[ST] Damning Triumph with faint praise?

["John Westcott" <westcott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Paul Steinbacher"

>. . .I would still say if the [Buell] was even close to
> reliable, I would much prefer one of those, (S3T) over the Triumph.  . .

> . . . FOR ME, [Triumph] is about as exciting
> as watching grass grow. I bought it realizing that, same as I bought a
Honda ST1100 10 years ago with the same thought. Sometimes you just need a
bike that will get you from here to there . . .

> If you want an appliance . . .buy a Sprint ST  . . .

> Buy what you like, ride what is fun for you, thats what this whole thing
is about.

Whoa Paul, them's fighting words.  So here is my two cents.

I totally agree with you comment that your should "buy what you like" and
"ride what is fun".  That's why I went from buying and riding Yamahas and
Hondas (my last Honda was a ST1100 which is generally referred to as
"appliance like" and "boring" by some) to the two Triumphs and the one BMW I
currently own, a '97 Triumph Thunderbird (on which I added a Watsonian
sidecar), a '99 BMW R1100S and a "00 Triumph Daytona.

To call a Triumph Sprint ST an "appliance" is a compliment to Triumph that
such a relatively small company can design and build such a reliable
motorcycle.  But to go further and say the Sprint ST (and this discussion
list) is boring is flat insulting.  Apparently you equate unreliability and
break downs with fun, excitement and character.  Personally I do not find
breaking down in the middle of nowhere "fun".  Nor do I find worrying about
whether my motorcycle will break down as "exciting".

If you like your Buells, great.  Two years ago and again last year, I demoed
everything Buell made and hated them.  I hated the vibration, the sound, the
feeling that I was riding a pig with a loose saddle, the handling, the
styling, . . . you name it.  With the possible exception of Royal Enfield or
any motorcycle made in the (formerly) USSR, I have not ridden a poorer
example of motorcycle engineering than offered by Buell.

I ride Triumphs because I like the feel, vibrations,  and the sound of the
Triumph triple cylinder engine.  My Daytona (and even my Thunderbird) offers
better handling than 99% of the population can fully utilize.  I also like
Triumph because it a small company with a limited output which means I will
not see four clones of my motorcycles everywhere I go.  To me, Triumph
motorcycles define character.  Three cylinders, wonderful sound and
beautiful styling.  And, of course, it's "MADE IN GREAT BRITAIN".  Harley
Davidson used to have character until a bazillion were made and sold to
every Yuppie who was in between golf and boat hobbies.  Now Harley has about
as much character as a McDonald Quarterpounder with cheese.  You can't take
a Quaterpounder with cheese (Harley) and put it on a weird bun (Buell) and
claim the hamburger has "character".

I sold my Honda ST1100 several years ago because I thought it was too heavy
to be my idea of a "sport touring" motorcycle.  I also did not like the V-4
engine and the automotive sound the V-4 made.  Frankly, the Honda ST1100 was
more "appliance" than motorcycle.  However, I was not dumb enough to get on
the Honda ST internet list and tell everyone how boring their choice of
motorcycle and the ST list was.

Paul, if you are bored with your Triumph fine.  Go buy something else and
get on that list.  In the meantime, quit your bitching.

John Westcott
Portland, Texas


     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
          http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=