74 Commando, T120 Diamond, or Quit?

Dunno how old you are Slick, but you only live once. If you can ride, and you want to, you should!

Why not take a new Triumph for a test ride? You’ll know within a few miles if it floats your boat or not.

The only downside to the T120 is that they’re not so light. My Dad loved his T100 Bonnie, but it got too heavy for him, he didn’t enjoy it anymore. So you might wanna look at the smaller Triumph twins if that’s an issue.

And, if you find the new Triumphs to dull (ie too good,) a ‘74 Commando is easily made into a reliable bike... and there’s plenty of ‘em.

On the other part of your topic, IMHO, it seems a shame to let your son take the Atlas if he’s unlikely to appreciate / care for it. Why not turn it into cash?
I don't think the new Speed Twin has been mentioned.
It's essentially a two up Thruxton 1200. More guts and less weight than the T120.
It's pretty light at 432 dry.


Glen
Don't quit. If the Atlas is getting difficult to manage keep it and just admire it since it's part of who you are and get a modern bike to ride. I'm 68. Every year I think I'm losing the joy I get from bikes and then spring rolls around and to my amazement my mediocre reflexes and mediocre eyesight can still do it and every once in a while there's still a ride that just puts it all together. Biggest problem is everyone else gradually giving it up and usually having to ride by myself. That and when I stop everyone thinking my Nortons are Harleys. Just to encourage you see attached picture of my Atlas.
 

Attachments

  • 74 Commando, T120 Diamond, or Quit?
    IMG_6355.jpg
    350.5 KB · Views: 178
Weight is low and it's about 40 lbs lighter in real numbers!


.....and it goes like stink!
 
Have not seen a new speedtwin in person , but from what I read and photos it is a real Brit bike with modern features and performance , got to like that package !
 
Have not seen a new speedtwin in person , but from what I read and photos it is a real Brit bike with modern features and performance , got to like that package !

Its essentially Thruxton 1200s with a different tank, 2 up seat and lighter wheels.

Slick , while you are test riding, try a Thruxton R or an S.
The riding position fits me like a glove.
It is tilted forward a bit, so you might feel more at home on the Speed Twin

Glen
 
As Glen said I found the foot pegs on the Thruxton fitted me better and is a very comfortable bike to ride, I have a duel seat on mine for the wife, but the new Speed Twin looks great as well with the Thruxton performance the 1200 HP motor just give it that extra edge with the lighter crank.

Ashley
 
Yes, the tall Tedium with top box was top heavy and tippy. Just too many Ts, it had to fall over.

Glen
 
I realise that modern bikes have more stuff, but I still find it amazing that modern methods and materials don’t make these bikes lighter!

Do let us know how the test ride goes. FWIW my money is on the Street Twin.

Forgive me if you’ve done so before, but any chance of some pics of your Atlas?

Aside from having a lot more to them, these are bigger capacity motorcycles.
The new " little" Triumph is about half again the cubic capacity of the old Meriden Bonny The Thruxton is closer to double the cc capacity and has more than double the bhp.
So for a mass produced relatively low cost motorcycle, I feel they aren't doing too bad with weight.
Now that expensive bespoke Norton 961 that was supposed to weigh 414, but actually weighs half a ton....no excuse there:)

Glen
 
Last edited:
I am taking all your comments in stride guys.

I will have more to say after I visit Lone Star HD (also Trumpet dealer) and carefully check out the Triumphs.

At the present time, I think the Truxtons are not my style, the Street Twins too "scrambler-esq", and the appendage where the number tag is mounted reminds me of the tail on a monkey.

One question at this time ..... when, not if, I pass the Atlas to my son, and should I get a Triumph of whatever model, ..... am I still entitled to post on this Forum?

Slick
 
You don't quit riding because you get old, you get old because you quit riding. As long as you can trust yourself, why quit? My current daily rider is 80 lbs lighter than it's predecessor and that was 50 lbs lighter than the one before. I will have to get down into the low-to-mid 400-lb. range on whatever comes next to continue the trend. I've become a believer in power-to-weight ratios rather than abject horsepower. There are already several offerings I could "step down" to that have a good power-to-weight ratios, so unless my health changes radically instead of incrementally, I'm still rolling on two. I can still kick the old bikes to life, so no reason to give them up either.
 
Aside from having a lot more to them, these are bigger capacity motorcycles.
The new " little" Triumph is about half again the cubic capacity of the old Meriden Bonny The Thruxton is closer to double the cc capacity and has more than double the bhp.
So for a mass produced relatively low cost motorcycle, I feel they aren't doing too bad with weight.
Now that expensive bespoke Norton 961 that was supposed to weigh 414, but actually weighs half a ton....no excuse there:)

Glen

Agree on all points Glen, apart from the fact that capacity and ‘more stuff’ explains the weights of the bikes discussed. There are plenty of big bikes with lots of ‘stuff’ that weigh a lot less. There therefore is no question that it COULD be done.

Of course, weight reduction would take effort, and thus cost. So, of course, it shouldn’t be applied to everything. But it’s certainly technically possible for them to offer a Super Light Triumph twin for example. And I’d be on the list for a Super Light Commando in a flash!

I think it comes down to usage created expectations. I live in town, so have to filter through traffic before I get to the twisty English back lanes. Both make weight felt. Then the simple act of getting my bikes in and out of the shed also makes the weight felt. So it’s true that I am more sensitive to the weight issue than most.

In fact, now I got to thinking about it, a Super Light 961 Commando is a bloody great idea...!
 
