Size comparison R3 V R3R

Dr.D said:
These are proper touring machines.
Click to expand...
This is not a dig - simply a lead on from your post.

Depends on the roads. Here they would classified as US style Tourers. Big Heavy Straight line comfort. Excellent on wide open wide surfaced US roads - Excellent generally in slowish (but flowing) traffic too. I've not ridden a new Indian or 1800 Wing - but I have a clear idea of what US type wheelbase and chassis shapes do and do not. And what weight is.

And here is why I believe many riders (may be a European thing) on a Longer Tour have moved to lighter multi purpose rides - because the roads left to see and explore (and free of traffic) may well not be 100%. I did my month long tours of the Alps (in the 80's) on the old Guzzi I still have. Often on really poor roads (Cobble stones over tree roots). It was modified to suit the trips - and oddly the riding position is close to a modern Adventure bike. It does not have the ground clearance - and aesthetically very different. But you can for example stand up on the pegs for rough sections with no difficulty. This is simply NOT possible on a foot-forward riding position or a full sport position either.

My issue with 90% of modern "Adventure" bikes for long trips is that I'd need 2" platform soles to cope with the seat height. Tippy toes is fine on a good surface - not so good on mud, dirt or uneven surface. In fact the only "Adventure Bike" I have ridden that I can flatfoot is the RE-Himalayan. It's 24bhp however is NOT really apt for faster highways.

There are sections of road here near me I will NEVER venture down again on anything big, cumbersome and heavy. Some where the R3 sump will ground if you attempt to do a u-turn.

A GT has never been a vehicle for trundling. It is basically a SPORTS chassis/engine that can also do distance FAST with some comfort. And one would naturally forward one's requirements onto one's hotel (with one's servants?) in advance or travel light. The R3-GT reminds me a bit of an E-Type 2+2 (half of one - so a 1+1) - The +1 will NOT travel in much comfort. Neither did the +2 in an E-Type. This is still the case for most REAL GT's. The 2+2 E-Type was a bit to long for tight curves too imo. Whereas the simple 2 seater was excellent.

One of the most inspiring real touring things I have seen recently. Ferry from UK to Spain. A couple off on a 6 month tour of Europe. Both in their 70's (almost 80's) - Both on matching mid sized maxi-scooters. (I don't remember if they were the sort with two front wheels) They'd both just ridden 8 hours from Scotland to Plymouth stopping only for fuel. I saw their itinerary - would put many long distance truckers in their place. They were so relaxed and refreshed the old lady was making up sandwiches from the under-seat cavern and cheering up some Scottish lads on "distance bikes" who'd arrived shattered.
 

Even the Touring isn't really a touring bike, Imo. I mean, you can tour on a CB750, but there's better options.
 
As I recall the Touring was mostly compared to the Road King when it was released. By that measure and with the windshield and hard bags it was considered touring worthy at the time. Now most consider touring motorcycles to be of the Winnebago on two wheels model. Or, as noted, if you're talking outside the US, then adventure type models mostly rule. Should Triumph choose to go after the relatively small touring market with the R3 they will have to up their game substantially. My guess is they are watching the market and will continue to do so before making that substantial of an investment.
 
This is just my opinion but I'd say that the riders in the touring market are up there in years (with the exception of the good dr of course). Even cruisers arent real popular with the younger crowd hence the more streetfighter design of the new bike.
 
No digs taken. My post was showing the more extreme of touring. You would need to see these things ridden by my wife and myself to see they can hustle the twisties on a normal size American road. I see your valid point that the Euro roads ma not be a great match for our big bikes. I watched one of the videos of a guy on one of the new R3s and thought the paved road looked more like a trail than a main thoroughfare with hedges right on the road. Looked scary to me. In fact I think a little 250cc enduro style bike would be plenty.

I like the new model bikes but they are not real touring machines imho.
 
Gregger said:
Nice blower arrangement. Plumbing looks neat and tidy. Not obtrusive. Hard to tell but is there an inter-cooler under the rad?
Click to expand...
could it be the one mounted on the right side of the standard rad..
 
just found this quote....The new bike is still big, but doesn’t look or feel as intimidating as the old one; 88 pounds is a huge weight loss. Triumph says the new R weighs 642 pounds dry, and we’re also 0.7 inches shorter of wheelbase at 66 inches.
 

Sounds about right. Problem for triumph is that bikers like to customise hence who would invest in a platform with these restrictions. I'm sure as 3D Printing and other fabrication technics evolve, supply of parts will be a case of sending the broken part and asking for a copy
 
So....how many TFC Arrow exhausts can a TFC owner purchase? 1 for himself, 3 for his friends.....

I guess if you really want an Arrow exhaust or other TFC specific part for your GT or R, you could get one of the few TFC owners to order it for you.

@Ishrub probably has the TFC parts network in place already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Power Commander V unexpected behavior
Replies
3
Views
425
R-III-R Turbo
My Nephew's '14 R3
Replies
1
Views
591
Jay
Her first R3 ride.
2
Replies
13
Views
1K
MIG
R3 and little brother tucked away for the night.
Replies
0
Views
672
rocketrod
V vs H Tire Rating
2
Replies
15
Views
2K
1olbull
Menu
Log in
Register