T120 Test by Peter Egan

[Ulvetanna_imp]

[url=http://www.cycleworld.com/2016-triumph-bonneville-t120-standard-motorcycle-review-road-test#page-7]Oddly, the more modern the Bonneville becomes, the more it generally resembles those ’60s versions I admire. It has fuel-injection throttle bodies that look like old Amal Monoblocks (sans cables), the best-looking exhaust system in years—with a catalytic converter hidden under the engine—and a nicely finned head and cylinders with a camouflaged radiator in front of them. Yet it looks clean and simple and works better than any British twin I’ve owned.

Egan is a bona fide old fart and he's giving the nod to the phony bits because, as he states later, he wants a bike he enjoys looking at when it's parked.

Funny thing is the bike, despite being a 1200 cc liquid-cooled beast, only makes 72 HP. To get the real power you've got to pony up a lot more dough for the Thruxton.

Good review, and a nice motorcycle, were my thoughts.
[url=http://www.cycleworld.com/2016-triumph-bonneville-t120-standard-motorcycle-review-road-test#page-7][attachment=5621]

[the Ferret]

It's not always about horsepower. Egan bought the same color Bonnie my little brother did, who could care less that it doesn't have the Thruxtons hp. He loves his, as apparently does Egan.

[url=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/theferret111/media/DSCF2992_zpsqnd1sc6h.jpg.html]

[Rocky_imp]

I just received my copy of Rider and read the Eagan story.
He certainly seems well satisfied with it - as would I.
I'm a bona fide old fart too and am well satisfied with the older Bonneville I already have. I suppose I could trade up, but don't feel the need - and another but - don't temp me

[Ulvetanna_imp]

It's not always about horsepower. Egan bought the same color Bonnie my little brother did, who could care less that it doesn't have the Thruxtons hp. He loves his, as apparently does Egan.

[url=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/theferret111/media/DSCF2992_zpsqnd1sc6h.jpg.html]

That was not my point, just that in the same powerplant configuration, Triumph gives us over 100 HP in the Thruxton, but a seriously detuned version in the Bonneville. I first thought perhaps the bike was a lot lighter than the CB1100 and they were seeking a power/weight ratio suitable for a more docile rider, but I noted that the bike actually weighs exactly the same as a CB1100 Standard, 540 pounds.

It has perhaps a little more torque but is down 10 HP and I have to say, after my ride yesterday, the CB1100 has just enough power but could use 5% more across the entire range. So thinking of that weight, but down ten horses, that is going to make a difference in sales and long-term satisfaction. When one is getting on the freeway those ten horses come in very handy, this is not an inexpensive bike, and that peak power figure does not reflect the real, urban world.

Hustling a porker like a CB1100 onto the freeway is interesting at times; from a purely marketing perspective, yes, the bike looks very nice in whatever color Egan liked, and the pseudo-Amal carbs and other vintage touches stimulate nostalgia and very much help to open the wallet.

But take it all around (and I bought a 2000 Bonnie which I finally had to admit was not what I had hoped after several years of trying), after two or three years, many of these will likely be sold. We're seeing that right now on this forum, many owners who just loved their CB1100s are now selling them. Some we know about, other owners have just stopped posting (I have been lurking here since July, 2013 so I know the names) which would probably indicate disenchantment and a sale of the bike.

If Triumph had just given the bike the same peak HP as the CB1100, they'd still have a premium worth paying for in the Thruxton, but would be selling a bike with a higher level of physical exhilaration as well as a significantly more practical usefulness in an urban environment where reasonably quick throttle response can mean the difference between a close call or accident or not.

Anyway if it wasn't all about HP then let's all buy the Sym Wolf Classic 150 and call it a day, lol...15 HP, $2999, buy two! And it has a real carburetor and a kick starter.

[attachment=5622]
BTW, Good morning.

I just received my copy of Rider and read the Eagan story.
He certainly seems well satisfied with it - as would I.
I'm a bona fide old fart too and am well satisfied with the older Bonneville I already have. I suppose I could trade up, but don't feel the need - and another but - don't temp me

Well "hell's bells" as my grandma used to say, here is what I said about the Triumph:

"Good review, and a nice motorcycle, were my thoughts."

But now I've already been roundly slandered and subtly maligned for suggesting it's flawed because it's not producing sufficient power.

And color? What color? There is a splash of some variety of vermilion on the top of the tank. That is not a color, it is an accent.

And good morning to you, too, sir.

[4 Paws_imp]

I'm still looking for the "right" sidecar tug. Going to a 'roll out party' for the new Triumph bobber locally (local brewery is a sponsor too) to see how that looks. Want the classic looks with enough power for long distance riding and the reliability of modern engineering, not real interested in a V-twin.

T120 strongest contender so far.

[Ulvetanna_imp]

Egan said 72 HP in the article, Triumph says 80 HP, so Egan's number must be at the rear wheel. That's pretty decent with the torque the bike is making. I didn't see a dyno chart and don't recall the article stating anywhere this was a rwhp number.

OK, here's what he said:

"The magazine’s test T120 put out 72 bhp at 6,330 rpm and 72 pound-feet of torque at a mere 3,280 rpm, a torque increase of 54 percent from the last generation."

That's gotta be rwhp and torque, substantially less HP than the inline four of the CB1100, but a little more torque and at a lower RPM.

