Bonneville America Forums Forums General Motorcycle Forums Other Bikes New vs Old

Ok.... I unreservedly apologise for calling your friends "******".

I'd like to think that they would reciprocate.....

Hey silli... stick around, the fun's only just begun. Just wanna mention that I lived in Zimbabwe for a number of years back in the 90s. There for a while, I was your neighbour!!

Anywho... if ya do decide you can stand the bantering and in some cases feeble attempts at humour would be good to hear more from you. Been to any Lucky Dube concerts lately... jeez I like that guy's music!!

Nice Try.............

No... its "colour"... or "humour"...........
heeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote:

---

...or..."HUMOR"!!!!

---

Nope... not humor there Dwight, not this time at least. You see I was addressing our new friend who informs us he's from South Africa and unless I stand corrected I'd have to say they enjoy humour in those parts, just like us Canucks.

But ummm, I HAVE BEEN KNOWN to switch it up for the likes of yourself and others as a matter of courtesy. But mostly I stick to my schooling and save my new tricks for other more important things like riding and playing da music!!

Oh, and it's not labourious, but an honour to share colourful humour with our neighbour from the south.

On more important matters... when we gonna get down to have a Scotch together? I'm getting impatient.

Superfluous –adjective
1. being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2. unnecessary or needless.
3. Obsolete. possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant.
__________________________________________________________

I mean c'mon dude...do ANY of us ever pronounce those words as "col-OUR" or "hum-OUR"??? So why do you guys still have that darn "u" in there, HUH???!!!

Yep! We Yanks can thank good ol' Noah Webster for seein' right through(or should that be "thru") all that "superfluous U" stuff in this here language, ya know!

(man...and here we thought this thread had ALREADY taken "an ugly turn" quite a bit EARLIER here, huh?!)

Quote:

---

Superfluous

---

Humour me here, using your logic... 'superfluous' would end up being 'superfluos.'

Oh.....and apology accepted !!

What was this thread about anyway???

Glad to have you with us silli.

Well, he DID apologiZe here, Steven.

And I don't think you'll have to break this down at all, because not being acquainted with the people here at first he obviously mis-read the situation and intent of the respondees.

And I'm sure if he re-reads this thread in its entirety, he'd agree that there's no way a reasonable man could find ANYTHING in those great stories of yours about the Co-Op days that would or could come from an "idiot".

(okay, so MAYBE those stories could ONLY come from a BRIT who spells words with those "superfluous Us", but certainly NOT an "idiot"!)

Now, now John. If bein' an "a-hole" is the criteria for "goin' away" from this place, I'm afraid that would only leave a VERY small contingent of members left to fill the void afterward!

(...'cuz I'm going to assume that the participation of the smartazz "dickheads" such as myself over the years would also be just a unpleasant memory among those very few left here TOO, dude!!!)

Naw, there are lovable, playful a-holes like you and me, and there's the other kind, which I cannot accurately describe without seriously offending both the AUP and the censor filter. Just because he came back doesn't mean he's not a troll. With the vast number of bikes he's supposedly had we probably have another know-it-all on our hands.

In any event, I'm just not in the mood. The bile rising up in me is the same I experience when dealing with those thricedamned Brit Iron Rebels and the like.

Having read all this, I think that maybe Silli just got off on the wrong foot. I'm willin to give him another try. And besides, there's always room for one more mouthy, oppinionated, sarcastic, irreverant, triumph ridin a$$whole around here. Just don't try and horn in on the "cranky" area I have carved out for myself here. (OK, I suppose there is room for me AND Friar John, as he predates and towers over me. )

Now let me put on my 'memberin' cap and try to compare my first Triumph with my last...
First was a hardtail, very light but a real bone crusher at times. Last has a swingarm that seldom bottoms out, so it rides nicer. It is also some 200 - 300 pounds heavier, so you just can't do the same things with it.
First one had a kick starter and a Bosch magneto, last one has a bunch of electrical and electronic crap. I can (and often did) fix the '49 on the side of the road and got home. Can't do that on the new one without carrying a spare battery and (very expensive) electronic module in your pocket. In this respect, the old is more reliable.
I have yet to lose any parts off the new one in spite of only checking for loose nuts and bolts once a month. Also, in 6 years I have never had to replace a selenium rectifier on it while the old one fried about one a month. In this respect, the new one is more reliable.
With a parts investment of at least twice what I paid for the bike, the 650 would almost go 120 MPH on a good day. After spending about 1/10 the price of my 790 for parts, I've seen it top 115 on a bad day. That has me convinced that there is a lot of potential in the new design and, if I could spend twice the original price, it would easily outrun my old 650.

Then, there was the 1000 - 1500 mile oil changes compared to 6000 miles, the engine overhauls every couple of years because there was no oil filter, the twice a week lub (twice a day when traveling) and twice a year replacement of the old open pin chains, etc.
If the new Triumphs had a proper kickstart, a dipstick and points, there would be no looking back.

Just one more thing which is admittedly OT but....

Quote:

---

(remember, this here website IS named "Bonneville AMERICA"...yep, AMERICA, where we ALSO never put those "superfluous "u"s in words like "color" and "labor" EITHER!!!)

---

This here website is all about a British bike so I think we need to honour that with a 'u' thrown in here and there, don't ya think?

And now back to the original topic that silli opened as a means of becoming aquainted through his own experience and interest... I was super appreciative of Ed's testimonial of then vs. now Triumph. And Silli (what is your name anyway?) can you help an ignorant guy like me when it comes to torque from them old powerplants... have you got any numbers to support your statement? I mean I had a '59 Tiger and it did seem to have a lot of snot but it's been too long a time to compare one ride over the other.

Maybe we need to start a Scotch thread. My recent tour of that libation's homeland let me taste a number of new ones (new to me anyway). Some really good. Some worked less well for me but didn't fine a single single malt I would spit out.

I spent a little time on the net looking for torque figures for the T120, but couldn't find any numbers. Plenty of info' re HP, which was fairly low. I'd be interested to see what the torque is, and how it compares to the latest models.

Quote:

---

thricedamned Brit Iron Rebels

---

LMAO, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!! If nothing else this little shindig has been entertaining.

Quote:

---

With the vast number of bikes he's supposedly had we probably have another know-it-all on our hands.

---

Oh, John - Is this truth in humor - or - humor in truth - or just plain fact? Either way, we've certainly had our share of that. I'd venture to say the rest of us ignorant slobs have refrained from lending what small amounts of knowlege or insight we might have due to the threat of being hammered by that brilliant few.

The Master, George Carlin, said every joke has to have an element of truth to it. What makes it funny is what you exaggerate.