– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Triumph Announces Pricing for Scrambler 1200 Models: High-Tech Retro Doesn’t Come Cheap

With components from Brembo, Showa, and Öhlins part of the deal, together with gorgeous styling (they even managed to get rid of the tank seams!) and that great motor from the Thruxton, you just knew the Triumph Scrambler 1200 XC and XE wouldn’t come cheap. You were right.

With the international press launch taking place over the weekend, Triumph U.S. pricing for these new models is being reported back (even before Triumph updates its website). The basic Scrambler 1200 XC will carry an U.S. MSRP of $14,000. The uprated Scrambler 1200 XE is priced at $15,400.  If you want all the details on these bikes, and plenty of pictures, take a look at MD’s earlier report.


See more of MD’s great photography: Instagram


  1. EZMark says:

    These Scramblers are being made for people who started riding in the 60’s, right?
    Aren’t those the people who are aging out of the market?

    • mickey says:

      Yes, but we are not dead yet, not done riding yet, and have the discretionary income to buy if we like what we see.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      Just my subjective observation, but scramblers and cafe racers seem to be pretty popular with all age groups.

    • Fred_M says:

      Scramblers are being made for adults, not just older adults. Many adult riders have realized how stupid it is to ride around in a monkey-humping-a-football crouch dictated by by sport bikes, or in the brine-shrimp-rides-a-motorcycle slouch required by many cruisers. Scramblers aren’t for people who dress up like Valentino Rossi or who dress like one of the Hell’s Angels to go out for a weekend ride.

    • gpokluda says:

      Yep and we can still ride like we stole it and pretty much buy any bike we want.

  2. Anonymous says:

    This is great. Now do a 600 twin.

  3. gpokluda says:

    An early review of the Triumph Scrambler can be found here

    By no means comprehensive but indicates this bike is the real deal.

  4. Walter says:

    It’s pretty close to the height of idiocy to compare this bike (or any large displacement multi cylinder bike) to a DRZ; and I dont know of any reason why someone would do so publicly except to make some kind of ego-gratifying statement that they “know” what off-roading (or scrambling) is.

  5. WSHart says:

    The bike is meant to capture the hearts and wallets of those who were around in the 60s and 70s and those that “wish” they were. The latter group is not unique in that there have always been people that like certain aspects of a past they weren’t a part of. In this instance, it’s the “scrambler” style of motorcycle. Scramblers were the most popular type of bike for many years and with good reason. Back then, you could actually go off road without fear of being arrested or publicly ostracized for “harming the environment”. And you didn’t have to drive miles from home to do so.

    Ducati produces a version of the scrambler and it’s a great motorcycle. Triumph’s scramblers in both engine classes (to my eyes) look even better and I’m surprised that the Japanese haven’t mined their own past to produce at least one or two models themselves. BMW makes a nice scrambler style of bike with that R9T of theirs. Royal Enfield’s new 650 bikes could easily be made into “scramblers” with the addition of a high side mounted pipe. Moto Guzzi’s V7s make excellent “scramblers” when kitted up appropriately.

    The Japanese have yet to join the party but perhaps that’s because so many here and elsewhere on the interwebs bitch, whine and moan about what they “want” instead of asking for what they “need” and then don’t buy when they at least get close. I will have to compromise on the tank size of the 1200. BFD. Frustrating to be sure but not the end of my world. The bike is by no means “heavy” for it’s intended purpose. The suspension is more than up to the task of making me happy. Same with the motor and brakes. They look fantastic. For that matter, so does the entire bike.

    Looks are highly subjective. If you don’t like the looks, fine. People buy bikes for a variety of reasons but behind all of those is the fact that they like how it looks. Harleys are a great example of that. Same with Ducatis and MVs and more. Looks matter. It’s what we all first notice about anyone and anything.

    I suspect I’ve already reached the ignorant and childish TLDR limit of more than a few kiddies here. BFD. The bike doesn’t make the man but it does make the man happy. Bench racers are never going to be happy. FTN. 😉

    • Doc says:

      Well, you’re not full of yourself at all, are you.

    • Mick says:

      I was riding around in the 60s and 70s. I don’t understand why on earth there are so many retro bikes. I guess if I wanted an old bike. I’d buy one and update it bit. The old bikes are actually lighter than the current behemoths.

