Street Triple: R or no R...
Discussion
cmaguire said:
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.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.
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.
If the standard trumpet isnt adjustable that would put me off. You can buy kits to sort this and still get a revalve but is it worth it? My bike has Ohlins and is an equivalent 'R' version. Ive not needed to get it revalved as the manual with some riding about has been able to get a decent enough road setting and I dont typically run it on track. If you can get the sag right for you with standard springs the rest is pretty easy
That all being said if it were me and my money I would have the R. Decent radial brakes, nice brand suspension etc is always a plus. Repeat hard braking and fade is not nice!
I think I'm pretty qualified for this, own 2 daytona's, owned a street R and used to steal my dads before he fitted the f
king ohlins on to it.
Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are st, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.
I bought an R on the back of this and fking hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads.
I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the fking thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse.
I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
king ohlins on to it. Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are s
t, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.I bought an R on the back of this and f
king hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads. I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the f
king thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse. I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
moanthebairns said:
I think I'm pretty qualified for this, own 2 daytona's, owned a street R and used to steal my dads before he fitted the fking ohlins on to it.
Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are st, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.
I bought an R on the back of this and fking hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads.
I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the fking thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse.
I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
I don't get it, adjusted to comfort (or 11 clicks I find best) the R suspension is just as comfy as the standard but more planted! You did adjust it right? You might just be too light. Eat more pies.king ohlins on to it. Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are s
t, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.I bought an R on the back of this and f
king hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads. I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the f
king thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse. I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
tjlazer said:
I don't get it, adjusted to comfort (or 11 clicks I find best) the R suspension is just as comfy as the standard but more planted! You did adjust it right? You might just be too light. Eat more pies.
On my 12 STR there was actually too much rear sag to start at 40mm so I added some preload to give 35mm. Other than that I've raised the forks through the yokes by 4mm and set all the adjusters to the Triumph comfort settings (-2 on everything from standard).I'm 80-85KG in kit and there are some s
t roads here. I tried sports setting (+2 etc) but it was too harsh.Who wants a bike with no flexibility to adjust anything AND sliding calipers?
Interesting this. I had an R on a 2009 several years ago when it was practically new. Sadly I only kept it 6 months despite me lusting after one for nearly 2 years previously. On the test ride, the road was smooth and twisty and R vs non R, the R was the better buy. Unfortunately most of the roads in Yorkshire are st. The R was hard and I found that the slightest bump would upset it and it affected my confidence with it.
I sold it 6 months later for a KTM super moto and have stuck to that type of bike ever since.
Strangely enough I haven't ruled out another Street Triple and would get the old frog eyed version if I could get the ride a lot softer. Much prefer the lines on the original one.
t. The R was hard and I found that the slightest bump would upset it and it affected my confidence with it. I sold it 6 months later for a KTM super moto and have stuck to that type of bike ever since.
Strangely enough I haven't ruled out another Street Triple and would get the old frog eyed version if I could get the ride a lot softer. Much prefer the lines on the original one.
moanthebairns said:
I think I'm pretty qualified for this, own 2 daytona's, owned a street R and used to steal my dads before he fitted the fking ohlins on to it.
Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are st, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.
I bought an R on the back of this and fking hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads.
I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the fking thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse.
I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
You obviously have a medical condition.king ohlins on to it. Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are s
t, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.I bought an R on the back of this and f
king hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads. I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the f
king thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse. I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
Alternatively, you sit straight up on the bike (like on a chopper), very stiff, and grab the handles with stretched out arms.
Klippie said:
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.
2. It costs a bit of money.
Well, DOH!
We are talking here about STOCK bikes. And on 675R the suspension (adjustable!) is more than good enough for roads (I am 105kg suited up).
My 2c, after riding Street Triples and Speed Triples R (old and new version):
Speed Triple is more roomy for bigger guys
Speed Triple feels like a guy's bike
Speed Triple has really torque-rich engine
Speed Triple is a great weekend hooligan, fantastic bike, I love it!
I'd take the latest Speed Triple over anything but Tuono 1100R, despite the "lack" of power on Speed Triple.
