[qheuie]

i met up with some new friends today for a ride and one girl has a 2000 triumph 955i with a "non-stock" triumph can. all i can say is that the 3 cylinder engine with that exhaust sounds awesome. hearing that thing pur was almost as much fun as actually riding. AND it is pretty cool to meet a girl that is really into riding as much as she is.
just sharing

q

 

[Tom Bozeman]

Man, I sure hope Triple hasn't seen this post. Should we hide it? We all know how bad he wants that 955i. Tom

 

[Triple]

Hey, was the girl attractive? A hot chick riding a Triumph Daytona-- I think that would have been a sensory overload for me.

The 2000-01 style Daytona was okay, but it's the 2002 that's got me hooked. About 20 more hp, about 20 fewer pounds, and tons better looking. Both 955cc engines have a very similar three-cylinder howl, though. The 2000's have more of an exhaust roar, and the 2002's have more of an induction roar, but both sound absolutely bad as hell. The sound alone is addictive, let alone riding the thing.

I'll have one... the day is nearing, I can feel it...

 

[KawMan]

You forgot about the Speed Triple! Its waht would happen if a ZR-7 and a 955i had kids!

Are you listening Kawasaki?

 

[treestman]

The 2000-01 style Daytona was okay, but it's the 2002 that's got me hooked. About 20 more hp, about 20 fewer pounds, and tons better looking.

A friend at work who owns a 2000 calls the 2002 the Japanization of Triumph. They pulled power from the low- and mid-range to add 20 horses on top. They cheapened it to lose 20 pounds. And what did they get? A lousy .18 increase in the quarter-mile, at a 2 lousy mph increase. It is now in the middle of the pack for litre bikes. And why did they do this? Because all the sport rags criticized them for being near the bottom of the pack.

I just don't get it. Nobody who knew the feel of a 2001 would ever get off the new one and claim "it feels about .18 seconds and 2mph faster." I mean, it takes radar and hyper-accurate stop watches to see that stuff. However, I've got to think any rider accustomed to the feel of the 2001 would notice the power they stole at the bottom. You know, the stuff you use every day.

Oh well, I still think it's a gorgeous bike. And if you buy one, I'll still be jealous.

 

[Triple]

Damn it! Wouldn't you know it, I just finished writing this huge response, and something on my server screws up and wipes out the entire post. Grrrr... ... anyway...

treestman, you really have to be careful of your sources regarding the new Daytona. Most of the negative reviews you'll find involve the 955i prior to Triumph's exhaust and fuel injection mapping updates. You'll find that most of these reviews were actually from European publications, since they got to test the bike first. Most of the test riders that reviewed the bike after the bike had been remapped and given its new exhaust, much of the throttle delay had been cleared up and the performance of the bike had been transformed.

You have to understand that taking some of the bike's power away in the lower rev range is not really the reason for its less than slight performance advantage over the previous 2001 model. The '02 Daytona, despite all the extra horsepower and all the lost weight, turned such mediocre times because of this terrible throttle abruptness. Riders would lose precious tenths just waiting for the gas to kick back in after an upshift, and when power did return, it would do so with force that unsettled the whole bike. Those who tested the bike after it had received its updates, however, (Sport Rider, Cycle World, and several on-line articles) all stated that the glitch in the fueling had been mostly taken care of, and all reported that the extra ponies were more than apparent in comparison to the older 2000's and 2001's.

The best quarter mile time I've seen for the new Daytona, post-remap, was 10.31 seconds, pretty much matching YFZ-R1 straight-line performance. If I still had the link, I'd post it, but I lost all of my saved on-line Daytona articles when our computer crashed last month :mecry:. There's no doubt about it, the Daytona is a middle of the road liter-bike, and by no means a world-beater, but it's also hard to deny that it's still one hell of a runner. Do some further research and you'll find that the big Trumpet can match the GSX-R1000 to 60 mph, and outrun every liter-bike except the Suzuki to 120 mph, turning a time just a hair over 9 seconds. All four Japanese open classers will walk away from the 955i in the top end (not by a huge margin, but enough), and all but the ZX-9R are also better track machines.

Point is, after all of this post, is that the new Daytona is a better bike than its predecessor, and that its performance advantage is-- now, anyway-- significant.

