10-01-2015, 04:39 AM
I apologise Pwh, no personal sarcasm intended.
A small bike by today's standards, yes. However looking back to "the day" a bike built like the CB was considered largish. Even Brando (Johnny) dwarfed his T-bird. Even big bikes have grown. Look at today's Gold Wing compared to the first model.
'74 Wing.
![[Image: ce308958cba94d6ce12b143a8fb3c056.jpeg]](https://cb1100forum.net/forum/uploads/imp/201510/ce308958cba94d6ce12b143a8fb3c056.jpeg)
As for engine sizes, my 650 Bonnie was a super bike. Tank capacity is limited I agree. I get a max of 230kms from my '10 model before I feel uncomfortable. Smooth cruising maybe 250kms. I just rationalise and remind myself this bike was not designed as a tourer. If I go to a remote area I need to be careful that fuel is available within range or I carry my own reserve.
Cheers
(10-01-2015, 12:05 AM)Headbanger02_imp Wrote: This may sound stupid, but here it is, looking at it like a shirt size, I consider this bike to be medium size, I wish the overall dimension size was x-large, then the tank would be bigger but the same shape as it is now, I alway considered this bike to be a big small bike, I'm only 5'9" but I feel like I'm almost to big.....
A small bike by today's standards, yes. However looking back to "the day" a bike built like the CB was considered largish. Even Brando (Johnny) dwarfed his T-bird. Even big bikes have grown. Look at today's Gold Wing compared to the first model.
'74 Wing.
As for engine sizes, my 650 Bonnie was a super bike. Tank capacity is limited I agree. I get a max of 230kms from my '10 model before I feel uncomfortable. Smooth cruising maybe 250kms. I just rationalise and remind myself this bike was not designed as a tourer. If I go to a remote area I need to be careful that fuel is available within range or I carry my own reserve.
Cheers