      Too many guys waste their youth and spend the rest of their life trying to buy it back. I’ve never seen it work. Not once.

      • mickey says:

        It’s a style many of us grew up with and are comfortable with, kinda like classic rock and roll, blue jeans and cheeseburgers & fries.

        Today’s styles are more hip hop and skinny jeans and sushi. I’m just not comfortable with that.

        Yes, you could take an old bike, mess with carbs and worn out brakes, 45 year old rubber parts, and electrical parts, points and condensers, wiring, switches lights, questionable maintenance etc,and replace everything with new parts and still not have as good of a bike as a modern one with fuel injection, ABS, led lights, and all new everything including a warranty.

        Same style as something old and comfortable, only far superior and brand new.

        • Doc says:


        • Anonymous says:

          Agreed. I speak with 55 years of riding experience when I say sometimes the good old days weren’t all that good. I have several old Triumphs and a modern one. The old ones are pretty to look at but mostly remain parked.

        • Mick says:

          The dirt bike industry made a ton of diesel dirt bikes that grenaded leaving a market full of excellent FCR carburetors. Zillions of sport bikes have been wadded leaving a ton of nice brake calipers and suspension components. Electronic ignition can be adapted to anything. The daemon Lucas can be easily excorcised from even the most recalcitrant Brit bike.

          I have in fact done about all that crap to the supermoto that is my personal street bike. It has few of it’s original parts. Frame, engine, rear brake and foot pegs is about the extent of it. It already had electronic ignition. So I didn’t mess with that.

          I’m just not in to retro stuff. If I were, the retro guys would hate me for making mine dope.

          • mickey says:

            “I have in fact done about all that crap”

            Good description.

            I don’t think the vast majority of motorcyclists want to go through all of that when they can just pick out a new bike that suits their likes/wants/needs and isn’t all jury rigged.

            Less time in the garage, more time on the road.

          • Mick says:

            You do stuff like that or you settle for an overweight motorcycle. That is something I will not do.

          • mickey says:

            Weight is just an arbitrary number. Something some make up. What may be just right for one, may be light for another, or heavy for yet another. There is no specific weight a motorcycle should be.

          • Anonymous says:

            ” The old bikes are actually lighter than the current behemoths.” Mick

            For what it’s worth the 1983 Honda CB 1100F weighed 584 pounds, while the 2018 Honda CB1100F weighs 545. The new version being 39 pounds lighter than the original 1980’s version.

          • Doc says:

            Anonymous, you might want to check your specs again. You’re comparing wet weight of the ’83 with dry weight of the newer bike. If it wasn’t for a larger tank on the old bike, I bet the weights would be almost identical.

          • Anonymous says:

            according to the net, wet weight on both

      • Snake says:

        Agree 100% Too many people just can’t get over their own past and move into the real world that actually exists around them. You Can Never Go Home Again, none of this retro stuff – nor the social attitudes that create it – is real. Everything has changed, only the looks are fake.

  6. Artem says:

    Vary bad (2)

  7. paquo says:

    i would feel silly riding that thing, it really is absurd

    • joe b says:

      … just curious, what do you ride now, and how many bikes do you own? have owned?

      • TimC says:

        It may be a great bike, but it’s all kinds of wacky when it comes to styling. Like I said before at least it’s totally ugly in a completely different way – not all angular/transformer-y, no beak, but man it’s a bunch of crap stuck together and I think it looks stupid.

        I guess I’d be caught on it sooner than the latest KTM abomination but that’s about it

        • mickey says:

          (If I were tall enough) I’d ride that Triumph all day long rather than spend 1 minute riding the Vitpilen

          Heck I’d ride the KTM before a VItpilen

  8. st1100boy says:

    Aren’t these bikes assembled in Thailand? If so, that $15K price tag is hard to swallow. England-made at that price, maybe. Thailand-made, I don’t know…

  9. Kermit says:

    I find Triumphs, while I like them, to be somewhat overpriced other than the base 900 twln. The 900 Scrambler is also more to my liking with a styling treatment I prefer. Off topic, whatever happened to NormG?

  10. allworld says:

    For those of us that own MV’s this is a brargan, sort of.

