Riding Positions
Rick Talbot
5'6", 170 lbs.,
29" inseam
I really like the Star Warrior. It's a fun ride, with power to light up the rear tire and really nice handling. But, between the way the seat is shaped and the long reach to the footpegs, I had to ride far forward on the seat or lean back and not reach comfortably. The lowest part of the seat was super-wide and spread my legs out way too much, while the narrower part was higher. When I stopped, it was like: "Stop all the way, carefully put your feet down. Make sure you're paying close attention to what you are doing...so you don't f@#*in' drop it, ok?" All of that took some of the fun out of an otherwise fine ride.
I clicked with the Thunderbird from the start. With a lower, narrower and softer seat it was easier to reach the ground. But the handling really felt good to me as well. Even though the Warrior is sportier, I liked the way I could find a rhythm in the corners on the T-Bird powering though in seconds, clicking up to third for short straights, then back down to second. I like the way the brakes come on hard immediately, while on the Warrior I have to jump on them a little more. I felt more in control and in command on the Triumph and that counts for a lot for me.
I did a lot of miles on the Thunderbird up to NorCal and back comfortably. I can't imagine doing that on the Warrior, when even just around town I've got body parts going numb and I get blown around in the wind with the parachute riding position. The Warrior's a good bike, but I'll take the Triumph.
Billy Bartels
6', 198 lbs.,
33" inseam
I rode the Warrior around most of last summer, with lots of backroads jaunts in the mountains around Los Angeles. More than just about any cruiser, it's got an almost telepathic connection between the rider and the front end. Though the riding stance looks somewhat similar to most cruisers, somehow on this Star, you feel like you're perched above the forks, ready for action, in a perfect posture for ultimate control. However when it comes time to pile on the miles, the hard, flat seat that makes it easy to move around in entertaining riding situations wears on the backside after an hour or so of straight highway. Which is mostly okay, as the fuel doesn't last too much longer than that.
Hopping on to the Thunderbird right after the Warrior, you immediately feel the heavier weight and lazier geometry. It feels taller and way bigger. However, after a few miles the differences disappear, and though it is a higher-effort machine to wrangle through corners, you don't feel it as you adapt. Add to that all day comfort and range, and a slightly more comfortable riding position, and I think you've got a better all-around machine. Though not by much.
Andy Cherney
5'7", 155 lbs.,
30" inseam
When Bartels first approached me with this odd-duck matchup, I flat-out thought he was nuts. A closer peek though, gave me a better understanding of the similarities-displacement of course being the most obvious (and even then, the Warrior's 1670ccs trumps the Trumpet's 1597 cubes). And after riding the bikes back to back, the comparison made even more sense.
Though both machines have wide rear tires and feet-forward ergos, the Triumph is the more cruiser-y of the two, with its 32 degree rake, low seat and traditional styling. Truth be told, the initial meet and greet didn't endear me to the 'Bird at first-I thought, " hey, another me-too cruiser," (maybe 'cause I was a fan of the last Thunderbird, circa 1995). Some of the details struck me as generic parts-bin stuff, particularly in the handlebar/riser/triple clamp area. Otherwise, the Brits took styling right out of the American playbook, with a nicely sculpted teardrop tank plus a dash of Suzuki cruiser sensibility at the chopped rear fender. That said, at least they got the ride right. One twist of the throttle and visual sins were forgiven (though the 'Bird felt heavier than I expected). Man, this thing pulls like a Peterbilt, with gobs of torque at the ready and great fueling to boot. There's even a belt drive-surprising on a Triumph. I was pretty impressed by the twin 310mm disc (with steel-braided lines) braking combo up front; they did a nice job of reining in the claimed 746-lb curb weight. The T-Bird also comes in at a nice price point; at $12,999, it hits right at the heart of Harley's Dyna line (Super Glide Custom, anyone?).
Even though it's got the de rigueur V-twin mill, the Warrior is definitely its own animal, and has somehow managed to stay a favorite of mine over the years. I just keep forgetting about it. OK, I can't really forget the love-it or hate-it styling, but after a quick get-reacquainted ride, I am reminded of how damn well the whole package works. With its quick steering, four-pot radial brakes and romping on-tap power, the Warrior makes for a fun jaunt. The aluminum frame enhances the lightness, making it that much easier for the 1,670cc engine to deliver a quick burnout- if you're so inclined. The riding position though, does place you on top of the bike-kind of a pain on the highway, where you feel like a spinnaker out in the breeze.
Still, that V-twin gives you plenty of torque and linear power no matter what gear you're in. The only thing that's a bit off-putting is the eerily smooth character of the Warrior mill.
Though the T-Bird's seat is lower and its ergos fit me a bit better, the Warrior is still the one i'd prefer to ride.