[sportrider - features] - 2013 Middleweight Naked-Bike Comparison Test | Triple Duel!

[Ninjette Newsbot]

2013 Triumph Street Triple R and 2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675





When we last left the Triumph Street Triple R, it had deftly sidestepped a determined assault by a significantly more powerful Italian V-twin, the Ducati 848 Streetfighter (“Twin vs. Triple, Take Two,” May 2013). Despite being down more than 18 horsepower to the 848, the Street Triple R easily fended off the Ducati by virtue of its user-friendly inline-three-cylinder powerplant offering a torque curve as flat as a billiard table, decent ergos, and confidence-inspiring handling. Outside of its polarizing styling, we really didn’t have any major gripes with Triumph’s middleweight naked machine.

But being numero uno in the middleweight naked class means you’ve always got a target on your back, and the British 675cc triple now has another challenger from Italy looking to knock it off its perch. But instead of the Borgo Panigale district in Bologna, this one comes from a bit farther north in Varese, close to Milan. And interestingly enough, this Italian contender is also a 675cc triple…

LA BRUTALINA
SR ’s European correspondent Alan Cathcart gave us a thorough introduction to the MV Agusta Brutale 675 back in our December 2012 issue (“La Brutalina”). While basically a stripped-of-bodywork version of the company’s high-performance supersport F3 with some minor alterations to help it fit its less-frantic role better (softer cams, slightly less compression, steel instead of titanium valves, smaller throttle bodies, and single injectors), the Brutale 675 also carries much of the F3’s advanced rider aid technology (rideby- wire throttle, three riding modes, eight-level traction control).

2013 Triumph Street Triple R and 2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675





Although its basic engine architecture (transverse inline DOHC three-cylinder with four valves per cylinder, with crankpin spacing at 120 degrees) is the same as the Triumph’s, that’s about it for the Brutale 675 powerplant’s similarities to its British counterpart. For starters, the MV’s engine—which is canted forward at 35 degrees, much steeper than the more upright Triumph mill—has much more oversquare bore and stroke dimensions, with a much larger bore (79mm versus 74mm) and correspondingly shorter stroke (45.9mm versus 52.3mm) allowing larger valves and higher revs. But the most distinguishing feature of the MV engine is that the crankshaft rotates backward to counter the gyroscopic inertia of the wheels for easier and quicker handling at speed.

All this is housed in MV’s now-signature hybrid chromoly steel tube trellis frame attached to cast-aluminum swingarm pivot sections. The 43mm Marzocchi inverted fork is non-adjustable, while the single Sachs rear shock is adjustable only for preload.

UK VS. ITALY
Firing up both bikes in the morning reveals not only a slight hesitation on the Triumph’s part while its dash cycles through a startup pattern, but also a distinct difference in exhaust notes. Granted, a lot of the disparity is due to the exhaust designs; the Triumph’s low-slung singleexit unit emits a lower, gruff tone compared to the MV’s more frenetic chorus coming from its triple-exit exhaust. Funny how that also translates into the two bikes’ differing personalities.

The Street Triple R’s ergos are more spacious than the Brutale’s, with decidedly more legroom and area to move about on the seat, along with slightly higher-set handlebars sporting a more rearward bend making longer rides an easier task. The MV’s seat keeps your butt locked in one position, and its higher and more-rearward-set footpegs fold your legs a bit more. There’s a marked contrast in instrument panels too, with the Brutale’s relatively tiny all-digital LCD dash much harder to read at a glance than the Triumph’s analog tachometer and LCD info display, which includes a fuel gauge. The Street Triple R gets the nod mirror-wise as well; while the MV’s aren’t bad, their adjustment is limited compared to the Triumph’s.

