Speed Four, Honda Hornet or...?

[Baryonyx]

That does look fking mint. The Speed Four is by no means out of the running.

[Jazoli]

Buy the Hornet, you won't regret it, £2k will get you one of the best, it will hold its value, be very easy to sell when you move up, will be smooth, start first time, have no silly things needed for maintenance and will be 100% reliable, the Triumph will do some of those things but not all.

The Triumph looks ok but I don't think clip ons work on naked bikes.

[Farky]

Another vote for the Hornet from me :-)
I bought a T plate used one the day i passed my test in 1999, bought it with 4k miles on it, used it every single day no matter the weather, sold it for a gsxr600 srad which i promptly traded in for a brand new hornet in 2001!!!
Absolutely love them, great handling, great engine, great looks, ste tank range tho like has been mentioned.
Seen a bike courier in edinburgh on my first T plate one about 3 yrs ago and the mileage was at 94k!!!!

[MotorsportTom]

Jazoli said:

Buy the Hornet, will be smooth, start first time, have no silly things needed for maintenance and will be 100% reliable, the Triumph will do some of those things but not all.

I have no direct experience of either bike but the above is exactly why you shouldn't buy the hornet. I've heard many great things about them but really they're just a Honda.
They do everything but nothing spectacularly well.

Riding a friends daytona 595 was an event. It didn't like starting, it didn't idle properly it burnt oil among many other things.
yet I fell totally in love it with.

For me I'd pick the triumph purely because it's less common. I bet you a million pounds if you do get the trumpet you'll look back at it and smile every time you park it.

They made some cracking looking bikes in that era imo.

[Rubin215]

Triumph for me.

Based on the TT, so everything is sportsbike level; brakes, suspension, handling, performance are all superior to the Hornet.

The Hornet is a nice bike, but the emphasis is on "nice".
It's the "smart but casual" Clarks shoes option your mum always bought you instead of the Nikes you really wanted.

Just do it...

[Mastodon2]

MotorsportTom said:

Riding a friends daytona 595 was an event. It didn't like starting, it didn't idle properly it burnt oil among many other things.
yet I fell totally in love it with.

Sounds like it would be a fking pain in the arse to own, like on the days when you want a bike that starts when you want it to, idles smoothly and doesn't burn oil.

[MotorsportTom]

Mastodon2 said:

Sounds like it would be a fking pain in the arse to own, like on the days when you want a bike that starts when you want it to, idles smoothly and doesn't burn oil.

Completely agree.

I had it for a weekend and the idling and oil burning was a worry. However get it moving and I couldn't stop smiling and where ever I parked it I just kept looking at it for 5 minutes before I got on and after I got off.

I'd happily have one although perhaps in a slightly better fettle.

What I'm trying to say is character is better than bland. Get breakdown cover job jobbed, worst case you have a good anecdote for the future.

[stang65]

Baryonyx said:

I know the 900 represents better value but if I were starting on a bike of that sort of engine capacity, I'd go for an older Speed Triple. I could do with more riding experience before getting something that quick, so I'll build up to a bigger bike in due course.

Sorry, but you're missing the point a bit. I've ridden 600s at fast enough speeds to get into trouble, so whether it's a 600 or a 900 it's up to you whether you're going to over do it. The top end power of the 900 isn't a huge amount more than the 600 but the power delivery is vastly different. Don't forget that your thinking about naked bikes so there is a natural speed limiter anyway. A Speed Triple is harder to ride and definitely more expensive. The 900 is actually easier to ride than the 600 as it has decent low down power and good mid-range. As per my earlier post there is no downside to the 900 other than insurance costs. 900s are cheap as the press at the time slated it for not being a super naked as they wanted the 'blades full 128hp. However, it's far better as an all rounder in the real world for being what it is. A Honda dealer told me that they couldn't sell the 900s new when the magazines were testing them, but once they'd been discontinued they couldn't get enough of them.

As to those who want something "more interesting" like wondering whether it will start or idle....that's what second bikes are for! I also have a Ducati but if I definitely want to get somewhere (and especially if I don't want to feel broken when I get there) which do you think I take? I still think the Hornet is one of the best looking nakeds anyway, without too much messy wiring, plumbing or black plastic on display.