– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Triumph Previews New Rocket 3 With TFC Version

A redesign of the Triumph Rocket 3 has been in the works, and Triumph has now released photos of the new Triumph Factory Custom (TFC) version of the Rocket (see pictures). According to Triumph, the already-incredible 2294cc triple engine has been “transformed” in the new model … perhaps making more than the currently claimed 148 horsepower and 163 foot/pounds of torque.

The new bike looks lighter than the claimed wet weight of the old model (736 pounds) and features a single-sided swingarm, among other changes.

If you want one of the TFC versions shown, they will be limited to 750 units, and likely very pricey. Stay tuned for an announcement from Triumph on May 1.

See more of MD’s great photography: Instagram


  1. Frank says:

    Does the rear end look like it took some style cues from Ducati’s Diavel? And I mean that in a good way.

    • GreenMan says:

      It’s just the single sided swingarm that gives it that look.

      I don’t recall Triumph ever copying someone’s design.

      • Bocker says:

        While I agree with your second statement, I think the overall design treatment on the rear is highly reminiscent of the Diavel. Fender, abbreviated tail, swinger, fat rear tire all call to mind the Diavel. Doesn’t mean it’s a copy, but it’s definitely similar from where I’m sitting.

        • hartri55 says:

          Looks similar to me as well.

          • Anonymous says:

            There’s nothin’ new under the sun or under your ass.

            Companies have been stylistically ripping off HD for decades. Anything that succeeds (i.e., appeals to buyers) is likely to be copied out the wazoo.

  2. Frank says:

    Great looking big bore bike.

  3. gerryseminole says:

    170 torques! I need a tire budget to go along with this bike. I can’t wait to
    see the production version minus all the expensive bits. I hope its a bit
    more reasonable. My pockets aren’t that deep.

    • todd says:

      That’s about 20 or 30 ft-lb more torque than most people push out on a bicycle. I think the tires are more concerned with power and weight.

  4. Rapier says:

    Much better than a Boss Hoss

    • paul says:

      The Hoss was even uglier than this pig. Isn’t that the point? Build big and ugly motorcycles that grab the wrong kind of attention for attention seekers. So the Hoss wins since it will always attract more rednecks in the bar parking lot. Money well spent on the Boss Hoss, yeeaaa!

  5. Tank says:

    Nothing exceeds like excess.

  6. CrazyJoe says:

    I’ve always dreamed of Indian four’s. What were they? A girlie 1300cc. Seventy years ago is a long time ago. I would also like to mention the Henderson 4. Maybe not something to the liter riding public but 35 or 45 hp. Fagedabodit. Why do i want a rocket 3? It’s missing a cylinder. Its not as svelte as the above. But hot damn it presses my buttons.

    Any how I recall a wise one that claimed once an engine get’s over 500cc max per cylinder it gets harder to make it perform. Who gives a damn if it’s an inline? What’s next a 3 liter 4? I’d be happy with much less but I probably should have been born before the fifties.

  7. ABQ says:

    Getting the Rocket 3 off of the side stand was always an issue with me. Never mind picking it up off the ground. Just put that engine in a trike for me.

  8. SR Motors says:

    An R3 test ride will make your face hurt from grinning. It’s my favorite demo bike. It’s very deceptive, smooth roll on in three gears and you are at 80
    Bandit 1250

  9. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    Gad Zooks ! I just thought of a very good use for this 3 holer. Picture this . A summer NIGHT with a hunnert plus mile route around the San Bernardino mountains, hi desert country, fast like a bunny, high beams all the way, non stop . Smooth strong solid . A runner. OK, I NEED ONE.

  10. Ralph W. says:

    Some people still think that bigger is better. That was true back in the ‘70s when I started riding, but times have changed. Many bikes with less than half the engine size would leave this way behind. Having said that, it is a nice bike and I wouldn’t criticize anybody who buys one. Just don’t come to me bragging that yours is bigger than mine because mine is much faster, and because it is much lighter it is also much quicker, everywhere.

    • Chris says:

      +1 You said it better than I was gonna.

      • Superlight says:

        I’m not into the “power is everything” type of bikes, but after doing a demo ride during Daytona bike week several years ago on one of these I was certainly impressed with the torque level. Wow!

        • todd says:

          Most people dont want something that is fast OR quick. That said, 148hp means this will accelerate twice as quickly as any Harley.

    • Grover says:

      Agreed. My favorite bike now weighs < 300#. I also have an 800# tourer, but when I want to have fun I jump on the lightweight and blast around town. No more 1000# behemoths for me.

  11. Bob says:

    More power than a vintage John Deere. Maybe they should paint it green, with yellow rims.

  12. Mike says:

    This is a poser bike, pure and simple.
    It’s designed to ride down to your hangout for the dick measuring contest. And you’ll most likely win.

    • Anonymous says:

      In this case the rider can be like Milton Berle and just pull out enough to win…

      This motor and chassis needs to be in a nice touring rig with a 7 gallon tank, electronic cruise control, ABS, TBW, heated grips and seat (with a pillion section), windshield, bags and quick detach trunk. Think Road King with plenty of testicular fortitude.

      Give it 30,000+ mile valve check intervals, minimum 45 mpg (US gallons) and affordable rubber that lasts at least 10,000 miles and I’m in for the win.

      • Mike says:

        I imagine it’s red line is not too high. Why not go with hydraulicly adjustable valves like the Honda 750 Nighthawk?

        Indeed this stonking motor would make highway cruising a breeze. With proper gearing it’ll be blasting down the highway at not much RPM above idle.

        • Anonymous says:

          I agree that hydraulic lifters would be preferable but just trying to get a manufacturer (outside of Harley) to do just that seems impossible. Look at BMW’s sacred cash cow of OUTRAGEOUS maintenance costs and you’ll know why.

          This motor in a touring rig does NOT need to rev to the moon. It needs to be able to ride there and back without having to have a brazillion valve check/adjustments (or new tires, LOL!) along the way. 😉

          Well said, sir.

    • Mr.Mike says:

      In that case I’ll take two.

    • xLaYN says:

      Not sure if promotion or complain…

  13. Bubba Blue says:

    Like someone suggested, they should use that engine in a tourer.

  14. Easy - says:

    Not a bad looking steed. Still don’t like those behind the tire lic plate holders even if they are necessary. Just stupid looking, and it looks like that one has tiny turn signals on it. Tank shape is nice.

    • mickey says:

      Hmm where have I read that before?

    • todd says:

      The only reason these lame license plate things are necessary is because of the lame abbreviated seat/tail section they have. If you put a regular full seat and a real – keep the water off your back – rear fender, they can put the license plate where it belongs.

  15. Auphliam says:

    The TFC version of the Thruxton is priced at $21.5K US/$23.5K CAN, with 220 total units coming to North America (200 US/20 CAN). Really not too bad for the quality of machine these TFC bikes appear to be. I would suspect the price of admission for this TFC RIII will be north of that.

  16. joe b says:

    How long ago did Honda make the Valkarie?

  17. Giulio says:

    Seems a waste of a great motor and chassis with shaft drive for 2 up tourer to rival all others. Well I can dream suppose.

  18. Carl says:

    I have had numerous cars with smaller engines than this bike, but does look good except the turd hanging over the rear tire.

  19. bmbktmracer says:

    All, please keep in mind that this is a TFC (Triumph Factory Custom) version of the Rocket 3. Thus, I’m pretty certain the standard version will have pillion accomodations.

  20. Mr.Mike says:

    Much cleaner, well proportioned design than the Diavel and new Valkyrie. It would be nice if they had figured out a way to support a passenger. Seems like there’s plenty of room for a longer seat.

  21. BW says:

    Looks like a modern version of a 90’s Kawasaki 900 Eliminator.

  22. Glenn says:

    Looks rather dainty. Maybe I’ll see if my wife or daughter is interested.

  23. Provologna says:

    This new triple looks fantastic. It really makes the outgoing model look pretty horrid.

    When Kawasaki’s KZ1300 liquid cooled shaft drive I-6 arrived, most thought it would stand as the all time heaviest naked (about 700# full tank). I doubt anyone foresaw bikes like this Rocket 3, w/half the cylinders and 80% larger engine displacement.

    We thought Honda’s original GL1000 Gold Wing was heavy for a naked, but it was less than 650# w/a full tank!

  24. Neil says:

    Harley meets Diavel meets Triumph – these guys are drinking too much craft beer.

  25. gpokluda says:

    I think you meant Dull-vile 😎

  26. Randybobandy says:

    I guess I need a sidecar to ride my better half. 750lb one seater, and the new Grom has seat plenty big enough for 2. Strange world indeed.

  27. gpokluda says:

    Love it. Triumph can do no wrong these days!

  28. Wendy Moore says:

    I would rather have a Diavel.

  29. Pacer says:

    Yamaha, please update the VMax. I would read every word of a Rocket III/VMax/Diavel shootout.

  30. Pacer says:

    That’s a big ole bike. Triumph is on a role.

  31. Matt says:

    Its big, heavy and impractical. So why do I want one so badly?

  32. Provologna says:

    My fingers resist typing this, but I like it.

    Makes the Diavel look like a mid size, no small feat!

  33. Anonymous says:

    I’m not a Cruiser guy but if style sells this ought to be a winner. Especially if they capture the triple sound.

  34. Tommy see says:

    Who really ever needed a v eight. Triumph you are the Boss. What a beauty.

  35. bmbktmracer says:

    Count me amongst those with raised thumbs.

  36. austin zzr 1200 says:

    no one cares about a pillion anymore…its sad

  37. Denis says:

    Wish they would show the intake side of the bike. The old version was sort of unattractive with that weird chrome cover.

    • Hot Dog says:

      Maybe the Chinese could land a rover on the dark side and send some pictures.

