Dennis316 wrote:the bonneville is super slow compared to a competing engine sized cruiser or standard, it does look good i will give it that, but the inline 2 cylinder triumphs havent been known for their reliability either...
Really? That's news to me. Or were you unaware that Triumph has been making building bikes in Hinckley since the early 90's? The Meriden-built twins are long gone, as are their inherent problems. Welcome to 2007.
Dennis316 wrote:i like the 883 sportster, but the new 1200 nightster is pretty sick imho, and im not even a fan of harley davidson!
Oh damn. And we were so hoping you would come over to the dark side.
Dennis316 wrote:oh...another thing, go get a kawasaki 1600 mean streak...that is all
1. A comfortable riding position is the key to a happy rider.
2. Does one bike come with more (standard) extras that you would want to pay for on the other bike?
3. If you take the price difference between the two bikes and apply that to extras on the less expensive bike, which would then be more fun to ride for you?
4. Which standard warranty is longer?
5. If you don't do your own maintenance work, which dealer charges less per hour and is still convenient for where you live?
Finally back to point 1. If you don't enjoy the way the bike rides and is comfortable in the seat, you won't like it. Not many people want to spend 6k or more on a new bike then spend another 2k on upgrades. This does not include your safety equipment which you should never cut corners on because you already spent your money on bike upgrades.
Nalian wrote:Neither the sportster nor the bonneville (or thruxton) are out to chase sportbikes - that's not the type of ride they are, nor are they trying to be.
They're both on par with cruisers in the same class.
Thank you, that is much nicer than the way I was planning to respond to his post.
Dennis316 wrote:the inline 2 cylinder triumphs havent been known for their reliability either...
Dennis, assuming you're talking about modern Triumph twins, that's about as ignorant a statement as anyone could possibly make. What's your back-up or proof for that?
Dennis316 wrote:the inline 2 cylinder triumphs havent been known for their reliability either...
Dennis, assuming you're talking about modern Triumph twins, that's about as ignorant a statement as anyone could possibly make. What's your back-up or proof for that?
whats my proof? read reviews on them...just because you own one it means that its supposed to be the greatest motorcycle ever made, right? and anyone who says anything bad...or even something that isnt good, you have to go and discredit them...thats human nature i guess
Dennis316 wrote:go read sport rider on the thruxton, its something like 900cc, and runs a 13.4 quarter mile...welcome to 2007 indeed
i ride a 2007 SV650
Neither the sportster nor the bonneville (or thruxton) are out to chase sportbikes - that's not the type of ride they are, nor are they trying to be.
They're both on par with cruisers in the same class.
considering that the thruxton is a sport bike and uses the EXACT same engine as the bonneville, i think they ARE out to chase other sportbikes...the ducati classics are fast and handle well...even though they are made to look retro as well
Dennis316 wrote:considering that the thruxton is a sport bike and uses the EXACT same engine as the bonneville, i think they ARE out to chase other sportbikes...the ducati classics are fast and handle well...even though they are made to look retro as well
First of all, Triumph built the Thruxton as a "retro cafe racer" which, if you knew as much about bikes as you claim to, is not in the same category as a sportbike. None of the reviews I've read allude to any reliability problems with the Bonneville lineup. Most all of them do comment on the very good handling and power of the Thruxton, which does not use the "exact same engine" as the others of the Bonneville lineup. Which reviews are you referring to? Back up your statements with proof, because to me you're starting to sound like an "internet rider", not a real rider.
Dennis316 wrote:the inline 2 cylinder triumphs havent been known for their reliability either...
Dennis, assuming you're talking about modern Triumph twins, that's about as ignorant a statement as anyone could possibly make. What's your back-up or proof for that?
whats my proof? read reviews on them...just because you own one it means that its supposed to be the greatest motorcycle ever made, right? and anyone who says anything bad...or even something that isnt good, you have to go and discredit them...thats human nature i guess
I'll gladly discredit anyone who depends on magazine articles over real life hands-on personal experience -- except I don't have to. You're doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself. You say there are articles, but you have failed to cite any specific examples. Your remark about Triumph twins is egregiously foolish because it is so far from the truth: the Hinckley twins are built like tanks, it is an extraordinarily over-built and under-stressed engine.
If you bothered yourself to search my postings on TMW on the various bikes I've owned, you'd find I'm the last person to be a brand chauvinist. I've posted frankly and objectively about the Triumph Bonneville's strong and weak points. However, I assert, based on my experience and the experience of a bunch of acquaintances who own these bikes, that engine reliability absolutely is not a problem with Hinckley Bonnevilles. Got evidence to the contrary? Put up or shut up.
Mike 
