W650 vs Triumph Bonneville

[Dallas]

Both have their pluses and minuses, but the W just "looks" more like a
1960's bonneville than the actual Triumph Bonneville does. Several
magazines echo this sentiment. Has anyone here ride either/both?

[Beardg]

Dallas Mar 17, 3:56 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
From: Dallas <***@voicenet.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:56:12 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 17 2005 3:56 pm
Subject: W650 vs Triumph Bonneville
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Both have their pluses and minuses, but the W just "looks" more like a
1960's bonneville than the actual Triumph Bonneville does. Several
magazines echo this sentiment. Has anyone here ride either/both?


--
Thunderbird

I have ridden the Bonny and read quite a few reviews of the Kaw.The Kaw
seems a bit more antiquated, a bit more personality, a little truer to
the original feeling of the old Brit iron, lighter, a nice bike,
but....It's Japanese.
When Triumph spoke about what they wanted with the new Bonny, they
strongly stated that they didn't want a re-creation of the old Bonny,
but a thoroughly modern bike, in the Bonny tradition. That is what they
have done. The Bonneville has more power, better brakes, better
handling(not by much) and will handle everyday commuting, or backroad
zipping. I liked the Bonny when I rode it, and due to getting lost on
the backroads where I was, my test ride ended up close to 30 miles...
and a tank of gas. I filled it up for the guy. He must have been
getting nervous. As a second or third bike I might consider the
Kawasaki, but for less money I could do what Tim did and get the real
thing. If I was looking for a primary ride and this would be my only
bike, hands down the Bonneville is the way to go.The Bonneville also
has a bulletproof motor that should hold up to everyday abuse for well
into the future.Plus the Bonny is still here and available, and a hot
seller,this makes parts availability and service better in the future
also.

[Greek Shipping Magnets]

Post by Dallas
Both have their pluses and minuses, but the W just "looks" more like a
1960's bonneville than the actual Triumph Bonneville does. Several
magazines echo this sentiment. Has anyone here ride either/both?

I never rode the W650 but I did the Bonnie and it seemed like the real
deal. By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output. The Thruxton OTOH made me want to trade
in my Speed Triple.

[jim rozen]

In article <***@4ax.com>, Greek Shipping Magnets
says...

... By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output.

Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.

Jim

[Beardg]

jim rozen Mar 18, 10:12 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
From: jim rozen <***@newsguy.com> - Find messages by this author

Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:12:35 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 18 2005 10:12 am
Subject: Re: W650 vs Triumph Bonneville
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

In article <ve4m3190a5cl8sql4e0ls7ooth4b7�***@4ax.com>, Greek
Shipping Magnets
says...

... By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output.

Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.

Jim


--


Which is EXACTLY what they were attempting to achieve!...But why spend
the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

[jim rozen]

In article <***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Beardg
says...

Post by jim rozen
Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.
Which is EXACTLY what they were attempting to achieve!...But why spend
the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

That's what *I* did. That's what *you* did. The only thing
is, those classics of ours say 'bmw' on the tank instead of
'triumph!'

Jim

[Beardg]

Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.

Post by Beardg
Which is EXACTLY what they were attempting to achieve!...But why spend
the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

That's what *I* did. That's what *you* did. The only thing
is, those classics of ours say 'bmw' on the tank instead of
'triumph!'


Jim


I also have a nicely restored 1969 TR6R sharing space with the
R65...They get along just fine!
The differences in the two are dramatic...
Flywheel effect..The Triumph carries a "feel of speed" due to a much
heavier flywheel, though the R65 revs like a raped ape...
Brakes...You'd think the BMW would be miles ahead given the ages(' 84
vs.' 69) and disc vs.drum but...you'd be wrong. The BMW does offer
better feel and control, but for hard ass stops the Triumph with it's
dual leading shoe front brake takes the cake...The Triumph also has a
far superior rear brake.
Top speed..here the BMW takes the lead.
Suspension....The BMW has a better suspension, especially with the
added supports we welded in the frame when we did the restore.
Comfort...The BMW is smoother, but both are very comfortable. The BMW
will be cherry once the seat is rebuilt by Mayer, as it sits now the
Triumph stock seat is excellent.
Reliablity..Surely the BMW..BUT the Triumph has never stranded me
beyond my ability to repair it on the side of the road and both start
right up instantly, every time.The BMW has never made even a hiccup
after the restoration...Flawless.
Looks....I LOVE them both, and often find myself sitting on a milkcrate
in the garage with a cocktail looking at the two side by side.
Gas mileage Triumph 54mpg....BMW 44mpg
If I could only keep one it would have to be the R65...But I would
regret the sale of the TR6R forever.
They have such different feels, a very nice combination with the added
Trophy1200 for long distance,bad weather or high speed hiway mile
travel.
All I need now is an old Honda XR400 for some logging road
riding....And maybe one of those new Triumph Speedmasters....And I
alway liked the Ducati Monsters....Or maybe a BMW GS...

[jim rozen]

In article <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Beardg
says...

