Loads of BMW's

[itsbob]

I hear the Russians liked that airhead so well they copied it for their Ural cruiser. 35 Hp, man, that's some machine.
I trust your actual BMWs do better than the clones.
Or are you riding one of those BMW crotch rockets I see around?

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

The only thing you have right, is URAL used a BMW design for their bikes.

It's from about the same time frame the US Army stole BMW deisgns and sent them to Harley to design a bike (which they did).

The URAL is ALMOST identical to the BMW produced in the 19THIRTIES! So comparing a URAL to today's BMW is somewhat dimwitted.

And you spent $10.50 for a QUART of oil.. yeah, you're a regular Einstein aren't you?

 

[itsbob]

And Triumph Rocket?

50% more engine displacement..

50% more cylinders...

for a net LOSS of 11% power to weight.

yeah, YOU should be talking about motorcylcle engineering..

 

[aps45819]

I think you need to improve your reading skills. Hope your driving skills are better.
I specifically mentioned that I did the second oil change myself.
The first time around I want the dealer to do his job and make sure there are no factory problems. When it went out the door it had 15 miles on it.

$20 for an oil change?
That wouldn't buy me a generic filter and quart of oil.
Those BMWs must be cheap ass things to run.

I always use Rotella T oil for the first 10K miles. Using a conventional oil first allows a good break-in. It's about $10 a gallon at WalMart.

$160 seems a little expensive for an oil change.
Every time around I want to be sure there are no problems.

 

[BeHereNow]

w

And Triumph Rocket?

50% more engine displacement..

50% more cylinders...

for a net LOSS of 11% power to weight.

yeah, YOU should be talking about motorcylcle engineering..

Well, if you're looking for efficiency, who knows what you might end up with.
I mean really.
I know this will surprise you, but efficiency wasn't my primary concern.
Believe me, I have all the power (read: torque) I want, and if I get bored I'll add the supercharger to boost the hp to 250+
I didn't buy the Rocket for efficiency.
Which brings me to my only complaint.
They told me it would make my male sex organ bigger, and I haven't seen any change.
Dang.

~ ~ ~ ~
aps45819

A buddy of mine, probably about your age, rebuilt an R900 from the early 70's (not sure of the 'R900', but you know what I mean). He loves it, although he did hit a deer with it. He got thrown into the bushes, but not really hurt. He loves those full faces too. I have several friends about half my age that ride, and they share your views in that regard.
His dad bought one of the new Urals with side car, he won't admit it's a dog, but my friend says he would like to sell it.

I''ve been a fan of BMW (from a distance) ever since 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintaince' came out. Too rich for my blood. When I went to Triumph I didn't even shop BMW, but I figure they haven't gotten any cheaper.
Triuimph wants me to use T4, so that's what I use. I shop in
Cumberland, and only found one auto store that carries it. $10.49 a quart. I read on a different board that someone found it for about $6 or $7, don't know, out west somewhere I think.

If I wasn't running Triumph I'd probably do BMW. Nothing wrong with the metric cruisers, if you like that sort of thing, I don't. I did the Harley thing a few years back, really disappointing. All show, no go.

Cheers.

 

[BeHereNow]

I just have to put in a sales pitch for the Rocket.
My friends call it the Monster Bike, but it rides small (relatively, of course). It's only big in the garage and parking lots.
I took the new TBird for a ride, and guys that bought it love it, but too much '
American style' (read: Harley) and not enough 'Triumph heart' to suit me. Weighs about the same as the Rocket (standard).

This is my first cruiser. The Harley was a 1000 Sporster, and my 895 Bonnie would stomp it into the ground.

The Rocket is very well balanced.
When I have she who must be obeyed on the back I stay in fourth gear from 25mph to 75mph. Does wonderful.
If I'm out by myself and in the passing mood third gear does just fine at 80mph. I hardly ever use fifth.
I put the Jardines on for a little more punch, and some VAroom you guys don't like. It rumbles, but not obnoxious.

The Rocket is a one of a kind bike, so obviously not for everyone.

Last winter I rode The Bonnie every month except January, but it was an easy winter. I have the heated vest and gloves, and the heated grips now. I often rode when it was in the 20's, neoprene face mask and googles, loved it.
Hoping the snow holds off this winter too.

 

[itsbob]

I''ve been a fan of BMW (from a distance) ever since 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintaince' came out. Too rich for my blood. When I went to Triumph I didn't even shop BMW, but I figure they haven't gotten any cheaper.


.

Base price for your Rocket and the BMW RT are almost identical at $16,500.

 

[BeHereNow]

Base price for your Rocket and the BMW RT are almost identical at $16,500.

