[AnotherHobby]

I enjoyed these videos because they pit the Scrambler against 2 other bikes, so there is some contrast/compare going on, and they aren't afraid to be a little critical. You can guess who wins.

Part 1: Moto Guzzi V7

Part 2: Triumph Scrambler

Part 3: Ducati Scrambler

 

[AnotherHobby]

It's funny, in the videos they pick the Ducati as first, but in the article, 2 out of 3 choose the Triumph.

Here is the accompanying article: 2015 Scrambler Motorcycle Shootout

 

[Robert Rear]

So what is going to be out there to change the suspension a bit?

 

[Madaza]

Doesn't seem to be the most complimentary review, tbh. The underlying consensus seems to be the Triumph is the better bike if raw performance is discounted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AnotherHobby]

Doesn't seem to be the most complimentary review, tbh.

Correct. They were critical of the 3 areas I've seen criticized: the seat, the suspension, and the throttle.

 

[mjhallock]

The seat is an easy fix and something I usually change anyway. Sorting the suspension may be a bit spendy, maybe not. We will have to see.

The throttle? That doesn't seem like something to complain about. In any case you will probably get used to it.

 

[Shamone]

Maybe a throttle tamer would help?

It's a shame the suspension is harsh as we don't have many roads left in the UK that don't have pot holes.

 

[Jerry Winder]

The throttle's an easy fix if you don't like it. Just change the throttle tube for a lazyer tube but I reckon it's something you'll quickly get used to.


Shamone for great roads head up to Wales, we've got a place in the Brecon Beacons and the riding is superb, smooth twisties and little traffic for mile after mile.


Jerry

 

[dukes]

Great videos, thanks for posting them.

 

[frankd123]

The thing I love about my V7: 5.8 gallon tank.

Mine is modded out like heck though, and despite being not as powerful, I would bet that if they rode my 13' V7 Stone in this lineup, they would pick it as the winner. Full custom exhaust, remapped ECU (perfect throttle response, no flat spots, linear, low speed throttle amazing), full suspension front and back, and a host of other mods. Shed about 40lbs off the bike I'd say. Granted there is about $5k or so extra dumped in so it wouldn't be a fair comparison to the stockers.

 

[Madaza]

The seat is an easy fix and something I usually change anyway. Sorting the suspension may be a bit spendy, maybe not. We will have to see.

The throttle? That doesn't seem like something to complain about. In any case you will probably get used to it.

I agree, but it's unfortunate that Ducati couldn't have got the little details right from the very beginning. If Triumph can build a bike that's 70lbs (?) heavier on a 10 year old frame that rides better, then Ducati really have no excuse when starting with a blank sheet of paper. Imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TC3]

I agree, but it's unfortunate that Ducati couldn't have got the little details right from the very beginning. If Triumph can build a bike that's 70lbs (?) heavier on a 10 year old frame that rides better, then Ducati really have no excuse when starting with a blank sheet of paper. Imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No bike is perfect and you should expect a few things that may not be up to a certain standard. Its the same with every bike I have bought that has been built to a price point.

 

[Madaza]

No bike is perfect and you should expect a few things that may not be up to a certain standard. Its the same with every bike I have bought that has been built to a price point.

I agree completely. But simple things like seat comfort and throttle mapping really shouldn't be an issue. Judging by the article Triumph seem to be able to get it right at a very similar price point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shamone]

It's funny as the Triumph Bonneville's known weak point is the rear suspension being very harsh. I'd have thought the Triumph Scrambler's would be the same?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madaza]

It's funny as the Triumph Bonneville's known weak point is the rear suspension being very harsh. I'd have thought the Triumph Scrambler's would be the same?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This surprised me too. I just did 1200 miles over two days on a Bonnie and the suspension was definitely harsh. Which is a bit concerning if they are saying the Scrambler is worse...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frankd123]

I don't care about suspension gripes in reviews, simply because I am always committed to upgrading the suspension anyway sprung for my weight. Suspension is easy to fix if you are willing to spend. Now, fueling issues...that's another story.

It's not Ducati's fault, or most manufacturers of bikes these days. Trust me, if they could they would make that thing run perfect particularly with low speed throttle/fueling. It's the emissions control. They are running them leaner and leaner these days to meet emissions and to boost fuel economy for marketing, etc.

 

[AnotherHobby]

The suspension comments are curious, because they are also not universal in other reviews. The MCN article that just came out and pitted the Scrambler against a Bonneville and an 883 said, "The suspension is a nice balance between comfort and sportiness; it doesn't wallow into a mess when you start to wind it up, isn't as soft as the triumph, but equally isn't rock-hard like a race bike." So they didn't mention complaints. Many other reviews said similar stuff and no real complaints. So I'm not convinced that it's a real problem, but maybe more of a preference.

 

[Mixup]

The suspension comments are curious, because they are also not universal in other reviews. The MCN article that just came out and pitted the Scrambler against a Bonneville and an 883 said, "The suspension is a nice balance between comfort and sportiness; it doesn't wallow into a mess when you start to wind it up, isn't as soft as the triumph, but equally isn't rock-hard like a race bike." So they didn't mention complaints. Many other reviews said similar stuff and no real complaints. So I'm not convinced that it's a real problem, but maybe more of a preference.

Nice take on it, looking forwards to making my own mind on it, we all weigh differently ie heaver, lighter thus handling differences.

 

[STupac85]

One question: on MCN article is written that the Scrambler has an average consumption of 55 mpg.
On Motorcycle Usa article they say: "Though it has the smallest tank, offering 3.6-gallon capacity, its 38.4 mpg was the best of the group."

55 Miles per gallon = 23.3829039 kilometers per liter

38 Miles per gallon = 16.1554609 kilometers per liter

The difference is huge; is it possible?

 

[Shamone]

US Imperial Gallons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk