A question about the CB1100

[VLJ_imp]

Btw the Triumph Bonneville which has less performance than the CB 1100 and has been a main stay of Triumphs line since the early 2000's lists for $12,100 plus plus and I've never heard of a Triumph dealer that would discount one. The Bobber is over $13 grand.

People will spend their money for what they want regardless of how they rate on spec sheets.

Another I-4 that made 100 hp, listed for like $7k and never sold in big numbers was the Suzuki 1200 Bandit. (another really good bike btw)

I guess the point of my posts are there is no way to point at a single thing or things that made the CB sell the way it did in the US. Not performance, not weight, not horsepower, not fit and finish, not price. Who knows.

People are really fickle lol

Btw I havent heard an announcement but I just saw a video on Youtube that said it was introducing a 2021 CB 1100 RS. May have been a typo for all I know, but if true would make 12 years of continuous production for the CB

mickey, you're comparing apples and oranges. The Bonnevilles never had any power. It's not expected of them. It's a much more retro vibe, even compared to the CB1100. Nevertheless, the new ones make significantly more power than the last ones, never mind the vintage ones.

Progress. Perceived value.

Also, dealers dealers here discount the crap out of Bonnevilles. In terms of sheer numbers sold, I think it's safe to say that my local Triumph dealer dwarfs your Ohio dealership. They're the largest Triumph dealership in NoCal, which is a much larger market than practically any other locale in America. They definitely discount Bonnevilles. Drastically, in certain instances.

As for why the CB didn't sell, I believe you're intentionally ignoring what you know to be true. Just as I have—in fact, you're even worse (better?)—I know you have read every last word that was ever written regarding the CB1100. You haven't missed a single review. You know what they all say.

There is no mystery here. We know why it didn't sell. The universal refrain, whether from professional motojounalists, online reviewers, and all the posted comments, has always been, "Very nice bike. Underpowered. Too costly for what you get. For that kind of money, I'd rather have a _____."

That's it. This Honda was held to a much higher standard than the Bandit 1200, which wasn't a halo product for Suzuki. The big Bandit was a cheap, parts-bin special with a borrowed motor and antiquated—as opposed to overtly retro—styling.

Can't compare it to the CB1100. They occupy very different strata in each company's hierarchy, as well as in the minds of the motorcycling public. The Suzuki was an affordable, generic, do-everything appliance. The Honda was a jewel; maybe even the crown jewel of the entire lineup.

Different buyers. Different expectations.

And for all of that, compared to the CB1100, Suzuki sold a bazillion more Bandits. It was the lower price, the perceived Bang For Buck value. Just as it's been with the V-Stroms, people felt that the Bandit seriously undercut its competition, price-wise. The perception was always that it was a major bargain for what it offered. Neither Suzuki nor the Bandit's owners had to justify its cost with esoteric arguments about lineage, character, special R&D, refinement, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. The selling point was always, "Big motor, big torque, big fun, big reliability, big utility...super-low price. Who in their right mind wouldn't buy this thing?"

It clearly worked. That bike stuck around and remained relatively popular for a lot longer than its bargain-basement looks would have indicated.