[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2 Cylinders better than 3?



I remember the original rocket 3
wasn't old enough to own one at the time

another classic m/c from the period
would be the Triumph Hurricane
beautiful even today with the 3 zorsts (on the wrong side)

of course the rocket3 grew up to become the Triumph Trident
barrels inclined slightly forward
and after some stop-start-and-go hiccups
evolved to the sophisticated modern breed of Triumphs today

yes, the link that I referred to was a write up for a Guzzi
(2 cyls better than 3)
just thought that it was a pic of a far-out m-c
and only 2 cyls

I do realise that it would be a totally impractical proposition
especially if you live in the Free State of South Africa

 it would seem that I have never given up on the idea
of looking at and dreaming about state-of-the-art motor cycles

even if more rational senses encourage me to ride a BM


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brown" <tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "BMW Oilhead List" <oilheads@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:34 PM
Subject: 2 Cylinders better than 3?


Jim:

I had an original Rocket 3.  It was a BSA, not a Triumph, back then.  It had
a red line around 8,000 with pushrods.  If you added double valve springs,
you could get over 9,000 out of it.   Lots of power, but needed a balance
shaft or something...vibes at cruising speeds were pretty objectionable.
Still, the bike was a lot of fun and very fast.  Handling was decent.  Mine
was set up as a cafe type bike...painted all white with a one piece
fender/seat affair, a really large rear tire and a standard type fork with
disk brake from a Honda 750 instead of the stock hinge type fork and drum
brake.   It also had a flat black, 3 into 1 GP race pipe on it with a token
baffle inside.  It sounded extremely serious.

I wrecked it eventually.  Went over a back road hill and discovered an
unmarked T-intersection on the other side.   I was passing my riding friend,
who said he was going 80 or so.   I laid the bike down in the street and
both the bike and I went into a vacant lot missing a tree by inches.  I was
wearing thin sneakers, thin jeans, a t-shirt and a pair of sunglasses.  I
should be dead.   Instead, my back was open and full of asphalt and I got a
pretty bad bang on my left elbow.

I was thinking about getting on another bike, but my friend was rear-ended
the next week by a sedan while he was stopped for a left turn.  I sold my
wreck for $25 and the guy came back 3 years later asking for his money back.

I didn't ride for 25 years after that incident.   I finally fell for a '99
RT with 5,000 miles on it.   I put on another 60,000 and traded for a new
'04 last summer.  They're great bikes.   How much power do you need on the
street?   I'm able to keep up with all but the completely irresponsible
idiots on the street.  I have embarrassed many sport bike riders with my RT
as have many other BMW riders, because of the confident handling and
controllability of the bike.  You can go faster when you can sit up straight
and see what's going on around you and when you know that you can always
trust what the bike is going to do in a given situation.   That's every bit
as important as power.

The link you left was of the new Guzzi, not the Triumph.   Whatever.   I
looked up the new Triumph launch on the site and can understand your
comments about handling quirks.  The thing is immense!   Think Boss Hoss,
then you appreciate how sophisticated this bike is by comparison.   Bikes
with lots of power and not much handling are not for me.  I can't be trusted
with them!

- -TB

------------------------------