BUT, Speed Triple, as I would like it, needs a bit of investment into bling-bling, like Arrow exhausts, quickshifter, heated grips etc and the cost spirals very quickly, it is really not a cheap bike at the end of it.
Street Triple R is very lithe, very light and very agile. On that bike you will cut through corners like a hot knife through butter. Amazing piece of machinery, the best naked in 600-800 class, imho. Haven't tried the 765 but hopefully will soon, pretty sure I will be impressed.
Street Triple does not have the masculinity of the Speed Triple, that's for sure (maybe it is much higher weight of Speed).
Personally, if naked Triumph, I'd go for Speed Triple S/R. BUT, I bought Daytona 675 after trying Street Triple R.
Speed Triple is more roomy for bigger guys
Speed Triple feels like a guy's bike
Speed Triple has really torque-rich engine
Speed Triple is a great weekend hooligan, fantastic bike, I love it!
I'd take the latest Speed Triple over anything but Tuono 1100R, despite the "lack" of power on Speed Triple.
BUT, Speed Triple, as I would like it, needs a bit of investment into bling-bling, like Arrow exhausts, quickshifter, heated grips etc and the cost spirals very quickly, it is really not a cheap bike at the end of it.
Street Triple R is very lithe, very light and very agile. On that bike you will cut through corners like a hot knife through butter. Amazing piece of machinery, the best naked in 600-800 class, imho. Haven't tried the 765 but hopefully will soon, pretty sure I will be impressed.
Street Triple does not have the masculinity of the Speed Triple, that's for sure (maybe it is much higher weight of Speed).
Personally, if naked Triumph, I'd go for Speed Triple S/R. BUT, I bought Daytona 675 after trying Street Triple R.
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Thursday 27th July 18:12
Ho Lee Kau said:
moanthebairns said:
I think I'm pretty qualified for this, own 2 daytona's, owned a street R and used to steal my dads before he fitted the fking ohlins on to it.
Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are st, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.
I bought an R on the back of this and fking hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads.
I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the fking thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse.
I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
You obviously have a medical condition.king ohlins on to it. Hands down the street triple standard was the easiest bike I have ever ridden as standard. The suspension was spot on for me being so light (they are setup for a lighter rider apparently). The brakes, well, they are s
t, I'll be honest, but not brutal. On the road, you can get away with them easily.I bought an R on the back of this and f
king hated it. It killed me everytime I went over a bump. I fked and fked about with it, I did like it, but it was hellish over the bumpy roads. I am tempted to steal my dads street every once and a while, but then I remember he bought a shinny new ohlins rear shocked, fitted the thing and never once has changed the sag, compression or rebound. I simply cant ride the f
king thing as its ridiculously stiff at the arse. I'd personally just get the standard. I wish I did. Yes the R has better suspension, might be more focused but for the road and purely the road the standard was the best compromise overall I felt.
Alternatively, you sit straight up on the bike (like on a chopper), very stiff, and grab the handles with stretched out arms.
I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
moanthebairns said:
I'm ten stone..... My riding style isnt the question.
I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
Strange that as I'm not massively heavier than you and I added a little preload and think the R (pre 765) is pretty decent all round on the road.I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
My GSXR on the other hand (both the current 750 and the 1000R) are way too stiff at the back (7mm static sag both, what's that all about?). After 100 miles on the 1000 I suddenly get bad lower back pain (this didn't happen on the 750) and every jarring bump is bloody painful. I'm going to do what I can with setup but I expect it'll be new spring and revalve like the 750. I don't get the Japs and sportsbikes. They all weigh about 10KG (the Japs rather than the bikes) yet they set the bikes up for fat f
kers. Or rider and pillion, yet who the hell would ever want a pillion on one, and on the rare occasion you did then you'd accept it being soggier for it being right without.cmaguire said:
moanthebairns said:
I'm ten stone..... My riding style isnt the question.