  11. Neal says:

    This might be less silly than a whitewalled Softail.

  12. VLJ says:

    People who are comparing this thing to a DRZ or any old, clapped-out 250 from the ’70s are missing the point. This is clearly a premium streetbike, not a dirtbike. It’s no different from a $16-25K ADV that will rarely if ever be used in the dirt for anything other than the most basic of fire trails and the like.

    It has an extremely smooth 1200cc motor with a ton of torque. It will be sheer bliss droning on the highways, freightlining through a long sweeper, or bombing out of a tight, second-gear corner on your favorite Racer Road. Along the way, if you also happen to want to go check out that cool lake you’ve always heard about that’s somewhere up that dirt road you always pass right on by during your sport rides, hey, now you can go check it out. It has enough room, suspension, and power to take a two-up trip over high passes and across state lines. Ridden leisurely, it will do everything the T120 will do while likely returning the Bonneville’s same excellent fuel mileage, which, with that five-gallon tank, means WSHART will be able to whinge only a small bit about the tank range. No inner tubes with those spoked rims, either. Long service intervals, as well.

    The thing sounds glorious. It’s safe. It has major suspension that’s adjustable to suit any type of ride, including two-up with luggage, or a day chasing sportbikes in the canyons. It’s well built. It’s beautiful, in its own way. It’s supremely comfortable. Oh, and it will handle the dirt better than 99% of streetbikes.

    Good luck getting all of that out of a DRZ.

    • WSHart says:

      FYI, the tank is rated at 4.2 US gallons or 16 liters. 5 US gallons would be better but if I decide I really want one, it’ll have to do. And yes, the tubeless wheels are the way to go. At least Triumph got that right.

      I still doubt the 58 mpg claims from Triumph and suspect this claim was done at 55 mph(they have used that speed in the past for their bikes) or perhaps using Imperial Gallons, but reality is I won’t know until I actually buy one and ride it. Or unless Dirck actually tests one and does the speed limit for a couple of tanks to see what the bike is capable of obeying the speed limits (including the Basic Speed Law).

      Thanks! And I don’t “whinge”. I write. Typist. 😉

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      Absolutely Correct ! ! Only thing missed was the severe advantage of easy access to the chain with high pipes. Well done, with feeling VLJ.

    • mickey says:

      Well put VLJ… and I saw a post by WSHART re capacity and mileage that disappeared (as can happen around here, but will probably show up eventually) but I can tell you my brothers 2016 Bonneville ridden at legal back road speeds of 45-60 mph averages 62 mpg.

      I can also tell you in 1968 my Honda CL77 305 Scrambler saw lots of off road work including hills and jumps at the local dirt bike park (but then again I was 18 then and didn’t know any better lol)

      • VLJ says:

        Yes, the T120 will reliably achieve an easy 50+ mpg when ridden remotely the way it’s designed to be ridden. Ridden similarly, it achieves better fuel mileage than our CB1100s, and with a five-gallon tank this 1200 Scrambler should have no problem exceeding 200 miles on the freeway before the low-fuel light is activated. Tank range will not be an issue.

        I read elsewhere that this bike only has a 4.2-gallon tank, not a five-gallon tank, as was originally reported in Dirck’s initial news review. Even if this turns out to be true, this bike will still eke out 200 miles to a tank on the highway.

        200+ to a tank is more than sufficient for this type of bike.

        • JB says:

          As I stated in the Speed Twin thread, real world riders are getting about 43 mpg from this engine in the Thruxton. The 58 mpg figure is almost assuredly British MPG, which equals 48 mpg US. That seems about right for your standard “testing on the highway at 55 to get the best mileage and not real world” figure. I’d still think the 43 mpg average I’ve seen is more realistic.

    • Neal says:

      You have pretty high hopes for it but I can’t share your enthusiasm. Bolt upright posture and no wind protection is not my idea of sheer bliss on the highway. And a tall, soft suspension makes rocking-horsing through sweepers more likely than freightlining, even if they say Ohlins.

    • Anonymous says:

      “It’s no different from a $16-25K ADV that will rarely if ever be used in the dirt for anything other than the most basic of fire trails and the like”
      So it’s a poser bike. Thanks for the revelation.

