Yes, it's me again with more Tbird news ! :)

[dazco]

Check it out. Someone at BA posted the scanned pages from cycle world who has a ARTICLE, yes, a actual article on the Tbird with more info than everything weve heard to date real facts and specs. Finally.

http://www.bonnevilleamerica.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=352906&an=0&page=0#Post352906

 

[shyguy344]

Excellent article, Daz...thanks for sharing. I really like the looks of the prototype from a cruiser standpoint, and it is different enough to attract both the cruiser people and those that like something just a little different.

Great read. Thanks again. :y18:

Bob

 

[dazco]

Also, and this might be of interest to Carl especially, it says that while it's a cruiser riding position, it feels closer to a mid peg position than most cruisers. Looking at it i don't see that, but if it does feel closer it might be doable for him.

For me it looks like the power may push me away and back to a new speedmaster as my next bike. the triumph rep or whoever it is describing the bike said that their goal when designing it (one part of their goal anyways) was to make it have at least 80 HP. well, thats just not nearly enough for me to change. With the extra weight and only 19 more HP than the EFI speedmaster, thats just pathetic IMO. The torque is more important to me and the torque IS great. I forgot what it was but it's over 100. Thats great, but still the HP is pathetic for a 1600. It's almost double the engine size of a speedy yet the HP if doubled would be 122. And the speedy is mildly tuned and delivers mediocre power for it's size. So the 1600 *may* be sorta pathetic for it's size. I say *may* because they said their goal was at least 80 HP, but they don't cite the actual HP. So it may be more. Certainly not what has been estimated from various sources tho. Most said over 100, but in the article they say the big bore 1700 kit that will be available for it will bring it to over 100. So it's certainly well under the century mark. Oh, and the price is looking to be 1-2k more than was expected. So just one more thing that will likely push me away.

They also say 650 Lbs, but i have to think that means dry because if it meant wet then the bike would weight not much more than a speedy. The speedy goes up 45 lbs from dry to wet, and this bike also has water. So figure 650 wet would mean about 550-570 dry. No way. So i figure 720 or so wet. Not a heck of a lot lighter than the R3 but with a lot less HP. It's not looking good, at least to me. The look in person and the torque may change my mind, but at the moment i'm back to considering a new RFI speedy s my next. I'll just have to ride them both and see. hopefully the '09 speedy colors will be change. didin't like any of the '08 paint.

 

[dazco]

Look slike i missed what the article said about the weight. It DID say dry. I would have just added this thought to the last post instead of making a new post but i saw no edit option ! Does this board only allow you to edit once or what? (yes, i was logged in)

 

[CarlS]

Dale, I won't know until I try it - and I certainly intend to try it. Thanks for the link to the article; it was a good read. I figure the weight will be about 710 lbs.

 

[stevethelondoner]

Love the look of this bike....I would want one mainly because me Dad rode the OLD and I mean Old T-bird. So to have that connection would be awesome. I do like the lines on this bike though....nice and rounded if that makes sence.

Cheers for that

Ride safe

 

[shyguy344]

My only complaint about the new T-Bird is that I have an '02 T-Bird which is nothing like the new one, and I would hate to see the modern classic T-Bird get forgotten.
I also have a large cruiser, an '02 Y......Road Star. Complete with windshield, bags, etc., it tips the scales at nearly 800 pounds, full of fuel. It is very comfortable on the road, but a handful at times in very tight quarters. It puts out just about 65-68 HP, and my 450 pound T-Bird puts out 69 HP, according to all I have read.
Now, my new Tiger, that weighs in at just about the same as my beloved T-Bird, puts out 114 HP, and is supposed to be a great long distance ride(we'll soon see). But that is another story all together.....I can't wait to get it and ride, ride, ride....

 

[DaveM]

Cool thanks for posting the link to this. I have also saved it into my photo album for future referencing https://www.triumphtalk.com/index.php?action=gallery;su=user;cat=82;u=1 Now I have something else to read in the next couple of days :y115: :y114:

 

[CarlS]

[quote author=dazco link=topic=1937.msg13331#msg13331 date=1222808372]
Look slike i missed what the article said about the weight. It DID say dry. I would have just added this thought to the last post instead of making a new post but i saw no edit option ! Does this board only allow you to edit once or what? (yes, i was logged in)
[/quote]

Dale, Dave limited the editing option to a certain period of time to prevent sabotage.

 

[dazco]

I see. no biggie, just wondering.

