That is pretty cool. Never seen it, but I think it's pretty special that they went belly up in 82 and re emerged in 90 and were actually very successful staying in business for 20 years so far and going strong in modern times. How many bike manufacturers come and go before they actually get started now days? Norton, now on their what third attempt , vincent, mondial, fischer, indian and I don't know if Michael Czysz ever made production.
Actually, John Bloor licensed Les Harris from 83 to about 88 to continue building Bonnevilles per the last spec, with a few very minor changes along the way depending on supply of components. By '88, he was already building the original Hinkley facility, so TECHNICALLY, Triumph was never totally dead. thank God for Bloor's deep pockets.
I think triumph also did it right in as they made an excellent price point for the average person to afford their hinckley machines and offered a lot of different models to choose from in the process. I don't think success comes from trying to sell one or two different variations of one bike for 20K+ prices in this world. Not a lot of people are going to keep a company in business trying to sell that way. It does help that bloor is a rich as he is.
No question that Bloor's start-up plan to use the triple and four cylinder basis for 4 different engines was a brilliant one.
4 engine capacities from 2 base blocks, inserted into 2 or 3 different base chassis, some with bodywork, some without, and sure enough, you have a dozen bikes in your lineup. perfect recipe for success.
Norton should have built a 750 AND the 961 with the same bottom end, and had 2 different chassis; that would give them 4 basic bikes. Add bodywork and double the offering.