    • Austin ZZR 1200 says:

      I think you are projecting what you want in a bike from something that you (or anyone else for that matter) have ever ridden. The reason why this bike is polarizing is that it represents pandering, nostalgia-mining on the order of the new Star Wars movies:
      -Made in Thailand yet priced as Euro-built
      -High-end components to justify Euro-prices and weight
      -(relatively) large displacement to justify high-end components and heavy rider weight (for bloated boomers)

      Proof of PT Barnum’s wisdom. Say what you want about a DRZ, its an honest, known quantity and is closer to the original scrambler ideal

      • VLJ says:

        Scramblers have always been streetbikes that people use in the dirt, which is what this thing is. The DRZ is a dirtbike with a narrow plank of a seat that has been given blinkers and smog crap to make it legal for the street. It has more in common with enduros than with scramblers.

      • mickey says:

        I think you are confusing Scrambler with Enduro. Up until 1968 true scramblers were street bikes with high pipes. Triumph, BSA, Norton, Honda. Same 4 stroke multi cylinder engine, same weight, same horsepower and believe it or not they were run in the ISDT (see Steve McQueen). By 1968 dirt riding had become popular enough that Yamaha brought out a line of light weight single cylinder 2 stroke machines called Enduro’s, which became wildly popular and other manufacturers followed suit.

        Big difference between a scrambler (street oriented sometimes ridden in the dirt) and an enduro (dirt oriented sometimes ridden on the street.

  13. Lawrence Kahn says:

    1967 Triumph TR6C was about $1300, so about $10,000 in 2018 money. That being said I ain’t got no kids waiting for inheritance so I’m just waiting for a 1200XC to be in the dealership. Actually it will replace my 2007 Bonneville and DR650 and Wee-Strom….justified!!

  14. Joe Bogusheimer says:

    I’d love to give one of these a ride. Maybe even off road. If you’ve got the skills, these bikes certainly appear to have the equipment to take on fairly gnarly (by ADV standards) off road conditions.

    I’m not really sure what the target audience is though. Posers, maybe? I mean, how many people are there who really want a highly capable retro scrambler, and will use it as intended? I’d probably go with something like the KTM 1090 Adventure R, for the wind protection and luggage, if I wanted a really dirt-worthy ADV bike.

    Well, they’re probably not intended to be volume models, and I’m sure they’ll sell some.

  15. GB says:

    There are all kinds of bikes, riders, needs and wants…This is another cool choice.
    Great options out there for you!

    To all the bleacher critics out there, the world is looking forward to seeing the motorcycles you’ve designed, created, tested and marketed.

  16. Bubba Blue says:

    For scramblin’, Royal Enfield has one for around $5K. Who needs the high tech for riding in the dirt?

  17. WSHart says:

    Hmmmm…I never buy any vehicle as though it were an investment in anything but my satisfaction. It needs to do one thing – Make me (the owner) happy. If you keep something long enough (i.e. more than a year or two and more like 5 or more), resale doesn’t matter nearly so much simply because you are satisfied with what your purchase provided you over the years. I tend to keep my bikes for around 10 or so years. If I cannot sell/trade them for what I think is a fair price I simply keep ’em. They’re PAID for. I only need insurance and tires/maintenance. No payments to be made anymore.

    So many here claim to just LOVE a new bike (for whatever reason(s) but don’t buy it. Because reality bitch-slaps us all and truth be told, bikes ain’t inexpensive. Nothing is. It is cheap to profess “love” but again, talk is cheap – bikes, not so much.

    People here and elsewhere also comment on how if a bike only had “better” suspension and/or power they would buy it NOW! How if they (the bike, not the fluffy rider) only “weighed less” then they would be on it like a cheap suit. Yup. The usual litany of reasons and excuses. I myself have my reasons which included fuel capacity and tubeless wheels to name but two. Reasonable service intervals/costs is another major concern of mine. If a bike cannot meet those requirements (within reason) I won’t buy it.

    I don’t “love” a motorcycle. I save that emotion for family and friends, not inanimate machines, ergo I cannot suffer “buyer’s remorse” because I make my purchases based on sound principals (for me). Example – After 8 years I am looking at buying a new car. Automobile prices are outrageous but so too are motorcycle prices. Cars have more physical content and yet one can get a nice car for less than many motorcycles.

