– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Triumph Unveils 2019 Speed Twin (with video)

Despite numerous, leaked photos, the official unveiling by Triumph earlier today of the 1,200cc Bonneville Speed Twin still hit us right between the eyes with the beautiful machine displayed in the high-quality images provided by the British manufacturer.  This is the classic Bonneville with big power and relatively lightweight handling. Delivering 96 horsepower at less than 7,000 rpm and 83 foot/pounds of torque at 4,950 rpm, the Speed Twin will be a monster launching from stoplights.

All that power down low works with a significantly lighter machine, as the Speed Twin is a claimed 22 pounds lighter than the Thruxton and 60 pounds lighter than the T120 (claimed dry weight for the Speed Twin is just 432 pounds). With many of the electronic aids found on a modern sport bike, it isn’t a surprise that Triumph has fitted Pirelli Rosso Corsa 3 tires to the 17″ wheels.

We understand that the new Speed Twin will be in dealer showrooms next Spring, but pricing is currently unknown. Here is the full press release from Triumph with all of the details, followed by a video:

The beautiful new 1,200cc Triumph Bonneville Speed Twin proudly re-introduces a legendary British moniker to the world in a machine truly worthy of the iconic ‘Speed Twin’ name. A performance motorcycle that sets a new benchmark for how a custom roadster should look, ride and feel, the Speed Twin offers class-leading handling, advanced rider tech and impeccable style.

  • Class-leading handling
    • Confidence inspiring, precise, agile and dynamic ride
    • Dedicated new chassis and suspension set-up
    • More than 22 lbs lighter than the Thruxton and nearly 60 lbs lighter than the T120
    • High specification Brembo brakes and twin discs
    • ABS and switchable traction control
    • Comfortable, engaged riding position with accessible
      low seat height and pillion capability
  • Thrilling performance
    • Updated 1,200cc high-power Bonneville twin engine with ‘Thruxton’ tune
    • High power across the entire rev range, with peak output of 96 HP @ 6,750 rpm
    • Exhilarating torque delivery, with peak torque of 83 Ft-lb @ 4,950 rpm
    • Distinctive British twin sound from dual black upswept sports silencers
  • Advanced rider technology
    • Sport, Road and Rain riding modes
    • LED Headlight
    • Torque-assist clutch
    • Feature-packed twin clocks
    • USB charging socket
    • Immobilizer
    • Accessory TPMS capability
  • Beautiful modern custom style
    • Triumph’s timeless DNA married to a new standard in contemporary Bonneville style
    • Muscular and imposing roadster poise
    • 90+ custom Speed Twin accessories
  • Category-leading finish and detailing
    • A host of beautifully designed premium features, finishes and details
    • Brushed aluminum mudguards, throttle body covers, side panel finishers, heel guards and headers
    • Seven-spoke aluminum wheels
    • Monza-style fuel cap
    • Minimal rear end
    • Bar-end mirrors

A legend reborn

Changing the face of motorcycling, the original 1938 Triumph Speed Twin was a revelation to ride, featuring the most successful parallel twin engine of its day packaged into a game-changing chassis. Its smooth, dynamic handling and superb, responsive feel established Triumph’s reputation for producing the world’s best performing, sweetest handling motorcycles, setting the template for all that followed.

For 2019, the all-new 1,200cc Speed Twin re-introduces this illustrious Triumph name to our Modern Classics line-up, once again setting the new standard in its class for handling and performance prowess, establishing the benchmark for how a modern custom roadster should look, ride and feel.

The brand new Speed Twin carries all of the contemporary custom style of the Street Twin, but adds even more beautiful premium details. It delivers the power, torque and technological advancement of the thrilling Thruxton R, with the confidence-inspiring ride and all-day comfort of its renowned Bonneville T120 sibling.

The result, just like its iconic 20th century namesake, the new Speed Twin is a new performance icon that again looks to raise the bar in its category, with the chassis set-up, riding position, braking ability, suspension and thrilling power delivery of a truly modern roadster.

Class-leading handling

The all-new Speed Twin boasts class-leading handling characteristics, for a precise, agile and dynamic modern roadster ride with Triumph’s trademark intuitive feel.

The dedicated new frame developed from the Thruxton R delivers comfortable and engaged ergonomics which, combined with the high specification cartridge front forks and twin rear suspension units with adjustable spring pre-load, make for a truly confidence-inspiring performance machine.

High specification twin Brembo 4-piston axial calipers on the front and a 2-piston single floating caliper on the rear provide excellent stopping power, complementing the motorcycle’s modern roadster character.

Adding to the confidence-inspiring ride, the new Speed Twin also benefits from:

  • Lightweight, 17-inch cast aluminum wheels
  • High specification Pirelli Rosso Corsa 3 tires
  • ABS and switchable traction control as standard
  • Comfortable, upright, engaged riding position
  • Tapered handlebars and new upper yoke and risers
  • A comfortable new bench seat at a low height of 31.8 inches,
    making the bike accessible for all riders
  • A significant 22 lbs weight savings compared to the Thruxton, and incredible 60 lbs weight savings compared to the T120, contributing to its class-leading handling

Thrilling performance

The modern roadster character comes to life through its 1,200cc High Power 8-valve, parallel twin Bonneville engine, specifically updated for the new Speed Twin.

This revised high performance engine features a low inertia crank and high compression head developed from the Thruxton R’s renowned powerplant.

Engine updates include:

  • New magnesium cam cover
  • Revised clutch assembly
  • New mass optimized engine covers

Together these deliver a unique 5.5 lbs weight savings versus the Thruxton engine. With 96 peak horsepower @ 6,750rpm, the new Speed Twin achieves an impressive 76% increase over the 2018 Street Twin, and 49% more than the new 2019 Street Twin.

Additionally the new Speed Twin engine also delivers a strong peak torque figure of 83 Ft-lb @ 4,950rpm – an amazing 40% more than the 2019 Street Twin.

The Speed Twin’s all-new distinctive twin upswept silencers, with satin black painted wrap
and stainless steel end caps deliver the unmistakable sound of a British Twin, a unique exhaust note that matches its powerful and legendary character – rich, deep and full.

Behind the classically stylish exterior sits a modern liquid cooling system, carefully integrated to minimize its visual impact while achieving clean emissions and enhancing fuel efficiency. Combined with an extended first major service interval of 10,000 miles (16,000km), this contributes to a reduced overall cost of ownership.

Advanced rider technology

The new Speed Twin features a full suite of rider-focused technology to deliver advanced rider control and safety, plus enhanced rider confidence – sensitively integrated to maintain its iconic Bonneville style and character.

The Speed Twin’s technology features include:

Three riding modes – Linked to the ride-by-wire system, the three selectable riding modes – Sport, Road, or Rain – each with dedicated throttle maps and traction control settings, providing enhanced rider control and safety, and in ‘Sport’ mode, a more immediate throttle response.

ABS – The contemporary safety standard, with minimal visual impact, the ABS is responsive yet unobtrusive.

Switchable traction control –  Managing the Speed Twin’s high torque delivery when traction is compromised, the switchable system offers increased rider control.

LED headlight – Incorporated into the headlight, the LED headlight brings excellent visibility and a distinctive light profile.

LED rear light & indicators –   Built into the classically inspired minimal tail set-up, the LED rear light and indicators bring a distinctive rear light pattern and excellent power efficiency.

Ride-by-wire – Enhancing throttle responsiveness, safety and feel.

Torque-assist clutch – Optimized for a lighter touch and feel to the clutch to make it easier to ride, and ride longer.

Switchgear – Elegant switchgear presents simple fingertip controls for easy access to the key features on the new twin clocks.

USB charging socket – For maximum rider convenience, the USB charging socket charges riders’ essential devices.

Engine immobilizer – Transponder integrated into the key adds greater security.

Stylish twin clocks – New twin clocks, beautifully detailed and premium, incorporate a digital menu system accessed by the handlebar mounted scroll button.

Key features include:

– Riding mode setting
– Gear position indicator
– Odometer
– Trip settings
– Service indicator
– Range to empty
– Fuel level
– Average and current fuel consumption
– Access to turn off traction control features
– Clock
– TPMS indicator (when accessory fitted)
– Heated grips indicator (when accessory fitted)

Beautifully modern custom style

With all of Triumph’s timeless DNA, married to a modern stripped-back custom look, muscular poise and a host of beautifully designed premium features, the Speed Twin is the most contemporary styled Bonneville ever.

Key features include:

  • Signature sculpted 3.8 gallon fuel tank
  • Custom style bench seat
  • Minimal front and rear mudguard set-up with small rear light
    (and integrated brake and turn signals in the US and Canada)
  • Sculpted side panels with aluminum badge detailing
  • Twin upswept sports silencers
  • Contemporary bar-end mirrors

Category leading finish and detailing

The new Speed Twin continues the class-leading theme of the whole Bonneville family
when it comes to its premium level of finish and detailing, including:

  • Brushed aluminum mudguards, throttle body covers, side panel finishers and heel guards
  • Bright anodized forged aluminum headlight brackets
  • Distinctive Monza-style locking fuel cap
  • New 7-spoke aluminum wheels
  • Clear anodized aluminum swingarm
  • Painted headlamp bowl and bezel
  • Handlebar clamp with Speed Twin branding

The new Speed Twin comes in three color choices:

  • Silver Ice and Storm Grey, with hand-painted Graphite coach line and white stripe
  • Korosi Red and Storm Grey, with hand-painted Graphite coach line and white stripe
  • Jet Black

Building your own Speed Twin custom

Designed with personalization in mind, the Speed Twin comes with over 90 accessories
to help you add even more style, practicality and security.

