Trophy [MY 2016]

[TTSE14]

I don't know how many noticed that the model year 2016 Trophy is now shown on Triumph's website. I didn't notice any changes from MY 2015  models; colors are still the same.  The one difference I noticed in the specifications was the fuel economy ratings were changed.  The prior ratings seemed unrealistic; the new ones seem attainable.  Oh, the price increased by $1.00.

[dsinned]

Yes, I noticed that too.  Fuel economy are now 58.2 and 42.9 mpg at constant speeds of 56 and 75 mph respectively.  I get close to 50 mpg in between those two constant speeds (65 mph) on the freeway.  Not too shabby!

The rather humorous increase in price by one dollar is now yet another dollar too much.  Even at the older model year price of $18,999, I suspect TTSEs will continue to NOT sell very well.  I would guess that the ASP (average selling price), in the U.S. market, is somewhere around $16,500 or even less, especially for new leftovers.   I paid considerably less for my 2014 leftover, sold brand new.   Sticker shock still is a major deterrent to lots of showroom sales. 

I think Triumph should consider LOWERING the list price to say, $17,499 and upgrade  standard features to include heated grips and matching color top box.  If they did, I think the ASP would still be a thousand less (after dealer concessions), but unlike sales up till now (in the U.S.), a lot more new model bikes would sell. 

I wonder what the actual "manufacter's cost" is to produce this bike in the UK?   Sadly, due to the relatively low volume of TTSEs sold worldwide, it is probably too high for this model to be profitable much lower than the current sticker price.  What I see happening is more manufacturing in Asia in order for this model to remain in long term production at a viable profit.  Of course, those of us in the U.S. are well acquainted with this domestic manufacturing "job stealing" trend.   

[TTSE14]

I also agree that the TTSE would be easier to sell with the heated grips and seat, and the top box as standard equipment. If the goal for the Triumph Trophy was to lure sales away from the new BMW R1200RT, there needs to be more of price or standard equipment content advantage. Honestly, I was set to purchase the BMW, but after a few magazine articles and YouTube shootout videos, suggesting not to overlook the Trophy, and stating that it is underrated; I started to look more seriously at the Trophy.  I purchased my leftover 2014 because of the price.  If I were to purchase either machine at or near near MSRP, I would probably now own the BMW instead.

[DonTom]

Originally Posted by TTSE14

I don't know how many noticed that the model year 2016 Trophy is now shown on Triumph's website. I didn't notice any changes from MY 2015  models; colors are still the same.  The one difference I noticed in the specifications was the fuel economy ratings were changed.  The prior ratings seemed unrealistic; the new ones seem attainable.  Oh, the price increased by $1.00.

Don't forget that the fuel MPG average will most likely change with every new ECM software update. I remember the first specs on the TTSE were not very good (IIRC, something like 43 MPG)  as far as the MPG spec, but after a couple of new ECM updates, we were all averaging around 50 MPG (USA gallons).

So when you see such changes in MPG specs,  it probably really did change, even if it seems to be the same bike, it's most likely a different ECM tune.

-Don-  Reno, NV

[TTSE14]

Originally Posted by DonTom

Don't forget that the fuel MPG average will most likely change with every new ECM software update. I remember the first specs on the TTSE were not very good (IIRC, something like 43 MPG)  as far as the MPG spec, but after a couple of new ECM updates, we were all averaging around 50 MPG (USA gallons).

So when you see such changes in MPG specs,  it probably really did change, even if it seems to be the same bike, it's most likely a different ECM tune.

-Don-  Reno, NV

In regard to the previous model's fuel economy ratings; specifically the MY 2014:  Steady 56 mph = 69.2 mpg --- Steady 75 mph = 54.5 mpg.
I believe the prior ratings are slightly optimistic.

[DonTom]

Originally Posted by TTSE14

In regard to the previous model's fuel economy ratings; specifically the MY 2014:  Steady 56 mph = 69.2 mpg --- Steady 75 mph = 54.5 mpg.I believe the prior ratings are slightly optimistic.

I never saw the 69.2 MPG spec anywhere. However, my very best MPG ever on my TTSE was 61 MPG but most of that ride was a bit faster than 56 MPH.

That was from Quincy, CA to Reno, NV and I often get very good MPG on that route on all my bikes. The strange thing is that the MPG is almost as good in the opposite direction.

I would find it very difficult to stay at a steady 56 MPH long enough to check my MPG, but I wouldn't be all that surprised is such a spec could really be met in favorable conditions.

-Don-  Reno, NV

[dsinned]

The effect of the windscreen being up or down probably plays a role in MPG expectations.  I haven't seen any numbers relating fuel economy results to the windscreen, but surely it makes a difference fully raised vs. retracted, especially at a 75 mph constant speed basis for comparison.  I generally ride with the screen down (wearing a full face helmet) just to squeeze a little more economy out of the bike.

It should be easy to compare with the LCD set to display instantaneous MPG while riding at a constant speed (CC On) on a straight and level highway.  Has anyone done that yet?

[azgman]

My commute is pretty straight and flat here in AZ. I measured a weeks worth and got an average of 54.1 MPG.

Each day, that breaks down to:
8 miles at 50mph
30 miles at 80 mph
10 miles at 60 mph
12 miles stop and go (15 potential stop lights)

That is about 5 MPG better than my 2007 R1200RT got on the same route. Very pleased.