    Being an evil “baby-boomer” I am doubtless stealing all my moolah from hard-jerking millennials who just want to have fun and be hip. But…Everyone has a but so here’s my big but. I work for a living and have for decades. I have responsibilities to myself and my family and so I must weigh any and all purchases. I refuse to rationalize myself into debt. If I cannot afford the car I want and there are none that I find attractive enough to simply fill my need(s), I won’t buy one right now. I will wait and save. My current cars work fine (both are 8 years old) but a new one would be nice and I would get it now in order to pay it off within several years and then hope to retire after that is done.

    The same holds true for any motorcycles I might purchase. I am looking hard at the Scrambler 1200 Twiins because they appeal to those of my (ancient!) generation vis-à-vis memories of our glorious bygone years of yoot. 😉 Can I afford one? Yup. I will have to sell at least one scoot to help finance the bike and I will also have to forgo getting that new car. Life is all about choice and I really don’t want to, as the knight said, “choose poorly”. 🙂

    The younger folks out there will get to where I am one day and look back and wonder where the years went. And then, just as I do now, realize that it’s not the past that makes the future but what we learned from it and how we put that to use in the here and now. If you can’t afford the payments, don’t buy the bike.

    If you can’t afford the insurance, don’t buy the bike. If you can’t afford the maintenance, don’t buy the bike. Don’t tell yourself you’ll “just make it work” because that rarely works out well. Don’t put a bunch of money into a bike making it “your own” all the while the bank is still the actual owner.

    Bikes today are fantastic right off the showroom floor. The only things that need to be added are gas, oil, air and you. The thing is to make some good memories with them rather than making a fool out of yourself. Talk is cheap. Living is expensive. A motorcycle can be a great part of your life. The people that come here already know that life is more than staring at your stupid cell phone. You kids are going to be alright. Sheeeit…I am old, huh?

    Get what you need and then save for what you want. It can be done and it is worth it. Good luck!

    • HalfBaked says:

      750+ words. Seriously? Verbose much.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not my problem if you’re gnat that can count.
        You have a wonderful economy with words. I await your next utterance with great anticipation.


      • joe b says:

        Halfbaked, your inability to read, comprehend, is showing. I will try and make it simple for you. You are weak. Yes, seriously.

        • HalfBaked says:

          I didn’t read any of the post it was too long. When you can’t make a legitimate criticism then just resort to personal attacks.

          • TimC says:

            Amazingly enough, I was able to skip what I considered to be a TL;DR post without actually remarking on same. Congratulations on the most pointless thread on MD, 2018

          • Anonymous says:


            IOW, Too Stupid But Still Read And Didn’t Give An Intercourse.

            Apparently you would rather be taught a lesson than actually learn something.

          • HalfBaked says:

            TimC that’s high praise coming from yourself since you are clearly the expert on pointless threads.

    • slipjoint says:

      Gee Dad, I never thought of it that way! Did you write this in your office after assigning the millennial employees their low paid tasks for the day?

    • Chuck Smith says:

      Good read and a very rational perspective on “stuff”. Hope you get the new bike and enjoy it for years. Seems like you have good balance in your life.

  18. Artem says:

    No, thanks.

  19. Mick says:

    Looks like a tank seam delete goes for about a thousand bucks a side.

  20. Fry says:

    Even an ‘expensive’ motorcycle is still pretty damn cheap. The XE is 1/3 the price of a well equipped Camry. 1/5 the price of an F150. And 1/7 the price of any car as quick off the line and most folks use these three to simply get from point A to point B. Motorcycles rule, but not because they’re cheap. Nothing rules because it’s cheap. Not even cheap beer.

    • Provologna says:

      Dig. Pithy, and exactly on point.

    • Neil says:

      Add insurance and gear and it’s not so cheap. That’s why I think Enfield is onto something because we need more riders out there to stop playing video games and get out into the world. I see so many kids at friend’s and family’s houses just glued to an artificial life. Fine if they are going to Mars, I guess.

