Talk:Triumph Engineering

message: After the workers cooperative collapsed Any more background on that? - FrancisTyers 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it now - much more! Regards, - Trident13 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Workers cooperative

message: While poking around looking for some additional information for the pre-Bloor era, I found a webpage with curious similarities to the text in this article, particularly comparing http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/triumph/time05.html with the sections in subheading 'Cooperative' of this article.  Anyone have any thoughts on this? Saturn V 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation? 

message: Surely the two should have seperate articles?  The name may be the same, but the companies, as obvious from this article, were not.  From my own personal knowledge, there is enough of a distinction (as well as materiel for an article) between New Triumph/Triumph Engineering and Triumph Motorcycles Ltd to warrant a disambiguation.
Comments?  -Harlsbottom 03:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if two articles are needed, in my opinion the existing article should be edited with the Triumph Motorcycles Ltd infobox moving to the top of the page and edited to say founded in 1885. I see Triumph Motorcycles Ltd and Triumph Engineering Company Ltd as the same manufacturer the first being a continuation of the second. In the same way that the current Ducati Motor Holding SpA is a continuation of the original Ducati Meccanica SpA and Ducati under the Cagiva group and motorcycles in the Superbike family like the Ducati 1098 made under Ducati Motor Holding SpA are considered successors of bikes like the Ducati 851 made by Cagiva. Chris Ssk talk 13:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meriden Triumph and Hinckley Triumph 

message: A little clarity would be appreciated. What was the displacement of the 5T & 6T?  Trekphiler 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear the fog

message: just a question, why do we have a picture of one of the modern bikes besides the 1930's section? to me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense Finbar Canavan 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture placement 

message: As others have noted, a signifcant part of this article is from work by Ian Chadwick.  There are curently only four refernces and even these need checking. I therefore propose to start a rewrite to conform with GA criteria.  I concur that the diffrent companies should be split out and cross referenced and all the main people need to have Biog articles.  If you disagree please let me know TR001 (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a start on this today but few refs in original article so any help welcome Thruxton (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite 

message: I had a T110 in the early 70's and the feature I liked best about it was the way the clutch could be operated from the gearshift.  There was a cam on the gearshift and a rod that passed through the gearbox to the clutch.  Press down halfway, rev the engine to spilt the wet clutch plates, press all the way down to move the gears in, and you had a very rapid smooth change down.  It was wonderful, and very easy on the hands (no hands !) on twisty roads.  It also gave better control than using the hands in fast cornering.
I think Triumph were the first people to do this, and if that is so, it should mentioned on the main page as an important innovation.
--JamesOfBerkhamstead (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gearshifting 

message: There's no mention of the 3 1/2 hp (or 3 hp, for that matter) Triumph, which is a shame given how important that machine was to the industry. I'll see if I can come up with something, unless anyone else wants to have a go? Sarahburge (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Triumph 3 1/2 hp

message: When I saw the Ltd after the company name, I thought it was a typo, but after looking at the other links and articles, they are all Ltd and not Ltd. with the full stop after the abbreviation. Is this British English grammar or is this a typo? It doesn't look grammatically correct. If it is wrong and should be Co. Ltd. instead of Co Ltd or Ltd, then they all need to be changed. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ltd abbreviation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Triumph Engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526023748/http://triumphmotorcycles.be/nl-be/over-triumph/timeline/1900/ to http://triumphmotorcycles.be/nl-be/over-triumph/timeline/1900/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified