With water cooling we can squeeze more hp out of the motor for a given size since we can remove the heat more quickly and efficiently using water as compared to air. It is also partially for this reason that we can run higher compression ratios and such (i.e. greater heat generation) to get a more complete combustion of the fuel used. This is what big brother wants so we have no choice but to go this route.
Keith, I agree and if I may add to this I would think that Triumph would be looking at some decent performance with that size engine - unlike the current air-cooled elephants with a similar displacement. Look at the water-cooled 800cc P-Twin Beemer (Rotax) engine 83 HP compared to our (the new EFI 865cc) engines at 62?
I would think that the Triumph boys already know their market share and have their reasons for producing this bike. The same goes for user demographics - I don't think they need any arm-chair "experts" to analyze them for them.
As for the naysayers ...
Some don't like it. (I do) Some like it but don't have a use for it (I have). Some cannot afford it. (I can) Some have a "wifey" who won't let them have it so they make every excuse they can (mostly by bad-mouthing it). (No comment) Some have a "momma" who won't let them have it so they make every excuse they can (mostly by bad-mouthing it). (My "momma" has always found something positive to say about each of my circa. 40 bikes (in my time), even when at 68 she got her leg burnt by the exhaust). Some like it and do have a use for it. I do, long distances come to mind, as I find the SM a little inadequate (even though I have taken it to 25 countries in the last 17 months). Some just plain like it. (see above).
As for the styling ... I guess it's different strokes for different folks.
Bedouin.
Blessed are those eyes that have seen more roads than any man! (Homer).
