From 1961 until the late 1980's I rode Triumphs. By this I mean bikes made in Meridan. I loved them. When I moved to France I bought myself a bmw (R80RT). Mostly reliable although for the first time in my motorcycling career I was stopped on the road with an electrical fault. The bike was basically reliable but I can't say I really enjoyed riding it. Eventually I sold it and bought an Enfield (500 cc AVL ) engine. Chosen carefully because it had the option of a RH gear change and electric start and my old knees aren't as good as they used to be. Loved that also not quite the same as my Meriden Triumphs but after the BMW it was a joy to ride. On a trip to Poland via Italy and Austria and back through Germany, Nederlands and Belgium The big end started to rattle. Rode it into a garage in Uk and after it was fixed rode it ever since. Interestingly I unexpectedly found I averaged significantly more miles per day on the Enfield than I did on the BMW. since the late 60's I had always wanted a Triumph three cylinder bike so bought myself a 900cc thunderbird. In 3 or 4 months all the love and affection I had for Triumph evaporated. I couldn't live with this so eventually rationalised it this way. To me Triumphs were bikes made in Meriden by engineers and motorcyclists. Hinkley machines are made by accountants. As their own manger said, "The new company has nothing whatsoever to do with the old company".

Here are the figures,
distance run on Hinkley 1200 miles
costs 2 x alternators at £850 each
1 x speedo at £800
1 x headlamp at £200
forgetting tyres, oil insurance etc. thats £2.25 per mile for repairs.
plus another £1000 when I sold it.

Distance run on Enfield 13000 miles
1 by new bigger big end and battery installed £600
2 x rear chains at £28 each £56
1 x clutch cable and mechanism £30
forgetting tyres, oil insurance and the fact it does twice the mpg = 5.27 pence per mile for repairs.

If I had needed a speedo, one for an Enfield is £35, but they seem more reliable than the Hinkley ones.

The Enfield is a keeper.