Total Motorcycle Community Forums

I believe it should be Rocket III (as in capial i).

Re other posts a Rocket III does get noticed but for looks not the in your face noisy way other big bikes do. You don't have to be a big built guy but long arms useful!

As for picking it up ~you would need a few good friends to help, but its fairly low centre of gravity makes it less likely to topple.

mogster wrote:I believe it should be Rocket III (as in capial i).

Re other posts a Rocket III does get noticed but for looks not the in your face noisy way other big bikes do. You don't have to be a big built guy but long arms useful!

As for picking it up ~you would need a few good friends to help, but its fairly low centre of gravity makes it less likely to topple.

Ah, that's good I had it the right way then since the beginning (3 i's), although I have see it with 3 1's, which looks strange IMO.

It's a big bike though, it does make me look small on it, thus one of the very few bikes that do...but I'm not bulky, just tall (6'4"). It could just be the width of the bike (the gas tank is pretty wide). It is pretty comfortable when I sat on it.

As someone said above, you do see a few kicking around the showrooms long after other bikes are gone... but it could also be due to it's cost... or maybe it's the different type of engine?

Mike

totalmotorcycle wrote:As someone said above, you do see a few kicking around the showrooms long after other bikes are gone... but it could also be due to it's cost... or maybe it's the different type of engine?

Or maybe it's because the true enthusiast knows that the "Rocket" moniker belongs on an old BSA and thar "Trident" would have been more apropos a name.

Gummiente wrote:

totalmotorcycle wrote:As someone said above, you do see a few kicking around the showrooms long after other bikes are gone... but it could also be due to it's cost... or maybe it's the different type of engine?

Or maybe it's because the true enthusiast knows that the "Rocket" moniker belongs on an old BSA and thar "Trident" would have been more apropos a name.

Good point... but I'm thinking you are giving too much credit there for people generally knowing that fact (Rocket = BSA). I do very much like your suggestion of calling the Rocket III the Trident.... but doesn't Trident belong to a gum brand?

Triumph Trident



Chew, chew



So do you think then:

Rocket I = BSA Rocket
Rocket II = ????
Rocket III = Triumphs run of the moniker?

That's could be the theory why it's the "3" not the "1"

Mike

This bike is mfugly beyond belief. It looks like the target market is the same people that would buy the Boss Hoss, men suffering from male anatomy deficiency syndrome.

The only thing stopping this bike from getting the epic fail rating is that it took the very unique approach of using an inline triple, which visually resembles an automotive engine from the 1940s. I give it a solid Uncool.

totalmotorcycle wrote: Good point... but I'm thinking you are giving too much credit there for people generally knowing that fact (Rocket = BSA). I do very much like your suggestion of calling the Rocket III the Trident.... but doesn't Trident belong to a gum brand?

The Hinckley Triumph always had questionable names. For example, the Tiger should have been named the Adventurer and the Adventurer the Tiger. They ruined the Thunderbird name by putting it on a big fat lard of a bike.

HYPERR wrote:The Hinckley Triumph always had questionable names. For example, the Tiger should have been named the Adventurer and the Adventurer the Tiger. They ruined the Thunderbird name by putting it on a big fat lard of a bike.

Seconded. They nailed it with the first reincarnation of the TBird in '95 and they should have stuck with that, but it was deemed to be in direct conflict with the Bonneville when it came on the scene and was subsequently scrapped. Dumb move, IMO.

Gummiente wrote:

HYPERR wrote:The Hinckley Triumph always had questionable names. For example, the Tiger should have been named the Adventurer and the Adventurer the Tiger. They ruined the Thunderbird name by putting it on a big fat lard of a bike.

Seconded. They nailed it with the first reincarnation of the TBird in '95 and they should have stuck with that, but it was deemed to be in direct conflict with the Bonneville when it came on the scene and was subsequently scrapped. Dumb move, IMO.

Yeah the original Hinckley Thunderbird was one gorgeous looking bike! Quite frankly, much better looking than the new Bonneville. The new Bonnie just doesn't look right in my eyes. I guess it's because it looks like a fat and far less pretty looking version of what is arguably one of the most gorgeous bike ever designed.

HYPERR wrote:Yeah the original Hinckley Thunderbird was one gorgeous looking bike! Quite frankly, much better looking than the new Bonneville. The new Bonnie just doesn't look right in my eyes. I guess it's because it looks like a fat and far less pretty looking version of what is arguably one of the most gorgeous bike ever designed.

You like that eh? For me, I think I'll take the new Bonneville looks but mostly because I'm not really one for the early 60's look, more of the late 70's early 80's myself.





Mike

I have to give this bike a cool (but see now that I am alone on this one!).

It is a really nice looking bike and has great HP and torque. But I also recognise it's way bigger than it needs to be!



Is it necessary to have a bike this big? Maybe not, but if so this is a great looking one to have available.