Low - midrange torque -- not as fun?

[the Ferret]

Ug Ben sorry to hear you are withput your bike. That would certainly make ME grumpy lol. Hope the eye heals well and you are back on your bike soon.

[Ben70_imp]

Thanks, Ferret. I lurked on here all last summer in anticipation of picking up the CB in the fall. Hoped to be doing some cool riding in redwood country. Hopefully next year.

Ben

[postoak_imp]

No problem Ben. Ferret, the GL1800 I have is the "C" -- the new Valkyrie. It would be a terrible tourer as the CB1100 has better storage! But it is absolutely great on the backroads and highways I cruise down.

[the Ferret]

Oh the new Valkrie. Very cool. It got great reviews, but lack luster sales, according to what I've read.

[postoak_imp]

Yes, it makes the CB1100 seem like a huge success by comparison. But I'm not bothered by what other people find or don't find appealing. And actually, I get more stares at the Valk than I ever did with the Nighthawk or CB1100. Of course, it had horrible resale value, but I was able to take advantage of that by buying a low mileage used one.

[Guth_imp]

Oh the new Valkrie. Very cool. It got great reviews, but lack luster sales, according to what I've read.

Hmmm, sounds strangely familiar.

I've been thinking about buying a Bonneville T120, but one thing that puts me off is that it has the much touted "low and midrange torque" -- just like the CB1100.

I've had a post about this before -- I never found the CB1100 as much fun as my Nighthawk 750 and in trying to analyze why, I think it had something to do with the torque curve. The Nighthawk didn't "wake up" until 4000 RPM and I always kept ii at that RPM at cruise so that if I needed a quick get-away I could take advantage of the torque between 4000 and 6500 or so. Something about moving up through the RPM range to 4000 in each of the gears was very enjoyable and I'm looking to repeat that experience -- so much so that I've even thought about buying an old original CB750 and having it restored.

Anybody have any insight as to why the 750 seemed more fun to me? Has anybody experienced the same thing?

Before I go further with this post, I promise that I won't be referring to the S2000 in every post that I make from now on. But the car has been on my mind quite a bit since we bought it last month and I've been thinking about this very topic because of it. I absolutely love running the little motor of that car up into the upper limits of the RPM range. Yet I also love torque-laden cars as well. I think it just depends on the vehicle and the experience that I'm wanting to get out if. It's not really all that different with motorcycles.

When it comes strictly to motorcycles I think that I can relate to your situation, but what I've written above still applies. In some ways I find my Hawk GT more fun to ride than my CB1100 for a variety of reasons. But chief amongst them is simply that the engine feels pretty consistent throughout its rev range which is good if you like the way the engine feels (I do). The CB1100 on the other hand tends to change it's personality a bit as you work your way above a certain RPM. For some this is fun, for others it can be unpleasant. (I'm okay with it and do run up above 4K RPM at times for fun.)

The other big thing is that I can ride in those upper RPMs on the Hawk without getting into too much trouble (speed-wise) which is fun to me. While the CB1100 is no super sport, if you're playing around in the in the higher RPM range beyond first gear then chances are you're going to be a prime candidate for a rather hefty fine.

As far as what any of this has to do with torque and horsepower values, well I can't say for sure. I find both bikes fairly linear when it comes to powerbands and both are considered somewhat "torquey" in their own right. Neither bike is considered fast by the standards of their time, lol. But I'm selling the Hawk and keeping the CB1100 simply because I find the CB to be the more "enjoyable: bike overall. It might not be as much "fun" as the Hawk, but it is more comfortable — I love the riding position on the CB and that's a pretty big deal to me. Even if it isn't as fun, I still have fun riding it if that makes any sense.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

[PowerDubs_imp]

The feel of a bike 'coming on the pipe' (grew up on 2-stoke dirtbikes) is exhilarating.

What does that mean in context to this discussion?

This bike has a modest curve compared to many others. Higher on the low end and lower on the high end.

Part of that is due to wanting a relaxing low rpm, low effort ride- part due to emissions and heat control to get there (can't just throw fuel at the engine to keep it cool and happy)

A lot of older bikes needed a bit of RPM to get breathing (partially due to carbs, partially just due to overall engineering of the day)....so they would be relatively lower on the bottom and higher up top- the exact opposite of this bike.

Other bikes these days can have more of the best of both worlds with liquid cooling as it allows more power with less pollutants.

The CB can be woken up a bit with mods- apparently people are hitting close to 100rwhp- and that is without changing the cams which are extremely tame.

The Honda Factory itself offers an overbore piston. I haven't done the math to see the displacement increase (minimal) but it exists as well. Back in the old days of hotrodding guys did everything they could- pistons, cams, airbox/filter, carbs, exhaust, shave heads, bigger valves.

These days guys just hand over a credit card and buy a different bike. I miss the old days.

[postoak_imp]

Thank you Guth and PowerDubs -- you have addressed and explained the issue exactly. I'm glad to hear others understand what I'm talking about.

[postoak_imp]

Wow see my review of the Triumph Bonneville T120. My fear that it would have only low-midrange torque was completely unwarranted.

[Hondahawkrider_imp]

Most I4's don't come into power till the higher rpm range. For example, my fz1 as a 1000cc sportbike had some power down low, but it didn't get into the power band till you were 4/5 in the rpms - around 8k with a 12k redline

So if you wanted to go "fast" you had to keep it there..

This sounds kinda what you described about your nighthawk 750, which while not as powerful as my fz1 probably exhibited the same response as it's the typical i4 curve.

While I liked my fz1, it was a great bike, I prefer the torque curve of a vtwin, where the power comes on immediately and it's consistient, you don't have to scream it to keep it in the power band.

When I was looking at a modern retro I was leaning toward the triumph's as while it's a parallel twin, it's 270 firing order (scrambler) provided a similar experience (same with the 360 of the Bonnie and thruxton, but not a much down low). I liked the cb1100 a lot (Honda guy), but was nervous about the i4 curve.. At least till i rode one, then I had to have one..

While the cb1100 is an i4, I found it actually had some power down low, in the 2-3 range. So for basic riding, around town and such, it's easy and has usable power but it's linear, maybe not as much as vtwin, as there is extra power up top, but it doesn't come on like a light switch ala my fz1. I suspect some of this is indicative of the fact I have a '13 so mine has 5 speeds, and it's geared so I'm not changing gears all the time.. Also based upon mods I have read about, I'm fairly certain that the cb1100 in stock form is de-tuned and deliberately set this way

If you like the behavior of the nighthawk, I'd take a look at some of the standards offered that have sporbike sourced engines. It won't have the same punch as the original, but should give you something akin to what you got with the nighthawk