New R3s

warp9.9 said:

Sorry, Mel its beem a long day I should have read it about 6 times before I clicked post. You surely did not say anything to piss me off. Now let me look and see who else I need to apologize to.

Click to expand...

Ematicic said:

Unfortunately, I simply do not have a comfort zone at this point. I will cancel my order tomorrow. I greatly appreciate all of the feed back but I simply cannot transition to a completely new make and model with 90% of the feedback being negative. I honestly do appreciate this forum and value the input from this community that specifies in Rockets. If most of you say the TFC is not worth it, I cannot see a path forward, as I haven't even sat on one. I am not one to let others make up my mind but this was going to be a big purchase for my normally excessive frugal life style and I guess I got sucked into the initial pictures and statistics. If I had at least driven an older model Rocket I would have a better impression of "Worth" to me, but I have no personal baseline. The overwhelmingly negative collective opinion here caught me off guard but better than finding out later and being epically disappointed.

Thank you all!

Click to expand...

warp9.9 said:

You confuse me on ground clearance. raise the rear axle center line .415" yet lower the front axle centerline .590" . All you did was move the ground clearance . Kind of like a flip flop of the ground clearance. Not sure thats a gain ?

Click to expand...

1olbull said:

Must be the Polish . . .
All I be saying, Amigo, is a rear axle high as your legs will allow is best, IMHO.
As you state, the front axle should indeed be lower than the rear (within the limits of proper trail).
That 18" tire you spoke of sits the rear axle quite a bit lower to the ground than the OEM wheel with a 240/55R17.
That reduces your ground clearance and then the front axle must be lowered even more to compensate.
rozumiesz?

Click to expand...

sleeves said:

I'm with you in "ho-hum" First glance I though this would be great but... my issues with it are firstly the 300mm shorter wheelbase I haven't seen one but think it will be overall much smaller I fit my R3 perfectly now. Secondly I like to be able to tie lots of stuff on for touring and cant see it on the new ones, Thirdly unless the ECU can be accessed its going to cost a fortune at the dealers (if they even want to know) in a few yeas when various electronics start packing up.

And lastly what makes the old R3's so good is that they never should have been built. Basically a big engine jammed into a bike with no real electronics rider aids. It could have been designed in the 70's...(almost Hemi Cuda style)

Click to expand...

warp9.9 said:

Some what but first off 240/50r16 is oem not the 55. The 55 is a substitute. And either rear does wash when your drastically lower the front end before the springs compress. More for you my large friend less for my scrawny arse. So you might be raising the arse but you massively lowering the front axle. I would think that negates some of your ground clearance in the front and worse when your diving into the corner. Also its such a severe down angle it feels ruffer because of all the weight transfer. Again much more weight transfer for you.

But hey your happy I'm just giddy over how my suspension is working. I can't wait to hit the twisties Friday for more realistic testing !

Click to expand...

joesoap said:

On paper the Ducati Diavel is a much better bike and much more exciting to ride than the current Rockets imho...also when the fk are Triumph going to realize we don't want 16" rear wheels as we cant buy decent performance tires ... even iff i had the money i would not even consider the latest Rocket as its just a marketing idea not really a true riders bike and that goes for pretty much all of Triumphs range currently

Click to expand...

Dr.D said:

This new Rocket does a lot of haters on here.

Click to expand...