New Rebel 1100T bagger

[GoldOxide_imp]

Looks small, and no clutch?- for the price- I don't see small girls / young little guys spending the cash they are asking for it.

I am over six-one and sat on the Rebel 1100. I fit. Feels okay, but I do not know how well I would do after 75 minutes.

Off paper, the Rebel 1100 is a very powerful 1100. Using the DCT option, I am doubtful many other cruisers will pass it - except likely a Gold Wing with DCT (heck, without it too).

Ummm... what?

542 pounds, 86 horsepower at 7,000 RPM and 72 pound-feet of torque- crank.

NOT ever remotely close to 'doubtful other cruisers will pass it'...I could fill my 2 car garage stuffed full of bone stock cruisers that will eat this things lunch.

Dubs - have you ever ridden one? (it appears you have not). You ought to present a wee bit more maturity in your response. It is actually surprisingly poor.

= = =

The bike frame is on the small'ish side, probably on the order of the CB1100, but lower. The response is tremendous, regardless what figures are on paper.

[PowerDubs_imp]

The bike has very similar weight and power specs to our CB which is certainly not a rocket ship.

Again there are countless cruisers for decades that will blow the doors off of either of them.

There is nothing poor about physics, facts and logic.

‘have you ridden one‘ seat of the pants butt dyno hyperbole anecdotal stories are best saved for the local bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoldOxide_imp]

The bike has very similar weight and power specs to our CB which is certainly not a rocket ship.

Again there are countless cruisers for decades that will blow the doors off of either of them.

There is nothing poor about physics, facts and logic.

‘have you ridden one‘ seat of the pants butt dyno hyperbole anecdotal stories are best saved for the local bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol - "poor" I referring to your perceived articulated emotional response. Nonetheless, I will agree: Rocket ship cruisers are not. But that is not the scope I refer to.

I think you will find technical stats on paper don't always explain real world behaviour. I see examples of this common enough that can't be ignored, and I suspect you do to. And, I am a difficult person to convince without some technical and/or empirical support.

What is the matter Dubs?

What is it that you are fearing?

[PowerDubs_imp]

Matter? Fear? Why are you lashing out with emotion? In a debate over black and white fact? wow.

You said that of a relatively bland low cost 'cruiser' - "I am doubtful many other cruisers will pass it"- and when I rightfully called B.S. you turned this into a personal attack.

Rocket ship cruisers ... "not the scope I refer to" - make up your mind, your orig comment says otherwise.

Yea- you are indeed a difficult person, and one apparently is also confused- because now you spout 'technical / empirical' where earlier you argued 'have you rode one' and 'real world blah blah blah'.

Here is a hint- hp/tq/weight IS the technical / empirical that matters- and if you understood that- you never would have said your original statement- which was H.S. - that I responded to.

If you had said- "the bike feels more lively than the specs" - sure, no problem. Have fun. Glad you like it.

BUT you said "I am doubtful many other cruisers will pass it" - which is NOT open to debate as it involves facts- and clearly YOU are clearly wrong.

[the Ferret]

OK guys points made, lets back off a bit. Everybody, close eyes, deep breath ... ooooohm
Sorry but I said enough...not kidding. Any posts beyond this one I find taunting or aggressive I WILL delete. Take it to PM's if you want to poke each other with a sharp stick

[tommymck]

I'll try to bring the temp down here then...

For PowerDubs, I'm honestly asking this because I don't have a ton of experience across the board with cruisers and don't have a feel for the answer. If you take a modern Harley cruiser, which seems to typically have about the same horsepower, but at a lower rpm, and also have higher torque (110ft-lbs ish) also at a lower rpm, and weigh in at typically in the 725 lbs range, is it your experience that they would have a real-world advantage over the Honda? You may have been referring to a garage full of other cruisers...but my guess would have been that the smaller lighter bike might actually have the advantage over a typical Harley. Maybe it's the ergonomics of the bikes relative to me, but my perception when riding a modern Harley vs. my CB1100 is that the CB1100 "feels" like it would beat the Harley. I have to admit though that I'm not much for drag racing on the highway so maybe my perception is as much a handling thing as anything else.

[PowerDubs_imp]

Tommy- lots of factors at play...and I never said Harley.

Smaller vehicles with lower power have less to get moving... but less weight and gearing can only do so much- eventually you need power to push through the wind..and the more leisurely higher gears on most vehicles.

Many cars / bikes 'feel' quick off the line in 1-2 gear but try that same vehicle in 3-4th at 80-90-100 and meh.

Look at the vehicle weight, then hp & tq - but importantly at what RPM, and what the engine revs to.

Remember that gearing is simply toque multiplication so a car/bike that needs to shift at 5-6k looses that advantage over a car/bike that can hold a gear until 7-8-9-10-11k even if the peak hp /tq are the same- pay attention to where the good part of the curve is...

Everything being 'equal' every time you need to shift that another bike doesn't- is loosing power to the ground compared to where you were.

Could make same #'s but if it makes it for 2,000 RPM longer will be the much faster bike if ridden correctly.

But if you are talking an 82hp crank engine VS something like a Triumph Rocket, Yamaha Vmax, Ducati Diavel, BMW K1600, well- they make more than enough power to make up for the gearing.

Revs and gearing are where the magic is on 'slower' vehicles because most don't understand it- and simply changing your shift points can loose a straight line race.

When I used to drag race my cars a lot- there were others with the same car (awd stick shift) that would launch at lower RPM so not to spin- and always run slower times & trap.

They didn't understand that the HP difference when I launched at 6,000 RPM- drop the clutch and let her spin- even if I was not at full traction- whatever % loss of power to the ground as I spun all 4 tires was less than the % power gain I made by having the engine WOT 2,000-3,000 higher- AND when I hooked up a second later- I was higher in the RPM as traction bit and the accel was greater.

Same for people that look at a power curve that drops off gradually and want to shift at peak power... unless it is a cliff- don't do it- you may make less engine power- but your gearing at the 'lower power' higher RPM is often better than your 'more' power in the next gear to the ground.. and the longer you hold each gear- the higher- closer to good hp you are going to be in the next gear.

[Cormanus]

tommymck, some of this stuff passes over my head, but I've found this video—posted here before—helpful,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKqe0LdWwc

[ymtnpoah11_imp]

lol tommy... T baggers, Hahaha

[PowerDubs_imp]

...as soon as you add big power, from the factory to a cruiser- it becomes a muscle bike... they are certainly still cruiser based and NOT a standard, NOT a sport bike.