2013 Triumph Street Triple R





Taking off from a stop is a bit more of a chore than you’d expect with both bikes. In the Triumph’s case, the tall first gear requires a bit of clutch slippage and throttle to get off the line smartly; luckily its ultra-flat torque curve and smooth clutch ease the job significantly. The MV on the other hand suffers from a dearth of low-end power and frustratingly nonlinear rideby- wire throttle response in any of its four engine maps. In the Sport map, the engine responds aggressively in the first quarter-turn of the throttle, forcing you to manipulate the throttle in order to avoid sounding like a boy racer to nearby law enforcement. The Normal map isn’t as hyper-responsive to initial throttle rotation, but it requires almost too much throttle movement before you get adequate steam from the engine room; and Rain mode pulls back enough power in addition to throttle response to be annoying more than anything else.

A Custom engine map allows you to pick and choose between various engine performance parameters, but even then we were unable to find a happy medium for average street use. Aggressive canyon riding or racetrack use is a little easier to find a compromise for, but we’re not sure how much time the majority of these bikes would spend in that environment.

2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675





While we’re on the subject of the MV’s electronics, there were also some frustrating annoyances and incidents that bear mentioning. The first was a gear indicator on our test unit that would jump back and forth between displaying fifth and sixth gear, even though the bike was in top gear. More concerning (and hopefully an isolated incident) was a temporary shutdown of the engine electrics after the dash displayed a “malfunction” warning along with a yellow warning light. The Brutale eventually sprang back to life after a few minutes—but only after a heart-stopping journey across five lanes of busy highway traffic with a lifeless engine.

On the imperfect pavement of city streets and highways, ironically we preferred the MV’s basically non-adjustable (except rear spring preload) suspension to the fully adjustable units on the Triumph for the most part. The problem with the Street Triple R is what appears to be an overabundance of high-speed compression damping (which isn’t adjustable) at both ends—at least for our 150-to-180-pound staffers. Any sharp-edged bumps encountered result in a kickback through the suspension, especially in the rear, even though most other situations are handled with aplomb.

And those situations with the Triumph include aggressive canyon riding. As the speed picks up and the horizon begins tilting, the Street Triple R’s suspension and chassis stay impressively composed, offering a nice combination of middleweight agility with heavyweight stability. Once turn-in is initiated, you can pick any portion of a turn you want to be in, and the Triumph obediently follows with no fuss.

The Brutale’s non-adjustable suspension does an admirable job of keeping everything under control as the speeds venture into high double digits. But aggressive throttle (which is almost unavoidable—more on that in a bit) or braking maneuvers can get the chassis pitching about, creating other handling ills that let you know the MV isn’t happy.

With its steeper 23.4-degree rake (versus the Brutale’s 24.5-degree measurement), it’d be easy to assume the Street Triple R is the more flickable of the two, but the MV actually holds the nimbleness cards in this matchup. The Brutale is quicker and easier on turn-in (how much of this is due to the counter-rotating crank we’re not sure), and its 1.2-inch-shorter wheelbase allows it to carve impressively tight lines.

Unfortunately, scything up a tight canyon road on the MV is a lot more work than you’d think because of the engine’s high-strung personality. Unlike the Triumph powerplant that is the epitome of user-friendliness with buttersmooth throttle response and an astounding torque curve flatter and wider than a Kansas plain, the Brutale’s power characteristics are, well, brutal. The MV’s engine revs quicker than the Triumph, and it definitely accelerates harder. The only problem is that it doesn’t make much power below 7,000 rpm, and when it does come on the power, it hits hard. This requires a lot of skill from the rider to not only keep the Brutale 675 on the boil but also to avoid letting that power overcome rear tire traction at the wrong moment. Even if you maintained grip, the forceful power application tended to squat the nonadjustable rear suspension and make the MV a little twitchy over bumpy corner exits.

What about the MV’s eight-level traction control, you say? We found the TC to be much too invasive and its transitions back to full power too coarse at even the lowest settings to provide decent drives off corners. Even in Level 1, we could feel the TC pulling back too much power; and then when we began to pick the bike up off the turn, instead of bringing back power gradually, it seemed to apply full power all at once. We had much better results with the TC turned off.