I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
Strange that as I'm not massively heavier than you and I added a little preload and think the R (pre 765) is pretty decent all round on the road.I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
My GSXR on the other hand (both the current 750 and the 1000R) are way too stiff at the back (7mm static sag both, what's that all about?). After 100 miles on the 1000 I suddenly get bad lower back pain (this didn't happen on the 750) and every jarring bump is bloody painful. I'm going to do what I can with setup but I expect it'll be new spring and revalve like the 750. I don't get the Japs and sportsbikes. They all weigh about 10KG (the Japs rather than the bikes) yet they set the bikes up for fat f
kers. Or rider and pillion, yet who the hell would ever want a pillion on one, and on the rare occasion you did then you'd accept it being soggier for it being right without.I had to change the suspension front and back on my CBR600F4i, because stock it was very soft for my weight.
I still need to replace the springs in the fork of my 954RR, it dives too much on braking, the spring is made for light riders (max 75kg). I leave the shock as it is, just don't want to throw money at it, even though it would also need a stiffer spring.
On K6 the suspension was adjusted as well - too soft.
I have a REALLY stiff bike, that's K3 GSXR1000 with custom fork parts and custom race shock. I use it on the street and it's board-stiff, the bike jumps through holes on the road like you wouldn't believe, it's set up for smooth track and I am too busy (and lazy) to adjust it for the street right now...but even this rigid bike does not give me any back pain and I've been to mountains with it, 350km with coffee break in the middle.
On a sportsbike one leans forward, the shocks do not go vertically up the spine like on a chopper (I rode Indian Scout and on that thing going over manholes felt like I was growing shorter with each manhole).
I just cannot understand how you guys get these back pains. Are you old? Have medical conditions? Sit straight up? No disrespect, just wondering.
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Friday 28th July 07:18
Oversprung rears (not arses) coupled with too much high-speed compression damping in particular is my opinion.
Whether this is a compromise created by the solo/pillion dilemma who knows, but the forks are generally in the ballpark for static and rider sag with me, whereas the rear shock never is.
The Triumph, however, was in the right area. But then I've read plenty of reviews etc where Triumph are touted for setting their bikes up for the road. Hey-ho.
Whether this is a compromise created by the solo/pillion dilemma who knows, but the forks are generally in the ballpark for static and rider sag with me, whereas the rear shock never is.
The Triumph, however, was in the right area. But then I've read plenty of reviews etc where Triumph are touted for setting their bikes up for the road. Hey-ho.
Ho Lee Kau said:
cmaguire said:
moanthebairns said:
I'm ten stone..... My riding style isnt the question.
I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
Strange that as I'm not massively heavier than you and I added a little preload and think the R (pre 765) is pretty decent all round on the road.I could get the r to turn in. It handled great but show it a pot hole or and an ant carrying a pebble across the road and it gave your arse a headache just looking at the thing.
Yes the r is the better bike. No one is questioning that. But if you use it on the uks bumpy roads, your pelvis will turn to dust.
I think a big problem for me, obviously I needed a spring change. But was because I always road it after track days. And that just amplified the coarseness of its suspension
My GSXR on the other hand (both the current 750 and the 1000R) are way too stiff at the back (7mm static sag both, what's that all about?). After 100 miles on the 1000 I suddenly get bad lower back pain (this didn't happen on the 750) and every jarring bump is bloody painful. I'm going to do what I can with setup but I expect it'll be new spring and revalve like the 750. I don't get the Japs and sportsbikes. They all weigh about 10KG (the Japs rather than the bikes) yet they set the bikes up for fat f
kers. Or rider and pillion, yet who the hell would ever want a pillion on one, and on the rare occasion you did then you'd accept it being soggier for it being right without.I had to change the suspension front and back on my CBR600F4i, because stock it was very soft for my weight.
I still need to replace the springs in the fork of my 954RR, it dives too much on braking, the spring is made for light riders (max 75kg). I leave the shock as it is, just don't want to throw money at it, even though it would also need a stiffer spring.
On K6 the suspension was adjusted as well - too soft.
I have a REALLY stiff bike, that's K3 GSXR1000 with custom fork parts and custom race shock. I use it on the street and it's board-stiff, the bike jumps through holes on the road like you wouldn't believe, it's set up for smooth track and I am too busy (and lazy) to adjust it for the street right now...but even this rigid bike does not give me any back pain and I've been to mountains with it, 350km with coffee break in the middle.