And hey, you mentioned the bike's biggest plus at the end of your post-- "I still think it's a gorgeous bike." No doubt about that. If I was bent on performance alone, I wouldn't be pining after the Daytona.

 

[treestman]

Triple, I read the same sources as you did on the 955i. In fact, the review I referred to loved the extra power, very much approved of the changes, and was impressed with the bike.

I still say it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to actually notice the difference in the top end. Not with the small differences I noted. Without a radar gun, a test track, and a accurate-to-one-hundredths-of-a-second stopwatch, the difference simply can't be noticed.

By the way, this applies to the differences among all the top bikes. When about one-third of one second separates the top half-dozen bikes, I don't care if you wear a cape and have a big "S" on your chest, you simply can't notice the difference. It's bragging rights, that's all. It's marketing. And it works. Especially in the USA, where we generally buy motorcyles like we buy cars. The bike's gotta do a quarter-mile in 10-something or it's useless, even though we'll never use that capability (in fact, probably 95% of the owners lack the skill to ever get a 10-something quarter out of it). And our "car" (SUV) has gotta be able to seat eight or nine people or hold a small house or it's uselss, even though we may not even know nine people.

OK, I'm done ranting. And keep in mind I love the fact that in the USA we have all those choices, especially because gas is so cheap. I could care less what anyone chooses to drive. It's their choice.

I still love the 955i because it's gorgeous, and doesn't look like all the other sportbikes. I love it a little less now because it's even more sport bike and less commuter/tourer, but I love it anyway.

 

[Triple]

Well, for the most part, I do have to agree with you that you probably can't feel any real difference between all the top bikes when ridden on the street. Ride any one of them hard, and the limitations of your average public road will make them all feel like the same machine. It is a different matter when they are ridden on the track, however, when a bike's capabilities can actually be maxed. For one example, think of having all the bikes on a dragstrip. When you exit the quarter mile at speeds above 120 mph, every tenth of a second counts for about two bike lengths. So compare the 10.1 second quarter of the GSX-R1000 to a the 10.85 of a 2001 Daytona, and you can see how visually apparent the advantage the Suzuki has is.

But street wise, I'd say that just about all liter-bikes will hang pretty easily with one another, and all middle-weights would hang with one another. I wouldn't guess the 600 class could keep pace with the big bikes everywhere on the street, just because they can't match their roll-on performance.

And also, even though it is on its way to becoming a more focussed sportbike, I think it would still be plenty effective as a sport-touring mount. When I took the bike out for a test ride, I thought it was still pretty comfortable. Especially if you're a tall guy, then the bike would be even better for you (I'm not so tall). When I finally get the bike for myself, I'm already planning a trip to Colorado aboard it (and I live in Michigan).

 

[treestman]

Triple, fair enough.

However, I would say that even on the track, without professional riders, radar, and stop watches, the differences aren't noticable. I've read reviews with comments from the riders, when looking at the hard data, expressing surprise at what they see. Comments like "I'm surpirised I did the best lap on the (bike model here)..." tell me that even they aren't aware of what the "fastest" or "best" is, and that their impressions don't necessarily jibe with the measured data.

Take lots of pictures on your ride to CO, I want to see them all.

Also, did you see the picture of the '02 955i in December's Cycle World? It's kind of a deep Forest Green color that I think is beautiful. Damn, that's a good-looking bike.

 

[Triple]

Oh, yes, I saw the British Racing Green 955i. It's pretty hot looking-- but...

I've heard the same rumor regarding it from several reputable sources, that the bike is actually just a 2001 cloaked in 2002 bodywork. Obviously there's the single-sided swingarm as opposed to the 2002's conventional one. Anything else, I can't really tell. Just a rumor thus far, so I don't really know.

As awesome as that green is, though, it wouldn't be worth the extra $$$ to me. I've got a dealer in Tennessee willing to sell me a silver '02 for $9279 right now. It couldn't really get much better for me-- the bike I love, two grand off retail, and a beautiful 700 mile ride home through the mountains. And then this whole lack of financing crap has to go and spoil everything.

 

[treestman]

$9279 is a good deal. I hope you can pull it off. Just remember to take those pix on the ride home.

You're right on the green 955i. I looked in the mag again and it's the single-sided arm, so it can't be an '02. Strange I didn't notice that. Of course, it doesn't help that they listed it under a banner of "Tweaks 2002!" with all the new '02 bikes.