Hinckley Bonnevilles

To gt a machine operated by an old woman to loosen up can take a bit of time , a good few miles .

If its never had the throttle WFO & the temperatures up , it probably still pretty close / tight clearances .

Not Open ' race ' free running clearances , yet . As it hasnt been opertated in that manner .

Or HAS he worn the ends of the Footrests . ? & edges of the tyres .
 
My T-Bird Sport was a great bike... a little overweight but overall a good all 'rounder.

Cheers,

- Will
 
Swooshdave, what's your opinion on the performance of your Bonnie vs your Commando?
 
I had a Thruxton until last year, I found it did the job ok and even did some track days on it, My Commando is a 750 Combat but I could not see myself taking it to redline in each gear down the back straight at Pukekohe race track like the Thruxton lap after lap after lap.
I sold the Thruxton as I got my track bike finished and bought an R65 to use as a daily rider. I've got used to no dealer support and buying parts off the net, Triumph parts prices here made me cringe. Sold the R65 recently for more than I paid for it, I like the bottom of the market. :D
 
daveh said:
Swooshdave, what's your opinion on the performance of your Bonnie vs your Commando?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say anything in fear of a tongue lashing from ludwig!

Actually the are very different engines. The Norton is very torquey and makes wonderful sounds. It shakes at idle and smooth while riding. My Norton isn't the freshest or best out there but it's fun. But in the proddy config it's difficult to ride in traffic, better suited for wide open roads.

The Triumph is a short stroke engine that loves to rev. It will accelerate very nicely but you have no fear of raising the front tire up! The upright position is great for commuting. I drove my car only once to work since I got the bike, and only because I needed to bring a 5 foot piece of steel home with me. It starts every time and always will.

But really, one is a vintage bike and the other is a new bike. Comparisons are silly. Get both and enjoy them for what they are.
 
I think the new Triumph twins are ridiculous, soul-less ugly pieces of consumer grade shit. They look like a plastic toy a toddler would play with. They should have made a modern looking motorcycle instead of trying to adapt the 60s styling to a new product. It screams "wannabee". I could never say enough bad about them.
 
+1
geezer-pleasers - but to each his own

beng said:
I think the new Triumph twins are ridiculous, soul-less ugly pieces of consumer grade shit. They look like a plastic toy a toddler would play with. They should have made a modern looking motorcycle instead of trying to adapt the 60s styling to a new product. It screams "wannabee". I could never say enough bad about them.
Click to expand...
 
beng said:
I think the new Triumph twins are ridiculous, soul-less ugly pieces of consumer grade shit. They look like a plastic toy a toddler would play with. They should have made a modern looking motorcycle instead of trying to adapt the 60s styling to a new product. It screams "wannabee". I could never say enough bad about them.
Click to expand...

Gee. Have you ever looked at a Triumph 675?

http://www.triumphmotorcycles.co.uk/mot ... ytona-675r

How do you view the 'new' Commando? Which is basically the opposite of your Triumph twin view, i.e. an old engine (pushrod twin) in a modern looking package.

Ian
 
My problem with the Hinckley Bonneville is that it just does not look right, I think that the stylists could have done a better job, whereas the 961 Norton is a much better Homage to the Commando.

I better not go into reliability or value for money!
 
beng said:
I think the new Triumph twins are ridiculous, soul-less ugly pieces of consumer grade shit. They look like a plastic toy a toddler would play with. They should have made a modern looking motorcycle instead of trying to adapt the 60s styling to a new product. It screams "wannabee". I could never say enough bad about them.
Click to expand...

Says the man without either a Norton or a Triumph.
 
Nortoniggy said:
Gee. Have you ever looked at a Triumph 675? How do you view the 'new' Commando? Which is basically the opposite of your Triumph twin view, i.e. an old engine (pushrod twin) in a modern looking package.Ian
Click to expand...

I liked the speed triple that was out in the late 90s. As for the new Commando, I am not even a fan of the original Commando myself. The company that made the original Commando could not have got it much worse could they have? While everyone else in the world, japs included were updating and optimizing the concept that the featherbed frame introduced, the designers of the Commando threw that out the window, kept the old shitty engine and designed a compromised chassis to insulate the public from it. Honda and everyone else kept the good chassis and did the right thing with their money, put it into a modern powerplant so that they could have the best of all worlds.

