Street Triple: R or no R...

Street Triple: R or no R...

Author
Discussion

Lugy

Original Poster:

830 posts

182 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
This seems like a good place to ask the question given the love for them in here....
Looking at chopping in my Thundercat for a Street Triple, started off looking at the earlier model, then the earlier 'R' and now I can't stop looking at the '13> R models.
Seems to be quite a decisive topic between the R and standard models. What's the consensus on here? My local dealer has a 13 plate R which I'd like to see on Friday if I can, just wondering whether it's worth the extra premium. My riding is mixed and currently all for pleasure though will be looking to commute when the situation allows.

Thanks in advance!

Ho Lee Kau

2,278 posts

124 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
Better brakes and better suspension on R.

I think that answers the question.

Jazoli

9,086 posts

249 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
I have an R, its a pain in the arse on bumpy roads but the handling and brakes are awesome, I'd rather have some adjustment in the suspension than none and I wouldn't want a non 'R' but that's personal preference, here's an idea, ride both and buy the one that suits you! smile

Lugy

Original Poster:

830 posts

182 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
Cheers, will hopefully at least get a shot of the R, I'll email them in the morning to see if the standard one is available to try against.


RemaL

24,967 posts

233 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
Simple answer. If money is not a issue the R. if it is then no R.

Klippie

3,096 posts

144 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
The suspension on both models are basic read cheap, a quality rear shock and re-valved front end solves all issues, not cheap but nothing good ever is.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
Klippie said:
The suspension on both models are basic read cheap, a quality rear shock and re-valved front end solves all issues, not cheap but nothing good ever is.
And your experience is? I hope he doesn't take any notice.

I've ridden every one including the latest 765RS.

Forget the standard one, whatever year you choose the R will be a hoot. When the exhaust dropped the bike as a whole lost some of its rawness, but they are all good. I like the no-nonsense simplicity and looks of the underseat exhaust bike. Whatever MCN says (Fireblade anyone?) I think the 765 is too sportsbike and has lost some of the versatility of the earlier bikes.
When you look at the cost versus ability argument, to me it comes down to whether you like the original round lights or the foxeye. If round then you've plenty of choice, if foxeye then it's a 2012 with underseat pipes or a 2013 on with low pipe.

I went with the 2012 foxeye as I think the underseat exhausts suit the kind of bike it is and the 2012 bike had a lot of the rough cosmetics of the earlier bike sorted out. The 2013 handles/performs marginally better but does it really matter? They are all good.

It isn't my only bike, so I don't need to big it up to feel better about myself. I do it because it is good. And there's nowt wrong with the suspension on the R, much as there wasn't with the non-R Daytona.

Lugy

Original Poster:

830 posts

182 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
Thinking more about this, it's probably more a case of early vs later R model!

I need to suss out whether it's worth the £1500-£2500 difference to have the newer bike.

Cheers for the input folks.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Wednesday 26th July 2017
quotequote all
[quote=Lugy]Thinking more about this, it's probably more a case of early vs later R model!

I need to suss out whether it's worth the £1500-£2500 difference to have the newer bike.

Cheers for the input folks.[/quote

So ride one of each then.
One thing I've realised after numerous test rides is that 45 minutes on some crap local road near the dealer is a waste of time, bar twigging if a certain type of bike ain't your cup of tea.
I always ask to take them home, have some lunch or at least a brew, then ride it back. That way you get to ride on roads you have experience of, can compare to whatever you are currently riding, and you get some time off the bike to focus your thoughts before riding it back. I near enough always get a different take from the return journey than the first ride. Usually the return ride is the one to take more notice of. And how you feel about the ride back on your own bike afterwards is often very telling.

10penceparalyzed

229 posts

123 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
OK slightly different bike but I have a speed triple, I went for the R version, because I got a good deal and for the extra I figured it will have better resale, bikers love the bling bits, as for the R being better on the road over a non R version, not under any normal or even spirited use would you notice the differance IMO. so basically it down to what you want and your budget!

Jazoli

9,086 posts

249 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
10penceparalyzed said:
OK slightly different bike but I have a speed triple, I went for the R version, because I got a good deal and for the extra I figured it will have better resale, bikers love the bling bits, as for the R being better on the road over a non R version, not under any normal or even spirited use would you notice the differance IMO. so basically it down to what you want and your budget!
Speed triple's whilst looking the same are quite different bikes, they are 40kg heavier and the engine is much lazier to rev, its like comparing a whippet to a labrador, speed wise there's nothing in it.

You will notice the difference on the road between the R and non R unless you are properly crap, the R is much firmer and has radial brakes that offer one finger stopping from any speed, the non R is a lot softer and more compliant, the brakes are perfectly adequate but they are not in the same league, both versions are brilliant bikes and you won't be disappointed whichever one you get.



Edited by Jazoli on Thursday 27th July 08:24

Lugy

Original Poster:

830 posts

182 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
Freddy Spencer I am not! I do also like shiny things (and gimmicks like a shift light!) however.
I wouldn't like to get something only to find a couple of months down the line it was too compromised to be used daily and for long distance, sounds like this isn't the case here and that the adjustable suspension is of benefit in more ways than going fast from what I gather.

tjlazer

875 posts

173 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
I bought a standard street triple last year, brand new as they were throwing in the arrow exhaust and a huge number of extras. I thought I'd be fine with it but frankly the brakes are 'adequate' and the shock is non-adjustable. I've now swapped out the forks, brakes and shock and other bits to make it a full fat 'R' and have just bought the ohlins shock (from the daytona R) to go on the rear. The R setup is a lot quicker to turn and more planted at speed than the standard and frankly the brakes are well worth the extra cash (2 fingers vs 4 and better feel). If I were you I'd skip my journey to realisation and buy the R to start with!

