Molinoman
Living Legend
I just picked up the December 2007 issue of Cruiser magazine and read the article on the "new and improved" R3 Touring edition.
I was flabbergasted at the assumptions that were addressed in this article. My comments are as follows in bold.
I knew "we" were in trouble with the following statement (about the current versions of the Rocket): "Well, it's done OK for Triumph in the States, but wasn't, to be frank, quite the right mix to really hit a home run."
First up was the headlights "...the twin headlights on the original Rocket are very European (my take on it is no, they give it a distinctly Triumph look or are they now ashamed of this...are single headlights going to be the norm on all US Triumph bikes because the twin set up is very European????), and the traditional (my emphasis in underline) cruiser rider wants a big, chrome headlight."...REALLY???
Next on the "hit list" is the instruments in the fuel tank..."because that's where the majority of cruiser riders want to find them." REALLY???
The comment on the wind screen I'll leave alone as it may be a "suitable" improvement then again maybe not, but is is supposedly easily detachable.
"You'll notice there is now one exhaust pipe per side; a lot of riders didn't like the asymetric two pipes on one side, one on the other layout of the original. We learnt that it's the little things that really matter sometimes." REALLY??? (Flip, sorry about the punctuation and spelling...but it's right out of the magazine)
"The Rocket III's very difficult to place in a niche, which we have to acknowledge is part of its appeal to many people. But at this high-end of the market, we're asking riders to make a stretch from an air-cooled V-twin to a liquid-cooled inline triple." (Now it comes out...Triumph is attempting to target Harley riders and all along I thought is was trying to target guys who want a "BIG" bike...small Harley engines need not apply).
But wait there is more...
"We want to make the bike have that Triumph difference, yet not feel too different." ...again REALLY???
"The main thing we focused on was comfort, and we've done a lot of work on tuning the suspension and getting the seat construction just right." Note to Triumph, you are not going to win that one...it is what "after market" seats are for, a good number of us do not fit the 160 to 180 lb. ideal the seats are "usually" designed for. Any "touring" Gold Wing rider (and probably Harley as well) will tell you that this is one area, for long distance riding, that gets a lot of attention in one way or another.
They have changed the rear tire to a 180/70 series to enable large sized hard bags (the Gold Wing is a 180/60 series tire) I hope there are more choices than the Gold Wing gets (Metzler, Dunlop, Avon and Bridgestone) and the mileage on that rear tire is not going to be very good as the Gold Wing rear tire gets about the same mileage as the current Rocket version...again not very good (3,000 to 10,000 miles depending on "riding style").
Other improvements (???):
Fuel capacity is at 5.9 gallons ...less than current capacity (and tank is more narrow). Seat height is at 29 inches with the wheelbase gaining a .5 inch at 67.2 inches. Dry weight has increased because of the "beefed" up frame, bags and screen. The front tire is now a 16 inch size with a 150/80 front wheel for low-speed ease and composure. Also: " The rider also gets a heel to toe shifter"...but the current Classic and Classic "Tourer" models had them already.
Other highlights:
"Brand-new handlebars wear brand-new chunky switchgear and clutch lever, the rider and passenger get completely new (and much larger) floorboards.
"The instruments feature two odometers, fuel gauge, range to empty and clock, plus you can scroll between functions using a button on the switchgear. The indicators are auto-canceling with a time delay."
Now for the good and bad news (not necessarily in that order): The 2294 cc (140 c.i.) engine is unchanged, as is the gearbox and its ratios. Power is 106.3 (not a misprint) hp with a peak torque of 154.4 delivered at 2000 rpm.
For better or worse other comments are as follows:
"Gone is that wheelbarrow-filled-with-cement steering feel of the old bike and absent is the need to really dominate the beast to get it going where you want it."
"The giant powerhouse of an engine remains an impressive, if unattractive piece of work."
"I think Triumph has rightly left the heart and soul of the Rocket alone (with a 106 hp @ 5400 rpm?...my observation)."
And last but not least is the closing comment:
"As we finish up with some static beauty shots well away from prying eyes, I stand back and take a good, hard look at Triumph's new baby. The overall lines are very familiar, and the bike's individual features echo strongly a style of machine that's long defined the American two-wheeled heartbeat (read...like a Harley). Well, fair enough. However you dress that three-chlinder engine up, it's no Harley (talk of a back handed compliment?). But it is something else; it has a discernible character and soul quite its own (mighty white of you to give it that....) And to my mind, in a sea of bland clones, that's no bad thing. At least now the Rocket III Touring looks like it belongs (underline my emphasis).
Hope my commentary wasn't too rough, but to me they are trying to improve "downwards" in most cases to make it more comparable to that...other motorcycle whose headquarters is located in Milwaukee.
Triumph...what have you done?
Dennis
I was flabbergasted at the assumptions that were addressed in this article. My comments are as follows in bold.
I knew "we" were in trouble with the following statement (about the current versions of the Rocket): "Well, it's done OK for Triumph in the States, but wasn't, to be frank, quite the right mix to really hit a home run."
First up was the headlights "...the twin headlights on the original Rocket are very European (my take on it is no, they give it a distinctly Triumph look or are they now ashamed of this...are single headlights going to be the norm on all US Triumph bikes because the twin set up is very European????), and the traditional (my emphasis in underline) cruiser rider wants a big, chrome headlight."...REALLY???
Next on the "hit list" is the instruments in the fuel tank..."because that's where the majority of cruiser riders want to find them." REALLY???
The comment on the wind screen I'll leave alone as it may be a "suitable" improvement then again maybe not, but is is supposedly easily detachable.
"You'll notice there is now one exhaust pipe per side; a lot of riders didn't like the asymetric two pipes on one side, one on the other layout of the original. We learnt that it's the little things that really matter sometimes." REALLY??? (Flip, sorry about the punctuation and spelling...but it's right out of the magazine)
"The Rocket III's very difficult to place in a niche, which we have to acknowledge is part of its appeal to many people. But at this high-end of the market, we're asking riders to make a stretch from an air-cooled V-twin to a liquid-cooled inline triple." (Now it comes out...Triumph is attempting to target Harley riders and all along I thought is was trying to target guys who want a "BIG" bike...small Harley engines need not apply).
But wait there is more...
"We want to make the bike have that Triumph difference, yet not feel too different." ...again REALLY???
"The main thing we focused on was comfort, and we've done a lot of work on tuning the suspension and getting the seat construction just right." Note to Triumph, you are not going to win that one...it is what "after market" seats are for, a good number of us do not fit the 160 to 180 lb. ideal the seats are "usually" designed for. Any "touring" Gold Wing rider (and probably Harley as well) will tell you that this is one area, for long distance riding, that gets a lot of attention in one way or another.
They have changed the rear tire to a 180/70 series to enable large sized hard bags (the Gold Wing is a 180/60 series tire) I hope there are more choices than the Gold Wing gets (Metzler, Dunlop, Avon and Bridgestone) and the mileage on that rear tire is not going to be very good as the Gold Wing rear tire gets about the same mileage as the current Rocket version...again not very good (3,000 to 10,000 miles depending on "riding style").
Other improvements (???):
Fuel capacity is at 5.9 gallons ...less than current capacity (and tank is more narrow). Seat height is at 29 inches with the wheelbase gaining a .5 inch at 67.2 inches. Dry weight has increased because of the "beefed" up frame, bags and screen. The front tire is now a 16 inch size with a 150/80 front wheel for low-speed ease and composure. Also: " The rider also gets a heel to toe shifter"...but the current Classic and Classic "Tourer" models had them already.
Other highlights:
"Brand-new handlebars wear brand-new chunky switchgear and clutch lever, the rider and passenger get completely new (and much larger) floorboards.
"The instruments feature two odometers, fuel gauge, range to empty and clock, plus you can scroll between functions using a button on the switchgear. The indicators are auto-canceling with a time delay."
Now for the good and bad news (not necessarily in that order): The 2294 cc (140 c.i.) engine is unchanged, as is the gearbox and its ratios. Power is 106.3 (not a misprint) hp with a peak torque of 154.4 delivered at 2000 rpm.
For better or worse other comments are as follows:
"Gone is that wheelbarrow-filled-with-cement steering feel of the old bike and absent is the need to really dominate the beast to get it going where you want it."
"The giant powerhouse of an engine remains an impressive, if unattractive piece of work."
"I think Triumph has rightly left the heart and soul of the Rocket alone (with a 106 hp @ 5400 rpm?...my observation)."
And last but not least is the closing comment:
"As we finish up with some static beauty shots well away from prying eyes, I stand back and take a good, hard look at Triumph's new baby. The overall lines are very familiar, and the bike's individual features echo strongly a style of machine that's long defined the American two-wheeled heartbeat (read...like a Harley). Well, fair enough. However you dress that three-chlinder engine up, it's no Harley (talk of a back handed compliment?). But it is something else; it has a discernible character and soul quite its own (mighty white of you to give it that....) And to my mind, in a sea of bland clones, that's no bad thing. At least now the Rocket III Touring looks like it belongs (underline my emphasis).
Hope my commentary wasn't too rough, but to me they are trying to improve "downwards" in most cases to make it more comparable to that...other motorcycle whose headquarters is located in Milwaukee.
Triumph...what have you done?
Dennis
Last edited: