Kawasaki Z900RS

[Ulvetanna_imp]

I realize that discussion of other brands is healthy, but I sure appreciate the air cooled, low RPM grunt motor of the CB1100. So, just a few more rambling thoughts -

My 2016 Moto Guzzi V7II came with anti-lock brakes and traction control.

It did not activate in the almost 7,000 miles I had it. It would have made flushing the brake systems more complicated and the flashing lights on startup were a distraction.

One of the most fun bikes I have owned was a 2002 Harley-Davidson Sportster 1200 Sport.

Stock, it was rated 79 foot pounds of torque at 4,000 RPM. I don't do dyno testing, but expect that at stage one, it was close to 85 foot pounds. Harley does not talk much about horsepower, but stock it was probably 70 HP at 5700, maybe 75 HP stage one.

So, with 73 foot pounds, the Kawasaki Z900RS would have an acceleration advantage in regards to weight (my 1200S at 501 dry and 537 pounds wet was very close to the CB1100) and RPMs above the Sportster's or CB1100 redlines.

In the drag race video recently posted, the CB1100 pulls the Yamaha FZ09 off the line and through early gears. Then the FZ09 pulls the CB1100 as RPMs build. But, higher RPM horsepower does not have the same feel as raw torque.

I rarely go over 90/95 MPH, then typically short bursts for passing. One time, getting on highway 126 in Ventura, CA, a vehicle in a merging lane accelerated hard..on the 1200S I went through the first 4 gears to the max and had not cleared the on ramp by much, when I shifted to 5th, at 110 MPH, with said vehicle rather small in my mirrors.

My 1976 CB750F was rated 122 MPH, per Honda, but only once do I recall possibly going over 110 MPH on it. My 2012 Bonneville was at 112 MPH when a sudden gust of wind blew me from the center of my lane to the center of the opposing lane on the Extraterrestrial Highway.

So, having the CB1100 allegedly governed at 110 MPH does not matter to me. The more than ample torque for acceleration is quite pleasing and highway cruising, even at higher speeds, is excellent for a naked bike.

Agree with all the above. I traded my 2013 at 10,000 miles for something else but had it just long enough to get it as good as it could be for me. Galfer stainless lines, EBC HH pads, Ikon shocks, and the CB500 handlebars. It was sporty, handled very well, but had a few niggles that have, I think, been corrected with the EX version. We'll see.

I never had an issue with power regarding the CB1100. Plenty of it. And FUN to ride at or near redline. That may be frowned upon by some but it is very much a part of the character of the bike and more than a few CB1100 owners enjoy riding the bike hard, especially when it surprises riders on pure supersports or supernakeds. The bike teaches one to be smooth.

Also as you mention, the CB1100 is stupidly stable. It held its line (once I got the Ikons on and good rubber as in Continental Classic Race tires) better than anything else I had other than the ZX-10R, which was built to be stable at high speeds and moreover, is fitted with a very good steering damper.

But the CB1100 is never going to be wildly popular. The Triumphs and now the new Z900RS are going to be more appealing for lots of reasons.

In the end, what difference does it make why someone buys a bike, anyway? We've all filled out those surveys and it is plain to see that for many if not most riders, "vanity" is a huge factor in making the purchase.

I hold nothing against someone for buying a bike because they like the looks, or they think it'll help define their style. We all ride for different reasons.