Post by Beardg
I also have a nicely restored 1969 TR6R sharing space with the
R65...They get along just fine!
The differences in the two are dramatic...
Flywheel effect..The Triumph carries a "feel of speed" due to a much
heavier flywheel, though the R65 revs like a raped ape...

Did you lighten the flywheel? Those bikes in stock form
have a flywheel that would break most of your toes if
you dropped it on them.

Post by Beardg
Brakes...You'd think the BMW would be miles ahead given the ages(' 84
vs.' 69) and disc vs.drum but...you'd be wrong. The BMW does offer
better feel and control, but for hard ass stops the Triumph with it's
dual leading shoe front brake takes the cake...The Triumph also has a
far superior rear brake.

Does your R65 have the single disk front break? If so that
explaines it. I personally would rather drive my bmws with
the dual-leading drums than my R75 which has the single disk.
It needs a real haul on the lever to get any slowdown.

Post by Beardg
Top speed..here the BMW takes the lead.
Suspension....The BMW has a better suspension, especially with the
added supports we welded in the frame when we did the restore.

Mostly the frames are pretty rubbery. Braces help a lot - but the
single most important thing you can do is to put in a fork brace.
I've found this out beyond a shadow of a doubt becase the R75
does not have one, and the new R100RS does.

I would never, ever ride the R75 on the highway without the
hydraulic steering damper set to its highest setting. The bike
with the brace? I never use the damper, ever.

Post by Beardg
All I need now is an old Honda XR400 for some logging road
riding....

My choice was a old KLR250. Lotta fun.

Jim

[Beardg]

Did you lighten the flywheel? Those bikes in stock form
have a flywheel that would break most of your toes if
you dropped it on them.

My particular year of R65 had the "high performance" lightened
flywheel.Supposedly for better shifting.But boy does that baby rev!

Does your R65 have the single disk front break?

Yes..with stainless lines and a new MC

Braces help a lot - but the
single most important thing you can do is to put in a fork brace.

But where to get one??...I have looked everywhere.

would never, ever ride the R75 on the highway without the
hydraulic steering damper set to its highest setting. The bike
with the brace? I never use the damper, ever.


Seems very tire related with my bike..The Metzeler ME-33 was rock
solid...The Bridgstone on there now, kinda scary at hi speeds (the me33
was out of round a little so I tried something new,Bridgestone, a
mistake)

[Tim Morrow]

Post by jim rozen
says...

Post by jim rozen
Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.
Which is EXACTLY what they were attempting to achieve!...But why spend
the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

That's what *I* did. That's what *you* did. The only thing
is, those classics of ours say 'bmw' on the tank instead of
'triumph!'

Tank lettering can easily be changed...

[Tim Morrow]

Post by Beardg
Which is EXACTLY what they were attempting to achieve!...But why spend
the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

The only reason is if you either can't or don't want to invest the energy in
maintaining a real classic. The W650 is MUCH easier to own than any vintage
Triumph.

[Dallas]

Beardg wrote:

why spend the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?

Because the real-deal "classic" will leave you stranded on the side of
the road, where the W650 won't.

[Grumbler]

Because the real-deal "classic" will leave you stranded on the side of the
road, where the W650 won't.

In fact, the mechanics at the long since defunct B&D
Motorsports in Santa Cruz, CA recommended that
I replace my '67 TR6R with a new Yamaha XS650
back in 1971. They were sick and tired of working
on Triumph problems. The XS650 was very reliable.

Replaced the TR6R with a new '73 T140RV in '73
and lost 2nd gear a few months later. No parts were
available as the factory went on strike. IIRC, price
of parts was doubled after that strike was settled.

-=G

[Tim Morrow]

Post by Dallas
why spend the money when you can go out and get a real classic for under 5K?
Because the real-deal "classic" will leave you stranded on the side of
the road, where the W650 won't.

Oh, I don't know. I rode tens of thousands of miles on a 1973 Ducati 750GT in
the 1980's and 1990's, and was never stranded. I road almost 10,000 miles on a
1974 Norton 850 Commando in the 1990's without being stranded, and I rode to
Daytona Beach Bike Week and back from northern Virginia on a 1967 Norton Atlas
750 in 1997 without being stranded.

Now, if you had said "Because the real-deal "classic" will require a great deal
more preventative maintenence so that it won't leave you stranded on the side of
the road, where the W650 won't," then I would agree with you.

Tim

[Beardg]

Tim Morrow Mar 19, 9:55 am

Oh, I don't know. I rode tens of thousands of miles on a 1973 Ducati
750GT in
the 1980's and 1990's, and was never stranded. I road almost 10,000
miles on a
1974 Norton 850 Commando in the 1990's without being stranded, and I
rode to
Daytona Beach Bike Week and back from northern Virginia on a 1967
Norton Atlas
750 in 1997 without being stranded.

Now, if you had said "Because the real-deal "classic" will require a
great deal
more preventative maintenence so that it won't leave you stranded on
the side of
the road, where the W650 won't," then I would agree with you.


Tim


Given the fact that I divy up my miles between 3 bikes, none of my
rides gets a whole lot of use
(the Trophy gets around 8K a year the rest around 2-4K). With this
amount of use my ' 69 Tiger, once sorted properly, gets one major
service a year,and usually I will sink some money into further
progressing the restoration. This year the plan is obtaining stock
fenders in stock paint NOS! My buddy has a shop full of NOS Triumph
stuff and he found new fenders in the original bags in stock
paint...cool! I do the frequent fluid changes and minor work. But the
points, valves ect. go all season with hardly a notice.Chains and
sprockets and tires just never seem to wear out...This has worked well
for the last 10 years.
Another good reason to have a garage full of bikes...Nothing wears out!

[Tim Morrow]

Post by jim rozen
says...

... By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output.

Yep, that's a british bike there, OK.

Never read a single word in any review that indicated anything at all was wrong
with the frame of the W650. In fact, the only criticism of the bike that I can
remember was the seat, which was uncomfortable, and iirc, changed after the
first model year.

The comparison tests with the new Bonneville concentrated on the fact that the
Bonneville had a bigger engine and made more torque. Thus, in the American
ideal, better.

If you want an alternative to the Harley Sportster, the Bonneville is an
excellent choice. If you want a a traditional-looking "British style" bike with
minimal mechanical maintenence and repairs, the W650 is a good choice. Here in
the U.S., it is already well on its way to becoming a cult bike like the Honda
GB500 and 650 Hawk GT, and prices reflect it. You could buy one, and if you
don't ride it too very many miles, conceivably sell it for a small profit
several years down the line.

I like my '72 5-speed Triumph Tiger, which cost significantly less than a
Bonneville (early or late) or a W650, and even SMELLS like an old Brit bike.
But then, I have a nice, reliable, oil-tight, modern, comfortable
Harley-Davidson to ride on most days!

Tim

[Andrew]

Post by Greek Shipping Magnets

Post by Dallas
Both have their pluses and minuses, but the W just "looks" more like a
1960's bonneville than the actual Triumph Bonneville does. Several
magazines echo this sentiment. Has anyone here ride either/both?

I never rode the W650 but I did the Bonnie and it seemed like the real
deal. By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output. The Thruxton OTOH made me want to trade
in my Speed Triple.

Really? I sat on one on Saturday, and it didn't do much for me.

[Tim Morrow]

Post by Andrew

Post by Greek Shipping Magnets

Post by Dallas
Both have their pluses and minuses, but the W just "looks" more like a
1960's bonneville than the actual Triumph Bonneville does. Several
magazines echo this sentiment. Has anyone here ride either/both?

I never rode the W650 but I did the Bonnie and it seemed like the real
deal. By all accounts the Kawasaki was panned as a flexiflyer frame
with anemic horsepower output. The Thruxton OTOH made me want to trade
in my Speed Triple.

Really? I sat on one on Saturday, and it didn't do much for me.

The Thruxton is an abortion. Triumph took a slow, overweight, uninspiring,
awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica bike and made it into a supremely
UNCOMFORTABLE, slow, overweight, uninspiring, awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica
bike.

If Triumph really wants to trade on their OLD reputation, they'd be much better
off making a production version of the flat track replica that accompanied the
Thruxton on the show circuit this past winter. That bike was light, airy,
performance oriented, better in every way than the butt-ugly Thruxton, and is
well suited to play the role of 2-cylinder badass in the current Triumph
line-up.

[Greek Shipping Magnets]

Post by Tim Morrow
Never read a single word in any review that indicated anything at all was wrong
with the frame of the W650. In fact, the only criticism of the bike that I can
remember was the seat, which was uncomfortable, and iirc, changed after the
first model year.

www.motorcycle.com

Post by Tim Morrow
The Thruxton is an abortion. Triumph took a slow, overweight, uninspiring,
awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica bike and made it into a supremely
UNCOMFORTABLE, slow, overweight, uninspiring, awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica
bike.

I guess when you filter it through your own prejudice.

As a young'un who didn't experience it the first time round I prefer
the remix version to the original single. I can't imagine the real
deal having the well fettled suspension and brakes of the bike I rode.
At least not for the MSRP of the Thruxton.

And true to form, the model I tested had an oil weep from the right
case cover.

[Tim Morrow]

Post by Greek Shipping Magnets

Post by Tim Morrow
Never read a single word in any review that indicated anything at all was wrong
with the frame of the W650. In fact, the only criticism of the bike that I can
remember was the seat, which was uncomfortable, and iirc, changed after the
first model year.

www.motorcycle.com

Post by Tim Morrow
The Thruxton is an abortion. Triumph took a slow, overweight, uninspiring,
awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica bike and made it into a supremely
UNCOMFORTABLE, slow, overweight, uninspiring, awkward, 1 and 1/4 scale replica
bike.

I guess when you filter it through your own prejudice.
As a young'un who didn't experience it the first time round I prefer
the remix version to the original single.

Of course, the original Triumph Thruxtons were not singles. Triumph didn't
build a replica of a Velocette. Of course, when you filter it through your own
ignorance...