      This is a beast of a machine that has some nice appeal. I hope they just didn’t give it a tiny fuel tank.

    • Edbob says:

      Agreed about that left side. The other boil on the ass was the size and overhang of the radiator, which made the proportions of the bike look twice as big from different angles. Will be interesting to see if this was mitigated.

  38. NickW says:

    You have to hope that weedy-looking side-stand is strong enough! I recall sitting on the previous version and having trouble just getting it to vertical, it was so heavy.

  39. Tim says:

    They finally replaced that butt-ugly tractor looking exhaust. This is a significant improvement from that standpoint alone.

  40. Roger Sears says:

    A whole lot of Ducati Diavel goin’ on here!

    • Rhinestone Kawboy says:

      … that and a little MV Agusta in the exhaust design too. Hmmm, almost would think these might be made in China, the home of the copy cats. Nah, surely not. 🙂

  41. Neal says:

    What a monster. Triumph is seriously on a roll, making distinct and attractive bikes. If this appeals to you take a look at leftover Valkyries, there are amazing deals to be had.

    • SausageCreature says:

      My local Honda dealer has (or had) around a dozen leftover Valks at around $9-10k last time I checked. I was tempted…that’s an awful lot of motorcycle for the money. Unfortunately, they only had the non-ABS models, and I really want my next bike to have ABS.

      • Neil says:

        I test rode one and it was a dream. So smooth. Nice rumble. Like having a vintage Dodge pickup motor under you. RumbleRumbleRumble.

  42. Tank says:

    Butt ugly. Only the butt, the rest looks great.

  43. Bob K says:

    Wowza!!! That is a tough looking bike. Really appeals to my machismo.

  44. Reginald Van Blunt says:

    Now this is a motorcycle that really needed to loose the rear fender for a lighter look. It works to make this bike look light enough to maneuver about some. Nice.
    Single sided swingearm must be a confidence thing extreme. I wouldn’t.

    • charlie says:

      Couldn’t agree more. For years I’ve been waiting for the wheels to break off my cars. trucks, tractors etc.. I guess you just have to trust the lug bolts. Scares me too.

      • Reginald Van Blunt says:

        It’s not about the lug bolts, after all the original R80GS had just 3, it’s about the swing arm and axel. All metal bends if it is allowed to. Why put an asymmetrical bending load on the upsee downsee parts ?

        • Hot Dog says:

          For darn near 20 years, the Gold Wing has sported a single sided swingarm with nary a problem.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            Goldwings, VFRs, multiple Ducatis, BMWs, Speed Triples, most shaft-driven bikes. I don’t think the single-side swingarm is all that risky. Seems to be proven tech for street use.

          • Reginald Van Blunt says:

            Just a passing fad for the stylish.

          • Hot Dog says:

            It’s sure nice when the rear wheel has to be removed. Gosh, I’ve never been called stylish, usually much worse.

          • charlie says:

            So is this dang computer trend.

    • charlie says:

      So is this dang computer trend.

  45. North of Missoiula says:

    A worthy shot across the bow of the Star V Max. Other sites are reporting 180hp/170ft-lbs. Looking at the numbers it should be good for a sub 11 second quarter mile.

    I am looking forward to the shootout.

    • Bart says:

      Yes! Thor’s Hammer with a twist grip! These things are huge fun to ride, a roll-on drug habit. And it stops & turns better than you might think, just plan ahead, because it builds speed deceptively fast. They just keep pushing like a solid rocket booster.

      Stock up on rears, Brown truck ’em to your destination for return trip. Kids will get bald rears for Christmas.

  46. Dave says:

    Pretty far from the kind of bike I ride but that’s a pretty excellent expression of a “muscle cruiser”.

  47. Bubba Blue says:

    A lot of heat between the legs.

  48. Jeremy in TX says:

    They did a nice job of it in my opinion. I like it.

  49. Wally World says:

    Looks like (from the seat back anyway)a Ducati Diavel rip off.

    • Selecter says:

      Sort of what I was thinking. Triumph had a huge opportunity to push their own design language, but huge portions of this bike look cribbed straight off of the XDiavel. To me, most of it looks good until just aft of the rider’s seat, and then degenerates from there.

      One thing I really have to wonder about – have they put any effort at all into taking any mass out of the engine itself? The bike -looks- a lot lighter than the old Rocket III, but it’s always looked like most of the bike’s mass is in the engine and transmission…

  50. Tommy D says:

    I wasn’t a fan of the previous version’s looks. This one has me wishing the local Triumph dealer was still in business.

  51. mickey says:

    Not a bad looking steed. Still don’t like those behind the tire lic plate holders even if they are necessary. Just stupid looking, and it looks like that one has tiny turn signals on it. Tank shape is nice.

    • mickey says:

      Funny, I had one of the original Rocket 3’s, a 69 BSA 750. A true 130 mph machine. In this new Rocket 3, each piston displaces more than all three pistons in the Rocket 3 that I owned.

      This thing is a monster.

wordscape cheatgun mayhem 2 unblocked games