Tiger 1200?

[pushr0d]

Has anyone seen anything on the Big Kitty other than the spy shots on hellforleather?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhellforleathermagazine.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fspy-video-triumph-tiger-1200%2F&ei=WB8wTtSNAsfSgQeT57DmCg&usg=AFQjCNG6KBjoqeremot4lt4ktaAy2msdLA

[Rincewind]

There are a couple pics in this previous thread --

http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php/topic,56706.0.html

I wonder if we'll see it at one of the EU shows this fall, alongside the new Trophy?  

[pushr0d]

RW,

I remember that thread.  I'm just curious; there's been little to no info since that thread 10 months ago.


But my prediction is looking good.  I said the ST was going away to make room for a new 'Sportbike'.

"Hurricane 1200", anyone?  Or even better, a short-stroked version of the new 1200 that would rev to the moon?

[Rincewind]

RW,

I remember that thread.  I'm just curious; there's been little to no info since that thread 10 months ago.


But my prediction is looking good.  I said the ST was going away to make room for a new 'Sportbike'.

"Hurricane 1200", anyone?  Or even better, a short-stroked version of the new 1200 that would rev to the moon?

I agree that it has been very quiet on the new 1200cc triples.  Will '12 be the year of the 1200's. or wait for 1300's in '13?  

The Hurricane 1200 (4cyl) project was binned 10 years ago -   but I appreciate your hope!

[falconati]

I certainly hope not.  The Tiger doesn't need more power at all.  It could use a reduction in weight, a more comfortable stock seat, and better ergonomics for a passenger.

[crispiegee1]

I certainly hope not.  The Tiger doesn't need more power at all.  It could use a reduction in weight, a more comfortable stock seat, and better ergonomics for a passenger.

+1  

People are too obsessed with power they don't need. I'd rather have lighter weight or better ergos on bikes.

[bomber]

I certainly hope not.  The Tiger doesn't need more power at all.  It could use a reduction in weight, a more comfortable stock seat, and better ergonomics for a passenger.

and headlights better than something from a 1954 Austin Seven, please.

[crispiegee1]

and headlights better than something from a 1954 Austin Seven, please.

You obviously don't understand: Triumph considers poor headlights a "heritage styling cue."








(FYI: The Austin Seven was out of production by '54. It would have to be an A30.)

[Papa Lazarou]

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/New-bikes/2010/September/sep0810-Triumph-s-new-adventurer-1200-world-first-pictures/

Old news?

I like A30s...

[Rincewind]

The latest news from UK says the new bike will be called the Triumph Adventurer.  Maybe it won't be called a Tiger at all?  Triumph already used the Adventure title in the 90's, albeit on a completely different style bike. 

MCN is anticipating power similar to the MTS1200, which is good because the 1050 is not nearly that strong.  "Close to production," they say, but without additional spy pics.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/New-bikes/2011/August/aug0811-triumph-adventurer-nearing-production/

[Rincewind]

I asked my dealer about the Tiger 1200 today.  He said that for his latest ordering period, Triumph only had the Tiger 1050 SE model listed, no standard Tiger 1050 models.  He seemed to think the 1050 will be phased out with the coming of the 1200.  But he doesn't have any info on the 1200 beyond speculation and rumor. 

As a sidenote, he said the 800 and 1050 Tigers are about the same weight because of the heavier steel frame on the 800. I didn't realize that.  He only had one 800 left and it wasn't a demo.  I'm not really that interested anyway, but I'd still like to try one.

[maddjack]

I certainly hope not.  The Tiger doesn't need more power at all.  It could use a reduction in weight, a more comfortable stock seat, and better ergonomics for a passenger.

+2 Why ?? If you think you NEED more power you are
A) a racer
B)kidding yourself, theres more than enough with the 1050 ( hell more than enough with a 955)  

[Reddog*]

If you ride above 5000' Alt the extra is always nice.

[maddjack]

If you ride above 5000' Alt the extra is always nice.

been there rode that

[Rincewind]

 +2 Why ?? If you think you NEED more power you are
A) a racer
B)kidding yourself, theres more than enough with the 1050 ( hell more than enough with a 955)  

While I generally agree, for the "why" you need only look at the: R1200GS, the Stelvio 1200, and the MTS1200.  That's not to mention the forthcoming 1200cc KTM, or Aprilia's new 1200 Dorsoduro.  It's "keeping up with the Joneses."  

Plus the shaft drive will be a pretty marketable feature.

[Croak]

If you ride above 5000' Alt the extra is always nice.

If you're over 15 stone, the extra power is also nice.  

[jfusaro]

You need more power for the same reason Corvette makes the ZR1, can't use it anywhere legally but its nice to have

[crispiegee1]

You need more power for the same reason Corvette makes the ZR1, can't use it anywhere legally but its nice to have

The annoying thing is, more power by way of bigger engines means higher fuel consumption, higher insurance rates and more weight.

I tour on a 600 and somehow or other, I manage to get by. The only problem with a smaller bike is that the manufacturers leave them without key features of the large bikes... sort of a subtle pressure to get you to move up to something big. But this need for reserve power is, in my opinion, largely imagined. Geez, the guy who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance had 28 hp and was riding TWO UP.

So Motus is going to come out with a direct injected, 1.6 liter, 160 hp V4 which looks great. But if they came out with half that engine 800 cc v-twin with 80 hp and got 65 mpg, I'd say someone built a bike for me. I read about people getting half that economy and it just seems like a waste of money and natural resources.

[sammyseaman]

The annoying thing is, more power by way of bigger engines means higher fuel consumption, higher insurance rates and more weight.

I tour on a 600 and somehow or other, I manage to get by. The only problem with a smaller bike is that the manufacturers leave them without key features of the large bikes... sort of a subtle pressure to get you to move up to something big. But this need for reserve power is, in my opinion, largely imagined. Geez, the guy who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance had 28 hp and was riding TWO UP.

So Motus is going to come out with a direct injected, 1.6 liter, 160 hp V4 which looks great. But if they came out with half that engine 800 cc v-twin with 80 hp and got 65 mpg, I'd say someone built a bike for me. I read about people getting half that economy and it just seems like a waste of money and natural resources.

   I've been on both ends of the spectrum but I'm always drawn back to the "smaller" bikes  

[falconati]

Agree.  I'd like less fuel consumption, please!  I have my race bike for when I want to burn fuel.