Reasons not to like a Triumph Sprint ST1050?

Originally Posted by andreis

If your car has an on board computer (OBC) which shows you instant fuel consumption, you'll see that, when closing the throttle completely, on a downhill, you will get 0L/100km.

The UK S3 dash includes instant MPG, which showed 99.9 when you're rolling downhill on a closed throttle, so I'd presume they are doing the same on that engine. I'm not sure if the metric measures had the same facility, as I never switched it over.

Hmm.. that is very very strange. I'll ask on the Tiger forum. Maybe there's a glitch of some sort with my bike or maybe the injection butterfly sticks or something of that sort.

Chatted with the guy who sorted my SV brakes and also just been re-reading the review in RiDE from a few months back. The heaviness at rest mentioned in the OP is something that came up in conversation when I mentioned thinking about an ST. And the headlamp appears to be generally pants even with bigger bulbs or HID kits - I guess the basic reflector and lens shape must just be wrong.

I still think I want one though. Mind you, not ridden one yet!

Originally Posted by dyzio

I forgot what underseat storage is. On the Daytona you can fit a map under the seat (a small one).
The cut out hole is big enugh fot thr tool kit, xena disc lock and a plastic thingy for your sidestand.

Surely if the plastic thingy for the side stand is under the seat how do you get to it if you need it, surely the ground would be too soft to leave the bike to get it out from under the seat, I keep mine in the back pocket on my jacket.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by andreis

About that - it's one of my gripes with the tiger. The SAI does help to clean up emissions BUT it would be even better if there wasn't unused fuel in the first place.
While I think it's perfectly acceptable to have unburned fuel under normal operation, why the heck does it have fuel in there when the throttle is fully closed? Most fuel injection engines are able to completely scavenge fuel when running under closed throttle. If your car has an on board computer (OBC) which shows you instant fuel consumption, you'll see that, when closing the throttle completely, on a downhill, you will get 0L/100km. This is not some OBC glitch, it's the actual consumption.
I think that if bikes had fuel scavenging, they could easily cut 15-20% out of the city fuel consumption and 10% out of the highway fuel consumption. Unfortunately, good fuel consumption doesn't even register as a secondary design goal

That being said, the 1050s are decent at fuel consumption

You can set one up to have no overrun fuel. Power returns with a big and unpleasant bang when you try to drive through a corner.

How would it cut serious parts out of highway fuel consumption given that it is generally constant throttle?

[dyzio]

Originally Posted by Mrs DJ Fridge

Surely if the plastic thingy for the side stand is under the seat how do you get to it if you need it, surely the ground would be too soft to leave the bike to get it out from under the seat, I keep mine in the back pocket on my jacket.

Stay on the bike, have a can of lager and presto, sidestand thingy sorted.

Did 700 miles on my 08 over the weekend, and didn't have the main beam on once, didn't check the oil either. They can be a bit vibey at higher speeds, as for luggage capacity, it has decent size panniers as you know, and if out for the day a tank bag is all you need, sprints prefer more open road than back road twistys, when doing back roads you will feel it in your wrists and arms after a long day.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

You can set one up to have no overrun fuel. Power returns with a big and unpleasant bang when you try to drive through a corner.

I think this has much to do with the ECU limitations. If it would remember the previous inputs, then it could make a smooth transition from a closed loop. As it stands (I think) it only uses the current readings of throttle position/engine rpm/temperature/O2 readings, I think it is almost impossible to get a smooth pickup from a completely closed loop, as you say.

Surely, cars can mask jerkiness much easier as they have far lower torque/weight ratios and as thus, the bangs are not felt that clearly.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

How would it cut serious parts out of highway fuel consumption given that it is generally constant throttle?

I think it's not that much constant throttle. When I take long journeys with the car, with every corner and every opportunity to slow down I use engine braking and plan my moves way in advance. It leads to a decent decrease in fuel consumption and somewhat a more relaxed drive. I do the same with the bike, but there's little difference in the fuel consumption.

[yorkie_chris]

My technique on the XJ on the motorway is not to use engine braking but rather to reduce power such that speed drops away. Obviously only practical when the move is planned in advance, and these are CV carbs not FI. But it does return 60mpg.

I suppose this delivery is more important on something which needs to drive out of corners properly, on a tourer they're probably never going to get used that hard that anyone will notice the sort of jerk on transition that would make a sportsbike basically unrideable when powering through a slow corner.

[steveg]

Been pleased with my sprint had it 18 months and have done 25 k with no major problems , likes the longer journeys more and copes well with luggage & pillion , not bad to run for a big bike 50 mpg , 30k+ out of c&s and 10 k out of tyres

Cheers Steveg