|  | Topic : What killed Triumph in the 1970's era? |  |
| | | Bussa | | Set |  |  | | Reg. Date | : | 01/10/2012 | | Posts | : | 442 | | Location | : | Sydney, NSW, Australia |
|
| | Posted : 20 Nov 2015 - 01:53 Post title : Re: What killed Triumph in the 1970's era? (Re: Swagger) | | |
Swagger wrote:
I had one of those Firestorms ... Great machine ... brutally unrefined.  |
|
Yeah, Swagger, one totally awsome uninhibited unit 
|
|
| | | drhach | | Set | | | Reg. Date | : | 18/10/2011 | | Posts | : | 250 | | Location | : | Waukegan, Illinois, United States |
|
| | Posted : 20 Nov 2015 - 23:20 Post title : Re: What killed Triumph in the 1970's era? (Re: VABird) | | |
Sorry, I meant to quote your other post
AMF bailed them out and invested heavily in new tooling. The AMF Era quality issues were partly induced by labor issues and residual old tooling. The evolution engine was developed under AMF as well. If Triumph had an "AMF" there may have never been a gap in production. People who blame AMF for Harleys issues back then have no idea what they're talking about.
P.S. I own an AMF harley and it has proven to be very reliable and the quality is generally very good. Its well designed, but was very poorly assembled (in 1972).
VABird wrote:
Northernranger wrote:
...That's the main reason but everyone always blames the Japanese. |
|
You can hardly "blame the Japanese" for building a superior product!
Triumph shot themselves in the foot for not keeping up! |
|
| | Post edited by drhach on 20 Nov 2015 - 23:25 |
|
| | | vito | | Set | |  | | Reg. Date | : | 18/04/2014 | | Posts | : | 97 | | Location | : | Rockford, Illinois, United States |
|
| | Posted : 21 Nov 2015 - 16:58 Post title : Re: What killed Triumph in the 1970's era? (Re: drhach) | | | Poor reliability. What was acceptable for a motorcycle before the Japanese showed that bikes could be well made and reliable was no longer acceptable. Triumph did not adapt.
| Retired
|
|
|
| |
| |
|