The Prophet

This is from Motorcyclist Magazine, and covers the 2001 Bonneville. It is a very intersting read, as much of it diosagrees with many of the internet forum "experts" who have modified the bikes to varying degrees.

Example: The 790 was designed to be a "lazy", rather than potent. The opposite of many "experts" who fiddle with the high-rev limiter to gain additional RPM, claiming the engine "loves" to be revved high.



Hmmmm.... I'll lean slightly towards towards the original design and engineering team's recommendations and criteria.

2001 Triumph Bonneville - World Exclusive! - Motorcyclist Magazine

At any rate, an excellent read, an something to ponder over when someone tells you it "loves" high RPM's and the rev limitations are B.S.

Beyond that, there are many more interesting tidbits and information in the article. Good Reference.

Bob

__________________

• A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. ~Lao Tzu
• Motorcyles are not my whole life, but they make my life whole. ` me

motowebmaster

I was at the Triumph Dealers Convention in Atlanta, as a guest of a former Triumph Dealer, when the Bonneville was first introduced to dealers. Interesting times.

Back then, a standard Bonneville was a easy riding bike, but since I cut my teeth on the Hinckley T3 Triple there wasn't the nostalgic connection to the vertical twin. Some of the locals took them out and tore up the hillside, giving us a glimpse into how much fun the original versions likely would have been.

The Prophet

I had a 1967 Daytona that I purchased used during my freshman year of college, in 1970.

It had 18,000 miles on it... and was totally shot. Leaked oil, started only when it felt like it. Had weekly mysterious electrical (Lucas!) faults that would eat up a Saturday morning...


But I absolutely loved it. I had it until '75, then sold it when I got married(!). Wish I had it now. But... the new Hinckley offers are leaps and bounds better, more reliable, slightly faster, but you can ride more, and wrench... never. Anyone who says the old bikes were better either
a.) Wasn't alive at that time.
b,) Never actually owned one... or
c.) Has "Nostalgia-itus", wishing we could all go back to a simpler, happy time(?).

Don't get me wrong, I sincerely love the old bikes, and know that with some modern improvements they can be made to be very reliable and fun, but on average, the old '60's bikes don't compare to the modern offers, except in character of course... if you call breakdowns at the side of the road... character!

Just kidding around Classic lovers!!!

Bob

SidecarFlip

Prophet, that's a great read. I enjoyed every page as much as I still enjoy my Bonnie (and the trophies it gets).

Sometime this winter, I'll take possession of my long lost dream, a 1967 Norton P-11A High Piped Scrambler in fully restored condition and then I can re-appreciate all the quirks of pre-Hinkley motorcycles...Lucas, Amal,, Reynolds and oil spots on the hardwood floors.

Hardwood floors? This one is staying in the house. In the living room to be exact. It's not going to be a rider. Rather it's going to be the vehicle to return me to the days of my youth...in an armchair.

I look at it as an investment, like old coins or collectable arms.

__________________
MIA

motowebmaster

I've got faith, but tend to think that there will be some in-motion pictures coming

The Prophet

Flip,

I'm eternally jealous of your ever growing stable.

That Norton is a dream bike... I can see why you would keep her "high n' dry".

Bob