CB1100 is 84 at the rear wheel, the T120 is 72. The CB1100 is making at least 65 lbs-ft of torque from 3800 RPM to 6500 RPM. That being the case I'd think performance is going to be similar at lower revs, but that 12 HP difference is huge up top.
BTW, this is just too many for me:

MARK HOYER, Editor-in-Chief
I stop and sigh when I walk past the front window of my house and see the T120 parked in the yard, the sweet light of the waning day caressing the bike’s beautiful lines. It seems to induce some kind of moto-endorphin that soothes the stressed-out soul. It’s even better from the saddle, with so much easy torque and fine fueling from those “carburetors.” Despite its retro style, this is one of the sweetest all-around standards on the market.

Seriously, maybe he should take a Xanax or something. It's cheaper.

As far as power, Egan says:

So the basic functional architecture is there for a bike that handles, stops, and goes. My main complaint with the last Bonneville was that cramped seating position for my long legs, and I thought a modern 865cc bike should have more power—or at least be as quick as, say, a Ducati 620 Monster. Also, I didn’t like that bent exhaust system. If Triumph had fixed just those three things, I would have been happy to buy another one.

[the Ferret]

In the Triumphs there are two basically the same but different power plants. Triumph calls one " high power" the other "high torque" . I have not ridden a Thruxton so I can not speak to it's " high power" properties, but I have ridden my brother's T120 quite a bit and can tell you it's "high torque" powerplant keeps up with the CB 1100 with no issues and in fact turns the exact same rpm at the exact same speed in the exact same gears. Peas in a pod, except the CB is smoother and the T120 has a better or at least more comprehensive electronics package. My brother is amazed at the power of the T120 compared to his old T100.

Motorcyclists by nature are transients, unable to be satisfied by one machine, that is why CB1100's ( like every other model from every brand) are bought, gushed over for awhile, while their owners participate in model brand forums, and then sold to buy something else, where their owners move on to new forums temporarily.

We all think we know what the " perfect" motorcycle for us would be, ( Ulve seems to be wrestling with this right now..BMW, yes, no, Kawasaki yes, no, back to Beemer, yes no) and with the CB " it has plenty of power" " it could use 5% more across the board" .. When in reality it wouldn't matter. the CB would be no more perfect than it already is even with 5% more power (you are talking 4 peak horsepower, and only a percentage of that at any spped in any gear) and neither the Kwacker or the Beemer will be the perfect bike either, requiring yet another decision somewhere down the road between a couple of other models.

Perhaps we should all use the moniker Un-Decider. At least our buddy who does use that name understands himself and is honest about it. I am as guilty as any. I think I've had about 29 street motorcycles ( the ones that I recall anyway) I was sure were the perfect bike before buying them. The ST is the only one that has stayed in the stable for an extended period of time...10 years. It's not perfect though... If Honda brought out the same bike that weighed 150 pounds less, had factory heated grips, heated seat, cruise control, 6 speed trans, digital gear indicator, I'm afraid there might be a shiny new Honda sitting in the garage where my beloved ST is sitting right now. I can't even say for sure the CB will always be in the garage. If someone comes out with a bike that I think would make me happier than the CB does (unlikely but possible..maybe a bike a little physically larger and with shaft drive) there may be one of those in the garage. No guarantees when it comes to motorcycles. Love my Hondas, but I am not married to any of them.

[Olyrider]

Ulvetanna,

Looks like you aren't set up for Private Messages so I'll ask "out loud".

Have you installed a dyno-tuned Power Commander on your bike? I have one on mine and I can't overstate the difference it made. I also have the ECU re-flash but I think that is less noticeable. The Yoshimura full exhaust is certainly a weight savings and I love the sound it makes. The combination of the three is transformative. I know this is so because I have ridden my bike to the Honda store and then jumped on their unadorned standard. No comparison.

I know a few riders wish for sixth gear on the CBs. Even on the interstate, I only use 5th when I'm "settling in" for a slog. I'm happy in 4th. I've owned faster bikes but I will never be mature enough to ride them within the safety zone. I finally accepted that fact a few years ago.

I used to be a Triumph guy because that was the shop that was most fun to gather and ride. One of my favorites was my '98 Thunderbird Sport. The one I had to sell before it killed me was an '02 Speed Triple. I am enamored with the new Thruxton, but I eagerly await the Bobber arriving at the dealer. The reality is, however, that I am being influenced by appearances not function. My CB is clearly every bit as capable as those bikes. I just think they are sexier. But I am very happy on my Honda. Although I might have sold it quickly before the Power Commander!

[LongRanger_imp]

Looking back over 40+ years of riding, I'd say my most satisfying bike was my 39hp Moto Guzzi V7 Classic. More hp is fine, but it doesn't necessarily bring happiness. YMMV.

[Capo]

I think it's more about the 'how' than the 'how much' when it comes to power delivery in these kinds of bikes. In character- laden retro standards like the CB and Triumph, the numbers aren't the story. I prefer the thrum of the vertical twin (in both 270 and 360 degree forms) to the inline 4, most of the time, and am one of 'those people' who find the CB1100's high frequency tingles at 3500- 4500 RPM to be quite annoying, versus the twin's more baritone rumbles and meaty thrust at around 4500RPM. I've never found the CB to be lacking in power, and unless it was a major bump, I don't think it would make a difference to owners or prospective ones.