Hitchcocks Forum

Well no , we know that will never be, but I do sometimes wonder knowing how well Triumphs are engineered and other makes, how the Enfield may have turned out if instead of being made in India they were built back in the UK with the re-engineering that made Triumphs so popular they are now. The Enfield is a typically a classic British design of what a motorcycle should look like, and that is exactly what Triumph did by recreating the Bonneville , it couldn't look more British and it has the quality engineering that wouldn't go amiss on the Enfield. If the tank badges were taken off and stood side by side a stranger to bikes might say they were of the same make, but one just needing some re-engineering, one thing for sure is they keep the spanners from going rusty.

i thought Triumphs are built in Asia now?

They have a plant in Thailand, but all of the Bonny frame numbers I've seen still have a J in them instead of a T. T meaning Thailand and J for the Jacknell road (Hinckley) production line. Personally I'd opt for something produced on a newer DECENT production line abroad than something off a much older one here in the UK. At the beginning of the day with modern assembly production it's just down to who presses the start button and at the end of the day who presses the production line stop button, not where it's based. Thailand Quality Control is still overseen by a full complement of UK managers! If QC in Oragadam was anywhere near that of Triumphs Asian factory we'ed all end up with rusty spanners. Also if RE had a similar ECU to the Triumph, then with the aid of a laptop we could all write our own fuel and ignition performance maps (as is possible with the Bonny) without the expense of a power commander, just a patch lead to download the map from the laptop to the bike.

Royal Enfield is the only surviving direct descendant of the British motorcycle industry, thanks to India

I for one don't want to tinker with my motorcycle using a laptop, I just love riding my Bullet and solving it's issues with spanners, experience, intuition, luck and the advice offered by others. The modern Triumphs are not really different from most modern motorcycles albeit with a traditional British name and image. My Honda Varadero is every bit as useful as any Triumph at covering huge distances quickly and reliably whereas the Bullet is a unique experience in the world of motorcycling. If what is rumoured comes to pass we will soon be offered a modern, designed in England and manufactured by a push button factory Enfield to rival the modern stuff and the traditional Indian built Bullet will be consigned to history, all in the name of progress and profit. I'm with Chris on this one.
Ian

"The traditional Indian built Bullet will be consigned to history"

Looking at the current offering, unit construction,
Fuel injection, etc,I think this has already happened.

And if "we could all write our own fuel and ignition performance maps", wouldn't there be some problems for the experts here to sort out. And I'm sure the expertise would be there and would be as freely and generously offered.

RoSy writes 'The Enfield is a typically a classic British design of what a motorcycle should look like, and that is exactly what Triumph did by recreating the Bonneville'. Sorry, but the new Bonneville is a big, overweight lump and bears only a passing resemblance to the original machine, the late '60's export T120R being about the prettiest to my eyes at any rate. Just like the 'new' Mini, it doesn't hit the spot for me and is too big and fat. Similarly, R.E. have now gone down the same path, like it or not, we have to move with the times or fall by the wayside, the main difference being there has been continual production from day one from R.E., rather than someone buying a name and cashing in on that company's heritage by producing something with the same name and no real connections to the original whatsoever. Cheers, Paul.

Cashing in on heritage was a definite mistake. The bike will always be overshadowed by comparisons instead of acceptance for what it is and its capabilities. I buy my bikes for enjoyment, not what it says on the tank, what it looks like and certainly not on another's opinion. One of my bikes is a bit on the ugly side looking like a praying mantis on steroids and the enjoyment of ownership only starts after hitting the starter button. Totally different from my Enfield, but still able to fulfill my main criteria with ample headroom, and then some.

It’s a puzzle to me why the pros and cons of bikes are almost always only discussed in terms of what they look like! Rather than what they’re like to ride. It seems odd that the only characteristic of the bike the rider is oblivious to when we’re riding is ‘what it looks like’. It’s equally odd to buy a bike based on what may impress passers-by – the only ones to see ‘what it looks like’ when we’re actually using the things! There are plenty of examples of bikes that look good but provide a poor riding experience and some that give a great riding experience but fail in the ‘looks’ department!