It’s never been easier to create your own special with a host of custom-inspired parts to choose from, including: brushed Vance & Hines silencers, blacked out detailing, quilted seat and Triumph-engineered security additions such as disc locks, ground anchor and locking chain. In addition to these we also have a range of stylish and durable luggage available for commuting and long-distance travel.

**Availability of accessories is governed by local market legislation – please check with a Triumph market representative for availability.


Engine Type Liquid cooled, 8-valve, SOHC, 270° crank angle parallel twin
Capacity 1,200cc
Bore/Stroke 97.6 x 80 mm
Compression Ratio 11.0:1
Maximum Power 96 HP @ 6,750 rpm
Maximum Torque 83 Ft-lb @ 4,950 rpm
Fuel system Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection
Exhaust Brushed 2-into-2 exhaust system with twin silencers
Final drive Chain
Clutch Wet, multi-plate assist clutch
Gearbox 6-speed
Frame Tubular steel with aluminum cradle
Swingarm Twin-sided, aluminum
Front Wheel Cast aluminum alloy 7-spoke 17 x 3.5 in
Rear Wheel Cast aluminum alloy 7-spoke 17 x 5 in
Front Tire 120/70 ZR17
Rear Tire 160/60 ZR17
Front Suspension 41mm cartridge forks, 4.7 in (120mm) travel
Rear Suspension Twin shocks with adjustable preload, 4.7 in (120mm) rear wheel travel
Front Brake Twin 305mm discs, Brembo 4-piston fixed calipers, ABS
Rear Brake Single 220mm disc, Nissin 2-piston floating caliper, ABS
Width (Handlebars) 29.9 in (760 mm)
Height Without Mirrors 43.7 in (1110 mm)
Seat Height 31.8 in (807 mm)
Wheelbase 56.3 in (1430 mm)
Rake 22.8 º
Trail 3.68 in (93.5 mm)
Dry Weight 432 lbs (196 Kg)
Fuel Tank Capacity 3.8 US gal (14.5 L)
Fuel Consumption 59 mpg
CO2 Emissions 109.0 g/km

See more of MD’s great photography:



  1. Rickster says:

    It has 4.7 inches rear travel (120 mm, not 12 inches). Caution significant other about caloric intake 😁.

  2. Cw says:

    On the subject of tank size – I’m suspicious it won’t be a big deal for most of the prospective customers of this bike – not that it wouldn’t be great to tour on for some.

    This whole discussion takes me back to my desire for modularly designed bikes that could be easily rearranged for one’s momentary needs – easily attaching/locking screens and luggage, easy ways to add fuel capacity when desired and leave of the excess weight when not.

    I’ve thought that a small tank that fits onto the main tank like a locking tank bag would work.

  3. Grover says:

    This Triumph will sell regardless of all the complaining about tank seams, tank capacity, wire wheels etc. If this is the bike you’ve been waiting for you could really care less about such things. I’m lucky enough to currently own two bikes at opposite ends of the spectrum…an 800# touring bike with cast wheels and a 6 gal. tank and a 300# Dualsport with a 2 gal. tank and wire wheels. Each of my bikes is perfect for it’s intended mission. This Triumph wasn’t made to fulfill the mission of a touring bike with a 300 mile range but is, in fact, a sport bike built to carve up the local canyons. No bike will check all the boxes so buy the one that is closest to what you want and have fun. This Triumph is a contender for “Bike of the Year” and deservedly so. So despite all the complaining and nit picking, this Triumph will sell for a premium price and they’ll sell every one of them.

    PS- I’ve owned 4 street bikes with tubed wire wheels and I’m still alive.🙂

  4. John B. says:

    I have a 2017 Street Scrambler; smaller tank, smaller tank likely the same range. The Speed Twin with fuel gauge and distance left would be much easier to live with. My fuel mileage has more to do with how much throttle is used than tank capacity. Without a fuel gauge and being aggressive in the twisties the low fuel light flashing prematurely can be an unpleasant distraction.

    I just spent about $2000 upgrading Front brake, suspension and a camshaft to turn my 2017 into a 2019 Street Scrambler.

    The Speed Twin is like my bike with less weight,better brakes, much more motor. I think I am in lust again but I need wire wheels for complete satisfaction.

    I waited on my street triple for the “R” perhaps I should wait for the “R” version of this one.

    • Dave says:

      “perhaps I should wait for the “R” version of this one.”

      I don’t know how long I’d wait. Depending on how you view Triumph’s line, this and the Thrux should probably considered “R” versions of the Bonneville line. This might be a D.I.Y. “R” model, but seeing the changes you’ve made to your Scrambler, that might be even more fun for you, yeah?

  5. arrowrod says:

    12 inches of rear wheel travel. In case you can talk your wife into a ride.

  6. JVB says:

    Geez guys! Some folks have been sniffing fuel vapors. We all love what we love, and adapt our behaviors in order to accommodate/possess that which we love. There are those out there that want to ride they toy across country, and anything less than 5 gal won’t make them happy. Longest day ride I’ve had was 850 mi, and after the second tank of fuel I was looking for a reason to pull off the road around 120 miles to give my butt a rest. As long as a bike can make it 150 or so an a tank of fuel, then 99% of the riders will be happy. Sweet trumpet, and wish I had the cash to have one in my garage.

    • Anonymous says:

      “As long as a bike can make it 150 or so an (sic) a tank of fuel, then 99% of the riders will be happy.”

      Actually, you don’t know that to be true. And as others have stated here, it ain’t just about racking up the miles in a day but about getting from point A to point B, C, D or maybe even F without having to stop every 85 miles for fuel let alone HOPING there’s a station available.

      I can’t claim to speak for everyone here but I know not only what I want but what I need and 3.8 gallons won’t cut it. Triumph was just too concerned with looks. All riding is a form of touring.

      Harley did the same thing with their Fat Bob. What a waste that bike is and it’s languishing on the showroom. Whether or not it is because of that tanklette that holds but 3.6 US gallons is debatable but really? 3.6 freakin’ gallons? Oh..Wait! HD claims outrageous mpg for the bike! FTN. Stupid of Harley and just as stupid for Triumph.

      And before anyone whines about me or others here “beating a dead horse”, we do so because Triumph, Harley and othermanufacturers don’t listen. They’re the dolts resurrecting the problem each new model year.


      • paul says:

        1969 Triumph Bonneville had a 3 gallon tank and I don’t recall any whiners going on about that.

        • mickey says:

          I was riding in 1969 and that’s because of several reasons. (1) there weren’t many options with larger tanks other than the new CB 750 and (2) guys just didn’t have the wander lust that they do now. Only guys on Harley full dressers road “out of state” back then. Bikes like Bonneville’s and Sportster’s and and BSA’s Lightning’s were “local bikes” ridden to cruise the local Big Boy drive thru restaurant and drag raced down a local country road, so bikes didn’t need to hold much fuel. At least that’s how it was around here. Real mass cross country riding didn’t take off until the mid 70’s with Gold Wings, and BMW R 75’s.

          Now, it’s nothing for a guy in Indiana or Illinois or where ever to take off for a week of riding in North Carolina. Nobody did that in the 60’s.

          • paul says:

            True. I think 1969 was the release of Easy Rider and I’m pretty sure that is when the “wanderlust” really set into people’s minds and led to the development of touring bikes.

            Still, I know of one British lady that crossed Canada solo in the 1950’s on a very small BSA single. Imagine.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          That’s because you were far more likely to breakdown than run out of gas on a Brit bike’s available range back then.

    • Bob S. says:

      More than a few riders, myself included, must have been happy with the tank capacity for Triumph to have used essentially the same tank on the twins for the past 18 years. I think if they felt the majority of us wanted a larger tank, we’d have gotten it by now. I like it as is.

  7. Mark Trimmer says:

    Love it! Home run!!! Gonna buy one at Street Stuff Triumph in Norwich CT

  8. Mike says:

    Best looking Triumph in a while. I still think the seams or whatever they are called on bottom of gas tank look cheap.

  9. mike d says:

    I like the specs and I liked the looks until I saw the picture that exposed the hideous radiator. Man, that thing just destroys the look.

  10. todd says:

    You think they could’ve adjusted the headlight so it wasn’t shining up in the sky.

  11. Kermit says:

    First off, this is a striking motorcycle. I really like it. But like so many newer designs today, it looks great till you get to the back of the seat. Nothing there. Well, not much. Biggest problem I have with bikes today. This Triumph is better and I could live with it but it’s still lacking. But I do find the comments about spokes and tank seams interesting to the point of being comical. Spokes and tank seams have been around for decades, but just like Confederate statues and memorials, we’ve just discovered their existence and they MUST be abolished! Besides, I don’t think the people on this forum would pay the extra money to be tubeless or seamless.

  12. Artem says:

    Honda CB EX was th best comment about.
    Yet, very wide motor

  13. ABQ says:

    I also have issues with the smaller fuel tank. I like to ride long roads.
    Aside from that, they could put that engine on the Bobber or a new Speedmaster.

    • WSHart says:

      How dare you?! 😉 😉

      C’mon now, Triumph is claiming 59 mpg! That should be enough for any rider! I mean, Honda took something along the lines of a gallon or more from their new Goldwing’s fuel capacity (OoooOOooo…Honda is soooo smart! They made the bike even lighter by removing capacity!) and they CLAIMED it wasn’t neeeeeeded because the new GL1800 got “20% better fuel economy”.

      I still haven’t seen one new Goldwing on the roads. Pfffft!

      I mean, Honda gave the first year crAprica Twiin a too dinky for the bike’s advertised purpose fuel tank and then the next year they pulled what’s known in the industry as a “reverse Harley” and came out with a “special edition” crAprica Twiin with a LARGER fuel tank. Oh yeah…One of the online motorcycle “mags” did a test on a bunch of the new adventure tourers and the crAprica Twiin got crashed and needed to be replaced due to damage incurred on the (I think) side case of the engine. They got a replacement but then it FLATTED it’s TUBED rear bicycle wheel and they had to swap the rear wheel/tire combo with the bike that had the busted cases. Why didn’t these intrepid adventure manlets just repair that tire by the side of the road?

      Cuz it ain’t as easy-peazy-mac-n-cheezy as they and a few folks here claim it is. That’s why.

      And t’s called a “reverse Harley” because HD always removes features/makes the tanks smaller or does something equally stoopid to a bike and calls it “special”…Isn’t that just special?

      So well said, sir. Because in the real world the majority of those that type here about how they neeeeed to get off every 100 miles or so and therefor they will just get fuel then, don’t ride further than their fragile safe space allows them to.

      They’re less Captain Kirk and more Captain Underpants. I myself am more along the lines of…”HIM”…Captain Chaos. 🙂

      Hopefully Dirck will get one of these to test and will actually obey the posted speed limits long enough to see what mileage can be achieved going that route and compare it to what he gets when he rides like so many here doubtless claim to. If not, it ain’t a real test of the bike.

      Well said, ABQ. Well said, indeed.

  14. hartri55 says:

    I want one.

  15. hartri60 says:

    I want one.

  16. Bubba Blue says:

    The main point about tank seams, with me anyways, is that when Triumph reintroduced the retro bikes, they went on and on about how faithful the styling was to the originals from the ’50s, ’60’s and ’70’s. THey even made the fuel injectors look like carburetors, they boasted. No effort spared to reproduce a real retro design.

    But it was a lie because the originals did not have tank seams. Triumph was lying to your face. THey have tank seams, I guess, because it eliminates the few steps required to buff them off. THey look hideous, but Triumph didn’t care. The bucks, er, pounds, er, Rupees, er, bhatts, you know.

    I hate ’em. I had my name on the first 1200 that came into the U.S., and when I saw it, I barfed and walked away. It was all a lie, was my take on the PR.

    • mickey says:

      The original Bonnie’s had a tank seam right down the center of the top of the tank.
      Some people put chrome strips on the seam to dress it up. Some covered it with a tank luggage rack.

      • Bob S. says:

        That seam down the middle was used through the ’72 model year on the Bonneville and variants. The smaller US market tank introduced on the 1973 T140 was the first one without it. There is quite clearly a precedent for visible Triumph tank seams, so to call it a lie is just plain incorrect. The Hinckley Triumphs simply had the top seam moved to the perimeter to accommodate the production pinch weld.

  17. gpokluda says:

    OMG. Stop! You people who think you need 7 gallons of gas just to ride to the burger joint. I did a 1000 mile day on a Virago 1100 and never once worried about running out of fuel. Unless you live in the Australian outback, 3.8 gallons will suit 99% of the riders just fine.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh really? What’d you do, go back and forth 354 times between home and the local Piggly-Wiggly?

      And no, we’re well aware that no one needs 7 gallons of fuel just to ride to the burger joint.

      Unless the burger joint is in another state and you have to cross a few hundred miles of desert. Or family and friends live across a couple of states that include long stretches of highway that span open desert. I could go on but facts seem to trigger you, LOL!

      “OMG” indeed.

      • Dave says:

        I think the number of riders riding hundreds of miles across desert at a time, on a naked sporting motorcycle all fit neatly into that 1% gpokluda left on the table. There are many, much better bikes for that job, if that job is done frequently enough to weigh heavily on the buying decision.

        • Anonymous says:

          People will ride what they have to get where they either need or want to be.

          “Naked sporting motorcycle”…Pffft!

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Maybe if people had more fuel range, then that 1% would more like 20%? (Nah, okay, probably not. 🙂 )

          As far as there being better bikes for the job, screw that. I ride the kinds of bikes I like, and there is nothing better for riding long distances than a nice, comfortable naked bike… especially if you are blasting through the baking desert. In fact for me, a minimalist, naked bike is best for any kind of street riding outside of a race track.

          I remember quite a large number of people touring on naked bikes 20 years ago, even 10 years ago. We would see each other at the gas station and bitch about fuel range. (Just kidding, tanks smaller than 5 gallons were pretty rare back then.) Times have changed.

          • mickey says:

            I wonder what the usage would be at 80 mph. I was in Utah on 1-80 this year headed towards Moab and passed a sign that said ‘ No Services Next 104 miles”. I was sure glad my gas tank held more than 3.8 gallons, although I could have stopped and filled up at that exit, and again at the exit 104 miles later. I suppose even at 80 it would go 105 miles (28 mpg). It would be mildly stressful though I would think lol.

          • Neil says:

            Next services 104 miles. Slow down and enjoy the ride. I don’t have an issue with the tank not being huge. It’s nice and light that way. Yeah at 80 mph but I find the sweet spot on the highway is 60 to 72.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            The sweet spot here, in the mountain states at least, often even off the main thoroughfares, is 80 – 85. Otherwise, you aren’t covering much ground. And there is a lot of ground to cover here. Trust me, the scenery looks just as good at 80 mph as it does at 60 mph.

            To Mickey’s point, a bike with a 150 mile range often can’t afford to pass up a gas station unless you’ve just topped off, which means you might be stopping every hour or so.

          • Anonymous says:

            Neil says:

            “I don’t have an issue with the tank not being huge. It’s nice and light that way.”

            Geeze Louise, Neil. Put less fuel in if you’re too weak to lift it with another gallon or two in there, LOL! 😉

            And 5 gallons isn’t a “huge” tank but should you run out of fuel because your bike had a 3.8 gallon capacity (or less) and the gas station you thought was just up the road is closed?

            I’d call that a problem and you’ll wish you had a 5 gallon tank, believe me.

            I carry a 1 gallon plastic gas tank with me on my touring bike for times I see someone on the side of the road and I stop and, yup – They’re out of fuel on their pathetic “cruiser” or “dual sport” with the dinky tank.

            I’ve only used it a few times but it’s good to help out when you can.

            Triumph kinda screwed the pooch with this one. Nice bike that is limited in it’s use due to being limited in it’s range. 59 mpg? I doubt it. Maybe at their rated speed of 55 mph but talk about pissing on your back and telling you it’s raining?

            Endeavor to persevere… 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        I think if I lived out west that I’d want a larger gas tank. I live on the east coast where there are lots of gas stations. This tank would be fine for me.

        • mickey says:

          yea small tanks are not a problem at all (as far as finding gas to refill) east of the Mississippi where the majority of motorcyclists live. West of the Mississippi things can get dicey, the further west until you hit the coast the dicier. If you are a long distance rider it can be an issue, but most LD riders won’t be riding this bike. Still if you are a daily rider or commuter east of the Mississippi stopping every other day or so for gas is a bit of a pain.

          Personally I average about 300 days of riding a year and 70 miles per day. One of my bikes holds 6.6 gallons, the other 4.6 and it seems like one of my bikes is always needing gas. On the 6.6 bike I stop at 200-220 and on the 4.6 bike I stop at 150-175 miles to fill up.

          I’m sure with a 3.8 tank I’d stop at 125-135 miles.

          • mickey says:

            heck in 1968 and again in 1994 I had HD Sportsters with a 1.8 gallon tank and I rode all over the place and never ran out, but had to stop for gas about every 75-80 miles or so.

    • Dino says:

      Not that people “need” 7 gallons. It is the difference between making a choice to stop after just 100 or more miles because you want to, and getting nervous about running low on gas and you HAVE to stop. Sometimes you get in the groove, and could keep riding for hours.
      And i have my doubts that they have the same range, based on their ratings.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      It isn’t about a fear of running out of fuel. It is about the inconvenience of having to stop more often for it; or worse, having to plan your ride around fuel stops. Nothing takes the joy out of a nice, long trip more than having to plan it out like that. If I see an interesting road, I want to go down it without much concern for fuel.

