2010 Star Midnight Warrior vs. 2010 Triumph Thunderbird - Casual Aggression

Starting up this pair of V-twins... wait, the Triumph isn't a vee, it just sounds like one. Pulls like one too, as in slower riding situations we've had it pull out of corners with a passenger at as low as 1700 rpm with no hiccups. It also revs out to a respectable redline of 6500 rpm, pulling strong the whole way. The Warrior also has strong torque from under 2000 rpm, though it doesn't give you quite the same grunt. Instead, the Star's motor revs more freely, hitting stronger in the midrange, but tapping out at only 5100 rpm. The powerplants are a good example of a heavier flywheel (the Thunderbird) versus a lighter one (Warrior) in motors with otherwise similar power characteristics. Despite the slower-revving nature of the heavier flywheel, it has the happy side effect of gains in fuel efficiency: the 'Bird (with its larger tank) offers roughly double the range of the Star.

This was a constant with these two bikes throughout several kinds of riding, reflecting their different foci. The Star was typically the better performer... for a little while; a sprinter versus the Triumph's marathoner. So while the Warrior spun quickly through its revs in an entertaining fashion, it would also vibrate quite a bit through the seat above 4500 rpm.

As expected, however, the lighter, sportier Warrior held a significant advantage in tight, twisting roads; the tighter, the better. Steering on the Star is near telepathic, rolling into corners on its radials easily and progressively. The Triumph is no slouch, but you feel the additional weight compared to the Star. Though handling was in the Warrior's corner, brakes and transmission went the other way. Though the Star's brakes were progressive, as a whole our testers preferred the harder bite of the Thunderbird's binders, as well as the gear spread of the six-speed transmission. That said, the Warrior's sportbike-style close-ratio transmission also worked really well.

The Warrior's suspension is very adaptable to a variety of conditions, giving a perfect blend of sportiness and plushness on backroads and highway without much need for adjustment, unless saddled with a passenger. The shorter-travel Thunderbird is a little touchier on suspension setup, and it takes some doing to get to the limited tool kit on the road, but once set properly it's very forgiving in a variety of conditions.

Out on the open road, the Triumph really shines, with or without a load. When changing direction less often, the handling is top notch, and it confidently carves corners all the way to where pegs hit, and then some. The wide powerband is such that you can either let it scream or short-shift without penalty. The Warrior is no slouch here either, but you have to do a bit more shifting to keep it in the sweet spot.

In case you couldn't tell by now, we pretty much love both bikes and picking one over the other is like picking which kid to send off to war. By a small margin, our testers preferred the T-Bird. Though the Warrior bests it in handling and fun factor, the Thunderbird is really only just a tick behind in both. On the other hand, since the 'Bird is less of a one-trick pony it also makes a fine touring mount, carries passengers well, and has accessories to make it even more versatile.

We all agreed that, as is, the Warrior cleans up in the style department, but the Thunderbird has some nice touches - like beefy forks and machined caps in the shock mounts. While the overall style is bland, the base machine might make a good foundation for some true custom work. In overall feel, the Triumph is simply more of a cruiser, while the Star is more like a sportbike hybrid. Basically if you want a more focused backroads fun machine the Star Warrior is it, while the Triumph Thunderbird is the better all-arounder.