Wow - nice looking Triumph Speed Twin

N

nhawk7504_imp

Been there
Thread starter
Triumph Unveils 2019 Speed Twin (with video) « MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Looks like what the CB could have been, in one sense anyway with the rounder tank look from the get go, though I do like the latest CB1100 tank myself. I was not a huge fan of the old 80s tank look of the '13/'14 CB1100. It's good. I just lean towards these rounded tanks. - This Speed Twin is just a really sharp looking machine. Very well done. Power. Torque. Fork gaiters. Nice little accents here and there.
 
if you ask me, this triumph is everything the Kawasaki Z900R should have been, rather than the CB. Kawasaki was more known for their big parallel twins than Honda, and for their rounder tanks, and i was immediately disappointed to find that when they made the Z900r they had emulated the "ltd" 4-cylinder bikes instead of the Twins.

More related to your point: I always figured the '13/'14 CB1100 tank shape was meant to be more 80's than 70's, and the '17 redesign was intended to be more 70's.

I'm not here to argue about anything though, just to say that I wish there were more big displacement parallel twins in the world.
 
Most impressive stat is that it’s a 1200cc bike coming in at close to +/- 100 pounds BELOW the CB1100s dry weight.
 
^ Yes. I find that hard to believe. However, if they do come in a good chunk under 500lbs this bike is instantly on my radar, radiator, 270 crank, and all.
 
Love it to death. Just wish it had the new Scrambler 1200's larger, seamless tank. Why on earth would Triumph create the perfect tank for the Scrambler and not slap it on this new Speed Twin too?
 
That new triumph has alot going for it, but to me....that bubbly shaped tank
7d3d3dd81846ff4533217c3c24656fd2.jpg

does resemble the Whitehouse tank
4c3b578c70699da7aaa773c01370a00e.jpg
 
dbarkdoll_imp said:
Great looking bike. Those numbers are impressive.
Click to expand...
Nice. A slightly different look from the (IMO) more classical appearance of the T120.

Good friend and riding buddy has been riding a 2016 for 3 seasons. I've spent a little saddle time on it. Nice machine.

Bob
 
Specs are good, lighter weight than our Cb's with about the same horsepower. Should be a fun bike to ride on the street.

Visually it misses some marks for me, and it's not the tank seam. I don't give a hoot about the tank seam. For me the styling miscues are too much gap between the rear tire and the rear fender. Less gap and the seat sits flat, and the bottom of the tank paralleles the ground. Reminds me of the same miscue with the Ducati 1000, only the seat on the Triumph looks better. The rear fender/ tail light is too short/small and looks like a Preston Petty replacement on a mid 70's Yamaha enduro. For me the mini turnsignals with the clear lenses don't get it either. They may be led and bright (not sure) bit I actually like the look of turn signals and I can't see these. Also the master cylinder on the bars is a urine cup. Fine I think for a super sport replicating a track bike, but not for this. Now the instruments, the tach looks like a speedo and at first glance I wondered why the speedo had a redline, until I realized it was really a tach. So I look at the real speedo and wonder what the little flowery doily thing in the middle is? Also I think the info in the little square blocks in the instruments might be hard to read at a glance. Not sure would have to see them in person.

Otherwise a winner as far as I'm concerned.
 
It’s a great job to come in at a claimed 432 lbs. dry weight. More than 100 lbs. less than my 2017 CB1100 with more hp and torque. They even saved 60 lbs. compared to the T120. It sounds like it will be a great bike.
 
The ferret_imp said:
Specs are good, lighter weight than our Cb's with about the same horsepower. Should be a fun bike to ride on the street.

Visually it misses some marks for me, and it's not the tank seam. I don't give a hoot about the tank seam. For me the styling miscues are too much gap between the rear tire and the rear fender. Less gap and the seat sits flat, and the bottom of the tank paralleles the ground. Reminds me of the same miscue with the Ducati 1000, only the seat on the Triumph looks better. The rear fender/ tail light is too short/small and looks like a Preston Petty replacement on a mid 70's Yamaha enduro. For me the mini turnsignals with the clear lenses don't get it either. They may be led and bright (not sure) bit I actually like the look of turn signals and I can't see these. Also the master cylinder on the bars is a urine cup. Fine I think for a super sport replicating a track bike, but not for this. Now the instruments, the tach looks like a speedo and at first glance I wondered why the speedo had a redline, until I realized it was really a tach. So I look at the real speedo and wonder what the little flowery doily thing in the middle is? Also I think the info in the little square blocks in the instruments might be hard to read at a glance. Not sure would have to see them in person.

Otherwise a winner as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
I think Mick pretty much nailed it here. I like the small turn signals and tail light however. The rear fender is definitely a miss and the instrument faces are weird. Still, I like this bike. Not as much as my CB1100 but this is a bike I could own. Cheers.

Chip
 
I agree with Chip and Ferret. I also think the license plate could have been better handled.
 
Overall I think it is a very nice bike , although I feel like I already have one , only a bit better .

If I was to get a Triumph it would be a Bonny Bobber Black with mini apes.. that bike is just crazy cool!

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
 
peterbaron_imp said:
Cormanus_imp said:
I agree with Chip and Ferret. I also think the license plate could have been better handled.
Click to expand...
^ +1
Click to expand...
^ +1
Huge step forward IMHO.

The specs are so much better than the similarly-priced similar-category bikes. The styling misses are so slight that I consider them a non-factor. For me at least. The power/weight ratio, plus torque, is what makes it so exciting. And.....59mpg!! Almost 200 mile range.

I have been considering bailing on my ‘13 CB since the Triumph scrambler was announced. Will probably still get it, but this deserves strong consideration. Either one works well with my Ventura luggage.
 
misterprofessionality_imp said:
if you ask me, this triumph is everything the Kawasaki Z900R should have been, rather than the CB. Kawasaki was more known for their big parallel twins than Honda, and for their rounder tanks, and i was immediately disappointed to find that when they made the Z900r they had emulated the "ltd" 4-cylinder bikes instead of the Twins.

More related to your point: I always figured the '13/'14 CB1100 tank shape was meant to be more 80's than 70's, and the '17 redesign was intended to be more 70's.

I'm not here to argue about anything though, just to say that I wish there were more big displacement parallel twins in the world.
Click to expand...
Kawasaki known for big parallel twins?! Kawasaki is known for the Z1 and 2 stroke triples. I'm unaware of a Kawasaki parallel twin larger then 750cc.

I think they got the Speed Twin right. The weight, power, torque, brakes, looks, everything. The seat needs to be reshaped or thicker or something thou.
 
I'm finding it hard to believe the weight...otherwise, they've knocked it out of the park. Splendid job, Triumph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gone in 60
INT650
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
5K
GoldOxide_imp
G
V
2019 Triumph Speed Twin
Replies
8
Views
768
Bheezy27403_imp
B
V
2018 CB1000R first ride reviews
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Cormanus
Cormanus
V
Okay, mickey, you're wearing me down!
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
CMan_imp
C
V
The Magical Mystery Tour
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
VLJ_imp
V
Back
Top