 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 227
Adjunct
|
OP
Adjunct
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 227 |
Source Triumph Motorcycles
NGINE (Metric units US units)
Type Liquid-cooled, DOHC, Parallel-twin, 270º firing interval
Capacity 1597 cc 98.0 Cubic inch
Bore/Stroke 103.8 x 94.3mm
Compression Ratio 9.7:1
Fuel System Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection, progressive linkage on throttle
TRANSMISSION
Primary Drive Gear
Final Drive Toothed Belt
Clutch Wet, multi-plate
Gearbox 6-speed constant mesh, helical type
Oil Capacity 4.2 litres 1.1 US gallons
CYCLE PARTS
Frame Tubular Steel, twin spine
Front Wheel Cast aluminium alloy 5-spoke 19 x 3.5 inch
Rear Wheel Cast aluminium alloy 5-spoke 17 x 6 inch
Front Tire 120 / 70 R19 Metzeler Marathon ME880
Rear Tire 200 / 50 R17 Metzeler Marathon ME880
Front Suspension Showa 47mm forks. 120mm travel
Rear Suspension Showa chromed spring twin shocks with 5 position adjustable preload. 95mm rear wheel travel
Front Brakes Twin 310mm floating discs. Nissin 4-piston fixed calipers
Rear Brakes Single 310mm fixed disc. Brembo 2-piston floating caliper
ABS Optional, dual-channel ABS
Instrument display/functions Tank mounted instruments assembly with large speedometer and integrated tachometer
Includes LCD to display Odometer, Trip 1, Trip 2, Fuel Gauge, Range-to-empty & Clock
Integrated instrument scroll button on handlebars
Display: Clock / Trip 1 / Trip 2 / Odometer / Fuel Gauge / Range to Empty
Warning lights Indicators / High Beam / Neutral / EMS / Fuel / Oil Pressure / Alarm / Water Temp
Headlight H4 60 / 55W, single reflector
Rear Light LED
Indicators Clear-lensed, self-cancelling
DIMENSIONS
Length 2340 mm 92.1 inch
Width (Handlebars) 880 mm 34.6 inch
Height 1120 mm 44.1 inch
Seat Height 700 mm 27.6 inch
Wheelbase (mm/inch) 1615 mm 63.6 inch
Fuel Tank Capacity 22 litres 5.8 US gallons
Vertical Ground Clearance 140 mm 5.5 inch
Dry Weight 308 Kgs 678 lbs
Weight in running order 339 Kgs 746 lbs (full tank of fuel)
PERFORMANCE (Measured at crankshaft to 95/1/EC)
Maximum Power EC1 86.0PS / 84.8bhp / 63.2kW @ 4850rpm
Maximum Torque EC1 146.1Nm/107.7ft.lbf @ 2750rpm
Colors Jet Black, Pacific Blue / Fusion White, Aluminium Silver / Jet Black
See it in Ca March and April 2009
Gary
If your ship doesn't come in - swim out to it !
Nothing but Triumph -'05 Speedmaster - Ride with the NorCal Presidents
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 728 Likes: 1
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 728 Likes: 1 |
Gary, Cycle Specialties in Modesto is hosting the Triumph Demo truck this Saturday at their open house, AmyLee and I are heading over for lunch, to see if they bring a T-Bird along.  Bob
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 728 Likes: 1
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 728 Likes: 1 |
Update, Just confirmed! The new 2010 Triumph Thunderbird will be on display this weekend during the Triumph Demo Day Event at Cycle Specialties. This according to their e-mail newsletter, this will be the first public display of the bike in California. http://www.cyclespecialties.com/  Bob 04 Black TBA
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 688
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 688 |
Quote:
Source Triumph Motorcycles
Dry Weight 308 Kgs 678 lbs
Weight in running order 339 Kgs 746 lbs (full tank of fuel)
Maximum Power EC1 86.0PS / 84.8bhp / 63.2kW @ 4850rpm
Maximum Torque EC1 146.1Nm/107.7ft.lbf @ 2750rpm
Gary
Nuff said, I keeping my speedie
She's a Lady and the Lady is 100% mine !
|
|
|
 Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626 |
+1  I knew it'd be a tank. 750 pounds is ridiculous. Sportbikes with 170hp weigh in at 400lb, Ducati even does it with steel frames, but a cruiser has to be heavy.  I'll stop now before I blow a gasket.
Steelheart- '03 Speedmaster Black/Yellow
The Hayabusa Killa
16" Shorties/140 mains/Airbox drilled
Procom CDI
"There is no cure for Celibacy. But we can treat the symptoms."