    • Grover says:

      Bikes are not cheap. Tires wear out 4 times as fast, have to go to stealership to have valves adjusted, $400 “Adventure” boots, monthly payments, helmets, tinted shields, windshields, luggage, insurance, premium jackets, premium gas, adjust spokes, electric gloves-vests-chaps-socks, assembly fees, destination charges, dealer markup, hospital visits, rehab, temporarily (hopefully) being out of work and much more. After 40 years of riding an average of 8,000 miles a year I am a realist when addressing the cost of owning a bike. It is CHEAP compared to owning an airplane, though.

  21. Luigi says:

    It,s an adventure bike with scrambler styling

    • Let’s see, this or an Africa twin..which would I choose? Oh wait, the Honda doesn’t have ‘top shelf’ Brembo brakes. That settles it.

      • Bart says:

        Brakes are highly over-rated.

        All they do is slow you down!

      • Jim says:

        The AT is built to a very cheap budget. No quality components to be seen. Forks that wear off their anodizing on the inner tubes, black fasteners that oxidize, tabs on plastic parts that result in uneven seams, a welded subframe, etc….

        • Yes..that questionable Honda reliability compared to that of Triumph..Jim, you must be a dealer

          • Provologna says:

            Could not more agree. I sold my 84 (or 85) Honda Sabre VF700S with a little less than 100k miles. Cosmetically, after very thorough toothbrush detail, the finish still was good, even the gloss black still had gloss. The only non-regular service was the voltage regular, replaced quickly and easily. Yes, the suspension was totally worn to a pulp. I used it for long distance commute. Probably the smoothest motor of all my 70 or so bikes (Yamaha Vision was a close 2nd or about equal).

          • Uncle Stashu says:

            Maybe instead of motorcycles, you should hang out on the Toyota Camry forums!

  22. Gary says:

    Beautiful bike! I love everything about it … and the paint job reminds me of an old BSA Victor. Looks like it’s big, rangy, comfortable, and versatile.

  23. TimC says:

    At least it’s completely ugly in a totally different way than we normally bitch about around these parts.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Its a fun toy for folks who can afford them. All things considered, even at 15k its a cheap toy. Side By Side Quads are going for more and the new 450 Honda 4 stroke is 10k.
    Triumph made a capable machine that looks traditional, and thats what the younger, hipster builder crowd likes. From what I read the bike is the real deal and looks good doing it.

    15k… for what you get, its a good value.

    I am also from the Lowell Mass , Merrimack Valley area and there are a lot of 25000 Street Glides rolling around. This bike is awesome and I bet there are a lot of them at Lowell Bike Night next year.

  25. Zuki says:

    Exactly the cost I guessed they would be. I want the XE! Beautiful mo-sheens!

  26. bmbktmracer says:

    I’m curious why some people disparage this bike as a true scrambler. The “scrambler” bikes of the 60s and 70s had about 20 HP and 4 inches of virtually undamped suspension travel, weak wheels, 35 mm fork tubes at best, flimsy swingarms… I’m sincerely curious as to what specific motorcycle y’all consider superior to today’s machines.

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      California 1962 there were street bikes and dirt bikes and an activity called scrambles which anything could run. No scramblers. Along came the Honda 250, Yamaha 250, and others that were monikered Scrambler. They were street bikes that could be reasonably successful in traversing bumpy dirt. Along came more specialized dirt bikes that were wonderfully more capable. Scramblers were still street bikes that could travel a dirt road or trail, but never ISDT. Now we have a crap load of Scramblers that are still not dirt bikes, but very much as capable as ever of going off the paved highway just for a little exploring on a Saturday ride. Even with all the improvements in tires, suspension, wheels etc. they are street bikes and because of the weight gain not a lot better than the original monikered Scrambler. They still work well but never were motocross, open desert sleds, or any thing except a fun Saturday, not have to pack up the truck Friday night bike. Relax and enjoy what you do on what you want.

    • Grover says:

      True all, but my old Honda 350 cost $250 and was buckets of fun! I wasn’t riding it to impress folks at the local coffee hangout, but actually went places off-road where most street bikes wouldn’t dare. A true Scrambler, even with a measly 20 hp.

    • Al Banta says:

      Triumph 650 TR6 in the late 60’s had 40 hp and weighed in about 360lbs..Look it up!

  27. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    A motorcycle is a simple two wheeled machine to transport a human being further and quicker than walking is practical. $10,000 plus is an act of conspicuous consumption for a simple machine. It is not the machines fault if we force it to be unnecessarily complex and expensive.
    No sale. Time to reset what is important or not as the earth ends.