      Any street bike that gets less than 200 miles to the tank is hard for me to live with. That’s just me. I’m sure I’m in the minority.

      The lack of range on the Triumph isn’t so bad that it would kill the deal for me: the bike seems great. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it

    • Gham says:

      These “out west” guys are my hero’s,when I was young I couldn’t go 150 miles without stopping to have a smoke,then I got older,gave up smoking and bought a sport bike,I couldn’t go 150 miles without stopping to stretch and get some feeling back.
      Now I’m an old man with a nice touring rig,cruise control,and a 6 gallon tank.Can’t go 150 miles without stopping to pee. Doesn’t seem fair.

      • Anonymous says:

        I applaud you for being able to go 150 miles on a sportbike. My max was about 30 miles. Now that I’m a geezer with a dry eye condition, I have to stop about 75-80 miles to put drops in my eyes. Might as well pee while I’m here and might as well top off the tank and drink some water while I’ Got the time. I’m adjusting.

  18. Jagov says:

    I just want to say that there have been some very insightful comments in this thread and it’s much appreciated. Of course, there are the usual comments from people that just like to poop on everything too, but all in all, I enjoyed reading the comments as much as I enjoyed reading about this fantastic sounding bike.

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      Me too. Depending on what bike is the subject, it is satisfying to hear that flat seats are still valued by some, probably crusty old boomers. Bless their butts.

  19. HalfBaked says:

    What are “tank seams” is it some kind of joke you old codgers pass around or is at actual component part of a motorcycle. And if does exist than why is there a certain portion of the commenters on MD that are absolutely obsessed with them.

    • Bob S. says:

      To those that understand seams, no explanation is necessary. To those that don’t, none is possible.

    • Dirck Edge says:

      In fairness, it has become somewhat of an inside joke here on MD, along with references to beaks,etc.

      • WSHart says:

        To paraphrase a most excellent author: For some here, their keyboard is as a beak is to a hen.

        And both Bob S. and Dirck are correctomundo.

    • Mick says:

      On the tank you can see that the bottom doesn’t follow the curve of the tank but ends in a fairly uniform vertical section about 3/16 of an inch tall.zillions of motorcycles have it, some don’t. It really is the seam that holds the tank together. Apparently after all these years it is still cheaper to make a tank that way.

      Some guys hate those seams with a passion. You just know that the kids are going to start wearing jeans that make their butt look like it has a tank seam if they ever catch on.

  20. Privateer says:

    May have to trade in the ’07 Bonneville for this one…one note, he is grabbing the front brake pretty hard in the city photo of the black one that makes the bike look lower in front. Nice trick…

    • Motoman says:

      He actually is not on the brakes at all. He is covering the lever with two fingers. Thanks (again) to MD for the full res pics you can zoom in on the photo and see the detail.

    • Privateer says:

      If you simply look at the fork boots you can see they are compressing.Just compare them to the stationary photos.

      • Motoman says:

        Probably compressed slightly from being in motion and the rider’s weight. Blow up the picture. Speaks for itself.

        • Privateer says:

          I see we both agree the photo speaks for itself. We just don’t agree on what it says. If not the brake then heavy engine braking, The forks are compressed.

          • Motoman says:

            You originally said “he is grabbing the front brake pretty hard”. That is what I was commenting on.

            I did not say the forks weren’t compressed. I said he was not on the brakes which is what the photo clearly shows if you blow it up.

      • Privateer says:

        Good job. Now go get a life.

        • Motoman says:

          Please…. I have a fine life, thank you.

          Try to lighten up you’ll live longer. You originally made a statement implying “they” were trying to pull a nice trick to fool someone. You were wrong and I politely corrected you. You’re the one who wouldn’t own up to your mistake and got testy. Welcome to the real world.

  21. Provologna says:

    You gotta love the irony here. What appears to be one the very best overall street motorcycles ever built, is affordable, comes from Great Britain (with its storied motorcycle history), and is a bike the Japanese could and would never in a billion years design. (Oh, and it has twin rear shocks-blasphemy of the highest order…/sarc off.)

    The Japanese nail dynamic performance, while being virtually allergic to proper aesthetics and overall balanced packaging (flat seats, cough, cough). Kawasaki’s current Z900RS may be as close as the Japanese ever get to this lovely, enduring, and endearing “Speed Twin” (even the name is idyllic). The difference in aural effects alone, between the twin and I-4, favor the former. The satisfaction of owning the Triumph and being less likely to pass or park next to the same bike is icing on a gorgeous cake.

    Bravo, Triumph! Very, very, well done!

    • VLJ says:

      As pretty as this new Triumph is, let’s not go overboard here. The Japanese-designed-and-built Honda CB1100EX is not only prettier than the Z900RS, its design aesthetic and overall packaging is also more lovely, enduring, and endearing than even this new Triumph’s. It’s not as light and fast, but it is definitely prettier, even more exclusive, and (very likely) better built.

      • paul says:

        Also, the Honda has an authentic air-cooled engine, no fake finning with a radiator up front.

        The Honda would still be my first choice.

      • Dave says:

        The Honda CB1100EX are nice but I think a different, more relaxed ride, more comparable to the regular Bonneville.

        The CB1100RS is more comparable to this, but I would choose the Triumph for being more of a sport bike (much lighter) and especially because it has liquid cooling. I don’t think inferior technology make’s a product “authentic”, any more than drum brakes, bias-ply tires, and noodly frames do.

        • paul says:

          I understand where you are coming from, Dave. I just like the fact that the Honda engine functions without the aid of the rad, hoses, thermostat, water pump and coolant. No leaks or corrosion to worry about. No doubt if the Honda was liquid cooled it would be able to put out more power, but it is powerful enough as it is, plus I just find an air-cooled mill looks so much better. Still, Triumph has done a nice job with their newest engines and I wish there had of been a way for Honda to conceal the oil-cooler.

      • Artem says:

        CB110tx is bulky. Triumph is slim

        • paul says:

          True to a small degree. But, when I compare it to my 1st generation Valkyrie the EX is svelte. 🙂

  22. Fred says:

    I would like a 5 gallon tank, I care less if it has seams in it. I like this bike

  23. Dave says:

    I am going to buy one of these

  24. SausageCreature says:

    This *will* be my next bike. It’s quite nearly everything I want right out of the box, or at least much closer than anything else currently available. A few changes would make it perfect, though:

    – Maybe a comfier two-up seat, but maybe the stock one’s okay…we’ll see.
    – A backrest/rack combo like those offered on the T120
    – Maybe a small fly-screen (or maybe not)
    – SS brake lines. It might already have them, but didn’t see it mentioned. I probably don’t need/can’t use whatever minor performance advantage they offer, but I prefer the way they look.
    – The longer rear fender from the Street Twin, assuming it’s not too difficult to adapt
    – Suspension upgrades, admittedly more for appearance than anything else…this bike is just screaming for piggyback reservoir shocks!
    – Paint the side covers and fenders the same color as the tank.
    – Saddlebags of some sort. Maybe the waxed-cotton Triumph bags, but not sure they’d look quite right on this bike. We’ll see.

    • Jagov says:

      Damn, are you me? Almost exact here. This is the closest thing to the perfect bike for me. If Triumph gave me the keys to the sample room, this is very nearly the bike I’d make.

  25. VLJ says:

    mickey brought up a good point, regarding this bike’s unique styling. With the way the tail section is raised in the back and the tank is angled downward in the front to match the angled headers, this bike always looks like its rider just grabbed a big handful of brakes, even when it’s sitting still.

    Triumph oughtta call this thing the Bonneville Dovizioso.

  26. Tom K says:

    This is a very pretty and apparently functional motorbike. I never had a cycle with bar-end mirrors before, I wonder if they would be knuckle-knockers when mounting and dismounting? Also, how does Triumph get away with designing an exhaust system that appears like God intended for exhaust systems to appear, and engineering giant Honda has to have that hideous-looking quadratetrahedrashoebox thing on their new 1000?

    • JB says:

      Maybe Triumph put all the emissions/x-over junk on the bottom underneath the engine, while Honda integrated some of it into the exhaust itself? Dunno…

    • paul says:

      single sided exhaust vs dual side? Dunno either.

    • Neal says:

      Honda values mass centralization and efficient gas flow over looking like something from a time of less sophisticated engineering and manufacturing capabilities.

      • Bob S. says:

        How can you get the mass any more centralized than having the catalytic convertor under engine between the frame rails?

        • Neal says:

          By having the rest of the pipes hug the engine, having a stubby exhaust, and having the engine hug the frame. All that space between the cylinders and the airbox and the frame is cool looking, but is form over function.

    • Bob S. says:

      Honda doesn’t have a monopoly on mass centralization, and Triumph has provided it on the exhaust without sacrificing an attractive appearance. What you see is an illusion suggesting a one piece headpipe. Look at the right side, just under the timing cover at what appears to be a cover over the pipe. At that point, each pipe turns and goes into the catalytic converter, then emerges behind the cover into the muffler. Good looks and the bonus of mass centralization. Something Honda fails to achieve.