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639 Likes: 3
Old Hand
|
|
Old Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639 Likes: 3 |
You know, the specs aren't much different from the Heritage Softail. The 96 inch HD engine actually turns faster, first time that a Triumph didn't outrev a big twin Harley.
The remaining range gauge is a nice feature if it's accurate or at least reads on the low side.
The readout scroll switch on the handlebar is another nice feature. On the Night train, I have to push a button on the side of the speedometer (down on the tank) to switch readouts.
At any rate, it looks like Triumph are going head to head with HD and their Japanese copiers on their own turf. This could get interesting.
Back in the 50's, The 650's ranged from 38 to 48 HP as compared to the FL's 55 and FLH's 60 HP, but the Triumph reved some 25% faster and weighed around 175 - 200 LB less so Triumph was at least the equal of Harley anywhere and had a distinct advantage under some conditions.
Let's hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space 'cause it's buggar all down here. -- Monte Python
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517 |
A V-Twin and a Parallel Twin-very different to say the least. I'm ammused at the comments in the press that the Triumph will have a 270 degree firing order to mimic a V-Twin. NOT. It'll take way more than that-and that's a good thing in my book.
It'll be very interestin to see outside of the Triumph faithfull who this bike will attract. For the existing line of bikes we almost never have a potential customer who is playing a UJM off a Triumph. About the only real time it comes up is H-D ridewrs looking at a R3 or R3T. I know several America/Speedie riders who are looking hard at the T-Bird as the R3 is too "much" for many.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2 |
To my eye, the real problem is with that big wide fuel tank and side-by-side cylinders it's likely to be a bit top-heavy.
We shall see.
Kevin - Luceo Non Uro
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
You know, the specs aren't much different from the Heritage Softail. The 96 inch HD engine actually turns faster, first time that a Triumph didn't outrev a big twin Harley.
Ya know GB, at first after reading this part of your post I said to myself, "Nah! That can't be right? The T-Bird has DOHCs, and so it HAS to rev higher than a Big Twin!!!"
But THEN I scrolled back to to the supposed T-Bird specs shown above and read the following...
"Maximum Power EC1 86.0PS / 84.8bhp / 63.2kW @ 4850rpm"
...that's RIGHT...at "4850rpm"!!!
And then I said to myself EITHER that's a misprint, OR there's somethin' kind'a weird goin' on here!!! How can THAT be?! That sure seems to be a rather short powerband for a DOHC engine!!!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Ya know GB, at first after reading this part of your post I said to myself, "Nah! That can't be right? The T-Bird has DOHCs, and so it HAS to rev higher than a Big Twin!!!"
But THEN I scrolled back to to the supposed T-Bird specs shown above and read the following...
"Maximum Power EC1 86.0PS / 84.8bhp / 63.2kW @ 4850rpm"
...that's RIGHT...at "4850rpm"!!!
And then I said to myself EITHER that's a misprint, OR there's somethin' kind'a weird goin' on here!!! How can THAT be?! That sure seems to be a rather short powerband for a DOHC engine!!!
That could be about right for maximum horsepower on a 1600cc bike. It's probably idling at around 1K RPM. If the torque number is close to correct and has a flat enough torque curve it should have plenty of pull between 2K - 4.5K RPM.
Kevin - Luceo Non Uro
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Well Kevin, I do expect the torque curve will be impressive and about as flat as the Kansas prairie and it'll start just off idle, however I'm guessin' just by looking at this Max Horsepower rating and where its rated, that the redline sounds at if it'll be at just about 5000rpm. And if that's the case, I still can't see, even with these pretty large pistons, why this might necessiate this low of a redline figure??? I mean, with most modern engines running pistons with very shallow skirts, hence being a whole lot lighter in weight nowdays, I can't imagine why there would be any concern here of the reciprocating weight of the pistons and/or the piston speed involved to be enough to limit this engine to such a low RPM figure? And, you certaining don't have to worry about the reciprocating weight of any pushrods here either! (hey, here's a thought...maybe it would've had a 7000rpm redline IF they'd have given it more FINS around the cylinder barrels???!!!  .....sorry) 
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,623 Likes: 2 |
Dwight, I'm no wrench but here's what I think based on the posted specs. The quoted T-Bird max HP & Torque specs are very similar to my Victory bikes. I don't know how to post performance curves here but you'll probably find that redline is somewhere north of 5K - 5500 RPM. My 1600cc bikes seem to be really happy running between 2K & 3K. If I need to acclerate really hard between upshifts I might see 4500 RPM. 
