features, but an old look.

The Triumph Modern Classics fit that bill for me (and so, too, do the MG V7s to a degree). Appliances? We are ordering all Big Chill appliances for our new cabin "remodel". For example:


Aesthetically, retro designs just looks "right" to me. Maybe it's my age...

[rocker59]

I don't know why, but retro designs simply appeal to me, whether we are talking motorcycles or appliances. I want modern features, but an old look.

The Triumph Modern Classics fit that bill for me (and so, too, do the MG V7s to a degree). Appliances? We are ordering all Big Chill appliances for our new cabin "remodel". For example:


Aesthetically, retro designs just looks "right" to me. Maybe it's my age...

 :1:

 

[Kev m]

In MY opinion, the NEW V7's, Triumphs, Ducatis or Dodge Challenger, Corvette, Mustang, etc. don't come close to the originals.  I'd much rather ride and wrench on my '74 V7 Sport or '71 Ambo.  Not everyone get's that.

And I was just differentiating between LIKE PREFERENCE (which I don't fault anyone for) and the objective facts with regards to actual performance/capability/longevity.

For instance the original Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Charger etc. don't come "close" the the originals, they far surpass them in every measurable mechanical/performance metric possible.

Hp, torque, brakes, speed, handling, etc

I'm not arguing aesthetics, that's subjective. Like what you like. Hell, prefer to own, wrench, and ride what you want, no biggie.

But disagreeing on those measurable metrics is putting your head in the sand.

[rocker59]

USA Pricing:

http://www.eurosportcycle.com/

...The first bikes to arrive will be the new 900 Street Twin variety starting with a sales price of $8,700 for Black, and $8,950 for all other colors. They are to hit our store in January.

"But I want the 1200 cc motor," you say. Those are slated to come next as the T120 Black and T120 ($11,500 for the Black, $11,750 for Matte Gray and Cinder Red, and $12,000 for all two tones) in March.

The Thruxton R is then set for April with a price tag of $14,500, and bringing up the rear will be the Thruxton in May for $12,500 in Black and $12,750 in Green or White...

[steven c]

 A good example of how far things have come.
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/corvette-vs-camry-comparison-test.html
 Camry vs 66 Vett. The Vett does look a lot more fun, hard to get the rear end out on a Camry.

[Lannis]

No, it was just a relevant example.

And yes I've ridden a /5 though I didn't ride an Ambo yet I've ridden a right shift V7 sport. I've also owned some vintage bikes like a /7.

You assume too much.

Regardless you can't compare them to the modern equivalents as the modern are so much more capable it's laughable for the originals.

Kev. -

You're no more of an expert or authority on this subject than Charlie is, or than me, as far as that goes, so all of your "you can't compare" and "laughable" and "skewed" is just as applicable to you as it is to anyone else.

Modern cars go farther between services and have longer road life than the older ones, but we'll have to wait and see on the bikes, because I don't see many modern Guzzis getting ready to do the multiple hundreds of thousands of miles of service that many of the old ones have done.

If I had a 1978 SP from new, I doubt if I would be fighting soft cams, disintegrating mirrors, ungreased bearings, flaking tappets, dodgy electronics, leaking spokes, and melting headlights that I've seen in just 40,000 miles of service.    That data is anecdotal, of course, but it's real.

Just to prove it's real, I'm considering dumping the "21st century technology" that is supposedly so many light-years ahead of the Stone Age motorcycles that actually work for me, and going to back to the 1970s or 80s for the technology I trust my recreation, travel, and life to.

I've got 150,000 miles on various Guzzis (4 carbed and 2 FI), and zeroing in on .5M miles on bikes overall, so it's not like I'm just ignorant of the benefits of ECUs and FIs and all that stuff.    But in the real world I live in and have to live with, a rebuildable steel and alloy motorcycle with proven designs invented in 1910 for its components may be the better answer than the plastic, electronic bikes that look so good on paper.   Yes, they go faster and might go around corners faster, but sometimes out on the long highway, that isn't so important.....

Lannis

[rocker59]

A good example of how far things have come.
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/corvette-vs-camry-comparison-test.html
 Camry vs 66 Vett. The Vett does look a lot more fun, hard to get the rear end out on a Camry.

Yep.  Funny how things move forward, despite our memories.