Well, the RT has half the displacement, and 2/3 the troque and ponies. That's a lot less beef. The R3 performs the same on the flat with a lightweight as on a step incline with two lard asses, not sure the RT would do the same.
The R3 Standard is a hot rod. The RT is a fast luxury sedan , IMHO.
It does well in the quarter mile, only a second under the Rocket.

Unfortunately the R3 does not have the ABS.


The Thunderbird 2010 starts at $12,500, for $2g you can add the ABS and big bore, boost displacement, ponies and torque over the RT. Another $2g for bags and other creature comforts on the RT. Again, same money, more beef with the Triumph.

But, I will say the difference is not as much as I expected.
The BMWs are efficient and Triumphs are bruisers.

I think Triuimph and BMW both have niche markets, that will both expand as riders get as tired of the HD clones as you and I probably are.

Triumph sells about 50,000 units a year, probably a lot less than BMW.

 

[aps45819]

w
~ ~ ~ ~
aps45819

A buddy of mine, probably about your age, rebuilt an R900 from the early 70's (not sure of the 'R900', but you know what I mean). He loves it, although he did hit a deer with it. He got thrown into the bushes, but not really hurt. He loves those full faces too. I have several friends about half my age that ride, and they share your views in that regard.
His dad bought one of the new Urals with side car, he won't admit it's a dog, but my friend says he would like to sell it.

I''ve been a fan of BMW (from a distance) ever since 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintaince' came out. Too rich for my blood. When I went to Triumph I didn't even shop BMW, but I figure they haven't gotten any cheaper.
Triuimph wants me to use T4, so that's what I use. I shop in
Cumberland, and only found one auto store that carries it. $10.49 a quart. I read on a different board that someone found it for about $6 or $7, don't know, out west somewhere I think.

If I wasn't running Triumph I'd probably do BMW. Nothing wrong with the metric cruisers, if you like that sort of thing, I don't. I did the Harley thing a few years back, really disappointing. All show, no go.

Cheers.

I don't ride a BMW
Triumph doesn't make oil
You're riding a metric cruiser

Cheers

 

[itsbob]

Well, the RT has half the displacement, and 2/3 the troque and ponies. That's a lot less beef. The R3 performs the same on the flat with a lightweight as on a step incline with two lard asses, not sure the RT would do the same.
.

Makes no difference, HP and Torque.. what matters is PER POUND..

You have twice the displacement, an extra cylinder, and >10% LESS HP per pound.. THAT's a major difference..

 

[toppick08]

Well, the RT has half the displacement, and 2/3 the troque and ponies. That's a lot less beef. The R3 performs the same on the flat with a lightweight as on a step incline with two lard asses, not sure the RT would do the same.
The R3 Standard is a hot rod. The RT is a fast luxury sedan , IMHO.
It does well in the quarter mile, only a second under the Rocket.

Unfortunately the R3 does not have the ABS.


The Thunderbird 2010 starts at $12,500, for $2g you can add the ABS and big bore, boost displacement, ponies and torque over the RT. Another $2g for bags and other creature comforts on the RT. Again, same money, more beef with the Triumph.

But, I will say the difference is not as much as I expected.
The BMWs are efficient and Triumphs are bruisers.

I think Triuimph and BMW both have niche markets, that will both expand as riders get as tired of the HD clones as you and I probably are.

Triumph sells about 50,000 units a year, probably a lot less than BMW.

Watch out for them 4-wheelers........

 

[BeHereNow]

I don't ride a BMW

So, you think you win a prize?

Triumph doesn't make oil

Another one with poor reading skills. They RECOMMEND an oil. Get your mommy to help if you don't undersand the difference.

You're riding a metric cruiser

Well, slang is slang. it means what you want it to. I can find catalogs for metric cruisers and they have parts for HDs. Are HDs Metric Cruisers? Maybe so.
In my part of the civilized world 'metric cruiser' means rice burner.
You are free for it to mean whatever you want it to.
You got a rice burner, or spagetti burner?

 

[BeHereNow]

Makes no difference, HP and Torque.. what matters is PER POUND..

You have twice the displacement, an extra cylinder, and >10% LESS HP per pound.. THAT's a major difference..

Well, I didn't realize you were the motorcycle Czar.

Put an 800 pound load on my T3 on the same load on an RT and try to tell me I won't run away from you in a heartbeat. Drop the load to 400 pounds and the same.

You don't understand the difference between probability and statistics.
I don't expect you to understand ratios.

If the bikes have no riders or loads, what you say makes sense.
I don't know about yours, but my bike needs a rider.
The 'per poiund' is for a driverless bike. Ain't never seen one of those.

You want a nice little compact bike, that pours it's heart out for you to go fast, you got it.

My beast stomps up the hills and doesn't break a sweat.

 

[aps45819]

So, you think you win a prize?

Why else would you feel the need to explain to me the history of BMW :shrug:

Another one with poor reading skills. They RECOMMEND an oil. Get your mommy to help if you don't undersand the difference.

I can read, that's why I use an oil with better specs than the brand that the manufacturer recieves a kick back on

Well, slang is slang. it means what you want it to. I can find catalogs for metric cruisers and they have parts for HDs. ARe HDs Megtric Cruisers? Maybe so.
In my part of the civilized world 'metric cruiser' means rice burner.
You are free for it to mean whatever you want it to.
You got a rice burner, or spagetti burner?

It's a reference to the type of hardware used in construction, SAE or Metric
American brand manufacturers use SAE hardware, the rest of the world uses metric.

 

[desertrat]

Well, I didn't realize you were the motorcycle Czar.

Put an 800 pound load on my T3 on the same load on an RT and try to tell me I won't run away from you in a heartbeat. Drop the load to 400 pounds and the same.

You don't understand the difference between probability and statistics.
I don't expect you to understand ratios.
If the bikes have no riders or loads, what you say makes sense.
I don't know about yours, but my bike needs a rider.
The 'per poiund' is for a driverless bike. Ain't never seen one of those.

You want a nice little compact bike, that pours it's heart out for you to go fast, you got it.

My beast stomps up the hills and doesn't break a sweat.

Oops.

 

[BadGirl]

Oops.

No shiat.

For someone with his Doctorate in statistics and probability, Bob doesn't know jack.

 

[GWguy]

 

[dn0121]

Well, I didn't realize you were the motorcycle Czar.

Put an 800 pound load on my T3 on the same load on an RT and try to tell me I won't run away from you in a heartbeat. Drop the load to 400 pounds and the same.

You don't understand the difference between probability and statistics.
I don't expect you to understand ratios.

If the bikes have no riders or loads, what you say makes sense.
I don't know about yours, but my bike needs a rider.
The 'per poiund' is for a driverless bike. Ain't never seen one of those.

You want a nice little compact bike, that pours it's heart out for you to go fast, you got it.

My beast stomps up the hills and doesn't break a sweat.

Here you're going to need this

 

[desertrat]

I added 200 pounds to each bike.


R3 140/904=.15 hp/lb 147/904=.16ftlbs/lb

RT 110/705=.16 hp/lb 85/705=.12ftlbs/lb

So what matters most? I'd say a lot matters on how quickly that awesome 147ftlbs falls off.

 

[itsbob]

Well, I didn't realize you were the motorcycle Czar.

Put an 800 pound load on my T3 on the same load on an RT and try to tell me I won't run away from you in a heartbeat. Drop the load to 400 pounds and the same.

You and your partner need to park the bike and get your fatasses up and walk..


If I weighed 400 pounds I wouldn't ride a bike, I'd buy a Ford Heavy Duty.

BUT if I take my weight (since I'd be the one riding both bikes) and apply MY weight to both bikes..

505 + 235 and HP = 110 (2009 RT)

Lets see that equals 740 pounds..

110/740 = .148 HP per Pound OR 6.72 Punds per HP

and your bike 788 + 235 and HP = 107 (2009 Rocket)

That equals 1023

.104 HP per pound (or .1368 on an older better made Rocket).. OR 9.56 pounds per HP (or 7.3 lbs on an older Rocket)


The disadvantage is HUGE.. almost 50% on the apples to apples comparison 2009 to 2009..

Even going back to the BETTER Rocket, there is still a disadvantage though not as great.

Yep, I don't know ratios, or numbers.

I'll give you volume.. I'm sure your bike has WAAAY more decibels.. especially when it's trying to lug your 400 pound fatass up a hill.

 

[desertrat]

You and your partner need to park the bike and get your fatasses up and walk..


If I weighed 400 pounds I wouldn't ride a bike, I'd buy a Ford Heavy Duty.

BUT if I take my weight (since I'd be the one riding both bikes) and apply MY weight to both bikes..

505 + 235 and HP = 110 (2009 RT)

Lets see that equals 740 pounds..

110/740 = .148 HP per Pound OR 6.72 Punds per HP

and your bike 788 + 235 and HP = 107 (2009 Rocket)

That equals 1023

.104 HP per pound (or .1368 on an older better made Rocket).. OR 9.56 pounds per HP (or 7.3 lbs on an older Rocket)




The disadvantage is HUGE.. almost 50% on the apples to apples comparison 2009 to 2009..

Even going back to the BETTER Rocket, there is still a disadvantage though not as great.

Yep, I don't know ratios, or numbers.

I'll give you volume.. I'm sure your bike has WAAAY more decibels.. especially when it's trying to lug your 400 pound fatass up a hill.

I thought that Triumph claimed 140HP?