I finally got a response from Motorcycle Consumer news. They're still wrong. I'll email them again this evening with another response....

Quote:

Thanks for taking the time to write, and thanks for reading MCN. You raise an interesting point about Triumph being the oldest continuously operating motorcycle manufacturer, but it's quite debatable, as Triumph officially closed its doors in 1983. Mr. Bloor did acquire the rights to purchase Triumph factory and intellectual property, but it is my understanding that the factory was completely shut down and emptied before he did. The licensing agreement he signed with Les Harris Racing Spares to build and sell unimproved Bonnevilles with leftover parts hardly qualifies as production, and even if one could make that case, Mr. Bloor did not renew his agreement with Harris in 1988, and the first modular Triumph was not in production until 1991, marking a two- or three-year lapse.



Even if Royal Enfield did cease production between 1905 and 1910, its resumption of production in 1910 would still be earlier than Moto Guzzi's start-up year of 1920, and it is my understanding that the Bullet model was produced via a partnership between Royal Enfield and India's Madras Motors in 1955. However, it is also my understanding that Bullet models were not completely produced in India until 1962. Either way, the Royal Enfield/Enfield Bullet model never went out of production like the Bonneville - and all Triumphs-did in 1983 or arguably in 1988 regardless of whether or not someone owned rights to the name. To my point, someone has always owned rights to the Indian name, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Indian motorcycles have been in continuous production.



You may still think I am wrong, but if so then we both are, as Moto Guzzi wouldn't be the third oldest continuous manufacturer of motorcycles, it would actually be the second oldest, behind Harley-Davidson.



Best regards,
Scott Rousseau


Scott Rousseau
Managing Editor
Motorcycle Consumer News



•Triumph Connection