  28. Fujkami says:

    My local Ducati dealer said recently “that goodness for my Indian and Chinese customers who are keeping me afloat”. The local high tech industry are his clients. I’m sitting in a café in downtown Lowell Mass and there sure are not any of these bikes around heah. Old factory town. Lots of people just getting by and the rents are high here too. – But I do like the bike itself, especially since the roads around here are so terrible. It’s just a question of saving up for what you want. Nice looking machine. Great components. What’s not to like? Gotta pay workers something.

    • Tommy D says:

      Where is a local Triumph dealer? How the heck can they stock all the models in each sub model branch? Here in New England where population density is king I saw all my local Triumph dealers disappear. The brand is going a bit crazy with dealer requirements and drove them all out of business. Not sure I want to purchase such and expensive machine that is hard to find warranty and service for it.

      The coolest feature of this bike is the phone linking GPS display on the dash. I see that as a feature that should be on every TFT screen equipped motorcycles. Why pay for another farkle. Keep it clean and tidy.

      • mickey says:

        Interesting Tommy. For me the most useless thing on a motorcycle is a anything that links a phone to it.

        We had 2 local Triumph dealers (local being within 100 miles) . One is about worthless and can’t keep a salesman or a mechanic, the other gave up Triumph and took on Benelli, citing Triumph’s demands on his dealership as the reason for dropping them.

  29. dave novick says:

    Seems like a way better deal than ~$9.5K 450 MX bike.

  30. gpokluda says:

    The demographic this bike is aimed at won’t even raise an eyebrow at the price. Besides that, if it has the same build quality of my T120 and the top shelf parts indicated, the bike is worth every penny.

  31. skybullet says:

    Premium components = $$. Maybe that’s why KTM’s cost more. In the long run it saves money. You don’t replace the “adequate” components which saves money and the resale is increased by the original cost. Plus, the factory can do a better job of picking the best stuff and they get it at a better price. Plus, you probably avoid the “I like the bike but” syndrome.

    • Austin ZZR 1200 says:

      Not necessarily once you factor parts and labor at your Euro shop. Experts may be able to eek out incremental performance from ‘top shelf’ components. For the rest of us, its part of a d*ck measuring contest. I can afford this bike but would feel silly on it. A beat-to-hell, quasi-custom DRZ is 1000x cooler in my opinion…

      • Grover says:

        Agreed! My KLX250S would “scramble” this bike’s eggs off-road and I can pick my 250 when I do drop it. The Triumph not so much.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      I like the bike, but it costs too much.

  32. mickey says:

    Well it’s a shocker to me by about $2K but it does have premium parts.

  33. Peter says:

    This is right in-line with the Tiger 800 series. Should be no shocker to anyone. Triumph makes very nice bikes, but the MSRP is definitely a premium.

  34. downgoesfraser says:

    New Z400 and KX450 for $14,000.

  35. Austin ZZR 1200 says:

    about as far removed from the original scrambler ethos as you can get. Buy a used DRZ on clist for $2500 and you can scramble all you like. The biggest poseur-mobile ever made

    • motowarrior says:

      We seem to throw the poseur word around a lot on this site. This motorcycle will be bought and enjoyed by a bunch of very good riders who like the look and feel of a modern quality streebike that can also handle a fire road. If you think the name is a stretch that’s one thing, but calling this motorcycle “the biggest poser-mobile ever made” is quite another.

    • rg500g says:

      No, the biggest poseur-mobile ever made is the RG500 gamma. Trust me.

      • TimC says:

        Not even close. Harley by a long shot.

        Note, I don’t mean to piss off the H-D guys here. Anyone reading this site (other than Reggie up there) is probably a real motorcyclist and if they ride a Harley it’s for real rider reasons, and these are just as valid as anyone else’s.

        It’s just that a big part of their demographic is after the image (which has, admittedly, generally served H-D very well financially indeed).

        • Reginald Van Blunt says:

          Reggie has been riding dirt and street since 1964 and his last bike was a T-Scram for 10 years.

      • Bud says:

        RG500 Gamma is a poser bike? OK. I want one anyway.