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
Genuine questions... I've not ridden one. It's an Ohlins rear shock on the "R" isn't it? Beyond the performance advantages, aren't they simply "better"?

Not the same bike, but I remember taking out a BMW R1100 S with an Ohlins rear shock and it was just hugely better than the Showa ones I have had. I understand set up is a factor, but it was hugely more comfortable and competent over the bumps, not just when riding like an escaped mental patient.

Same as I have "big piston" Showas on the front of my Suzuki, they're reportably better on the limit than the boggo Showas on previous models, but to me they feel better everywhere. A mere mortal like me still feels the benefit of better suspension, at least in those two examples...

I'm increasingly skeptical of this "you'll never notice the difference" thing, people use to justify more basic models.



sjtscott

4,215 posts

230 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
Jazoli said:
10penceparalyzed said:
OK slightly different bike but I have a speed triple, I went for the R version, because I got a good deal and for the extra I figured it will have better resale, bikers love the bling bits, as for the R being better on the road over a non R version, not under any normal or even spirited use would you notice the differance IMO. so basically it down to what you want and your budget!
Speed triple's whilst looking the same are quite different bikes, they are 40kg heavier and the engine is much lazier to rev, its like comparing a whippet to a labrador, speed wise there's nothing in it.

You will notice the difference on the road between the R and non R unless you are properly crap, the R is much firmer and has radial brakes that offer one finger stopping from any speed, the non R is a lot softer and more compliant, the brakes are perfectly adequate but they are not in the same league, both versions are brilliant bikes and you won't be disappointed whichever one you get.



Edited by Jazoli on Thursday 27th July 08:24
Having test ridden 2007 Street, 2014 Street R, 2009 Speed and now own 2011 Speed.
For me the first model street was overall better save for the poor suspension and brakes, demo had low boy, loved the engine and sound - clearly limitations of brakes, suspension addressed in part by making the original R - in that respect the earlier R makes sense. The 2014 Street R I rode really wasn't that good, the Suspension was solid/too firm and I'm not a small chap - no issues with the brakes. Bringing me to my second point overall the street is that little bit too small for me, I got bad back pain after just an hour riding the first street.
The speed fits me better, whilst I really like the 675 engine when comparing it to my old sports 600s. I personally prefer the overall fat torque of the 1050, they are totally different engines and have to be ridden differently - its doesn't rev for a reason it on the border of max piston speed so the engine is basically at its limit just under 10k revs for longevity. 1050 Triple is effortless and for me the perfect public road engine - again each to their own.
I've yet to try the new 765 Street and Speed but will do at some point and its likely to cost me some money again smile

Pravus1

235 posts

105 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
I'd say it's worth it for the brakes alone. Swap out some springs and fiddle the settings and I'm sure you'd have a much plusher better controlled ride on the R than the non r.

I preferred the speed r over the 2 but the new speed r's suspension is the best I've ever ridden. Incredibly plush and controlled and combined with that torque from that engine it's an amazing road bike.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
For someone that has a basic 'Bandit' type bike then the standard Street Triple may well give them a semi-lob on.
But please give up on this, it's crap, the R is a massively better bike in every respect.

As to the Ohlins, a rear shock is now on the current 765RS only. All previous versions are Showa/KYB.
As standard with no fiddling, I found the current RS way too hard on the roads I use. I have previously had Ohlins suspension on my current car (Evo). That came off for some Bilsteins. On track different story, but on the road, bike or car, I think Ohlins etc are mostly bling and may even slow you down compared to decent standard stuff (eg Showa BFF or BPF).

Ohlins equals pub kudos points, on the whole, and little else for most people.
The standard stuff on decent bikes is now way better than it used to be.

Edited by cmaguire on Thursday 27th July 09:39

tjlazer

875 posts

173 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
See my post above, the only triumph onlins shock is for the Daytona R but a 2012+ unit fits all 2013+ street triples. The R shock is just a basic adjustable unit, widely dismissed as crap but in practice good enough for general use and easily changed when funds allow.

Klippie

3,096 posts

144 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
And your experience is? I hope he doesn't take any notice.
I've been running Triumph 675's since 2006, my current 675 STR has a bespoke Maxton rear shock and Maxton re-valved front end.

Lugy - The difference between the stock set-up and properly damped/sprung suspension is night and day all the harshness is removed, it does cost a bit of money it's worth doing though as it makes the bike even better to ride.

As has been said already getting an R is worth it for the better spec brakes.


cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Thursday 27th July 2017
quotequote all
Klippie said:
I've been running Triumph 675's since 2006, my current 675 STR has a bespoke Maxton rear shock and Maxton re-valved front end.

Lugy - The difference between the stock set-up and properly damped/sprung suspension is night and day all the harshness is removed, it does cost a bit of money it's worth doing though as it makes the bike even better to ride.

As has been said already getting an R is worth it for the better spec brakes.
Fair enough, I doubt we'll agree then. I had a Maxton shock on an R1, again too harsh for the road.
The standard R suspension is decent enough, you can use all the rear tyre without issue, and I've not experienced this magic carpet ride that Ohlins etc are supposed to give on anything other than smooth roads.
A revalve/weighted spring of the standard shock by someone like MCT has proved best in my experience. Bar putting some decent oil in, most forks (especially BPF/BFF) only need adjusters tweeking to suit as they are good anyway, the shock is nearly always the problem.