    • mickey says:

      if you blow up the pic there is a black box right where the center stand should bolt on.

      • Tom K. says:

        Thanks for the heads-up on that, I briefly looked for one but didn’t see it. Very clever integration when you have to really look for the cat. Nicely done, Triumph.

  27. TommyTaco says:

    This is the bike I’ve been waiting for…….Bike #72 for my 72nd Birthday! Awesome! I love you Triumph!!!

    • Pacer says:

      If you have the cash, buy it!🤠

    • Mark says:

      Do it. This is a nice bike.
      Plus your situation is quite unique. You may well be the only man in the WORLD to accomplish such a feat.

      Post up when you do. I’ll bet MD will do a story on you. They certainly should. Cheers.

  28. todd says:

    Why doesn’t anyone make bikes like this that would appeal to the small engine crowd? I would think a 50hp 650 version would probably outsell this 1200. Doesn’t Triumph want to sell more bikes? Maybe even attract new riders?

    • WSHart says:

      You sir, are correct!

      If I may?

      Perhaps it’s because people here and elsewhere on the interwebs would see the bikes and begin posting, “If only it were a 653757/878/929/1037cc bike, then I would BUY it and LOVE it!” or, “Why can’t they get the weight down just 50 lbs more (less?) and the horsepower up another 15 because I neeeeeeeeeed it on the freeways and the single track and the back roads and”…

      Ad nauseam.

      I would wager that a great many of those here and elsewhere that bitch and moan about a bike’s weight are so fat that Thanos would have to snap his fingers twice… 😉

      And they whine about a bike being “too heavy”. 🙂

      But I agree with you because I think you are correct.

      It is too bad that such motorcycles are not offered but then it is the fault of the “potential” clientele. In fact, I would hazard that most are far from being actual buyers and while there’s nothing wrong with that it does result in a market that teeter-totters between the useable and the ridiculous when it comes to new vehicle offerings.

      I would say that such folk suffer from a priapic ego. Their minds are turgid with specifications and other “bench racing” related dross.

      Having said that I should like to point out that for the greater part I truly doubt that new riders will be attracted to a pastime that costs as much as motorcycling does. The cost of the bike, insurance and maintenance are just too usurious for many young people (I can hear that one lad’s silly thoughts now on how the evil “boomers” are stealing/ruining everything for him and his peepses, LOL!).

      And again, I agree with you. Well said!

    • JB says:

      Pretty sure that’s called the Street Twin and it already exists. Though it’s 900cc now and 65hp, and actually 5 pounds heavier than this 1200cc Speed Twin. I guess it’s Royal Enfield for you, then! Interceptor GT looks to fit the bill.

      • JB says:

        Sorry, it’s just called the Interceptor. I mixed up the 2 product names, lol! But yeah, 648cc twin, 47hp, 444 lbs.

        • Martin B says:

          Not in the USA. Honda owns that name. In the US it’s called INT650 – so you can still CALL it an Interceptor, you just can’t put it in writing anywhere or Honda’s lawyers will do a Mueller on you.

    • VLJ says:

      Not only does someone make such a bike, but Triumph themselves make such a bike. It’s called the Street Twin. It also used to be called the air-cooled Bonneville. Neither bike was a 650, unless you go waaaaaay back, but they did make about 50 hp.

      The new Royal Enfields are 650s, and they look just like Triumphs, so there ya go.

    • nbrnineT says:

      Moto Guzzi V7?

    • Ericstraordinary says:

      Todd: Kawasaki looks to be re-releasing their W-series of bikes to North America. They have a traditional look and may fit the bill for the smaller engine crowd.

    • Provologna says:

      I’ll take a stab at this.

      The Speed Twin is obviously a premium bike throughout. Sure, some have posted a few nit picks, but all or most agree this sucker’s well sorted.

      Buyer demographic is mature riders who know long lasting quality and long term joy or ownership when they see it. Mature means financial ability to buy it, and that’s critical, again, because this is a premium bike.

      For better or worse, buyers of this bike “perceive” correlation between value, quality, and engine displacement. One constant with displacement is torque curve, which is a luxury performance spec, whether smaller bike lovers admit it or not.

      A bike with smaller engine displacement would not lower the OEM’s cost commensurately. In fact, I suspect a bike of similar quality with a 650cc motor would barely lower the OEM’s cost if at all.

      The ratio of potential buyers who would buy a 650cc “Junior Speed Twin” over this 1200 (for the same price) is such that Triumph would have to actually charge more for the 650 (less discount for scale), which would make every single bike sit unsold, and hasten Triumph’s demise.

      Dare I say, after riding both bikes, I predict even you’d prefer the 1200. This 1200’s curb wet weight is barely over the 463# of my long gone ’83 Yamaha XZ550 Vision (without the full fairing, the bike on which I had the most pure fun). I’m a lot larger than the average rider, but any average sized rider would IMO find this estimated 475# curb weight Speed Twin easy enough to manage. IMO virtually no one would prefer a 35# lighter 650 with softer torque curve and less peak HP.

      Yes, to directly answer your question, of course Triumph wants to sell bikes. IMO there’s just not enough persons interested in a Junior Speed Twin to justify making one.

  29. gary nixon says:

    I like it…

  30. gene romero says:

    so do I…

  31. Jim says:

    The seamless tank on the 1200 Scrambler looks so much classier. Wonder why Triumph cheaped out on this one.

  32. Anonymous says:

    One of the biggest reasons Harleys sell so well is hydraulic valves. V-Rod did not have hydraulic valves and look what happened. Americans hate having to be at the mercy of the dealer every time valves need to be adjusted. I wish this bike had hydraulic valves and a centerstand. Not crazy about the mirror location. Not complaining, just commenting.

    • VLJ says:

      No motorcycle in 2018 that is even remotely sporty has hydraulic valves. Also, hydraulic valves are certainly not one of the biggest reasons Harleys sell. Of all the motivators for Harley purchases among the vast majority of today’s H-D shoppers, hydraulic valves wouldn’t even make the top five, and probably not even the top ten.

      A centerstand is an available option for this Triumph.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wasn’t HD going out of business before they came out with the Evolution engines with hydraulic valves?

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          I think it is safe to say that their business problems had nothing to do with what kind of lifters they used.

    • Bob S. says:

      Half the Harley riders I know don’t even know what kind of valve lifters their Harley has. The other half are busy replacing the lifters that failed because the roller needles fell out.

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t be so ridiculous. “Half the Harley riders I know”…

        Really? No…Really? The purpose of blanket statements such as yours are to smother the truth beneath their seemingly convoluted folds. Yeah. That is really the truth of it.

        “Half the Harley riders I know”…*SNICKER*

        You’re just being silly, LOL!

        • cw says:

          He didn’t say half of all Harley owners, he said half of all he knows. It could be that a significant number of those he knows had a problem.

          The lifters on my Bandit 1250 are supposed to be checked at 15K miles. Anecdotally, it is rare for them to be out of spec there and many don’t bother to check until later. If Yamaha’s 26K valve check pops as that much of as selling point, others (particularly the other Four of the Rising Sun) will follow with suddenly lengthened valve check intervals. My suspicion is that all of the engineering will take place in the manual writer’s office. Well, maybe Honda will actually do something.

          I’m pretty sure Harley could drop hydro lifters tomorrow and lost a grand total of 20 sales. For the year.

          • Bob K says:

            The hydraulic lifters in the HDs are actually a GM product. Well, the manufacturer that makes them for GM. They just have a HD part number on them. They’re not the best quality lifters by far, some lasting only 25k miles on Sportsters. But the 25k is really when an owner needs to check on them. Replace with some Jims or S&S and they’ll take you another 100k easy.

            But the truth is that they die a horrible death when the oil isn’t changed at reasonable intervals. The lifter bores have a small pin hole that oils them and provides oil to the lifter body chamber. It can clog easily if the oil is burnt from overheating and contaminants and too heavy a grade of oil will flow too slowly through it, running the lifter low and dry.

            I’ve known people who insist on putting 60w in their engines in Texas just because it’s so hot all summer. Great for a Shovel and earlier but absolutely not on Evo and up. It’s too thick to get to the lifter bores.
            The lifters drain and sack out and make noise because they’re slamming up and down on the cam lobes like a solid. Evo big twins also have a screen before the first lifter. It is the most often ignored part for an oil change. Even HD mechanics ignore it. That screen should be cleaned at every oil change. My dad had the shop do all his maintenance. Once on a visit, I did it for him and could tell that the shop never touched that screen in 90k miles.

            If half of Bob S’s friends have lifter problems, it is likely their own doing from not knowing everything they need to do. Most people don’t understand hydraulics or oil’s purpose, believing all they need to be concerned about is temperature range, when flow and pressure play an even bigger role in an engine’s design.

            As for why people buy them, honestly, for me, I like knowing that I don’t have to worry about valve adjustments. It’s definitely not on the radar of why everyone buys a HD. Even for me, it isn’t why I bought them. It was an added bonus. My FXDX went 140k miles before replacing them.