Last edited by Speedmaster05; 04/20/2009 6:07 PM.
Kevin - Luceo Non Uro
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626 |
Quote:
"Nah! That can't be right? The T-Bird has DOHCs, and so it HAS to rev higher than a Big Twin!!!"
It has nothing to do with the valve gear. It's the length of the stroke.
The T-Bird at max power is turning 3000 feet per minute.
A Speedy at max power (7400rpm according to the spec chart on our Home Page) is turning 3300 fpm.
Stroke x 2=1 (revolution) divided by 25.4 = inches per rev
Inches per rev x max power rpm divided by 12 = feet per min
6400rpm for the T-Bird is 4000 feet per min, the normal limit for street engines.
Steelheart- '03 Speedmaster Black/Yellow
The Hayabusa Killa
16" Shorties/140 mains/Airbox drilled
Procom CDI
"There is no cure for Celibacy. But we can treat the symptoms."
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440 |
The RPM at maximum power has nothing to do with either the valve train or piston speed. It's a function of breathing, and that includes everything from the air filter to the carbs to the cam/s to the exhaust. It's the design of the system as a whole that determines where max HP will occur. Likewise, this number has nothing to do with maximum safe motor RPM. Even an otherwise stock small block Chevy will spin reliably to 8,000 or better, simply by installing lightweight valvetrain parts and stiffer valve springs. Based on that, it should be clear that the DOHC design is being used in our bikes for cost purposes, not RPM.
'08 America Blue/White; Custom Headlamps, Custom Lowers, Clearview 20", Bafflectomy
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626 |
You're missing the point.
Dwight wondered why a DOHC engine couldn't rev out very high.
The RPM limit on this engine is set by the stroke, not the valve gear.
On a street engine 4000 feet per minute is usually the max.
Some crotch rockets and 4 stroke MXers can go higher, but that's another story.
I wasn't commenting about why the max power was at a certain rpm.
Steelheart- '03 Speedmaster Black/Yellow
The Hayabusa Killa
16" Shorties/140 mains/Airbox drilled
Procom CDI
"There is no cure for Celibacy. But we can treat the symptoms."
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Exactly, Brian. AND, seein' as how the T-Bird is an "oversquare" design(the bore dims being larger than the stroke dims), than again I ask folks...what's with this rather low redline???
Are you guys in essence saying here that the "oversquare-ness"(so to speak) has a limit where it's no longer a condition of a engine being about to spin faster, and that at a certain con-rod length(and possibly crank pin placement) it becomes increasing unable to spin at that higher rate, where most top-end horsepower is usually to be made?
What I'm thinking now is that maybe Triumph purposely has weighted the flywheel to such a high degree in order to supply more torque, that it has inhibited this engine's ability to spin faster, and so Triumph engineers possibly decided to go that route as a "compromise" instead?!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,823
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,823 |
Quote:
what's with this rather low redline???
looks like the red line is just over 7000 ...
ED 
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,626 |
Dwight, its barely an oversquare engine. Ducati's new 1198 engine is 106 x 67.9, a 1.56 to 1 bore/stroke ratio. At 103.8 x 94.3, the T-Bird is at 1.1 to 1. It seems to have a lot of reciprocating weight- the con-rod is long and heavy. It doesn't have a "slipper" piston like the Ducati. That's why the 1198 can spin 4000rpm higher, even with a bigger diameter piston. I don't think the crankshaft weight effects the redline, just the rate of accel/deceleration. The crank is just in a constant spin, but the piston, piston pin, con-rod, and crank journal have to come to a complete stop twice per revolution, and they can only handle so much G-force before things start bending/touching/breaking. To spin faster, they would either have to decrease the bore to lighten things up(fat chance) or use a titanium con-rod and slipper piston like you see in sportbikes and 4-stroke MXers.
Steelheart- '03 Speedmaster Black/Yellow
The Hayabusa Killa
16" Shorties/140 mains/Airbox drilled
Procom CDI
"There is no cure for Celibacy. But we can treat the symptoms."
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,823
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,823 |
Quote:
Maximum Power EC1 86.0PS / 84.8bhp / 63.2kW @ 4850rpm
and guys if your going by this as the red line rpm ....don't
what that is.... is how much power it made running in 6th gear... before the line stated to drop look at a dyno chart and you see what I mean ...
and remember our bike has 5 gears and this one is a 6 speed..so when this bike is making 84HP @4850rpm i say very nice... but maybe they did the dyno different and the other thing is when i look at pic's of the tac it show the red line just above 7000 ... but hey till we get to take one for a ride and see what the red line is we all just guessing ..
