The CB1100 Community Forum

Good point Guth. For me it was not about HP, but having torque on tap is nice. I always felt power-under-control and delivery was enough to not worry about numbers. But I don't crave 150+ HP on two wheels, maybe that is the difference with many other opinions.

Guth, I don't personally think HP/weight ratio means much to the average person, but rather the overall experience the HP/torque provides. Our CB 1100's are a prime example. Not the best hp/weight ratio, but a very pleasing ride none the less. If hp to weight was such a determining factor none of us would have bought CB 1100s.

I have a CB500X I acquired thru family last year. I don't ride it much. i don't enjoy riding it. I rode it yesterday because it had been a month since I rode it last. Still felt like a under powered dog and you had to constantly row thru the gearbox to get anywhere. Some people like that. I don't. 46 HP, 30 ft lbs torque 432 pounds and to me it is nothing but work to ride. Not enjoyable at all. Some people find them exciting fun little bikes. Find the hp and torque fine. Find the light weight nice. I just don't.

(02-12-2020, 11:41 PM)The ferret_imp Wrote: [ -> ]I understand how you guys feel. I really do. Some people find a Honda CB300 or Ninja 300 or R3 Yamaha has enough power. I don't. Heck some people think a Grom has plenty of power...I really don't. lol

Among the bikes I thought I would be happy with over the last 15 years Nighthawk 750 75 hp 65 ft lbs (not enough horsepower or brakes for me) Triumph Bonneville T-100 ...865cc... 61HP 45 ft lbs (Not enough horsepower or brakes for me) I just got no thrill out of riding them. I have a CB 500X in the garage. I have to force myself to take it out and ride it cause it just doesn't have enough horsepower and brakes for me.

I also had bike with too much HP for me

Yamaha FZ-1... 126 HP 66 FT lbs Honda ST 1300.. 125 HP 85 ft lbs.. Yamaha FJR 146 HP 99 ft lbs ..... all with too much hp plenty of brakes.

These numbers combined with the experience of riding them says for ME, a motorcycle should have 100 hp and 75 ft lbs of torque.

So I have bikes with 50 hp , 89 hp and 146 hp in the garage, and if I could only keep one it would be the 89 hp CB 1100

Using your CB1100 DLX as the starting point, for the power/weight ratio you have 89 hp / 570 lb (0.156). The torque/weight ratio would be 69 ft-lb / 570 lb (0.121).

So if the CB1100 DLX had been instead been released with 100 hp, 75 lb-ft instead of 89 hp, 69 lb-ft you would have a power/weight ratio of 100 hp / 570 lb (0.175) and a torque/weight ratio of 75 lb-ft / 570 lb (0.132).

Similarly, if the CB1100 DLX had instead been released with a wet weight of 510 lbs instead of 570 lbs also you would have a ratio of 89 hp / 512 hp or (0.175) and a torque/weight ratio of 69 lb-ft / 510 lb (0.135)

So to me the weight of the bike as it relates to these specs seems very important

But I had no idea of these numbers (until you just quoted them) and still decided the CB1100, despite what it weighs and how little horse power it has, is very satisfying to ride. Wonder how many members worked out the hp/weight ratio before deciding to buy? Heck I just read your numbers TWICE and they still don't mean anything to me lol.

That’s kind of my point. Throwing out figures like 100 hp or 75 lb-ft as ideals doesn’t make sense unless you also know the weight of the motorcycle as well. In this case, reducing the weight of a 2014 CB1100 DLX by 58 pounds effectively has almost the same impact as raising the horsepower and torque to the values that were indicated as ideals.

To put it differently, if you tell Honda that you would like a motorcycle with the 100hp and 75lb-ft specifications that you desire you might think that all would be good. But if Honda responded to your request with not just one, but two motorcycles instead you would likely be even more excited. That is until you find out that they’ve used a Grom and a Gullwing as the platforms for the two bikes. Neither one of them is likely to perform in the manner you might have expected before realizing one is a flyweight and the other is a pig relatively speaking. The bottom line and the point that I am trying to make is that the weight involved has just as much impact as the other two characteristics mentioned and I would say even more as we haven’t even touched upon things like braking and handling.

ok then 550 pounds. 100 hp, 75 ft lbs of torque and wet weight 550 pounds (I like a little meat on her bones). Whew..you are making me work Guth.

Or, in hp/ton: 89 hp / (570lb/2000lb per ton) = 312 hp per ton.
Compare that with most cages and it is pretty impressive, no?

jim

To Guth's point, the numbers might not seem attractive or overwhelming, but the 38 rwhp, 430 lb. Moto Guzzi V7 offers truly satisfying performance given its design intention. Same with the 24 rwhp, 350 lb. CBR250R. Lots of fun on the road. But not so much at extra-legal speeds, and certainly not two-up!

and to Ferrets point, the 46 hp 432 lb CB 500x (8 more hp and only 2 more pounds than the V7 Guzzi) does not offer satisfying performance to him at all lol.

And to Guth's point, there's braking and handling and seat height and comfort and fork rake and the position of the pegs and the suspension and the aesthetic appeal of the bike to the purchaser. To try to reduce the desirability of a motorcycle or car to a single number is not only impossible but faintly ridiculous.