Kinda Porky

[OldF7Guy_imp]

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.

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.
Less weight is always a good thing and I was about to post something similar but didnt earlier. As a bit of car fanatic myself the first real decent attempt at weight reduction seems to be the 2015 Ford F150.
Its a cost/benefit issue with everybody but they know what they have to do. Cars/trucks have gotten entirely too heavy and that goes for them all. Motorcycles are no different. Maybe we will see some break throughs in the future.