Cycle News - Archive Issues - 2000's

Triumph Motorcycles Ltd. D.ner John Bloor lIt is] 20,000 square meters, same as the old one - we've doubled up on space, but you can't look at it in terms of doubling production capacity, because we've changed emphasis in some areas, moved things around, brought some components in, taken others out. We've reviewed our distribution network, so we probably hold more bikes at the factory rather than at an outside third party - things like that. But the largest number of bikes we made in a single year at just the original factory was 27,000, for the 2000/2001 model year. A So, in theory, building the new factory should allow you at least to significantly improve on that. By how much? we'll wait and see what the market tells us without avoiding the question, we'll review it according to what the demand for our bikes is and purchase new equipment according to our needs. That hasn't been done yet. Q A But do you have a mental ceiling for Triumph's annual production? Is there a limit to how big you want the company to grow? we're getting very close it it - maybe one or two more years of growth should see us where I'd like to stop. We'll keep it to a sensible size, where we can maintain a good control over quality. We're a young company, so we haven't had the experience of fifty years of production, not like some of the Japanese people, who I respect very much. We've had to learn very quickly - 10 years instead of 50 years is a big difference. Q A TriumPh sources a lot of its components from the Orient as a whole - not only from Japan. Is that going to increase in the future? lt's swung around a lot, but the number in value terms is not much different than when we first started. We try to buy the best quality, at the best price - we wouldn't buy the poorest quality, but we don't go just for price. But we are opening a component factory in Thailand, which will allow us to control this better. Q A Q lt's well-known that quality has been your main consideration from the outset for Triumph, perhaps at the expense of some other factors. Is it true your warranty claims have dropped to below one percent of total production, which must be the industry benchmark? Not far off that - though I wouldn't claim that that's industry-leading. We always respect people who can do better. Triumph's model strategy from the outset was not to make retro bikes, but to take the Japanese head-on with modern multi-cylinder products. Why did you decide to do that, given the success of the Bonneville when you eventually got around to making it - and do you think you got your priorities right? I wouldn't consider we're head-on against the Japanese, more that we're complimentary. It's like anything - you buy a car with four wheels, an engine and a certain kind of styling, but that doesn't mean the firm that made it are head-on with anybody. We're too small to be head-on - we just sit alongside and go our own way. Q A 62 C U III I • n • _ But the marked new Q Triumph,TT600 dedicatedaenginedirection for and chassis with a platform. Was this a conscious change of direction? When we started out, we had a modular design strategy, which meant that starting from zero, with our purchasing power very low, we had the chance to build a range quickly that was sharing a lot of components so that we could consolidate purchasing to provide a competitively priced series of models. But modular design of motorcycles does bring a degree of compromise, so eventually we got away from that to more of a dedicated design strategy, and we'll be intensifying that in the future. A well, if you come to think of it, we've been going 10 years, it was launched a year ago, so with the three-year lead time for development and so on, I don't think we were too slow off the mark. We wanted to establish Triumph as a manufacturer of more modem bikes before looking in the history books - and, in hindsight, I think that was the best way to go. A TT600 and Q But why develop the Wasn't that a launch it before the Bonneville? mistake, in retrospect? in fact, they were developed concurrently - just that the TT600 got ready first, so it was launched one year earlier, that's all. It just happened that way. Producing the Bonneville was always part of the strategy, from the very beginning - but in its own time. A Did ever consider producing Q with youthree-cylinder engine, ratherthe TT600 a than with a four-cylinder motor, like its Japanese rivals? Yes, we did - same as we consider many options when we're thinking about any new model. But I don't regret choosing to go with a four - I don't think this was at all a mistake, as some people seem to think. We entered the field, just like many other manufacturers - and maybe the first year didn't go as well as one anticipated or one would like, but we've kept at it and now we've got there. It's like any new product - you can play around with it to your heart's content, but until the public gets at it, you never really know. Our main aim is always to make our bikes reliable - but then the public gets hold of it, in different countries, different cultures, different climates, and you get the feedback - even though you test very extensively, the public will always find the odd thing or two. The fuel-injection system was almost a first in the 600s (it was, apart from Bimota - AC), and we leamed a lot from that, so now we tend to do the development all ourselves, rather than give it to a third party that hasn't got as much of a vested interest as we do. But the basic decision to build a four-cylinder bike was still the right one, as far as I'm concerned. A with the three-cylinder range - Daytona, Tiger, ST, RS and so on? And how about a high-spec Sport version, just like Honda has done with the CBR600? so Yes - the Speed Four that we're just launching is the first of the spinoff models, but there will be others. We're very pleased with the TT600 product now. Reliability was never an issue, but what was an issue was the tune - the fuel-injection system could have been sweeter, but we've got close to the bone on that one, now. Will we follow Honda's lead and produce a power-up Sport version? We'll consider doing anything - we always keep our options open. A Q All the other manufacturers of 600 Supersport models go racing with them. Why won't you? When you build something to start with, you work on it for a while, until you get it right. We'll keep that option open - I wouldn't rule it out. A But to go question Oka y - but Q neville, whybackit to theyou so long of the Bon- Q approach towhat is Triumph's corporate did take to make it? racing? Is it true you're as a family of models Q DO youonplan to build just as you've done based the TT600, lsn't a model like the TT600 taking the Japanese Supersport models head-on? No, it's simply another one in there, another player in there. We're not trying to knock MAY 1, 2002' Honda off their perch, just to provide a small-volume alternative. adamantly opposed to it as you're rumored to be? No, we're interested in it - we don't rule any- . thing out that might be of benefit to improving the product. A Are you Q or does itpersonally interested in road racing, leave you cold? well - I tum on the TV to watch racing, especially World Superbike. I go to Donington every year, I've been to Assen to watch how they do racing in Europe, I've been to Daytona - it's totally incorrect for people to say I hate racing, because it's quite the opposite. It's just that, in the early days, when we were building things up, I didn't want to dilute the effort - try to do everything, and you'll make a good job of nothing. We've supplied engines and a bit of technical support to many people - you included, when you raced the Saxon Triumph! But you and the others doing it yourselves didn't take away from what was our main objective as a company, which was to get the street product right. We're currently supplying bikes and engines to various people to go racing with, so it's not something we steer away from. A the Q WiIl Triumph go Supersport racing at that world level when, and if, you produce rumored power-up Sport version of the TT600 and how about World Superbike racing with the new 1000cc regulations, when they come into force in 2004? I would think that it's more than possible that's all I want to say at this time. We'd probably bite one at a time, not start out doing both together - but it's more than possible we'll join in. There's been a lot of talk connecting Triumph with the three-cylinder Foggy Petronas Superbike project being worked on just up the road from here. Any truth in that? It's news to me. The answer is - no, there's no connection with them. Did you discuss with Sauber putting the Triumph name on their three-cylinder engine in order to go Grand Prix racing before the Fogarty project was dreamed up? I didn't discuss it with them - they discussed it with mel I told them we'd keep our options open - that's all I'm prepared to say right now. They're very nice people, and we had some useful meetings. A

• Cover