Ed
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517 |
No less than Alan Cathcart had a ride on the T-Bird and reported the engine was very nice indeed with gobs of grunt.
He is one of the very few writers who is qualified to run a suberbike at speed and is known for being objective in his reports.
I'm in the camp that says Triumph got the engine very close to perfect for this type of motorcycle-but time will tell.
As for what they did or did not due, those of you who manufacture anything or engineer anything know that EVERY machine is a compromise-that's why they make different models. It's a cruiser-riders that like cruisers now have a different choice than the V-Twins and the market will decide soon enough.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Ed, Re the redline figure: Yep, I admit I don't actually know what that figure actually is. That was but a guess on my part based on the where the max HP rating was shown in the specs above. It could be much higher than that 5000 which I guessed it might be, alright!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,753
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,753 |
having a 5 speed or 6 speed makes no difference, the crank in the t bird weighs so much how fast can you really spin it? they had to had like 25 pounds to it if i remember to smooth the motor out.
(Former)05 BA tbike pipes, ai removed, Freak, mikuni hsr 42's, 904, ported/polished head, 1mm oversized valves
NOW-2010 silver and black tbird
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
That's right, Frank! I had forgotten I read that very bit of info in "Cycle World" about them adding some weight to the flywheel during the T-Bird's development process.
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17
Complete Newb
|
|
Complete Newb
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17 |
I think your right about the long stroke being the main factor limiting the rpm,which is not a bad thing for a bike like the T-Bird.With the right gearing,it can be plenty quick and have a respectable top end speed.My main gripe about my 790 is why Triumph uses such a short stroke on it.It doesnt have the low rpm torque i want and doesnt have the high rpm hp you expect from a short stroke motor.The original 650 had a stroke of 3.22 inches compared to the 2.68 inch stroke of the 790,and it seemed to rev plenty fast but with more low rpm torque.Probaly why its still a favorite among hill climbers.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517 |
Oh, yea. We have a real nice hillclimb in the area and an old Triumph simply kicks @@@ every year.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17
Complete Newb
|
|
Complete Newb
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17 |
Same thing here in my area hill climb.Out of all the high dollar Harley and Jap bikes,an old Triumph just won the last race and was runner-up the year before.And the sound of those old Triumphs is just music to my ears.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440 |
Quote:
I wasn't commenting about why the max power was at a certain rpm.
Well, you did mention max power VS. RPM several times in your post, so I apparently didn't read it carefully enough. It also didn't occur to me that you could possibly be referring to the maximum safe speed, simply because 6400 RPM sounds like a spec from a Dodge Dart, not a high performance parallel twin. Is that really the factory redline for this motor? Say it isn't so.
'08 America Blue/White; Custom Headlamps, Custom Lowers, Clearview 20", Bafflectomy
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 517 |
If you guys want a good read on motors and all stuff motorcycle in general get Kevin Cameron's book "Sportbike Performance Handbook" 2nd edition. Don't let the sportbike scare you -there is a WORLD of info. in there by one of the best technical writers ever. As we told SCUBA students for the past 10 years "Replace Fantasy with Fact" and you'll be further ahead.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639 Likes: 3
Old Hand
|
|
Old Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639 Likes: 3 |
Generally, once power peaks, it tends to drop off rather rapidly with increased speed. Unless this peak is a slight bump in the curve like the peak torque on the 790 engine, there would be no point in running it over maybe 5100. The HD big twins, for an example, peak at 5100 or 5200 depending on the version and redline at 5500.
Let's hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space 'cause it's buggar all down here. -- Monte Python
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Indicators Clear-lensed, self-cancelling
What??? Self canceling turn signals?? That's it... I'm getting one. 
"Catching a yellow jacket in your shirt at seventy miles per hour can double your vocabulary" Author unknown
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 165
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 165 |
Quote:
I think your right about the long stroke being the main factor limiting the rpm,which is not a bad thing for a bike like the T-Bird.With the right gearing,it can be plenty quick and have a respectable top end speed.My main gripe about my 790 is why Triumph uses such a short stroke on it.It doesnt have the low rpm torque i want and doesnt have the high rpm hp you expect from a short stroke motor.The original 650 had a stroke of 3.22 inches compared to the 2.68 inch stroke of the 790,and it seemed to rev plenty fast but with more low rpm torque.Probaly why its still a favorite among hill climbers.
I found that installing the freak and some free flowing pipes really changed the they way my speedy felt. Sounded better, accelerated quicker. It felt like a different bike.
