Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Road Warriors' started by Tritigex, Jan 12, 2021.
Wow, I hope those cam lobes aren't as bad as they look in the photos. They look spalled!
They were. Luckily just $100 each.
I had one of those for 16 years and about 120,000 miles.....this new Speed Triple is the bike I was waiting for Triumph to build when I said fuck it and bought my KTM in 2014.
That era Speedy was a great bike for its time, but it wasn't a great bike if you wanted to push the performance end....chassis wasn'y totally up to the task the stock suspension was garbage, it was FRIGGING HEAVY at 460 pounds dry (mine weighed in at 495 on freight scales with next to no fuel in it).....and for all that weight even with my T595 Daytona spec motor it only made 118hp rear wheel
Sounded great, stable as a stone, but really made you work if you want to hustle ....and I actually had two sets of top clamps so I could swap from handlebar to clip-ons at will (before I went to a GSXR front end)
The 2005 1050s were meh, I enjoyed the Daytona motor more than the 1050 tractor.
This new machine is damn sexy. Can't wait to read the comparisons.
Specs say 177.5. If that's at the crank, 150+ at the wheel wouldn't be out of the question. Dry weight (I hate that) is 436.5 lbs, putting it in the 500-lb. vicinity. If both figures are viable, it should be competitive in the big naked class.
The site link you quoted states the weight is 436 WET. That's a very light street bike for 177+ HP.
Spec sheet lists "Dry Weight" as "198 kg (wet)" so take your pick.
I doubt it weighs 436 lbs ready to ride. You know the old saw; When something seems to good to be true, it probably is. I can see where they're using the leftover fames from the 1200 adv bike with different plastics and subframe. The Tiger, with the same frame and engine is 547 lbs ready to go. Who believes the 1200 ST (with the same frame and engine) is 111 lbs lighter?
Another blurb says it's 10kg lighter than the "previous iteration" which I assume means the 1050, which is listed at 212kg wet.
Like all manufacturers' specs, the only way to know for sure is to put one on a certified scale. I tend to be skeptical of brag sheets.
New engine, new frame, nothing to do with the Tiger at all and 10kg lighter than old model:
"The engine in the 2021 bike is all-new, with a ground-up redesign being required. The new machine tips the scales at 198kg ready to ride, meaning it’s a full 10kg lighter than the previous model. Triumph took the opportunity of the 2021 update to completely redesign the frame of the bike. It may look similar to the previous generation, but the new frame is lighter and totally redesigned for this year and weighs 17% less than before."
Link: 2021 Triumph Speed Triple 1200 RS officially unveiled | Visordown
I have a harder time believing the frame on the Speed Triple and the Tiger are the same...maybe they look the same, but the Tiger has to have a more robust architecture simply due to the fact it's a Adv/Touring configuration designed for more payload, right? 111lbs heavier adds up quick with different wheels, stout rear subframe, windshield/cowlings, bigger tanks, etc.
The wet weight of 436lbs is mentioned several times on the site - weights like this are not "too good to be true" these days. Just my .02.
I suppose you believe the "177" hp figure, too. That's more than a ZX-14. If it runs the 1/4 mile in the high 9's, with a limited top speed of 185 mph, I might believe it. Unless manufacturers have gotten a sudden attack of the honests, I tend to wait for a test with dyno, speed, acceleration and true weight.
Or maybe it's like the "200 bhp" VMax; top speed 140 mph. They claim it's "limited" due to lack of high-speed aerodynamics (bodywork). When does it actually make 200 bhp? Not out on the road, that's for sure. 200bhp in the lower gears (where bikes like the ZX-14 come limited as well as on top) it would fry the tire in no time.
Of course I do...since when has anyone expected manufacturers to report HP at the wheel? Everyone knows they report what the engine produces right off the crank. And usually there is this 10-15% loss until it gets to the wheel. The entire automotive industry works this way....
Edit: And regarding Kawasaki horsepower numbers, you never know what they make until the reviews come out and someone dyno tests them....I don't think any of the big 4 Japanese bikes report HP numbers on their websites. But, personally, I could care less since I really only look at Yamaha's and European bikes.
1352cc ZX14 was 190hp
1441cc ZX14 was 197hp
Both made more with RAM air at high rpm.
Link: The 2012 Kawasaki ZX-14R / ZZR1400 Makes Under 200hp - Asphalt & Rubber (asphaltandrubber.com)
More crankshaft horsepower quotes. This was mine. PC III, ATRE, BMC filter, Muzzy ignition wheel, slip-ons. I don't think it made 190 hp, and it was quite a bit zippier than stock.
Sure but you stated "I suppose you believe the "177" hp figure, too. That's more than a ZX-14." which is incorrect as the 177hp figure for the Triumph is also crankshaft HP, which certainly is not more than the crankshaft HP of the ZX14 1352 or 1441cc variants.
Huh?! The 1200 Explorer and Trophy SE share the same 1215cc triple with shaft final drive. Not even close to being related to this 1160cc in the latest 1200 Speedie RS.
I had a '14 Trophy SE. Lovely grand tourer. If it had measured anything close to 177 HP anywhere in the drivetrain, I'd still have it parked in my garage.
US site has the dry weight at 198kg/438lbs......its much more realistic.
438 wet you are into Panigale R territory.
$18,300 MSRP.....they are going after KTM both in spec and in price.
I never believe anything that there's no way of corroborating, and I learned a long time ago not to believe manufacturer's published specs. They are almost always exaggerated. No way of proving crank horsepower boasts and the only person interested in dry weight is a shipper. The automotive industry is just as full of crap as the motorcycle industry. I'm sure it's a fantastic motorcycle. But until someone puts one on a scale and a dyno, the sales pitch is just that.
I would say that even those are also sales pitches because it also matters how the weight and power are distributed. Until you get on and ride it, you won't know. Yes it will give you a rough idea but there is still a lot of information lacking and don't tell the entire story.
True. A dyno is actually best at quantifying changes. The same machine can register different on different dynos.
Agreed. Please don't think for a second that I am in la-la land just eating up whatever the mfg's marketing swine dish out. I know full well that the fine print regarding power and specs is probably beyond comprehension...but, that said, if they say 177HP it's probably in the ballpark. and we know it isn't 140 or 200. see what I'm getting at?
Right...Yamaha really fouled up hard like 15 years ago with the R6. Whenever they gave it that astronomical rev limit. They had to buy bikes back because they weren't making the power and RPM they claimed. I seriously doubt Triumph is more than 5% off on their claim.