400 Trumpets...

[KungFooBob]

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new ... 0-x-bajaj/

Speed 400...



Scrambler 400...



I think the 350 Hunter RE is prettier than the Speed 400, the Trumpet has 20bhp more tho'

[Taipan]

Scrambler looks quite good!

[Bustaspoke]

Built in colaboration with Indian firm Bajaj & they stick half a Union Jack on the tank...
Love my Thaiumph
The scrambler looks quite nice,would look better with spoked wheels
No word on pricing yet.

[Cousin Jack]

Glad to see an increasing number of bikes in the 300-500 cc range. I am fed up with reading about 1000+ cc behemoths with outputs that would not shame a small power station.

[Supermofo]

Quite like the scrambler. Pricing will be key though. Let's face it it's an Indian bike

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Looks quite nice
Do Bajaj make KTM 390s?

[Supermofo]

Looks quite nice
Do Bajaj make KTM 390s?

Yes, they have a big share in KTM too I think

[Bustaspoke]

Glad to see an increasing number of bikes in the 300-500 cc range. I am fed up with reading about 1000+ cc behemoths with outputs that would not shame a small power station.

Same, and I really like both bikes.

Perhaps the factories have their finger on the pulse and realise that costs are too high for these silly big bhp things and they see a return to sensible motorcycling as regular transport, instead of ego massaging.

The only thing that might put me off is weight, my 1981 RD350LC makes 42bhp standard and is about 135kg with the lighter wheels I have on it, and my 1936 500cc Rudge makes 45bhp and weighs 130kg, so how is it that in 2023 Triumph are making a 400cc bike that makes <40bhp and weighs 180kg

I think there's more profit for the companys in a 'big BHP bling thing',xll that mark up on the extras.They can sell them as lots of people rent them on PCP deals.
Regarding weight,It reminds me of the late 80's when a Exup was the big sports bike,then in 1992 the Fireblade was released weighing a lot less & the other firms played catch up

[A_morti]

@Potter your LC doesn't have to carry a catalyst, ABS pump, engine oil and pump, high pressure fuel pump (indeed any fuel pump), valves and camshafts, etc.

Even given that, the lighter of these two is 170kg with fuel. An LC weighs anything from 149kg to 165kg wet depending who you believe, and I'd believe the higher numbers since back then wet often didn't include fuel or in this case 2T oil.

For those few kg extra you'll go much further per tank of fuel and you won't be leaving a stinky cloud of burned oil behind you.

I'd take the new one any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[porter_jamie]

Glad to see an increasing number of bikes in the 300-500 cc range. I am fed up with reading about 1000+ cc behemoths with outputs that would not shame a small power station.

Same, and I really like both bikes.

Perhaps the factories have their finger on the pulse and realise that costs are too high for these silly big bhp things and they see a return to sensible motorcycling as regular transport, instead of ego massaging.

The only thing that might put me off is weight, my 1981 RD350LC makes 42bhp standard and is about 135kg with the lighter wheels I have on it, and my 1936 500cc Rudge makes 45bhp and weighs 130kg, so how is it that in 2023 Triumph are making a 400cc bike that makes <40bhp and weighs 180kg

i think you might be onto something. when looking at getting another bike i automatically ignore anything with a lower bhp output - but in reality id have lots of fun with something that had 45/50 odd hp. Also, agree, light weight is key

[Horse]

Do the newer bikes also have beefier suspension (forks & swingarm), wider wheels & tyres?

Compared to the Rudge, more recent (roughly 1970s on) bikes are victims of their own success.

Better grip from tyres = greater lean angles = increased height = more metal to achieve it

More power + better tyres = faster = need for better brakes, suspension = better frame to hang them off = more metal to achieve it

And 'more metal' = weight = need for more power to keep ever-demanding riders happy

[KungFooBob]

50bhp is rubbish.

It's not enough power to give you that thrill of twisting the throttle and having to hold on.

It's too much power for a small light bike where you can have fun maintaining speed and generally pissing about.

Less than 40 and more than 85bhp are the sweet spots, imho

[A_morti]

Less than 40 and more than 85bhp are the sweet spots, imho

You might have something there.

My Grom was mad as a box of frogs. Only 9hp but 100kg even so you could literally give it full throttle everywhere up and back down the mountain.

Any bike over 85hp can't be balls-out the whole time, but will get your blood pumping every time you twist it. EG my FZ and the CBR900s I've had in the past.

My GS has 45-50hp and is big bike sized and big bike heavy. You can't gas it everywhere, and it's not even especially thrilling when you do (putt-putt-putt-putt)

My cb300r goes against the formula though. 28hp, 145kg, and it didn't do much of anything to be fun or exciting. Maybe not far enough towards light and slow, or the criteria needs refining.

[Supermofo]

50bhp is rubbish.

It's not enough power to give you that thrill of twisting the throttle and having to hold on.

It's too much power for a small light bike where you can have fun maintaining speed and generally pissing about.

Less than 40 and more than 85bhp are the sweet spots, imho

On the basis of the 690 Duke being 70bhp and 160kg wet I'd disagree cos it's a bloody excellent bike.

[mangocrazy]

50bhp is rubbish.

It's not enough power to give you that thrill of twisting the throttle and having to hold on.

It's too much power for a small light bike where you can have fun maintaining speed and generally pissing about.

Less than 40 and more than 85bhp are the sweet spots, imho

On the basis of the 690 Duke being 70bhp and 160kg wet I'd disagree cos it's a bloody excellent bike.

When I took my 690 Duke in for its MoT a couple of months ago the tester returned from his test ride positively frothing with enthusiasm about the bike - 'what a bloody engine!' was his first comment. If any bike has proved to me that you don't need 150+ bhp for serious fun, that bike has. On everyday roads and at licence-preserving speeds it's pretty much unbeatable.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

50bhp is rubbish.

It's not enough power to give you that thrill of twisting the throttle and having to hold on.

It's too much power for a small light bike where you can have fun maintaining speed and generally pissing about.

Less than 40 and more than 85bhp are the sweet spots, imho

That means all 250 two stroke and 450 four stroke motor cross bikes are rubbish, 350 Power Valves are rubbish, GPz550s are rubbish etc.

[KungFooBob]

It's a sweeping statement and there are exceptions.

I had a 50bhp Guzzi. It was very average.

Not enough power to be exciting, but too much power to make it a challenge to to keep up with traffic.

Where as my 27bhp single you can rag the tits off all-day long and you have to rag it if you ever want to see more than 50mph.

[Yorick]

50bhp is rubbish.

It's ace when the bike is only 100 Kgs

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

It's a sweeping statement and there are exceptions.

I had a 50bhp Guzzi. It was very average.

Not enough power to be exciting, but too much power to make it a challenge to to keep up with traffic.

Where as my 27bhp single you can rag the tits off all-day long and you have to rag it if you ever want to see more than 50mph.

You'll have more exceptions than bikes meeting your statement, power to weight ratio is what matters, and a lard bucket of a Guzzi with 50bhp is nothing like a TZ250 or a CRF450, both of which are about 50bhp.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Is there not some licence law stuff going on here? Both power and power-to-weight are controlled aren't they, but I must confess I've not looked in years. Why would I, I've got a licence already