New Triumph 850 triple so weak?

[Salish900]

Killing some time tonight I found myself on the Triumph website and see they are trotting out a new Tiger 850 triple with an 888 cc engine that only makes 84 HP and 60 lbs torque. Seriously? Our 900's make 115hp and 65. Why would Triumph put out such a weak triple to compete? Guess there are good reasons why we love our 900's so much. 

[HGP61]

4 hours ago, Salish900 said:

Why would Triumph put out such a weak triple to compete?

In the UK their are different classes of motorbike licence,  if you only hold an A2 licence you are limited to the power that the bike produces. This Triumph can be restricted in its power output to suit the requirements of the restricted licence. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by HGP61

[Salish900]

I've known that Europe has this sort of system, or at least the UK, but it hasn't kept Triumph from making fast bikes. It's just curious that they promote this bike the way they do, and even the larger sibling, and both of them fall well short of the Yamaha 900 in HP and torque. Hard to imagine these big and expensive Triumph bikes are just for beginners or novices. 

Funny story: I'm an MSF rider coach and had a student a while back who came in with full leathers and a top shelf helmet and $500 boots and when asked, he said he rode in on a friend's Honda 500 or something, had never ridden before, and was leaving after class to pick up his brand new Ducati Panigale! Through the class, my partner and I coached him and coached him and by the end of the class, he knew he'd made a bad choice without us ever telling him that. He emailed us later to say he took delivery but then sold the Panigale. He's probably alive today because of it. 

 

 

[betoney]

14 minutes ago, Salish900 said:

Funny story: I'm an MSF rider coach and had a student a while back who came in with full leathers and a top shelf helmet and $500 boots and when asked, he said he rode in on a friend's Honda 500 or something, had never ridden before, and was leaving after class to pick up his brand new Ducati Panigale!

Since when is the Panigale NOT considered a perfect beginners bike? 🤷‍♀️  😄

[pilninggas]

Regarding the weak 850, Triumph's model differs slightly from the Japs. Whilst they release multiple models with the same powerplant but with different target market (think MT09, Street Tracker, XSR9), Triumph do a thing where they make a base model with lower spec kit and reduced power output, a middle model (maybe with cruise etc) and a top model with most power and the most exotic cycle parts. They sell the cheapest one as a 'loss leader' (although it isnt, but does allow a low RRP to be advertised) and to entice to the dealership.

I actually think the low power 850 makes loads of sense as it comes in just below £10k which is a physiological barrier for many people price wise - given how skint people are due to the pandemic it makes lots of sense. I really like it -  a lot of more expensive Triumphs are too chinzy. Sadly they are poorly made. A good friend of mine was a Triumph aficionado, but had a Tiger 800 [2014] that had a rusty chassi and wouldnt start and then a 1200 Explorer [2018] which blew it's clutch - he wont touch them now.

The lower power/low cost model goes back a long way in the UK. My car is the gutless, low spec version and cost very little compared to the better speced model.

[keithu]

26 minutes ago, pilninggas said:

They sell the cheapest one as a 'loss leader' (although it isnt, but does allow a low RRP to be advertised) and to entice to the dealership.

 

They may not be losing money on the Tiger 850 but it's certainly less profitable. The Tiger 850 costs about the same to manufacture as the 900, minus perhaps some extra supplier cost for the 900s better suspension and brakes. 

BMW used to sell a R850 alongside the R1100. They were the same bike except for bore size and power output. In fact the R850 was slightly heavier than the R1100 due to the thicker cylinder walls. People lamented when they dropped the 850, but a BMW engineer told me the 850 and 1100 cost exactly the same to manufacture, so the R850 didn't make business sense because they had to sell it cheaper. 

If the Tiger 850 is profitable for Triumph, that tells me the brakes and suspension are probably crap. Like, OEM FJ-09 suspension crap.

[pilninggas]

3 minutes ago, keithu said:

They may not be losing money on the Tiger 850 but it's certainly less profitable. The Tiger 850 costs about the same to manufacture as the 900, minus perhaps some extra supplier cost for the 900s better suspension and brakes. 

BMW used to sell a R850 alongside the R1100. They were the same bike except for bore size and power output. In fact the R850 was slightly heavier than the R1100 due to the thicker cylinder walls. People lamented when they dropped the 850, but a BMW engineer told me the 850 and 1100 cost exactly the same to manufacture, so the R850 didn't make business sense because they had to sell it cheaper. 

If the Tiger 850 is profitable for Triumph, that tells me the brakes and suspension are probably crap. Like, OEM FJ-09 suspension crap.

Agree. They do save quite a bit on keeping the same tooling and on probably close to zero R&D with the 850, so any reduction in profitability due to the higher manufacturing %age may be offset by reduction in set-up costs.

I'm sure the brakes will be poor compared to the premium model, but will be satisfactory in isolation. They also brought out the Trident 660, which is a in a similar vein, and a similar low price point (£7300), so this appears to be part of their strategy for the time being.

 

[Salish900]

Interesting business analysis to read, which is clearly the name of the game for manufacturers. I'm just stuck on how similar bikes can seem in displacement and appearance and even engine type (2,3,4, etc) and yet have wildly different performance characteristics. If you set my Tracer 900 next to one of these Tigers, you think, "Ok, two bikes quite similar in seeming purpose and appearance, which would I rather see in my garage?". But you start them up and throw a leg over and it's not even a contest. 

As for Triumph, I confess to often liking their designs, at least of the Tiger models, but am unlikely to ever buy one because of similar issues to my Aprilia. Very little dealer support here in the PNW, fewer owners and cheap parts, and worse reliability. I'm in the "never want to be broken down on the side of the road" family of motorcycle riders. 

[daboo]

Rider magazine said this in their first looks article:

Quote

Powering the 850 Sport is the exciting 888cc in-line triple-cylinder engine, featuring the T-plane crank design and 1-3-2 firing order, which is said to improve tractability at lower rpms. The crucial difference between the 850 and 900 variants is its model-specific fuel tuning, which reduces claimed peak horsepower to 84 at 8,500 rpm and peak torque to 60.5 lb-ft at 6,500 rpm. This dedicated tune promotes a more progressive power delivery, and importantly, reaches its peak performance figures noticeably lower in the rpm range. By comparison, Tiger 900 models claim to produce 93.9 horsepower at 8,750 rpm and 64 lb-ft of torque at 7,250 rpm.

So that's the base model to get you in the door, and then you'll look at that and the difference to get into the Tiger 900 and decide to move up instead.

Still, we get rather jaded about horsepower "needs" or what is "acceptable".  One of my early cars was a 66 VW Beetle.  I think it put out 50 hp.  That 50 hp took my new wife and I from Washington to Colorado with all our worldly possessions in it, and up Pikes Peak.  Not bad for pushing along a 1900 lb vehicle. 

Chris

[Salish900]

@dabooI read that too. Hard to see they would sell enough of the 850 to justify using it as bait for the 900, which is still relatively low powered. I agree on HP though. I traded my Connie for the 900 because I found I could so very, very rarely enjoy the extra power of the bike. Where the 900 feels like I can use a lot of the power more often. As they saying goes, it is way more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow. 

As for power, my first test on the 900 was to see if I could get off the line fast enough? Check. Then could I be going 60 and get to 90 fast enough? Check. My first bike was a Versys 650, which though a fine bike, was just too slow and weak, especially up in higher gears. The 900 is a sweet spot for me, and it's hard to imagine going with less power unless I went all in for something just so cool to throw a leg over like a Guzzi. 

[daboo]

I've noticed something that I haven't done a lot of actual comparisons, but it is more of a general observation.  Horsepower totals might be different among different vehicles, but in the power range most people are using in daily life, it isn't much different.  

In other words, like in the case of the Tiger 855 and the 900, I think the horsepower in the 3000-6000 rpm range might be very close and that it would be only at the higher rpms that the difference would be more significant.

Chris

[betoney]

1 hour ago, daboo said:

I've noticed something that I haven't done a lot of actual comparisons, but it is more of a general observation.  Horsepower totals might be different among different vehicles, but in the power range most people are using in daily life, it isn't much different.  

In other words, like in the case of the Tiger 855 and the 900, I think the horsepower in the 3000-6000 rpm range might be very close and that it would be only at the higher rpms that the difference would be more significant.

Chris

Very true.  Spec sheet numbers might say one thing but real world riding might provide a completely different experience.