While all this drama was going on with the Brutale, the Street Triple R simply went on about its business without any fuss. What the Triumph’s engine might lack in excitement and outright power compared to the MV, it more than makes up for in its ability to allow the rider to generate speed with very little effort. The ability to get on the throttle earlier in the corner and build speed on the exit pays dividends that simply can’t be bought with top-end horsepower.

If the road is fast or you’re on a racetrack where low-end power and low-speed throttle response aren’t as crucial, then the Brutale has a much better chance of giving the Triumph all it can handle. There’s no doubt the MV has stronger acceleration and top-end power (though curiously our test bike hit a rev limiter at 11,750 rpm while still making power instead of 13,000 rpm as specified in press material and European magazine road tests). Just like the F3, the Brutale 675 has tons of potential; it simply needs a lot more refinement in its electronics suite to realize it.

Another contrast in refinement is the shifting action between the two transmissions. The Triumph’s gearbox has one of the best shifting actions in motorcycling, with a low-effort, shortthrow movement at the lever that still gives a positive engagement, both on upshifts and downshifts. Our Brutale had the optional quickshifter setup, yet it still required a lot of muscle at the lever, and we were wondering if the quickshifter was even working at times. After a day of riding the MV, our left foot was definitely starting to feel the effects of “shifter toe.”

Braking was another area where you could tell Triumph had performed a lot of on-road R&D. While the Street Triple R’s 310mm discs/Nissin calipers aren’t quite as outright powerful as the Brutale’s 320mm discs/Brembo calipers setup, the brake pad compound offers much better feel as you approach the limit. The MV’s brakes have a decent initial bite and good power, but feedback is a bit wooden compared to the Triumph.

THE VERDICT
The Brutale 675 has the feel of a rough-finished knife blank that has yet to meet a finishing stone. All the right components are there for superior performance: a super-strong and rev-hungry engine housed in a sharp-steering chassis, good brakes, decent suspension. All it needs is the proper polishing in certain areas, and the resulting weapon could be devastating to the rest of the class. In fact, MV continues to provide firmware updates to its customers free of charge. But it’s nice to ride something that’s already obviously undergone a good amount of polishing and refinement. And while it still might have a minor flaw here and there, the less flashy Triumph Street Triple R simply gets the job done quicker and with less effort than the MV Agusta Brutale 675.

2013 Triumph Street Triple R





TRIUMPH STREET TRIPLE R
+ Smooth, crisp fueling
+ Broad, flat torque curve
+ Faultless transmission
– Suspension harsh over bumps
– Dash info could be organized better
– Maybe a little more power?
x Probably one of the best naked bikes out there

SUGGESTED SUSPENSION SETTINGS
Front: Spring preload—4 lines showing on adjuster; rebound damping—14 clicks out from full stiff; compression damping—17 clicks out from full stiff; ride height—6mm showing above top triple clamp
Rear: Spring preload—10mm thread showing; rebound damping—8 clicks out from full stiff; compression damping—7 clicks out from full stiff

2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675





MV Agusta Brutale 675
+ Strong, quick-revving engine
+ Agile chassis
+ Lots of electronic options
– Electronics need more work
– Non-adjustable suspension
– Electrical issues
x A little more refinement and MV could have a real weapon

SUGGESTED SUSPENSION SETTINGS
Front: N/A
Rear: Spring preload—10mm thread showing on shock body

2013 Triumph Street Triple R and 2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675





SR OPINIONS

BRADLEY ADAMS
I can’t help but think that MV Agusta’s Brutale 675 rode into this battle as an underdog. Triumph’s Street Triple R has already proven itself as the bike to beat in the middleweight naked bike category, and the MV’s predecessors didn’t lead us to believe the new Brutale would be free of idiosyncrasies. That being said, I got along moderately well with the B675 and am pretty certain that the electronics updates MV just released will override most of our concerns regarding abruptness. Suspension action wasn’t bad from the non-adjustable bits and the ergonomics not overly stifling—I even did a 600-mile trip on the MV this month!