    • Provologna says:

      IMO, and with all due respect, the only posters here obsessed with valve lash clearance service schedules on modern motorcycles lack knowledge and experience on this subject.

      The service schedule is a guide written by OEMs, respecting their EPA bureaucratic over lords. OEM might post 2-3x longer valve lash clearance service schedule if not for EPA over sight. Part of the justification for the schedule is to simply minimize emissions.

      The following symptoms apparently apply to all except for Desmodromic top ends:

      Excess valve lash clearance: excess top end noise.
      Too little valve lash clearance: hard starting, “popping” and/or “spitting” on deceleration.

      Lacking the above symptoms, it’s reasonable to ignore the OEM valve lash clearance service schedule. I’m not an attorney, but IMO it’s illegal for an OEM to deny warranty service for disobeying their valve lash clearance service schedule. Such OEM legal policy would require the original buyer to sign a crystal clear documenting agreeing to the policy. Such policy can not be enforced without prior buyer knowledge and consent.

      I welcome pro or ex-pro comments on this subject. I’ve never seen a good argument against the position stated above.

      Concern about OEM valve lash clearance service schedule is misplaced. Again though, ignore my advice for Desmodromic top end, but I don’t know exactly why. If I wanted to know I’d ask Nick at Munroe Motors in SF for his advice, one of the best mechanics I’ve met.

      Stories consistent with my opinion, of owners doubling and tripling the scheduled service interval (for this one item), then finding clearances within spec, are legion.

    • Jim says:

      You think it was non-hydraulic lifters that killed the V-Rod? Really. I can’t wait to here what killed Buell.

      • Anonymous says:

        What killed Buell? Erik Buell’s ego.

        Don’t think so? BFD. His bikes were overpriced for what you got. Nice bikes but not compared to the competition and certainly not for the money. His company has been resurrected more times than Lazarus but to less acclaim.

        You asked. 😉

        • VLJ says:

          If being overpriced for what you get was truly a manufacturer’s cause of death, H-D wouldn’t have survived beyond the Reagan administration.

          • Anonymous says:

            How patently farcical of you, LOL!

            The market, not you or I, determine whether a product is “worth the money”. Harley has been that and more for decades now. I suspect you already knew this and yet still attempted foisting this ridiculous supposition on the world at large.

            Your skirt is showing, which is to say your unbridled hatred for HD is on display for all the world to behold. You must ride a Starley, LOL! 😉

            Some people hate success but even more so when they feel (not think) that doing so makes them part of some “cool kids club”. Don’t like Harleys? Okay. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of people do and they *GASP* buy them! You know, “buy them”, as in pay for them with money?

            Do some of them dress like “pirates” or “1%s” or slobs? Yeah. So do the aforementioned wussies on Starleys. Why is that? In the case of the Harley folks, who really knows? Perhaps they’re just being ridiculous. In the case of the Starley “riders”, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

            But I digress…

            Erik Buell is a failure at building motorcycles that real buyers will purchase. His bikes were fine but again, not worthy of the asking price. If they were then more people would have bought them and the company would have flourished.

            Or you can spout the Buellsheit™ and say it’s all Harley-Davidson’s fault.

            Few people bought them (Buells) and fewer still continue to drink the Buell-Aid™.

            This new Triumph Speed Twiin is sweetness made metal.

  33. bmbktmracer says:

    I’d like to go on record saying I think motorcycle tanks look better with seams than without. Good design takes many forms and I’m really baffled by people complaining about tank seams. I suppose it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

    • gpokluda says:

      I’m with ya, bmbktmracer. Tanks seams don’t bother me a bit. I actually like them. Without them the tank looks like it was rotomolded out recycled Yeti coolers. Back in the day, you could hook the straps of your Bagman tank bag on them. Long live tanks seams! (raises pint glass)

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      Small tanks with seams? You’re okay with this? What kind of a sick puppy are you?!

  34. stromrider says:

    The bike looks absolutely beautiful. This is Triumph’s styling evolution of their product line. However, having just turned 65 that seat concerns me. Looks a little thin for this guy’s posterior.

  35. falcodoug says:

    Nicely done.

  36. Mick says:

    Retro bikes are not my bag. But I’m all for the bar being raised on retro rigs.

    The engine makes pretty respectable power at an automotive RPM. It is going to have to have some pretty crappy fuel injection mapping for people not to like it. It could even become a cult engine.

    I hope the suspension works better than it looks. To me it looks like the weakest link in the chain.

    The guys whining about the size of the fuel tank give me pause. Come on guys. The tank is just shy of being a little too big in the looks department. This is clearly a bike for people who want a certain aesthetic. If about two hundred miles of range on a bike with no windshield isn’t enough. You’ll never be pleased anyway. Buy a T shirt that says the tank’s not big enough and wear it proudly. My favorite street bike has a 1.8 gallon bare aluminum gas tank with weld seams all over the place. And the bike does NOT get good good fuel economy.

    I wonder if Triumph was shooting for a bike that weighs an honest 100 pounds less than a Sportster. They seem to have gone to a lot of trouble shaving off a little weight here and a little there. Good on ’em. Even the “adventure” bikes are super uber turbo nuclear heavy now days. It’s nice to see someone make some effort to keep it real.

    • Anonymous says:


    • bmbktmracer says:

      I completely agree about fuel tank size. There are plenty of bikes made for covering 600 miles per day. This isn’t one of them. These types of bikes are used for day-tripping fun rides. Even if you go out all day, most people are happy to stop every couple hours for fuel, water, food… Now, we all have our own priorities, but if I need to cover 600 miles per day I’d much rather take my car. I’ve done rides like that on a motorcycle (not a Goldwing) and it’s miserable. Definitely not a member of the iron butt club. hahaha

      • JB says:

        Well, on, Thruxton owners seem to average about 43mpg with what is basically the same engine and close to the same weight. That’s only ~160 miles to bone dry. Most people will fill up with around half a gallon left to be safe, so you’re looking at only ~140 miles before you have up fill up. I think a 4.2 gallon tank would have been about right, IMHO.

  37. Jim says:

    This will be one I look for in the “slightly used” market in a couple years. Beautiful bike, well done Triumph.

  38. Bob S. says:

    Just when I thought I’d bought my last new bike, this comes along. Happy 70th Birthday to me!

  39. mickey says:

    Specs are good, lighter weight than my CB 1100 with about the same horsepower. Should be a fun bike to ride on the street.

    Visually it misses some marks for ME…and it’s not the tank seam. I don’t give a hoot about the tank seam. For me the styling miscues are too much gap between the rear tire and the rear fender. Less gap and the seat sits flat, and the bottom of the tank paralleles the ground. Reminds me of the same miscue with the Ducati 1000, only the seat on the Triumph looks better. The rear fender/ tail light is too short/small and looks like a Preston Petty replacement on a mid 70’s Yamaha enduro. For me the mini turnsignals with the clear lenses don’t get it either. They may be led and bright (not sure) but I actually like the look of turn signals and I can’t see these. Also the master cylinder on the bars is a urine cup. Fine I think for a super sport replicating a track bike, but not for this. Now the instruments, the tach looks like a speedo and at first glance I wondered why the speedo had a redline, until I realized it was really a tach. So I look at the real speedo and wonder what the little flowery doily thing in the middle is? Also I think the info in the little square blocks in the instruments might be hard to read at a glance. Not sure would have to see them in person.

    The 3.8 gal gas tank, while beautiful, could use some additional capacity too IMO, although it should go 180 miles I would think.

    Otherwise a winner as far as I’m concerned.

    Doesn’t matter what I think though because I’m not in the market.

    • Neal says:

      You probably want to the T120. This one has the rear raised/front lowered for a forward leaning stance and tighter rake and trail because its the sporty variant. The 120 is more or less parallel.

      • mickey says:

        My younger brother has the 2016 T-120 in Cranberry and white. Nice bike. If I WERE choosing between the two, yes that is the one I would choose.

    • Butch says:

      One thing that the CB1100 got right was 18″ wheels.
      Kawasaki and Triumph missed the boat on this.
      Lack tire choice, be damned.

      It’s not a track bike.
      It’s a retro.
      It should look like one.

    • Kermit says:

      Wow Mickey. Preston Petty is a name I haven’t heard in years. Had a Preston Petty front fender on my ’77 RM125B. Still have it. The fender. Not the bike.

  40. Artem says:

    very cool.

  41. MG3 says:

    A triumph ! Great bike. Looks like a motorcycle should.

  42. Grover says:

    This Triumph is WAY nicer than the FTR1200 from Indian. I feel sorry for all the people that bought the FTR when they could have bought this machine. No contest, no comparison.

    • Jabe says:

      I respect your opinion, Grover, but personally I like both bikes. I was to pick one of the two I would be looking at the Indian real hard. And to feel sorry for any FTR owners, I wonder if any of them feel sorry for themselves? I think (in my unqualified opinion) they got a pretty good bike.

      I do not look at these two bikes being in the same class though. The Indian seems to be harder edged and lean more to the performance side of things despite its heavier weight, whereas the Triumph appears to be a really good all around machine.

