I really like the look of the RR

[Cooper1999]

I've been looking at the youtube reviews of the launch of the Triumph Speed Triple 1200RR. But every review I've watched so far seem not to be able to pigeon-hole what the bikes meant to be.
Can I suggest a modern interpretation of my bike (without the foibles and a shed load more power):


I can't help but think the Triumph will fill a similar sort of role - a road biased sports bike.
I might have to try and get a test ride in the New Year, although couldn't justify or afford over £18k (it would have to be red). Hasn't stopped me playing with the configurator though!

https://www.triumphmotorcycles.co.uk/motorcycles/r...

Anyone on here tempted to get one?

[Carlososos]

Watched the 44 teeth review. Looks very expensive for what it is but if you like it that’s all that matters. It does look really nice if a bit top heavy.

[Drezza]

£18k is a piss take

[spareparts]

Ergos are horrific for my 32” inseam: knee is slap bang into the frame, not tank.

[andySC]

I like it too but couldn’t stump up the £18k for one. I’d not be too bothered with the fancy Ohlins so a version with conventional suspension for a chunk less dough would be more tempting.

I own a 2016 Speed & really like it although an aftermarket kit with clip ons & a bikini fairing would be mega if such a thing existed.

[Rene Souffle]

spareparts said:

Ergos are horrific for my 32” inseam: knee is slap bang into the frame, not tank.

I’d be interest to see what these are like. I’ve got a 36” inside leg and fit pretty comfortably on my Speed Triple 1200RS.

That said, I wouldn’t be interested in swapping a) because I don’t really like the RR and b) because it’s a stupid amount of money.

[Carlososos]

Rene Souffle said:

spareparts said:

Ergos are horrific for my 32” inseam: knee is slap bang into the frame, not tank.

I’d be interest to see what these are like. I’ve got a 36” inside leg and fit pretty comfortably on my Speed Triple 1200RS.

That said, I wouldn’t be interested in swapping a) because I don’t really like the RR and b) because it’s a stupid amount of money.

Crikey how tall are you?

[Tango13]

Drezza said:

£18k is a piss take

I can remember when the RC30 was first released with an utterly obscene price tag of £8,600...

I can see where there's £18k of engineering in the bike and I'm sure it's a great bike to ride but that fairing!

The one good thing is you can't see how fugly it is whilst you're riding or walking away from it but you would have to park it in such a way that you could approach from behind before riding.

[Rene Souffle]

Carlososos said:

Rene Souffle said:

spareparts said:

Ergos are horrific for my 32” inseam: knee is slap bang into the frame, not tank.

I’d be interest to see what these are like. I’ve got a 36” inside leg and fit pretty comfortably on my Speed Triple 1200RS.

That said, I wouldn’t be interested in swapping a) because I don’t really like the RR and b) because it’s a stupid amount of money.

Crikey how tall are you?

6’6



I am very aware I look ridiculous on the bike, but I enjoy it

[trickywoo]

Rene Souffle said:

I am very aware I look ridiculous on the bike, but I enjoy it

I started reading this thread from the bottom and saw your picture first. I genuinely thought that was a monkey bike with a body kit on it.

[Rene Souffle]

trickywoo said:

Rene Souffle said:

I am very aware I look ridiculous on the bike, but I enjoy it

I started reading this thread from the bottom and saw your picture first. I genuinely thought that was a monkey bike with a body kit on it.

I’ve had a Honda MSX and currently in the process of trying to swap my Honda Africa Twin for a Honda Monkey. Again, bizarrely comfortable to ride

[Bob_Defly]

Tango13 said:

The one good thing is you can't see how fugly it is whilst you're riding or walking away from it but you would have to park it in such a way that you could approach from behind before riding.

[jason61c]

£18k for a triumph..... its at least £5k too much.

[duudiz]

I like them, but for the price there is so many other bikes I would go to first.

[rodericb]

Do these 1200 triples run the same engine mounts as the triples in last of the Daytona 955's?

[trickywoo]

rodericb said:

Do these 1200 triples run the same engine mounts as the triples in last of the Daytona 955's?

Don’t know but think it unlikely as it’s an entirely new engine and frame.

[Tango13]

trickywoo said:

rodericb said:

Do these 1200 triples run the same engine mounts as the triples in last of the Daytona 955's?

Don’t know but think it unlikely as it’s an entirely new engine and frame.

Not a chance!

The pistons on the 1200 are 11mm larger in diameter that the 955/1050 engines and the distance between the cylinder liners in the 955/1050 engine is only 9mm so the head on the 1200 would need to be at least 33mm wider. The stroke on the 1200 is just over 4mm shorter than the 955 so the head could well be a bit lower too.

The very last of the 955 Daytonas were basically a stronger short stroke version of the 1050 engine.

Edited by Tango13 on Wednesday 15th December 22:13

[rodericb]

Thanks all. Those new engines have a heap of power. It'd make an awesome restomod into an older 955 Daytona.

[Tango13]

rodericb said:

Thanks all. Those new engines have a heap of power. It'd make an awesome restomod into an older 955 Daytona.

A reliable 150 bhp from a 1050 engine is easily achievable if you don't mind spending a fair bit of cash, mine is putting out just over 140 at the wheel without any head or cam work on a standard exhaust.

You can get 140ish without spending much money at all but the engine will go bang in a very spectacular way if yoy try it.