A real classic or good design does not need the crutch of nostalgia. Look at the Buells, Ducati Monster, Kawasaki Ninja 250/500, Honda VFR750, and on and on, or that Britten for maybe the ultimate example. I would rather see a Norton 750 design close to a GSXR Suzuki or Buell than some overpriced turd like they are trying to market now. I have had chances to buy Buells, Monsters, GSXR750s and ZX7Rs for $1000 in the last year, I sure as shit am not going to dump $10-$30K because some millionaire bought the rights to the Triumph or Norton trademark and slapped it on something a used sport touring bike that I can buy in the classifieds locally can kick the living shit out of.
 
beng said:
As for the new Commando, I am not even a fan of the original Commando myself. The company that made the original Commando could not have got it much worse could they have?
Click to expand...

And you're member of a Commando enthusiasts forum? How perverse is that?

Ian
 
Look at the title page, it says " Access Norton Motorcycle Forum". It does have a section on Commandos, English not your native language maybe? Not to mention that this section is specifically for other "classic" motorcycles, which the new Triumphs surely are not, and the new Nortons are not either in my book.
 
swooshdave said:
chasbmw said:
I better not go into reliability or value for money!
Click to expand...

No, go ahead. I'd like to hear this.
Click to expand...


bonnieville around £6000 65BHP made in Thailand

Norton 961 aound £15000 85BHP made in UK.

Bonnieville Bulletproof, Norton Fragile
 
chasbmw said:
Norton Fragile
Click to expand...

Why? What have you heard? I know there there has been a few teething problems with individual bikes but I haven't heard anything to suggest the 961 design is fragile (except perhaps for the side stand)?
 
beng said:
Nortoniggy said:
Gee. Have you ever looked at a Triumph 675? How do you view the 'new' Commando? Which is basically the opposite of your Triumph twin view, i.e. an old engine (pushrod twin) in a modern looking package.Ian
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I liked the speed triple that was out in the late 90s.

Thanks being :)

I've got one, and had it for years. I think the build quality is probably better than the new Triumphs.

Webby
 
Webby03 said:
beng said:
Nortoniggy said:
Gee. Have you ever looked at a Triumph 675? How do you view the 'new' Commando? Which is basically the opposite of your Triumph twin view, i.e. an old engine (pushrod twin) in a modern looking package.Ian
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I liked the speed triple that was out in the late 90s.

Thanks being :)

I've got one, and had it for years. I think the build quality is probably better than the new Triumphs.

Webby
Click to expand...

I really like the Triumph triples. I had an early 595 Daytona for a few years and then a low mileage second hand 2001 Speed Triple. Both were utterly reliable, fun to ride and the build quality was very good. The 595 was a revelation after the Ducati 900SS belt drive I had previously. That big triple motor is one the best in motorcycling.

Even some of the died-in-the-wool Japanese bike fans over here love the Street Triple. I want a ride on a 675R...
 
My wife bought a new bonny when they first came out, 790cc if I remember.
It was a very nice bike, did everything well but nothing great.
She sold it because it had no character, her words.
I thought it was a good bike but I did agree with her about the character.
I don't know what the newer ones are like with the larger engine.
Mk3 has character in bucket loads and is a nice bike to ride long distance.

I had a 595 for a few years, that was a great bike, very well made and finished.
It is (was) one of those bikes I wish I didn't sell. Went well, handled well, sounded cranky, but it was very hot in the summer.

Graeme
 
The 955i 02-06 Daytona is also one hell of a bike.It is comfortable enough to do 6-700 mile days with ease, power is phenomenal.
One cycle article did a track comparison to four other sport bikes, Honda CBR1000rr, Gixxer 1000, etc.
The Triumph came in fifth place as a track bike, thou it was only a millisecond or so behind the others. For 0-60 acceleration was the quickest of the group, just 2.8 seconds, beating even the Gixxer.
And when it came time for the test riders to make the 150 mile trip home, they all leapt for the Triumph keys at once.
Not the best track bike of the group, but clearly the best road bike for real roads.
And that sound......

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top