 

[DaveM]

Wow I was starting to get real impressed until I came to this part The main goal was to achieve at least 80 horsepower and 103 foot-pounds of toque :tongue: not that much more than my Speedy now and double the motor size :tongue: I must admit I found this rather disappointing :silent: :sad:

2009 Speedmaster

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020)

Maximum Power
62PS / 61bhp / 46kW @ 6,800 rpm
Maximum Torque
74Nm / 55ft.lbf @ 3,300 rpm

2009 T100

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020)

Maximum Power
68PS / 67bhp / 50kW @ 7,500 rpm
Maximum Torque
69Nm / 51ft.lbf @ 5,800 rpm

2009 Thruxton

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020)

Maximum Power
70PS / 69bhp / 51kW @ 7,400 rpm
Maximum Torque
70Nm / 52ft.lbf @ 5,800rpm

2009 Scrambler

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020)

Maximum Power
60PS / 59bhp / 44kW @ 6,800 rpm
Maximum Torque
69Nm / 51ft.lbf @ 4,750 rpm

 

[Silli]

Don't panic Dave. The new T'bird has approx double the torque of those bikes you list.
I think the proof will be in the riding.
Cannot see Triumph investing in such a big project if they were not sure the performance would be up to scratch.

It gonna be a long 12 months...........

 

[DaveM]

Yes it sure is not that I can afford one right now but we can only dream :y114:

 

[CarlS]

I noticed that, too, and I was disappointed. However, that was the goal. It does not tell us what the final figures are. I hope the final figure is around 100 HP or I will be greatly disappointed.

 

[DaveM]

I think none of us will really know until we get the road report from Dale when he purchases his :y114:

 

[dazco]

Well, i may NOT be purchasing one, and as i think i said above thats one of the reasons.

1)-if it's close to thier "goal", i'd rather get a new speedy. yes, the torque is great but i don't want a HD. (HD=lots of torque, nothing up high)

2)-gonna be almost as heavy as a R3 and therfore may not get much better mileage and will eat tires just as fat, 2 of my issues with the R3

3)-and this is a biggie....shim and bucket valve adjustments. I was praying for self adjusters both for the lack of regular valve adjustments and lower engine noise. (hate, absolutely HATE the 900's noise) and by the look of that pic of the valve train it appears a valve adjustment will be worse then a trip to hell itself, and if you have them do it will cost a fortune.

4)-seems cost will be 1 or 2k more than we thought, and with the accessories i know i woun't be able to pass up because they will make the finish quality on par with HD. I don't see myself spending that much.

I will however go see it and hopefully ride it when it arrives. and if it sings to me, all bets are off. But it's going to have to sing like the winner of american idol only wishes they could. It will have to be as the late Robert Palmer said, "simply irrisistable".

 

[DaveM]

So what colour did you say you will be getting :y114: I think it has already sung to you in a big way :y18: :y114:

 

[dazco]

Well, don't count on it. Many specs are not singing to me at all, so the ones that do will have to sing like nothing has sung before. So it's a long ways from being a sure thing. I'm also looking forward to what they do with the 900's for '09 because the '08 colors don't do anything for me and i'm hoping they change the tank shape and/or wheels with all the bad mouthing it got when it came out. I know thats very unlikely, but in any case i want to see what the '09 900's colors are for sure. i wish they'd never changed them. If they left them as they were and just added EFI i think there is not one person who's not be happier ! I see no reason they couldn't have built a tank that looks the same with a pump in it and make it a tad larger to compensate for the volume difference with a pump inside. I have to admit tho....while i was a fan of the fake EFI carbs, after seeing the EFI throttle bodies i prefer that look. A blend of old and new is my cup of tea anyways.

ig that 7 HP the EFI 900 cruisers have over the carb models feels real, and i can add about another 7 as i did with my carb'd model, that would be enough to keep me much happier than my current speedy. Not perfect, but it's almost acceptable now.

 

[DaveM]

Yes I don’t know why they changed the tank either I also liked the old style. I suppose they wanted something that would stand out to mark the difference between the two. Oh well I think the 1600 has a lot of people in limbo now just waiting for the final outcome and what it will be when all the mods are available.

 

[dazco]

I think cosmetically at least, that pic of the black one i posted pretty much had all the chrome accessories on it. thats probably all accessories except mechanical and bagger stuff. i imagine that jacked it's price up a good 3k USD if not more.