Last edited:
Agree on all points Glen, apart from the fact that capacity and ‘more stuff’ explains the weights of the bikes discussed. There are plenty of big bikes with lots of ‘stuff’ that weigh a lot less. There therefore is no question that it COULD be done.

Of course, weight reduction would take effort, and thus cost. So, of course, it shouldn’t be applied to everything. But it’s certainly technically possible for them to offer a Super Light Triumph twin for example. And I’d be on the list for a Super Light Commando in a flash!

I think it comes down to usage created expectations. I live in town, so have to filter through traffic before I get to the twisty English back lanes. Both make weight felt. Then the simple act of getting my bikes in and out of the shed also makes the weight felt. So it’s true that I am more sensitive to the weight issue than most.

In fact, now I got to thinking about it, a Super Light 961 Commando is a bloody great idea...!

The Speed Twin is a 2 up bike at 1200CCs.
It's fueled up weight should be right around 460 lbs. I have weighed my R and the dry weight listed by Triumph is correct.
Most manufacturers weight ratings are not honest, perhaps these are the lighter big capacity bikes you are seeing
Sport Rider weighs and Dynos every bike they test. No surprise, most of the bikes tested weigh a lot more and make less power than the manufacturer's claims. As Sport Rider explains, knowing that buyers will pay for a small weight number, many manufacturers list dry weights that exclude not just liquids but also consumables- tires, chains, batteries and even brake pads. This is totally misleading but it sells motorcycles. Look at the Norton 961 number of 414. Cycle weighed a fueled up 961 at over 500lbs on a precise scale! I believe it was 515, will have to check. The only way they could get from there to 414 is by excluding tires etc.

I just had a look thru Sport Riders 200 or so bikes from Aprilia, BMW, Ducati, Honda et al and could not find any 1200 suitable for two up riding that weighed less than 460 fueled up. In fact most are over 500, real numbers!

There are some Sport 1000 s that come in around 440-470, but these aren't really suited to two up, and they aren't 1200s!

Some two up Sport tourers fueled up


BMW S1000r 535lb

Aprilia Capanord 1200 590 lb

Ducati Multistrada 1200 548 lb

Ducati Monster 1200 475 lb ( not a great 2 up bike)

and so on.

Glen
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff Glen.

All I’m saying is I’d love a super super light version.

We seem to be having two different discussions !
 
I'm all for light. I went to great lengths to get the finished weight of the Vincent Special at 348. It's has a powerplant 75 lbs heavier than Ludwig's 300 lb Commando, so that gives some interesting arithmetic. But these are miles from production bikes and wouldn't meet noise regs, safety regs or Euro anything.

If I understand correctly, your criticism was of Triumph building bikes that are heavier than other manufacturers.
I'm just not seeing that in the real numbers.
Triumph has been whittling away at weight are now down near the bottom, apples to apples models, real weights only considered.
Who would have thought manufacturers would take tire weight and drive chain weight off to massage numbers?

Re the Meriden bikes, it would be interesting to weigh a T140 ES or EX, the electric start bikes.
Still missing a ton of features found on modern bikes, but I'll bet the weight was high.

The Meriden Triples were very heavy bikes. 552 wet for the Estart.
 
Last edited:
My point was twofold really. Firstly the observation that Hinckley Triumph twins are heavy compared to Meriden, and ditto Garner Commandos to old ones. I find it interesting that given modern methods and materials, they could not be lighter.

Second, I did not ‘compare’ modern Triumphs to others, but I did use a reference of a very powerful modern 1200cc 200bhp+ bike simply as a way of pointing out it can be done, even on a bike with all modern legal and liquid cooled E4 requirements.

If we combine the two points, it’s seems clear to me it could be done. As to why not, I guess the logical answer is ‘cost benefit’. I’m guessing the cost to design and produce such bikes would not be recouped by the small market which might be prepared to pay for such bikes. Which, unfortunately, makes sense.

I cannot imagine what we’d gain from factoring a Meriden electric start, a system that used a 1970s car starter motor!?

Interesting comment about ‘Meriden’ triples though... my Dad had an 865 T100, one of the last carb versions (he sold it recently cos it’s too heavy for him and currently uses my ‘68 T120 instead). When he first got it, he came to my place, sat on my T160 and wheeled it out of the garage and said “blimey, that’s light” !
 
"I cannot imagine what we’d gain from factoring a Meriden electric start, a system that used a 1970s car starter motor!?"

That's an attempt to get closer to a fair comparison, modern to vintage weights.

The modern that you expect to be lighter has e start, the old 650 is kick start, and has no power + no brakes, and not much for suspension :)

Have you weighed the T160?
Is it an estart T 160?
 
Glen, sorry mate, we’re going no where here, I just don’t know what you want out of the discussion. I’m thus withdrawing from it.
 
Jeez I wasn't expecting that response!
Just trying to show the reality of motorcycle weights in real numbers, not the manufacturer's massaged numbers.
Even those expensive Ducati's get a lot heavier when the tires are mounted.
( 430 for a Panigale)
I really would like to know the weight of a T160.
I've been told by owners that they are about 500 lbs wet.
Motorcycle specs says 552.
Other lists show 440 or so.
I dunno. Just curious.

Glen
 
Glen and F.E. ..... you two may have gone off on a tangent, but I am glad to know published dry weights may be bogus. I will have to keep that in mind when I visit my dealer. Hopefully, a low CG may allow me to handle it.

Oh hell ..... maybe it is time for a trike! Not yet, ..... not yet ...... not ever!

From all the discussion above, I gather the 900 Triumps are gutless, so that leaves me with the 1200's ..... I really like the T120 Diamond, but wet and with tires, I may be looking at 650 lbs.

I keep you posted.

Slick
 
Back
Top