On a sportsbike one leans forward, the shocks do not go vertically up the spine like on a chopper (I rode Indian Scout and on that thing going over manholes felt like I was growing shorter with each manhole).
I just cannot understand how you guys get these back pains. Are you old? Have medical conditions? Sit straight up? No disrespect, just wondering.
Edited by Ho Lee Kau on Friday 28th July 07:18
king bump I go over here in the UK. cmaguire said:
Strange that as I'm not massively heavier than you and I added a little preload and think the R (pre 765) is pretty decent all round on the road.
My GSXR on the other hand (both the current 750 and the 1000R) are way too stiff at the back (7mm static sag both, what's that all about?). After 100 miles on the 1000 I suddenly get bad lower back pain (this didn't happen on the 750) and every jarring bump is bloody painful. I'm going to do what I can with setup but I expect it'll be new spring and revalve like the 750. I don't get the Japs and sportsbikes. They all weigh about 10KG (the Japs rather than the bikes) yet they set the bikes up for fat fkers. Or rider and pillion, yet who the hell would ever want a pillion on one, and on the rare occasion you did then you'd accept it being soggier for it being right without.
I was going to chirp in my two pence about how I thought my Jap bikes rear shock was adequate until I read the "fat fMy GSXR on the other hand (both the current 750 and the 1000R) are way too stiff at the back (7mm static sag both, what's that all about?). After 100 miles on the 1000 I suddenly get bad lower back pain (this didn't happen on the 750) and every jarring bump is bloody painful. I'm going to do what I can with setup but I expect it'll be new spring and revalve like the 750. I don't get the Japs and sportsbikes. They all weigh about 10KG (the Japs rather than the bikes) yet they set the bikes up for fat f
kers. Or rider and pillion, yet who the hell would ever want a pillion on one, and on the rare occasion you did then you'd accept it being soggier for it being right without.kers" comment. 
I must admit though at first I thought the GSXR 750 was horrendous. Then a bloke who raced Suzuki's at the local garage took pity on me and set it up gratis. I've loved it since, but the rear shock is definitely not as nice as some.
The front end is just f
king fabulous though, so I've often wondered if it's just st by comparison.Spending 2 or so hours setting up the bike makes a huge difference. If you can't get the sag you want then get a new spring for your weight.
The Tuono used to kick me out of the seat so I upped the sag to 35mm, took a load of low speed compression out and a few clicks of high speed and a reasonable amount of rebound.
Just make a change and ride a test route over and over till you're happy
The Tuono used to kick me out of the seat so I upped the sag to 35mm, took a load of low speed compression out and a few clicks of high speed and a reasonable amount of rebound.
Just make a change and ride a test route over and over till you're happy
I've ridden most of the Street triples over the year, except this year's version. Comparing the 2013 R and standard models on B roads and even most A roads these days is night and day. I'm about 80kgs.
The R was uncomfortable and skipped over bumps on anything other than smooth tarmac. Great for track days. The non-R on the other hand, was damped and sprung properly for UK roads and not to please journalists at race track / foreign bike launches. Not as fun as the original though, with the taller first gear and surging throttle.
There was less of a difference in suspension setup with the original street and R models. I would take the original R, although the radial brakes on the R were always a let down. Almost zero difference to the sliding calipers.
Save your money and get an early R model for 3.5k. More fun than the later bikes, as Bike magazine also pointed out last month.
The R was uncomfortable and skipped over bumps on anything other than smooth tarmac. Great for track days. The non-R on the other hand, was damped and sprung properly for UK roads and not to please journalists at race track / foreign bike launches. Not as fun as the original though, with the taller first gear and surging throttle.
There was less of a difference in suspension setup with the original street and R models. I would take the original R, although the radial brakes on the R were always a let down. Almost zero difference to the sliding calipers.
Save your money and get an early R model for 3.5k. More fun than the later bikes, as Bike magazine also pointed out last month.
Ho Lee Kau said:
When I saw that in the paper it just made me think he's clueless or it is another contrived story for the readers.If he is too daft to make basic suspension adjustments he should get another job.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff