Triumph Tiger Explorer

Thank Christ it carries enough fuel.

I was worried, let me tell you....!

:-)

Great review.

Love the shit stirring about shonky shafts..

ACHTUNG!
SPITFIRE!

Heh heh...

It could well be my next bike.

Kevin. Thank's for the comprehensive report - as usual I feel that I know what it will be like to ride and own.

Some questions

1. Is the clutch lever light and the bite easy to modulate?
2. Others report intrusive engine vibes. Any comment?
3. Is the rear shock up for heavy loads?
4. Others report front brake lag. Can it be modulated?
5 Were you commenting on the touring or standard screen?
6. Does the luggage destabilise the bike at high speed?
7. At low speed is the bike top heavy?
8. Did you calibrate the petrol pump that you used to fill the tank to the brim? Seriously, great you managed a brim to brim..........as it will reduce repetitive forum chatter.........well maybe.
8. Did you hear the arrows exhaust. Is it get on your nerves loud?

Did Triumph say why they ignored electronic suspension?

Thank's again Kevin

Wow! I want mine in blue!

Just a comment about the BMW charts at the beginning.

I can't quite see what the big deal is. The released bikes seem to be stronger low and mid-range which is what everybody wants on that kind of bike anyway isn't it? Difference seems to be very small as far as I can see from that chart too so maybe its just down to different bikes being tested? I read that PS can range from about 108 to 113 in different bikes.

RiC said: "don't tell the captain that the weights are false....."

Doh!

BMW gate. Actually this says more about modern bike journalists than it does about BMW. Present company excepted.

RiC said: "Surely the 'big deal'is that the test riders are reporting on a bike that forms customer views and it is not for customer sale? "

I don't think most bike journo's seem to be bothered to take the time to dissect a bike that well. Present company excepted. "it goes well" is all they seem to think we want to hear.

Well only thing I can say from those charts is that the triumph looks really good and a lot stronger. Can't see how anybody would notice a few PS + or - especially on a bike like that.

Ed said: "Can't see how anybody would notice a few PS + or - especially on a bike like that."

Well I was out yesterday and another 20 wouldn't have gone amiss. :-D

Yes I'd like 20 more too. I meant the BMW charts that showed at a rough guess +4PS near the top of the rev range. I don't think very many would ever notice that.

I was looking through the review once more and thinking about the GS performance graphs. For my personal style of riding, I figure I would prefer the superior low end torque of the customer bike to the higher high end performance of the press bike. But it opens a question for me: How reproducible are these curves from bike to bike? If one took two identical bikes right out of the show room and put them on a dyno, how similar would you expect the performance curves to be? I guess the Triumph guys are living their lives dangerously after this? If the journos on Motorrad magazine (or any other serious bike journal) are any good, they should now try to compare randomly chosen customer machines to the press release graph of the Triumph.

The impression this leaves by me: I think it is fair enough for Triumph to show the two different graphs and compare them to their own. But they have to be very careful not to oversell arguments like this. It could easily make the impression that the Triumph folks are rather immature and do not 100% believe in their own product. If you really do have a superior package (and it seems they do!) then you should not have to talk badly about the competing products. Leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth.

PowerPoints at dawn. Yep, it's a tad lame.

There's only one honourable way of settling differences between motorcycle manufacturers and that's a gladiatorial face-off in MotoGP. Not that these two would be able to get that suggestion past their armies of marketeers and management consultants…

Just checked my database and pulled the following performance figures - for those who care (like me).

Versys 1000 vs Tiger 1050:
Rwhp = 106.62 vs 101.99
Weight (no gas) = 225.0 vs 215.8 (don't shoot the messenger LOL)
Top Speed = 222.3 vs 224.3 km/h ( same as explorer)
90-130km/h = 3.762 vs 3.621 seconds
1/4 mile = 11.51 vs 11.23 seconds (don't have trap speed for both)

Conclusion:

This whole Adventure type segment now has a great variety of bikes available. Something for everyone. The Tiger 1050 still offers a convincing package for those wanting a sportier/lighter bike, with no off-road aspirations.

Triumph really has a great portfolio of bikes now - with more to come...

I think Rocca and MoDa both make excellent points. More measured than mine!

But what continues to make me a little suspicious is that it's not as though one curve follows the other, but just culminates in less power. The torque curve differences have a look about them suggesting a different map. Contrived to be within accepted percentage limits? At the end of the day, as MoDa says, Triumph had no need to lower themselves by pointing it out. Their bike stands very well on its own merits. What if someone cares to check their bikes and by coincidence the press bike develops another 6 or 7 HP, due to natural variance?

"Are the graph power figures PS?"
... yes they are - torque/power crossing around 7,100 indicates this.