The Triumph is a better bike…now. No electronics updates required thanks to a smooth power delivery. The transmission is excellent, and the chassis extremely composed. Okay, maybe it doesn’t steer quite as quickly as the MV, but I’ll bet on the systematic champ over a fastswinging up-and-comer any day.

KENT KUNITSUGU
In the beginning of MV Agusta’s resurrection by the late Claudio Castiglioni, the firm’s bikes were more show than go. Yes, their styling was certainly cutting edge and they had top-shelf components, but their performance was sort of stuck in the previous decade. That changed in recent years though, and now the MV Agusta range has tremendous performance potential; the engines have plenty of power, and the chassis’ sharp handling traits have carved out their own niche in the sportbike world.

That said, all that potential is stifled by electronics that are crying out for more refinement. Just like the F3 we tested for our middleweight supersport comparison, the Brutale 675 holds the promise of class-leading performance that is possibly an update away.

The Triumph, on the other hand, is already refined and with a much lower sticker price. Apples and oranges, certainly, but my wallet would probably lean toward the less-expensive fruit most of the time.

SPORT RIDER RATINGS

MV Agusta Brutale 675 Triumph Street Triple R Fun to Ride 8.0 9.0 Quality 8.0 9.0 Instruments and Controls 7.5 8.5 Ergonomics 8.5 9.0 Chassis and Handling 9.0 8.5 Suspension 9.0 9.0 Brakes 8.5 9.0 Transmission 7.5 9.5 Engine Power 9.0 9.0 Engine Power Delivery 8.0 9.5 Ratings Total 83.0 90.0SPECIFICATIONS

2013 MV Agusta Brutale 675 2013 Triumph Street Triple R MSRP $11,498 (quick-shift option, as tested); $10,998 standard | $9,999 ENGINE Type Liquid-cooled, DOHC inline transverse 3-cylinder, 4 valves/cyl. | Liquid-cooled, DOHC inline transverse 3-cylinder, 4 valves/cyl. Displacement 675cc | 675cc Bore x stroke 79.0 x 45.9mm | 74.0 x 52.3mm Compression ratio 12.3:1 | 12.7:1 Induction Mikuni EFI with 47mm throttle bodies, single injector/cyl. | Keihin EFI with 44mm throttle bodies, single injector/cyl. CHASSIS Front suspension 43mm Marzocchi inverted fork, 4.9 in. travel | 41mm Kayaba inverted fork, 4.5 in. travel Rear suspension Single Sachs shock absorber, 4.7 in. travel | Single Kayaba shock absorber, 5.3 in. travel Front tire 120/70ZR-17 Pirelli Angel ST | 120/70ZR-17 Pirelli Diablo Rosso Corsa Rear tire 180/55ZR-17 Pirelli Angel ST | 180/55ZR-17 Pirelli Diablo Rosso Corsa Rake/trail 24.5°/3.7 in. (95mm) | 23.4°/3.7 in. (95mm) Wheelbase 54.3 in. (1380mm) | 55.5 in. (1410mm) Seat height 31.9 in. (810mm) | 32.3 in. (820mm) Fuel capacity 4.4 gal. (16.6L) | 4.6 gal. (17.4L) Weight 409 lbs. (186kg) wet; 383 lbs. (174kg) dry | 413 lbs. (187kg) wet; 385 lbs. (175kg) dry Fuel consumption 38–43 mpg, 40 mpg avg. | 40–45 mpg, 42 mpg avg. PERFORMANCE Quarter-mile 11.28 sec. @ 122.9 mph | 11.10 sec. @ 121.4 mph Roll-ons 60–80 mph/2.92 sec.; 80–100 mph/3.03 sec. | 60–80 mph/3.13 sec.; 80–100 mph/3.44 sec.


Click here for full story...