74 Commando, T120 Diamond, or Quit?

Slick, it seems that Triumph was,at one time, guilty of the same BS on weights. They seem to have cleaned up their act, or possibly got caught. This does put them at a brochure numbers disadvantage, but it is nice when the bike you paid for weighs as advertised.
I think you are safe with their published weights on current models, from what I have seen.
Just add fuel and serve.

The 900s aren't gutless but the 1200s are more fun, and not much heavier if you can get interested in the lighter and more powerful versions.

Have you had any test rides yet?

Glen

worntorn said:

Have you had any test rides yet?

Glen

Click to expand...

Not yet. I have a busy week ahead preparing for a 3 week business tour. Perhaps I can pop in at Lone Star HD for a quick look, and sit-on trial before I hit the road. Then schedule a ride when I get back.

I will keep y'all informed. Thanks for the input.

Slick

I

Its not so much the weight but how the weight is disturbed, my air cooled 900 Thruxton feels top heavy but my water cooled 1200 Thruxton feel top light yet both bikes weight around the same, what ever Triumph have done to the new models is the WC models feel so much lighter than the older models, even lifting my AC Thruxton off the side stand feels very heavy as well to push it around the shed, but my WC Thruxton is light to handle and even lighter to push around the shed, just the weight of the bigger bike is all down low compared to the older models, if that make sense.

Ashley

Ashley, real numbers,I think your 1200 is quite a bit lighter than the old 865 or 900 as they call it when fitted with Thruxton badge.

Nigel is correct that the 865s were a bit of a tank. Great dependable bikes, but on the weighty side.
Sport bike Rider never tested or weighed them, so it's hard to get actual numbers.
A little over 500 fueled is what I've read from owners.
This spec claims 506 wet
https://www.google.com/search?clien...hVLo54KHZ1aAs0Q1QIwGXoECBgQTA&biw=360&bih=512


Glen

Sorry Glen, I didn’t mean to ‘JEEZ’ you at all!

Just that we seemed to be having two different conversations, both of which being somewhat off topic from the OP.

No ‘JEEZ’ intended !

It's the age old weight discussion which you and I might be a bit obsessed with but I know Slick is also interested in.
It gets complicated by the fact that some very misleading numbers are provided as official numbers by many manufacturers, then bike reviewers most often just regurgitate that misinformation, and on it goes.
I find the real numbers to be pretty interesting, not at all where common perception is.
Unfortunately they mainly test sport bikes but do test some sport touring and the occasional touring bike as well.

https://www.cycleworld.com/sport-rider/tech/sportbike-weights-and-measurements/

Glen