I love the old Vette's style, but would want the new Vette's running gear.

[Kev m]

Kev. -

You're no more of an expert or authority on this subject than Charlie is, or than me, as far as that goes, so all of your "you can't compare" and "laughable" and "skewed" is just as applicable to you as it is to anyone else.

That would be true if I was basing my statements only on personal and professional experience, which I am not.

I'm basing it on trends in service and repair, industry studies, and articles I've read over the years from Forbes to the NYT, to Edmund's or Motor Age etc.

You've got Google, have fun. I need not debate the point further.

The Corvette Camry article someone linked tells part of the story. It leaves out how ridiculous a murdering the Vette would get from a 2015 Vette.

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

Kev. -

You're no more of an expert or authority on this subject than Charlie is, or than me, as far as that goes, so all of your "you can't compare" and "laughable" and "skewed" is just as applicable to you as it is to anyone else.

Modern cars go farther between services and have longer road life than the older ones, but we'll have to wait and see on the bikes, because I don't see many modern Guzzis getting ready to do the multiple hundreds of thousands of miles of service that many of the old ones have done.

If I had a 1978 SP from new, I doubt if I would be fighting soft cams, disintegrating mirrors, ungreased bearings, flaking tappets, dodgy electronics, leaking spokes, and melting headlights that I've seen in just 40,000 miles of service.    That data is anecdotal, of course, but it's real.

Just to prove it's real, I'm considering dumping the "21st century technology" that is supposedly so many light-years ahead of the Stone Age motorcycles that actually work for me, and going to back to the 1970s or 80s for the technology I trust my recreation, travel, and life to.

I've got 150,000 miles on various Guzzis (4 carbed and 2 FI), and zeroing in on .5M miles on bikes overall, so it's not like I'm just ignorant of the benefits of ECUs and FIs and all that stuff.    But in the real world I live in and have to live with, a rebuildable steel and alloy motorcycle with proven designs invented in 1910 for its components may be the better answer than the plastic, electronic bikes that look so good on paper.   Yes, they go faster and might go around corners faster, but sometimes out on the long highway, that isn't so important.....

Lannis

 

[Lannis]

I'm basing it on trends in service and repair, industry studies, and articles I've read over the years from Forbes to the NYT, to Edmund's or Motor Age etc.

You've got Google, have fun. I need not debate the point further.

If you really think that Forbes articles and performance graphs and Google searches are going to tell me how much better a 2015 motorcycle is than a 1985 for what I need, then I'm afraid that your perspective as a professional technical writer has "skewed" your opinion quite a bit too.    That's only a fraction of what makes something "better", not by any means the whole story.

Lannis

[JeffOlson]

USA Pricing:

http://www.eurosportcycle.com/

...The first bikes to arrive will be the new 900 Street Twin variety starting with a sales price of $8,700 for Black, and $8,950 for all other colors. They are to hit our store in January.

"But I want the 1200 cc motor," you say. Those are slated to come next as the T120 Black and T120 ($11,500 for the Black, $11,750 for Matte Gray and Cinder Red, and $12,000 for all two tones) in March.

The Thruxton R is then set for April with a price tag of $14,500, and bringing up the rear will be the Thruxton in May for $12,500 in Black and $12,750 in Green or White...

$14,500 is a bit rich, but I am placing a deposit anyway. No motorcycle has tugged at my heart strings the way this new Thruxton R has, other than the Norton Commando (which is not readily available in the USA, and which is not known to be be nearly as reliable as a Triumph) and the Ducati SportClassic (which they no longer sell, and which can cost just as much used as a new Thruxton R).

[Chuck in Indiana]

I'm going to side with Lannis on this one. <snapping suspenders> While I certainly appreciate the modern technology, when it goes udders skyward.. and it will, eventually.. it's horrendously expensive to fix IF the particular electronic gizmo is still being made 15 years down the road. I have a Sync module issue in my '12 Ford.. just out of warranty, and $650 to replace. A low production Italian motorcycle in a few years? I'll stick with Lannis' old SP.. 

[Joliet Jim]

Your 78 what ? Oh ... RPM record 

  Dusty

78 bonneville, that bland look of all the current versions is what I didn't like about the current models. That swirl to me makes it look more like a triumph motor.