Talk:Triumph Bonneville

March 2008

Anyone have a photo of an early Bonneville?

I am only going by memory but I thought the 'e' in T140e stood for electronic ignition. It certainly coincided with the introduction as I owned a T140v and T140e back in the late 1970s and 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.113.243 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked up, as electronic ignition was introduced about the same time, as you say. Checking both the Nelson and Gaylin books it appears that the 'E' was introduced on 1st Jan 78 with MkII carburettors and a crankcase breather recirculation system to comply with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission legislation for new vehicles that came into force on that date. Gaylin says the 'E' stands for 'EPA', Roy Bacon says 'listed as the T140E to signify that it had complied with the regulations on emission control in the USA.' These first bikes still had contact breaker points, the electronic ignition was introduced in 1979 along with a neutral light. You live and learn!

I have a 79 'E' and used to have a 77 'V' with Jubilee chromed engine cases (guess they had some left over). There was the 'Bonneville Electro' later on which was Triumph's name for the T140ES from 1982. The 'ES' all seem to have the word 'Electro' on the side panels from 1980 and in their adverts called it the T140E(S) which to me is saying it was an 'E' (EPA/Emissions) with a starter (S) rather than Electric Start, then to make it more confusing there was the 'Bonneville Executive' (Electro with luggage)!!! Shame they are not still here to ask, I wrote a few letters to Triumph around 1981 and they were very helpful, I was asking about ways to cure problems (exhaust blowing and loose alternator rotor) and they admitted that neither item was a very good design!!!. Wish I still had those letters. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New Category for British Motorcycles

As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles. Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create. It will also help to keep things organised if you use the Template:Infobox Motorcycle or add it where it is missing. I've linked the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally! Thanks Tony (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Bonneville

There is an editor's comment in here and it is becoming an unreferenced mess, was going to park the section in here but left it, perhaps someone with more knowledge on this model could tidy it up. Nimbus (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Popular Culture section needs to go

If there are reliable sources saying X affected the Triumph Bonneville's sales or its design, then it belongs in this article. But if not, the information should be moved to the article about X, if any, and deleted from here. See WP:WPACT and WP:POPCULTURE.--Dbratland (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

VERY FRUSTRATING THAT, NEITHER IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE MUCH LESS THE VITAL STATS BOX, DOES THE AUTHOR MENTION THE MOST SALIENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BONNIE AND THE TIGER: THE TWIN CARBS ON THE BONNIE. HOW CAN THEY OVERLOOK THIS DISTINGUISHING FEATURE WHILE GOING ON AD NAUSEUM ABOUTTHE MOST INSIGNIFICANT CHANGES OF DECALS? GO FIGURE.

ALSO, IS IT TRUE THAT THEY LOWERED THE BIKE FROM THE '71 MODEL, WHICH SOME COMPLAINED WAS TOO HIGH?

JACK ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackronner (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

December 2015

The whole section entitled 'Development History' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't describe development from the earlier Tiger110 or the arrival of unit construction. It is a rant against Jap bikes. Does the expression 'yamy-hamies' as a pejorative have any place on Wiki? Dean1954 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's original research and soapboxing. It would be helpful to have an accurate background of the motorcycling market in the late 1960s, but not that. Removed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Modern Classics

I'm not sure if I did everything right, according to long-time Wikieditors protocols, but I added a section for the new Modern Classic bikes (2016-present) because I hated that there wasn't one. First editing attempt, be gentle. :) AmenMoto (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to describe the 2017 lineup but you can't just copy-paste from advertising or press releases, even if they encourage Fair Use copying. Wikipedia does not use copied text. And even if it were original prose, it hast to be neutral in tone, not promotional or use peacock language. I would look for articles about the Modern Classics marking campaign in mainstream publications and summarize what they say about it in a neutral, reserved tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis. Also, I think that the "Modern Classics" section should be at a level equal with the New Bonneville or T100 sections, as the Modern Classics are not PART OF the "New Bonneville" line, they are a new iteration, just as the "New Bonneville was a new iteration when it came out. Don't you agree? ScottyatAmenMoto (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, I still think it's erroneous to classify the Modern Classics (2016-present) bikes in the same section as the New Bonneville bikes (2001-2015). Air-cooled is probably a more correct designation now, with the Modern Classics being water-cooled. (That's how the Triumph Rat forum segregates their discussions). Interested in hearing your thoughts, Dennis. ScottyatAmenMoto (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)