New R3

[Triple Trouble]

Thanks for posting Nat I have been looking around to see one in the flesh.
She does look good but I have the same concerns as everyone else - designed for a small pillion, which limits the potential buyers without some mods.

Would love the R version just for solo riding - difficult to persuade me to change from my current charger, she is just great.

Does nobody rememberr the tiny bltch pad on the early bikes? They make the new version look quite luxurious.

 

[Paul Bryant]

Great pics Nat, I'm still on the fence over these bikes, not that I will be buying one.
I kinda like them, and I kinda don't

BUT, as yet no one has been able to answer my question about these backwards forks.
We all know about Rake and trail etc, but how does this work.
When you look at the offset of the Triple clamps (looks pretty standard) (Red to Green) then take a line through the center of the steering head, then place the axle behind the center line of the forks.

Now I do understand that these Engineers/designers do know what they are doing, and that they know a heck of a lot more than I do, so obviously it wouldn't be out there if it didn't work.

Even if it is technically correct (which I accept that it is) ...it still looks wrong.

Some one please explain .....

 

[Nat67]

Great pics Nat, I'm still on the fence over these bikes, not that I will be buying one.
I kinda like them, and I kinda don't

BUT, as yet no one has been able to answer my question about these backwards forks.
We all know about Rake and trail etc, but how does this work.
When you look at the offset of the Triple clamps (looks pretty standard) (Red to Green) then take a line through the center of the steering head, then place the axle behind the center line of the forks.

Now I do understand that these Engineers/designers do know what they are doing, and that they know a heck of a lot more than I do, so obviously it wouldn't be out there if it didn't work.

Even if it is technically correct (which I accept that it is) ...it still looks wrong.

Some one please explain .....

I agree ! basically looks like they have built a smaller bike around a larger engine. gone hip with the rear end and extended the front to make it appear bigger . The reach across the tank to the flatter bars looks like bit of a ball crusher, especially if carrying a pillion , shorter riders are supported by the tank in sports bike fashion , so it's going to suit them down to the ground . seems like Triumph have catered more to the buyers of their other models with this one , but as someone else has already mentioned , I too am not convinced they have got it right ? kudos for the largest engine , fine if that's all you want ? but I still think my 2010 has more road presence and a Diaval or ZX1400 definitely more ! Time will tell I guess ?

 

[sonny]

I still believe it looks like a piece of crap. Beside all that if that is a pic of a TFC being offered on a showroom floor for sale what the **** happened to them all be sold already?

 

[Nat67]

I still believe it looks like a piece of crap. Beside all that if that

I still believe it looks like a piece of crap. Beside all that if that is a pic of a TFC being offered on a showroom floor for sale what the **** happened to them all be sold already?

I'm not sure if you can see in the photos ? but that bike was number 000 . Not for sale ! The same bike was unveiled at the Plymouth dealership the next day , so I'm assuming it's owned by triumph purely for marketing . The TFCs I believe , sold for a few grand more than £20000 ?

 

[geno]

managed to get some pics of the new R3 in my local showroom . She lost more inches from her waist than I have ! £20000 gbp , for the 2020 model and definitely built to accommodate smaller riders . Have to admit tho , build quality is a thing of beauty !

I love the new rocket with the exception of the handle bars; i would like a more beach cruiser style bars these are too straight across tee style.

 

[chrisw]

It looks "OK" its a bit car like in the engine department with the manifold and pipes. but I guess evolution is a good thing. Maybe Triumph are doing so well they can afford to push this creation out into the market to see reactions. I think front spindle position allows a Roader look (long) but retaining short rake for handling.
end of day I would rather see this bold version than nothing at all

Hats off to triumph for having the balls to try and improve on perfection

 

[Nat67]

It looks "OK" its a bit car like in the engine department with the manifold and pipes. but I guess evolution is a good thing. Maybe Triumph are doing so well they can afford to push this creation out into the market to see reactions. I think front spindle position allows a Roader look (long) but retaining short rake for handling.
end of day I would rather see this bold version than nothing at all

Hats off to triumph for having the balls to try and improve on perfection

Yes good point ! easy to poo poo . let's wait from some feedback from those fortunate enough to own the latest incarnation ? as you say ? better that than scrap the whole R3 concept . with a rebirth , reasonable sales will lead to minor variations over time I'm sure ?

 

[1olbull]

Great pics Nat, I'm still on the fence over these bikes, not that I will be buying one.
I kinda like them, and I kinda don't

BUT, as yet no one has been able to answer my question about these backwards forks.
We all know about Rake and trail etc, but how does this work.
When you look at the offset of the Triple clamps (looks pretty standard) (Red to Green) then take a line through the center of the steering head, then place the axle behind the center line of the forks.

Now I do understand that these Engineers/designers do know what they are doing, and that they know a heck of a lot more than I do, so obviously it wouldn't be out there if it didn't work.

Even if it is technically correct (which I accept that it is) ...it still looks wrong.

Some one please explain .....

Great pics Nat, I'm still on the fence over these bikes, not that I will be buying one.
I kinda like them, and I kinda don't

BUT, as yet no one has been able to answer my question about these backwards forks.
We all know about Rake and trail etc, but how does this work.
When you look at the offset of the Triple clamps (looks pretty standard) (Red to Green) then take a line through the center of the steering head, then place the axle behind the center line of the forks.

Now I do understand that these Engineers/designers do know what they are doing, and that they know a heck of a lot more than I do, so obviously it wouldn't be out there if it didn't work.

Even if it is technically correct (which I accept that it is) ...it still looks wrong.

Some one please explain .....

Rake is not the fork angle. It is the steer head angle.

There are two things that count:
1) Where the steer head angle intersects pavement.
2) Where the verticle line through the front axle (tire contact) intersects pavement.
These two points establish trail.

 

[ruzzle]

Some one please explain .....

I tried to but you wouldn't believe me.