(03-30-2014, 02:08 PM)Red Mist_imp Wrote:

(03-30-2014, 12:38 AM)thessler3_imp Wrote: All the comments are valid, but so is my point - the Cb1100 is a bit on the heavy side for a naked bike, but it depends on what you are comparing it to. Yes, it is easier to handle than my Gold Wing by a large margin and it is also lighter than many other bikes of similar displacement. My point is that it would be better still if it was lighter by about 50 pounds. The physics is simple - it would accelerate faster, stop quicker and go around corners quicker if it were lighter. It is simply a matter of cost benefit - it costs a lot more to make a lighter bike and the CB1100 is pretty inexpensive - quite a good deal actually. Obviously steel is both cheaper and heavier than aluminum, magnesium, titanium, plastic and carbon fiber.

Bikes in general are getting bigger and heavier. Nearly every "light" bike I have owned in the last 20 years has recently been increased in displacement and added a lot of weight. 650's and 750's used to be "big" bikes. Now they are "middle weights". My personal experience is that lighter bikes are easier to ride, all else being equal.

Yep.

What's funny about all this is cars are similar. I just got a 2014 Malibu 2.0 Turbo which makes 259 HP and 295 lbs/ft of torque. That's similar to the Mustang of the mid-60s with the 289 HiPo V8, but the Mustang weighed 1000 lbs less. The ~2L turbocharged engine has taken the place of the baby V8's across the board and has a hell of a lot of performance, but a half-ton more weight?

That weight all went to a much stronger chassis and safety features, infotainment systems, computer systems, and so on. But what's very interesting is that the Malibu is a much faster car despite its weight "disadvantage". The Mustang's top speed is maybe 120 mph for anyone nuts enough to try it; Malibu 2.0T is a measured 155 mph. 0-60, Mustang, is 8.3 seconds, where the Malibu can do it in 6.1 seconds (Malibu specs are from Car and Driver's road test).

It's in the efficiencies, there is far less friction loss in modern engines with modern oils, the design is more efficient, the car is drastically more aerodynamic, and the six-speed automatic transmission is a huge help.

Another interesting point is that the Malibu is actually faster than the Impala, a car that makes 305 HP and weighs only 100 pounds more, but can barely get up to a measly 149 mph because of the additional drag of the larger frame. Quarter-mile and 0-60 times are identical. So all that additional power is still not sufficient to go "faster". Gas mileage is better on the Malibu, too, so I guess one can sometimes have cake and eat it, too.

The CB1100 may LOOK like a retro bike but as I demonstrated to myself this afternoon, the engine still revs like a modern motorcycle and I ride it like I would a modern 600cc sportbike, mostly in the upper third of the tach. It loves it. Might be heavier than some bikes but it's pretty efficient overall.

(03-30-2014, 12:38 AM)thessler3_imp Wrote: All the comments are valid, but so is my point - the Cb1100 is a bit on the heavy side for a naked bike, but it depends on what you are comparing it to. Yes, it is easier to handle than my Gold Wing by a large margin and it is also lighter than many other bikes of similar displacement. My point is that it would be better still if it was lighter by about 50 pounds. The physics is simple - it would accelerate faster, stop quicker and go around corners quicker if it were lighter. It is simply a matter of cost benefit - it costs a lot more to make a lighter bike and the CB1100 is pretty inexpensive - quite a good deal actually. Obviously steel is both cheaper and heavier than aluminum, magnesium, titanium, plastic and carbon fiber.

Bikes in general are getting bigger and heavier. Nearly every "light" bike I have owned in the last 20 years has recently been increased in displacement and added a lot of weight. 650's and 750's used to be "big" bikes. Now they are "middle weights". My personal experience is that lighter bikes are easier to ride, all else being equal.

(03-30-2014, 12:38 AM)thessler3_imp Wrote: All the comments are valid, but so is my point - the Cb1100 is a bit on the heavy side for a naked bike, but it depends on what you are comparing it to. Yes, it is easier to handle than my Gold Wing by a large margin and it is also lighter than many other bikes of similar displacement. My point is that it would be better still if it was lighter by about 50 pounds. The physics is simple - it would accelerate faster, stop quicker and go around corners quicker if it were lighter. It is simply a matter of cost benefit - it costs a lot more to make a lighter bike and the CB1100 is pretty inexpensive - quite a good deal actually. Obviously steel is both cheaper and heavier than aluminum, magnesium, titanium, plastic and carbon fiber.

Bikes in general are getting bigger and heavier. Nearly every "light" bike I have owned in the last 20 years has recently been increased in displacement and added a lot of weight. 650's and 750's used to be "big" bikes. Now they are "middle weights". My personal experience is that lighter bikes are easier to ride, all else being equal.

(03-29-2014, 03:10 AM)pechorin75_imp Wrote: No, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were a bit lighter...but that said, what difference does it really make? Granted, I'm used to handling big, heavy bikes, but the CB doesn't feel at all heavy to me, either in terms of handling or just lifting it on/off the side or center stands (in fact, if I didn't know, I'd guess it was actually lighter than the ZRX1100 I own--it certainly turns in quicker). It still accelerates fast enough, even stock, to embarrass all but the quickest sports cars. I doubt the extra pounds on the '14 deluxe will change that very much.

Bottom line, the bike simply isn't meant to play on the same field as a modern sporting machine, naked or not. That extra 50 pounds matters almost entirely at the outer margin of the performance envelope, which is a place where maybe 1 or 2 percent of owners will ever take it. For those who want a more competitive sport machine w/ the retro looks, it can be made to lose some weight and gain some horsepower...but it's never gonna be a CBR1000RR.

Which is why they make CBR1000RRs.

This isn't really directed at you, thessler, but in the digital camera world, there's a certain contingent of enthusiasts who focus almost entirely on technical specs, and in the process completely lose sight of the big picture--which is that the camera is ultimately just a tool used to capture an image; and that it's the image rather than the camera that ultimately matters. In reading comments on sites like Motorcycledaily lately, it seems like we've got something similar going on in the motorcycle world. You get the sense that the "peanut gallery" wouldn't be satisfied until somebody came out with a 220hp, 325lb bike that was completely docile on the street ("great first bike!"), handled like a MotoGP bike, rode like a Cadillac, had comfortable, adjustable ergonomics, got 60mpg, had hydraulic valve lifters, came with 500-mile seat comfortable for every rear-end, could tour like a Goldwing, looked exactly like a classic 1978 whatever (but better), had a centerstand, was belt or shaft driven....etc. And even then they'd find something to complain about ("Ugh! What were they thinking with that horrible speedometer font??")

(03-30-2014, 10:40 PM)The Spaceman_imp Wrote:

(03-30-2014, 12:38 AM)thessler3_imp Wrote: All the comments are valid, but so is my point - the Cb1100 is a bit on the heavy side for a naked bike, but it depends on what you are comparing it to. Yes, it is easier to handle than my Gold Wing by a large margin and it is also lighter than many other bikes of similar displacement. My point is that it would be better still if it was lighter by about 50 pounds. The physics is simple - it would accelerate faster, stop quicker and go around corners quicker if it were lighter. It is simply a matter of cost benefit - it costs a lot more to make a lighter bike and the CB1100 is pretty inexpensive - quite a good deal actually. Obviously steel is both cheaper and heavier than aluminum, magnesium, titanium, plastic and carbon fiber.

Bikes in general are getting bigger and heavier. Nearly every "light" bike I have owned in the last 20 years has recently been increased in displacement and added a lot of weight. 650's and 750's used to be "big" bikes. Now they are "middle weights". My personal experience is that lighter bikes are easier to ride, all else being equal.

I'm trying to think of a motorcycle (or any vehicle) that wouldn't be better if it were lighter by 50 pounds. No luck so far.

(03-30-2014, 11:05 PM)Greg Davis_imp Wrote:

(03-29-2014, 03:10 AM)pechorin75_imp Wrote: No, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were a bit lighter...but that said, what difference does it really make? Granted, I'm used to handling big, heavy bikes, but the CB doesn't feel at all heavy to me, either in terms of handling or just lifting it on/off the side or center stands (in fact, if I didn't know, I'd guess it was actually lighter than the ZRX1100 I own--it certainly turns in quicker). It still accelerates fast enough, even stock, to embarrass all but the quickest sports cars. I doubt the extra pounds on the '14 deluxe will change that very much.

Bottom line, the bike simply isn't meant to play on the same field as a modern sporting machine, naked or not. That extra 50 pounds matters almost entirely at the outer margin of the performance envelope, which is a place where maybe 1 or 2 percent of owners will ever take it. For those who want a more competitive sport machine w/ the retro looks, it can be made to lose some weight and gain some horsepower...but it's never gonna be a CBR1000RR.

Which is why they make CBR1000RRs.

This isn't really directed at you, thessler, but in the digital camera world, there's a certain contingent of enthusiasts who focus almost entirely on technical specs, and in the process completely lose sight of the big picture--which is that the camera is ultimately just a tool used to capture an image; and that it's the image rather than the camera that ultimately matters. In reading comments on sites like Motorcycledaily lately, it seems like we've got something similar going on in the motorcycle world. You get the sense that the "peanut gallery" wouldn't be satisfied until somebody came out with a 220hp, 325lb bike that was completely docile on the street ("great first bike!"), handled like a MotoGP bike, rode like a Cadillac, had comfortable, adjustable ergonomics, got 60mpg, had hydraulic valve lifters, came with 500-mile seat comfortable for every rear-end, could tour like a Goldwing, looked exactly like a classic 1978 whatever (but better), had a centerstand, was belt or shaft driven....etc. And even then they'd find something to complain about ("Ugh! What were they thinking with that horrible speedometer font??")

You should write for a magazine. Perfect recap. Everybody's different. I rode a 2014 KTM 1190 cc. not sure what the model is called. Weight probably around 400 to 450, not sure. The bike will go 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, and 0 to 100 in under 6 seconds, and top out at about 155. Fun to ride for about 30 minutes. I love my CB1100. Want a lighter faster bike, they are out there to purchase.