The way this is written is a bit misleading. The engine IS a Rocket three engine; the only difference really is larger cylinder head cooling fins that were for looks only. The triple engine was designed from the start to be in the Triumph and BSA models to follow. When designed mid 60's, it had to be trialed in a prototype. Pointless to have TWO test mules. So they made a Triumph prototype (P1) which looked just like a mid 60's Bonneville. This leads people to believe "BSA based on Triumph". They had to choose a bike to put the engine in to see if it worked, they chose the Triumph. But from the start, the plan was to have the engine in both; because in the USA (and in Britain), there were two completely separate dealer networks. So - Triumph was in a Triumph signature frame - single downtube, and the Triumph triple had upright barrels, and "Triumph" config side cases. The BSA offering had identical internals. But it's barrels "leaned forward", and it had "BSA looking" side cases. Other than that, the engines are the same. The BSA had a double cradle frame, in keeping with what BSA riders expected. The bikes were ready mid 60's. A Bonneville/BSA looking like the previous 650's but with 750 triple power would have been EXACTLY what people wanted - BUT the "new management" at BSA/Triumph employed "Ogle design" (known for designing coaches and toasters) and they delayed the production by two years. The Trident escaped with a boxy tank and ridiculous "Ray Gun" pipes - didn't look TOO bad - but the BSA looked ridiculous. Huge, ponderous, clunky. It looked rubbish.The dealers and the public were horrified, they thought it was a joke. The only ones who liked it were the idiot "Ivory towers" management, who often admitted they "weren't "motorcycle" people". How was that EVER going to work??????? Lionel Jofeh (ex aerospace exec) was the boss, and the worst person to have there at the time. Eventually, Triumph shipped "beauty kits" to the US That were essentially Bonneville lookalike fittings. BSA morphed into what the 650's looked like. Enter Craig Vetter. He was asked to design an American look alike "chopper" style. He was YEARS ahead of his time. That "integrated tank into side cover" look endured throughout the 80's and 90's on every second bike. The engine was a BSA Rocket 3 engine. The frame is a BSA frame (double cradle), These bikes were produced when BSA still going; and they were never made as a Triumph. But then BSA went broke. Triumph soldiered on. You have a BSA ready to go (just over 1,000 units)and no parent company. What to do? Stick a Triumph badge on it. But anyone who knows Triumphs/BSA's knows this is a BSA. Incidently; the following Trident (T160, short lived last gasp) used the BSA style "tilt forward" engine; as only way they could fit in elec start, which by then was in vogue. It has covers to at least LOOK like it is a bit Triumph. I find your review of the handling to be, well, a trifle harsh. Sorry. :-) You are reviewing it compared to new bikes. At the time, the BSA R3/Tridents were among the BEST handling bikes around. Their race wins and records set testify to that. Don't get me wrong, I have a 74 Trident out the back, and have had it since 1993. There never was a more "love/hate" bike. SO hard to keep going, and require constant fettling. Take a Triumph 500 twin, add another cylinder, three carbs = Trident/R3. But when they go - they GO! But most people found it hard to keep a Brit vertical twin going - let alone that; with half as much hassle AGAIN.......which is what these triples basically are. Mine flies - when it is going....... but I last rode it years ago, as too much hassle. I rode mine around Philip Island in 95. I always assume everyone is a better rider than me; but there were guys there with new bikes and an 860LeMans Guzzi - I was pushing to past them. And I was taking it easy. Track day; (limited staff, no ambo's) and I had an open face helmet and just jeans, no leathers. It was a breeze. If I can do that, someone who knows what they were doing...... And the BSA frame handled the same, if not better. Hurricane had the 1 inch overs, but pared back, so lighter than standard; so would have been about the same. As far as the one inch overs...... so the Hurricane above had "chopper geometry" and "1 inch overs" (that is what they were known as). My Trident had 1 inch overs when I got it, which I quickly removed...... but it STILL handled better than most of the age WITH them. I remember fast rides through the Dandenongs before I removed the inch overs - never a worry. Don't forget, most 70 to 75 Japanese bikes were reliable and high power - but handling was very average, as were brakes. Stainless steel discs look GREAT; but the cast iron the Euros used were always better. Although the drum brake on the Hurricane was "average" - but of the time. The previous double leading shoe drum was the best drum around; but (again) BSA/Triumph management went with a WORSE brake (the conical hub one shown) for looks and "easily available parts/ease of manufacture". And don't assume all discs were "instantly better than drums." Many new discs had far too small pads;look at the first Norton Commando discs, pads were tiny and required extreme effort. Give me that Hurricane at Philip Island and put a dozen other "standard" bike from 67 to 73 out there. Like I said - I assume everyone is a better rider than me - but I would be among the front runners/surprise some people. Ground clearance? No problem. When you review a bikes handling; it should be in view of what everything else sold around it did. The Hurricane was a "look at me/cruising" bike, not designed for it's handling. But it STILL would have handled as good as, if not better than MOST bikes sold new in the US in the very early 70's. I have ridden many bikes of that age. I had a 1976 Ducati 860 GT and then a 1975 900SS as "go to work" bikes. The SS is arguably the BEST handling bike of the 70's. But the triples (T150, T150V, A75) were up there - as many found when racing against them. A Hurricane would have been a bit behind them. Still pretty good. But also remember; it was being sold as a cruiser - against Harleys - in the US. It's handling would have been PERFECT in that comparo. :-) Oh, and a footnote. BSA/Triumph so cash strapped in those days - Vetter had to wait for AGES to get paid - and it was a pittance. Cheers; Ken H Two pics - 93 with "1 inch overs"; and recently.