First impressions....

[cosmikdebriis]

So what was your first impression of riding an MT 07?

For me, and apart from the fairly obvious "it's so bleedin' light", was the almost total lack of anything in front of you. The clocks are so low down that if it wasn't for the wing mirrors (which personally I find a little ugly) you could be forgiven for thinking you were running up the road without a bike there at all..

Not a complaint but the thing that really struck me when I first got mine. To be fair. I was getting off a BMW R1150R with a screen and high bars.

 

[dazzor]

The lightness or more crucially power-to-weight ratio was not the thing that hit me primarily.... I'm guessing because I've had bikes like a KTM superduke and Triumph Street Triple-R.

What struck me was what a lovely surprise this bike was, that engine, even with the stock exhaust and cat choking it...so free-revving for a twin.

I'm buying one of these for the best trade-off I can get in terms of a sensible commuter with decent mpg stats that can still be fun.

For me, this bike is a real world commuter that can be a Sunday toy, not a Sunday toy trying to turn its hand to commuting.

People over on a street triple forum, just some mind, are slagging this bike off because its no lighter but only 75 bhp. They argue its much better to spend 5k on a 2 year old Street triple. My response is.....

They are missing these points;
1) I want 2 years warranty
2) I don't want 100+bhp anymore
3) cheaper insurance
4) better fuel economy

I'm sure there more but you get my point.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 20]

My first impressions were:
1. Shit, this thing weighs notning!
2. Riding position is good, even better with new lower/more forward handlebar.
3. Seat is a little hard and I'm sliding back/forth, and when changing seat position left/right in tight corners the bike rattles a bit, but I've got used to it. Now I think it's all fine.
4. Big grin inside helmet, thinking: "who would ever need more than 75 bhp when it's delivered in a package like this?"
5. Economy! Every aspect of it. Low price, low insurance cost, easy and inexpensive to service, Yamaha quality, really (!) fuel efficient.
6. It's really quiet and I like it, and the little sound that it actually makes sounds great.

It just has all the right ingredients for a good lookin, good value, fun, sensible bike.

 

[da1kini]

The lightness or more crucially power-to-weight ratio was not the thing that hit me primarily.... I'm guessing because I've had bikes like a KTM superduke and Triumph Street Triple-R.

What struck me was what a lovely surprise this bike was, that engine, even with the stock exhaust and cat choking it...so free-revving for a twin.

I'm buying one of these for the best trade-off I can get in terms of a sensible commuter with decent mpg stats that can still be fun.

For me, this bike is a real world commuter that can be a Sunday toy, not a Sunday toy trying to turn its hand to commuting.

People over on a street triple forum, just some mind, are slagging this bike off because its no lighter but only 75 bhp. They argue its much better to spend 5k on a 2 year old Street triple. My response is.....

They are missing these points;
1) I want 2 years warranty
2) I don't want 100+bhp anymore
3) cheaper insurance
4) better fuel economy

I'm sure there more but you get my point.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I think its 5 years warranty even?

 

[dazzor]

I think its 5 years warranty even?

Not in the UK buddy....I wish though.

I just don't get why the Triumph fan boys are slating it. It's hitting a totally different market. It's a different bike.

I've done the STR thing, it's a fantastic bike and yeah, it's got loads of thrills and character.....I just need a decent twin that's more economical and less likely to see me lose my licence or worse...if you catch my drift.