      It’s good to have choices.

    • Jim says:

      The Indian isn’t my first choice either but I can appreciate it for what it represents without criticizing it and those who like it enough to make a purchase. Wonderful variety is part of motorcycling after all.

      • Grover says:

        The FTR1200 looks a far cry from what a flat tracker should look like to many riders. This Triumph on the other hand looks exactly like it should. The lesser weight than the Triumph is also a plus. Good luck to those with an FTR already in their garage.

  43. Peter says:

    Looks like its good competition for the BMW R nineT Pure. I bet the MSRP will come in near that level.

  44. Rapier says:

    I’ve often wondered why fork gaiters disappeared. At least on bikes meant for off road. Light and practical but never pretty. It’s funny I had forgotten Triumph’s had them and I owned one back in the 70’s.

    PS, now thinking about it long travel suspension in off road bikes probably made them impractical and very ugly.

    Not quite related but it always bugs me that all the praise of the charm of antique bikes and especially their handling ignores how awful the short travel over-sprung suspensions of things like Brit bikes made them punishing not to mention a tire off the ground does not contribute to good handling.

  45. Neal says:

    Seems like Triumph was successful at what they aimed to do here. I’m glad to see good wheels and tires instead of cheap retro affectations. Not a bike for me though, retro looks don’t add value for me and I just can’t bring myself to care about anything with a parallel twin.

  46. motowarrior says:

    If there were no tank seams or “beaks”, there would only be 4 comments a day on this site. Appreciate this motorcycle for what it is. A beautiful traditional motorcycle with plenty of power and a bunch of actually useful modern features. If you can’t appreciate what it has to offer, I’m surprised you got into motorcycling in the first place. Good job Triumph.

    • Kermit says:

      You got it motowarrior. Seems every forum has to have that one person or two that is so self important, that his is the only opinion that matters. And if you don’t like it, you’re lacking.

    • Beligstrom says:

      Well said, motowarrior. Part of the reason I don’t often read comments is the standard internet mantra, “if only they had…..”. What’s funny is I don’t mind tank seams at all. But then, having ridden since the late 60’s, I find my comments lean more towards, “ wow! Brakes that work when it rains”, and, “holy crap, look at all the choices offered in the market!”

  47. Dave says:

    Nailed it. Maybe this goes on my short-list for bikes to get in a couple years, when I hit the big “Five-Oh”.

  48. TimC says:

    Wow, anyone notice it still is following the trend of minimal tails? Neither did I, they nailed the proportions just right. IT CAN STILL BE DONE!

    If it was down to looks alone I’d have to have this thing.

    • SausageCreature says:

      I would prefer the rear fender somewhat longer so the mudguard/license plate holder could be somewhat shorter, like the Street Twin. I wonder how hard it would be to bolt up Street’s fender.

    • G Hill says:

      I like it. Almost paid off my Roadstar, and my Dual Sport in a year. Hope by then this bike has real fenders on it, and the air space in back end is reduced. (lower it Down). This will leave the saddle flat and not forward sloping. This is he bike I’ve waited for.

  49. DP says:

    This is not what it looks like. Look at values for rake and trail! More like sharp end sports bike, do not expect anything like ‘relaxed’ ride. Also, wheel base is decidedly ‘sportish’.

    I am not saying good or bad, just to clear it up. It will be probably entertaining bike, but not for long jaunts.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Gorgeous bike. No nits to pick here….OK, maybe the tank seams…..Damn the tank seams, full speed ahead!!!

  51. Chris says:

    The music and the woman’s singing voice were nice, but how does the damned motorcycle sound?

    • SausageCreature says:

      Yeah, I was kinda annoyed by that also. Since the motor is quite similar to the Thruxton’s I just listened to videos of that instead. I can’t imagine it would sound too different.

  52. Jan J says:

    I still miss the tank mounted luggage rack!

  53. WSHart says:

    Outside of Harley-Davidson only Triumph, and to a lesser degree Kawasaki and even less, Honda, know how to make a modern homage to their OWN history.

    This motorbike is beautiful.

    I will still be going with the 1200 Scrambler because of its slightly larger capacity, seamless gas tank and standard cruise control. The claimed 59 mpg is probably for a rated speed of 55 mph (I have seen this in the past from Triumph on their own website), ergo I want as much fuel capacity as possible as for me all riding is a form of touring.

    If both had 5 gallon, seamless tanks and standard cruise control I would be hard pressed to decided between the two and would simply do what any reasonable adult would and get to work so as to be able to afford one of each. 🙂

    Hopefully Triumph won’t pull a Honda and come out the following year with a “special” edition (e.g., the crAprica Twin with a much larger fuel tank). Many guys I knew that bought the first year and settled for the crappy range were PISSED at Honda for doing that. 😉

    Regardless, this new Speed Twiin is stunning and should find its way into many a garage.

    • blitz11 says:

      I have often wondered what you like in a motorcycle, and now i know. We know what you don’t like, but to know what you like helps me put your ofen (overly?) critical posts into perspective.

      Had this been available before i bought my last bike, i would have jumped on this. Maybe I still will – i’ll have to see how pricing and sales go.

      • WSHart says:

        Yes, I can be an “asshole”… 😉 My words, not yours sir!

        I tend to be critical because not only do I ride but I write, albeit not professionally as my tendency is to be honest and somewhat rakish (I am being kind toward myself, LOL!) with my words would prevent me from being published.

        Or so I have been told those in the business.

        I like what I like and loathe that which pisseth me off, LOL! As I said, for me all riding is touring and as such I prefer to stop and smell the roses when I want to not when I smell fumes coming from a 2.3 gallon tank that is empty after 64 miles. If others could care less, fine but I can give as good, no…better than I get when it comes to what passes for an “insult” here and relish some of the highlarious attempts to belittle my remarks.

        It’s the same with riding positions as dictated by handlebars. I can’t stand “clip-ons” or “ape-hangers”. Both are functionally retarded for the real world in which I live and ride. The former should be reserved for the race track and the latter for apes in the zoo. Personal preference and mine runs toward real world usability for me.

        This motorbike (and that is the PROPER term to call such a handsome device) along with it’s sibling the 1200 Scrambler are to my ancient eyes two of, if not THE, best looking bikes available today. I have a few motorcycles and look forward to adding the 1200 Scrambler to the garage. Even if I have to sell one or two others to finance/make room.

        So yes, I can be an asshole but I am rarely, if ever, a whole ass. The kid(s) that think they’re sooooo clever calling me “SHart” are just that. Kids. For those that care to know from whence my screen name is derived I refer them to William S. Hart, the great silent screen cowboy.

        Some might still laugh and I don’t mind. I would imagine they like to fancy themselves cRap music “stars” and name their illegitimate offspring after words they heard on commercials shilling medicines…

        Thanks for your comments/kind words.

        • blitz11 says:

          I read (almost) everything on this site. I learned early on that even if i disagree with what is written, it helps me with both my perspective and my education. Your candor has been appreciated.

          • mickey says:

            Ahh someone that understands the value of a comment driven site. Opinions give us insight and perspective. Even negative comments have value.

            Sometimes someone will make a negative comment about a detail that I hadn’t even noticed ( or a positive comment) and I go back and see what they are talking about. I may or may not agree with the commenter, but I learned something.

          • mickey says:

            case in point..VLJ mentioned the angled valve stems on this bike. Something I hadn’t noticed. So I went back and looked. Sure enough! (Good eye VLJ). The bike earns a few points from me for having those. I don’t understand any mfg still using straight valve stems. My 2018 FJR came with straight valve stems, the front in between 2 giant front disc brake rotors. Getting your hand in there to check air pressure was so difficult at times I would skip it when I should have checked it. At first tire change I had angled valve stems installed. Now checking air is a piece of cake and done regularly. Thank goodness for aftermarket. But what cost me $30 aftermarket should have been done by the mfg at a cost to them of probably $5.

    • Bubba Blue says:

      The Scrambler has a seamless gas tank? I don’t believe it. The tank seam is the biggest design flaw of the Triumphs.

    • VLJ says:

      Now that Triumph has introduced a five-gallon, seamless tank for the Scrambler 1200, I’m at a loss as to why they didn’t slap that same tank on this Speed Twin. Give this bike THAT tank plus the Scrambler’s cruise control and heated grips?

      Perfect street bike.

      The Scrambler 1200 will be awesome, but mighty expensive and mighty tall. Also, I have no need for the 21″ front wheel, although those tubeless spoked rims do look fantastic. Still, this Speed Twin has a much more manageable seat height, and is considerably more affordable.

      Just wish it had the larger, seamless tank. I wouldn’t mind if it had the Scrambler’s TFT instrument screen either, instead of that stupid tach with the wrong numbers.

    • bmbktmracer says:

      If my needs for a vehicle require a 1-ton dually pickup, is it fair to criticize a Miata because it can’t haul 40 sheets of plywood?

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        No, but it might be fair to criticize a Miata if its fuel range were 20% less than it otherwise could have been.

