Sol Invictus Apollo Cafe Racer vs Triumph Scrambler 1200 Bond Edition

Compare Specifications of Sol Invictus Apollo Cafe Racer and Triumph Scrambler 1200 Bond Edition

Selected Bikes

Sol Invictus Apollo Cafe Racer
Sol Invictus Apollo Cafe Racer

Brand:

Model:

Triumph Scrambler 1200 Bond Edition
Triumph Scrambler 1200 Bond Edition

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol Petrol
Engine Single Cylinder 4 Stroke 400 Liquid-cooled, 8 valve, SOHC, 270° crank angle parallel-twin
Engine Starting Electric Start --
Clutch -- Wet, multi-plate assist clutch
Fuel System Delphi EFI System Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection
Cooling System -- Liquid-cooled
Maximum Power 28 Ps @ 7500 Rpm 89 Hp @7400 rpm
Maximum Torque 30 Nm @ 5500 Rpm 110 Nm @ 3950 rpm
Transmission 5 Speed 6-speed
Gear Shift Pattern -- 1-N-2-3-4-5-6
Frame -- Tubular steel with aluminium cradle
Tyres
Front 3:25 - 18” 90/90-21
Rear 130/80 - 18” 150/70 R17
Wheel / RIM -- Front Wheel : Tubeless 36-spoke 21 x 2.15 in, aluminium rims
Rear Wheel : Tubeless 32-spoke 17 x 4.25 in, aluminium rims
Brakes
Front ABS Hydraulic Brake System Twin 320 mm discs, Brembo M50 monoblock calipers, radial master cylinder. Switchable Optimized Cornering ABS
Rear ABS Hydraulic Brake System Single 255 mm disc, Brembo 2-piston floating caliper. Switchable Optimized Cornering ABS
Suspension
Front -- Showa 47 mm fully adjustable USD forks. 250 mm wheel travel
Rear -- Öhlins fully adjustable piggy-back RSUs with twin springs. 250 mm wheel travel
Colors Available
Colors -- --


Physical Specs
Length 2130 mm --
Height 1200 mm 1250 mm
Kerb Weight -- 207
Handlebar Width -- 905
Seat Height 800 870
Wheelbase 1600 mm 1570 mm
Ground Clearance 200 mm --
Fuel Tank Capacity 17 litres 16 litres
Overview
Features -- --
Additional Details -- Exhaust : Brushed 2 into 2 exhaust system with brushed high level silencers
Final Drive : X ring chain
Swingarm : Twin-sided, aluminium
Rake : 26.9 º
Trail : 5.09 in (129.2 mm)
Fuel Consumption : 4.9 l/100 km (58 MPG)
CO2 Figures : 113.0 g/km

Which one do you think is better? And why?
Name :

Comment :

8888