Total Motorcycle Community Forums

After much thought, I went with Cool.

I am not much of a cruiser person and the look of this bike doesn't really appeal to me, however the unique engine, big gas tank and 100+ customizable parts, I couldn't see myself voting uncool.

I hate voting on bikes like this...

I must have flip-flopped half a dozen times with my thoughts on this thing. Looks top-heavy, but by all reports it's not. Looks heavy and bulbous, but handles very well. I like it more than I did at the start of the week, but I still feel unqualified to cast a vote.

I think I would've at least given this a cool for the engine, but I can't help thinking it's uncool compared to the late 90s Thunderbird Sport.



All the cans on one side, twin disks in front, and it looks a heck of a lot more distinct, nimbler and sportier than the current Thunderbird. More of a retro standard than a cruiser, which I'd prefer.

Grey Thumper wrote:I think I would've at least given this a cool for the engine, but I can't help thinking it's uncool compared to the late 90s Thunderbird Sport.



All the cans on one side, twin disks in front, and it looks a heck of a lot more distinct, nimbler and sportier than the current Thunderbird. More of a retro standard than a cruiser, which I'd prefer.

For me, the late 90s Thunderbird Sport is more awesome of a bike for the "Thunderbird" name. It isn't the first time that a manufacturer has taken a name from their line up and re-vamped the look of a bike, the Honda Nighthawk comes to mind:

Cruiser Nighthawk


Sport Nighthawk


Standard Nighthawk

Does the Thunderbird live up to it's historical name? Will it leave a mark for itself in the motorcycle world? These are the questions that were discussed and it's a hair-splitting debate. It is easy to look back into history with 20/20 hindsight, but when you are living it the answers are never as clear.


Your Coolness Factor of the 2013 Triumph Thunderbird is..

Awesome (3 points) 29% 29% [ 12 ]
Cool (2 points) 45% 45% [ 19 ]
Uncool (1 point) 17% 17% [ 7 ]
Fail (0 point) 10% 10% [ 4 ]

Total votes : 42

Average points per vote: 81/42 = 1.93
Standardized to a maximum of 3 points: 1.93/3 x 100 = 64.4
...Therefore, this bike ranks a Coolwall Factor of 64.4%
Mike

totalmotorcycle wrote:

Grey Thumper wrote:I think I would've at least given this a cool for the engine, but I can't help thinking it's uncool compared to the late 90s Thunderbird Sport.



All the cans on one side, twin disks in front, and it looks a heck of a lot more distinct, nimbler and sportier than the current Thunderbird. More of a retro standard than a cruiser, which I'd prefer.

For me, the late 90s Thunderbird Sport is more awesome of a bike for the "Thunderbird" name. It isn't the first time that a manufacturer has taken a name from their line up and re-vamped the look of a bike, the Honda Nighthawk comes to mind:

Cruiser Nighthawk


Sport Nighthawk


Standard Nighthawk

To me, Honda really screwed the pooch when they revamped the Sabre name.

It went from this, a mean hot V4 naked sport (this is my V-45, still have, its gathering dust awaiting restoration)

To this god awful twin cyclinder cookie cutter cruiser. :vomit:


The T-Bird may be leaning more towards the cruiser end of the styling spectrum, but it still has more then a few naked standard elements in it.

jstark47 wrote:How the heck does a 270 crank equate to a fail?? Bonneville Americas, Speedmasters, and Scramblers have had 270 cranks for years. I don't hear you guys hating on those bikes...... ???

The only reason they put the 270 crank in those bikes is to make it sound like a V-Twin, which is a joke. The parallel twin is a far better sounding engine than a V-Twin. Nothing says MOTORCYCLE! like a parallel twin or a big thumper. Why resurrect the iconic Triumph name, build the trademark parallel twin for it, just to dumb it down to make it sound like a V-Twin???

The only possible exception may be the Scrambler where the dumbed down 270 crank may give better traction off road over the 360 crank. That being said, I doubt anyone that buys the scrambler is going to do any off roading more than gravel roads or dirt roads.

I hate the added balancer to reduce vibration. Sure it brings the torque down low in the rev range, but why would you buy that big of a motor and work to keep the revs down.

Harmonics maybe IDK perhaps it'll grenade if you over rev it?