        This is the kind of bike that I would want to take cross country. Forget the Goldwings, Roadglides, or 600lb adventure bikes. I don’t mind wind or weather or plank-like seats, but it does irritate the hell out of me to stop every 160 miles to refuel or get anxious hoping to see a gas station past that point. I don’t like stopping for any reason, actually.

        Aesthetically, I get why the tank is 3.8 gallons. It probably provides more than enough fuel for 80% of the target audience. And the other 20% will accept the small tank because the proportions look so good.

        • JB says:

          You’ll probably be stopping every ~140 miles on this bike instead of 160, seeing as the Thruxton owners get ~43mpg average out of this almost-identical engine.

        • Martin B says:

          You can always tow a trailer with a 55 gallon fuel drum on it, with a fuel line to your bike, and hopefully it won’t all explode when you fall asleep after droning along for 8 hours on an interstate. There’s a reason we stop every now and then. We’re not robots, and we need a break every once in a while. That way the tinnitus takes a little longer to kick in, we can rehydrate and self refuel at a convenient eatery, and actually enjoy the day instead of just enduring it.

    • Scott Carpenter says:

      Of course Moto Guzzi pay Homage to thier history with the V7 line. Lovely bikes all.

  54. PBrasseur says:

    This is what good taste looks like. Amazing job Triumph!

  55. Pacer says:

    They are going to sell all of them.

  56. ApriliaRST says:

    Very sharp looking bike. What’s more, it clicks that all-important ‘light-in-weight’ box nicely. I recall an H-D Sportster I once owned that would rip my arms off (yes, my arms grew back) on initial take off. I think this bike’s combination of weight, power and torque would leave that Sporty for dead.

  57. Dave Joy says:

    Another Triumph masterpiece!

  58. bmbktmracer says:

    I love it!!!

  59. VLJ says:

    This is it. This is the Triumph I’ve been waiting for. Finally, Triumph built what I really want. This is nearly as pretty as a Bonneville T120, but with the better motor, 17″ tubeless wheels, quicker steering, and a crap-ton less weight. Or, conversely, this is the Thruxton I want, with a more upright seating position and less weight. I think I even spy a couple of threaded tabs on the swingarm for race-stand bobbins, so no need to buy the accessory centerstand. Nice.

    So far, I’ve only discovered four nits to pick with this thing…

    -What is it with the Euros and their tachs reading in the hundreds, rather than the thousands? The speedo looks like a speedo. The tach looks like a…speedo. Don’t give me 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 on the tach. Give me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 x 1000, the way nearly everyone else does it. I hated this on one of my old Volkswagens, and I hate it here.

    It’s no biggie. It’s just needlessly stupid.

    -Come on already, Triumph, ditch those hideous tank seams. You’re touting a premium finish here, so give it a premium finish.

    -The heated grips don’t come as standard equipment, like they do on the T120? They’re now an accessory item? That really sucks.

    -The tank really ought to be larger than 3.8 gallons. This bike will be comfortable enough to do some serious distance work. Give it a large enough tank to handle it.

    Now, the positives…

    -Great color scheme with that red tank.

    -Right-angle valve stems! Yes! Man, I HATE the vertical valve stems on my CB1100EX. What a pain, trying to add air to the tires at a gas station with those spokes in the way. Even on my XSR900 it’s no picnic doing the front wheel, and that one has a normal cast wheel. Yep, all bikes should have right-angle valve stems.

    -Nice, low, manageable seat height. Not so good for the taller folk, but great for me.

    -Hey, on this one I can actually get to the chain to lube it! Not so easy, on the T120. Those peashooters make it quite difficult. These upswept megaphones? Piece of cake.

    -475 lbs fully fueled, from a 1200cc Triumph retro standard. Excellent. This one will be plenty comfortable, similar to the T120, but genuinely fun to ride, too.

    -87 hp and 75 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel, pushing a 475-lb standard ought to be more than enough grunt and acceleration to keep up with just about anything on a public road, even at elevation. This thing should be every bit as punchy as the Thruxton, which is pretty good for a British retro with a vertical Twin motor.

    -The fork gaiters are kinda cool.

    -So are the bar-end mirrors.

    -If this motor is anywhere near as smooth and relaxed on the freeway as the T120’s motor is, and I see no reason for it not to be, this thing will be the ultimate all day/do everything bike for me. The slightly more forward-leaning seating position should make it an even better freeway mount, and the reduced weight combined with that punchy motor should guarantee great fun in the canyons. This bike should also be absolutely ideal around town. Realistically, the only places it won’t excel will be at the track, or offroad. Otherwise, this should cover everything else very well, and it will sound and feel tremendous.

    -This is basically a British Twin equivalent of the Kawasaki Z900RS, only torquier, with a much lower seat height, a vastly slimmer tank, much more charisma, and a whole lot more pride of ownership. It makes about ten fewer hp on top, but counters this by making ten more ft-lbs of torque. On standard-style bike such as these, I’d rather have the additional torque. I’d also rather have Triumph’s superior throttle response, vs the Z900RS’s rather twitchy throttle. Lastly, this Triumph just plain looks a whole lot better. The Z900RS doesn’t look bad, but it’s definitely not on this level. The design language on this one is so much more cohesive and consistent.

    As long as this new Speed Twin isn’t priced similarly to the Thruxton R, yep, this one should be a stone-cold killer on the sales floor. It covers all the important bases.

    • Reginald Van Blunt says:

      Tank seams proove that it will hold a liquid, and heated grips don’t work with winter gloves, in the winter.

      • VLJ says:

        The tanks on both my bikes are seamless, and they both hold liquids.

        If heated grips work well enough, I don’t need to trot out my heated gloves. I prefer a good set of heated grips to the hassle and extra bulk of heated gloves.

        • Bob K says:

          There’s always better heated grips for less than what they’d likely put on stock. BMW excepted, Beemer heated grips are pretty darn good. And they work with winter gloves just fine. But I agree, I also like heated grips with normal gloves. But also like wind deflectors for the front of my hands.

          As for tanks, there’s always a seam, somewhere. But I get it. The stamped clam-shell halves are outdated looking. I’m sure some marketing geek decided that’s what people want on a modern Triumph classic, a non-modern looking tank.

          Bike does look great regardless.

      • Hot Dog says:

        Heated grips do work with big fat winter gloves. I’ve ridden many days in Dakota when the temp isn’t above freezing. I wouldn’t be riding without heated grips and a electric vest/jacket. Any extra heat below 50 deg F is more than welcome.

        I think this is a beautiful machine, although a bigger fuel tank would be welcome if you’re bucking a wind.

        • VLJ says:

          Very true. Even when I do trot out my heated gloves, I still fire up the heated grips. No reason they can’t be used together. In fact, I can’t imagine a scenario in which I wouldn’t use the heated grips if I’m using the heated gloves.

          On days like that, the more heat, the better.

  60. Provologna says:

    Really. Who doesn’t love this bike? Get a new hobby already!

  61. Grover says:

    Enough looks and performance to satisfy most riders. I hope they sell a bunch so I can buy a nice used example in a few years.

  62. steveinsandiego says:

    oh, yeah. good eyeball, dual exhausts, reasonable bars, mag wheels. a fender eliminator will make it mine….mm, not really. too old for an mc.

  63. Spiderwatts says:

    Beautiful. Another great choice. This should make all the regular complainers from the boomer side finally be satisfied. But alas they will nitpick this like EVERY single bike shown here. If you do not like how it looks from the factory then modify it or find one you do like. And 10-13 grand is in line with all the similar bikes today. It’s not 1969, or 1979, or 1989 or anytime but today. Prices have increased. I wonder why I even comment on the negative commenters continuous nitpicking comments. Looks like I fell into a trap. Arrggghhh!
    Anyway, what a great looking bike with a lot of improvements. Good job Triumph!

  64. Max says:

    Shoulda put the Ohlins on this one and called it the new Thruxton R.

  65. austin zzr 1200 says:

    Seams like a a nice bike (see what I did there?). Will probably msrp for 11K….please make a smaller displacement version of this. Thanks.

    • JB says:

      HAHAHA!!! You think it’ll only be $11k MSRP… Now THAT’S funny… This is Triumph we’re talking about here — it’ll probably be closer to $14k than $11k, IMHO.

      That said… I LOVE the gray version! I really need money…

  66. Greg says:

    Looks a lot like a 79-80 Kawasaki KZ1000 minus the tail piece with a Kerker and superbike bars. A classic look, but will it have the performance and price to match?

    • Provologna says:

      Not nitpicking or being critical, but I suspect you mean 77-78 KZ1000…79-80 were MkII with more angular styling. I preferred the former’s more classic looks vs. the latter, though the latter’s frame was stiffened to keep up with Suzuki’s GS1000.

  67. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    If the weight is honest, this is a monster of practical design. Every thing where it belongs, hp, torque, foot pegs, seat shape, crank throws and great milage, – who chi moma !

  68. gpokluda says:

    Beautiful. Just beautiful. If this had been on the showroom floor this summer when I bought my T120, it would have been a really hard choice.

wordscape cheatgun mayhem 2 unblocked games