...yes, that is a single seat...no, I will not put the other seat on...yes, I am selfish...yes, you should buy your own bike
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,681 Likes: 1 |
I can't believe this thing weighs only 26 lbs. less, dry, then a R-3. I wonder who will win that race? Duuuh. 
"Catching a yellow jacket in your shirt at seventy miles per hour can double your vocabulary" Author unknown
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,931 Likes: 1
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,931 Likes: 1 |
the winner would depend on the rider.
we should do this every weekend!
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440 |
Quote:
The original 650 had a stroke of 3.22 inches compared to the 2.68 inch stroke of the 790
Didn't the earlier generation use rocker arms? Overhead cams with shim and bucket valve actuation probably make the motor taller overall. Maybe that's why the stroke was shortened. Don't know for sure, just thinkin' out loud...
'08 America Blue/White; Custom Headlamps, Custom Lowers, Clearview 20", Bafflectomy
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,186 Likes: 55
Fe Butt
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,186 Likes: 55 |
Quote:
Quote:
The original 650 had a stroke of 3.22 inches compared to the 2.68 inch stroke of the 790
Didn't the earlier generation use rocker arms? Overhead cams with shim and bucket valve actuation probably make the motor taller overall. Maybe that's why the stroke was shortened. Don't know for sure, just thinkin' out loud...
Yes and I wish we still had the rocker arms and solid tappets. A breeze to work on. Those old engines could sustain ungodly RPMs too, couldn't hurt the bottom end, could crank it until you floated a valve.
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17
Complete Newb
|
|
Complete Newb
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 17 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The original 650 had a stroke of 3.22 inches compared to the 2.68 inch stroke of the 790
Didn't the earlier generation use rocker arms? Overhead cams with shim and bucket valve actuation probably make the motor taller overall. Maybe that's why the stroke was shortened. Don't know for sure, just thinkin' out loud...
Yes and I wish we still had the rocker arms and solid tappets. A breeze to work on. Those old engines could sustain ungodly RPMs too, couldn't hurt the bottom end, could crank it until you floated a valve.
I agree,Triumph should have been more faithfull to the original and use the longer stroke and pushrod instead of overhead cam design.If Harley can design a reliable pushrod v-twin,you think Triumph would be able to do the same with the parallel twin.Plus the look of the heads on the original looks ten times better than the valve covers on the 790, which look like something that came off a 80's Jap bike.
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440 |
Quote:
Yes and I wish we still had the rocker arms and solid tappets. A breeze to work on.
I do most of my own work, and this really pushed me toward HD when I first started looking for a bike again. The shim and bucket design is popular because it saves manufacturers money, but owners pay the difference on the other end. Cost aside, how would someone who has only the bike as a means of transportation even get it done? You shouldn't have to buy a library of shims, just to tuneup a motor. I'm hoping I don't regret the decision to buy another MC designed like this when the BA hits 12K. My last was a Kawa Z1 that I rode in the late '70s. It ended up with burned valves cuz I couldn't get it to the dealer for the work. Swore I'd never buy a design like that again...
'08 America Blue/White; Custom Headlamps, Custom Lowers, Clearview 20", Bafflectomy
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Well guys, I suppose you DO always have the option to go purchase a Sportster for about the same initial amount of money as a modern Triumph Twin. Yep! Those hydraulic lifters pretty much never need to be adjusted, alright! Of course, because those babies don't have a balance shaft tucked inside 'em anywhere, you "might" feel a "little" vibration comin' from its engine, ya know. And yep, and even WITH that new rubber-mounted frame they've got it bolted to now. OR, I suppose you could always go buy yourselves one of those newer Big Twin Harleys of which some of 'em DO HAVE a balance shaft tucked inside of 'em. However, I hope you know that THOSE babies will cost ya "just a little bit" MORE than that beautiful Triumph motorsickle you guys already own, ya know. 
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,186 Likes: 55
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,186 Likes: 55 |
If was ever to buy another HD it would be something old, like a knuckle if I could find one I could afford. That being said it's a non-issue since I would just buy another old Triumph or rebuild one of the ones I have again.
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: 2010 Triumph Thunderbird Specification Sheet
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440
Learned Hand
|
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,440 |
I'm thinking along those same lines, eventually buying an older bike. I expect to keep the BA for the long term though, unless the 12K work pizzes me off too much. Then there's the lack of cam bearings, something I wasn't aware of until I'd spent quite a bit of time here on the forum. That's just inexcusable.
'08 America Blue/White; Custom Headlamps, Custom Lowers, Clearview 20", Bafflectomy
|
|
|
|
|