"I can't quite see what the big deal is. The released bikes seem to be stronger low and mid-range which is what everybody wants on that kind of bike anyway isn't it?"
... to owners it doesn't matter, the easier to access power is to the advantage of most owners. However, if you've just stepped off a GSXR1000 and Panigale, at their respective launches say, and you got on a bike with 50 hp less and 100 kg more to lug about, you'll probably be using it's top end power to hunt for power that 'ordinarily' wouldn't be there on this type of machine.... unless someone retuned it for you, sacrificing (little used by many journalists) bottom end power for a little more exciting zing towards the top end of the available rev range. And that's precisely why it's naughty, because in theory, it means that the journalist were not evaluating what you can buy in a dealership. Lightly breathed on press bikes is no new thing, it was often rife in the 80's and there are many a tale in racing whereby manufacturers openly cheated (win on Sunday, sell on Monday) or so I've read. The shock is that in the last decade or more, manufacturers haven't felt the need to do this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, IMHO I think BMW's weight claims for the GS are a bare faced lie. And now it looks like the difference between press bikes and production bikes power delivery differs to. I think integrity is important, when you lie and are caught out, you've created trust issues of your own doing. It always makes me nervous handing over my money to people I don't fully trust. It's a bit like buying a Ducati with an 'imminent' delivery date. When the bike is sat in a showroom, right in front of you, to take some initial photo's, then you know you can take it home! The camera, dyno and weighing scales never lie! ;-D

Oh RIC said it all - git! ;-D

"It's unfortunate that Triumph decided to go down that ugly road"
... I agree that the charts are definitely naughty. Technically BMW started with the name-calling, but public spats rarely benefit either. This said, if it were me, I would simply of had a similar spec'd BMW available there and in front of all weighed (with full tanks!) both bikes, dyno'd them and compared prices of (similar/popular specs) bikes. I think this would show favorably for Triumph. It would be heavier, but I would highlight how much additional weight BMW would have to add to their existing design to make it liquid cooled; which we all know they are in the process of doing. But just as manufacturers point out their USP's like Triumph's cruise-control, reliability is hugely important to buyers of these (if not all) machines and if the class leader has questionable reliability in areas like fuel pumps and shaft drives, then I think it's perfectly good practice to say that we've identified serious recurring problems with our competitors that often leave riders stranded in their tracks, deterring them from repeat purchases and so we've worked hard to ensure ours are more robust than the competition affected by those faults. After all, if Triumph's reliability fails miserably, BMW has the option to tell the world about it, and in an open market free competition environment I say it's a good thing. I.e. Who benefits the most? We do, because not only does it raise awareness of the problems, but it also drives more R&D and proper design in those areas which can genuinely spoil ownership for ourselves.

"Is there room for an eXplorer eXtreme"
... we'd all be genuinely surprised if that's not available this time next year wouldn't we? Just as the hacks stole my 'tall-rounder' phrase and populated it around the world, I'd be surprised if Triumph's marketing men didn't nick your truly excellent 'eXplorer eXtreme' phrase! :-D They could even get Vin Diesel (XXX) to advertise it, whilst drinking four XXXX! ;-D

"'twas corporal Jones' line"
1-0 to you! I must be Pike (stupid boy!)

"Kevin didn't mention anything about vibrations"
... I haven't re-read it, but I think he did say above 75 mph they could be felt. I doubt they are intrusive though. Journo's often seem to talk about Triumph vibration higher up the rev range on the 1050's. But I had three and thought they were very smooth. I guess there's a clear difference between engaging rumble and annoying vibration, but sometimes the journalists don't always articulate what they mean well; which being a prerequisite of the job, is a bit of a shame really! ;-D

"Weight (no gas) = 225.0 vs 215.8 (don't shoot the messenger LOL)
... I have 228 and 239 (wet/full 21 and 20 litre tanks respectively). Once the 1050's are sold, they'll drop the model IMPO, even though in some ways it's quite different to the eXplorer. It's trouble is that it's nowhere near as sports as the KTM or Multistrada and not as practical or as comfortable as the shaft-drive adventure tourers. It always had a better engine than the GS, but it wasn't as comfortable/practical and didn't gel so well as a complete package - I owned both. It looks like the new bike firmly addresses that by tackling the GS head-on. It's only advantage is price point, but part of that is to ensure some pre-explorer-launch sales, before an increased decline of sales occurs.

"Triumph really has a great portfolio of bikes"
Bonneville, Street Triple, Speed Triple, Tiger 800, eXplorer... those particularly are class leaders IMHO, so still looking great for Triumph's continued sales success.

3pot, I hope your bike arrives soonest. It sounds like it was definitely a great decision to place your order so early! :-D

Let's look at the triumph graph. It is stated that the BMW figures are dyno measured RWP figures, (on the same dyno). I can't see anywhere where it says the triumph ones are also dyno measured.

Reading off the graph for the lower, showroom GS, the max power seems to be at least 105PS. That is 103HP. If that is a dyno figure, what should we extrapolate as the crank figure? I suggest 10% losses. So 114HP. BMW's website has the max rated power for the GS as 110HP. 

Doing the same for the torque. Off the graph at least 110Nm. That's 122Nm crank rated torque. BMW's website has the max rated torque as 120Nm. 

Have I got that right? If so, they're bringing to the showroom more than they claim.

If triumph's figures are crank figures, why are they comparing them to BMW dyno figures?

Who's kidding who?