Posts: 38
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
(07-08-2014, 04:54 AM)shdwghst457_imp Wrote: Based on the anecdotes here I'd say Harley riders are pretty accepting of the CB1100. I even chatted up a "biker" looking guy at the gas station about the ape hangers on his Softail Deuce. I knew by his "F*ck Off, End of Story" patch he'd be a nice guy! I know that before I started riding I never would have said a word to the guy, but even though the HD camp is usually on the other end of the spectrum, still a fellow rider. I wasn't on my bike at the time, so I don't know what he would have though of the CB. He would have disapproved of the bars for sure, because "if you ain't hanging, you ain't riding"!
I noticed that things were changing about 10 years ago at one of those charity group rides with a judged show at the end. At that time I was getting back into riding and had recently got the old CB175 running again. I was surprised as I watched two Harley riders in full pirate gear come up to her with appreciation and one commented to the other saying that he had one like her back in the day
I believe that there are many current older cruiser riders out there who like the CB1100 as she reminds them of the various ancestors many of them once owned
Posts: 624
Threads: 32
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
The thought occurred to me the other day on how many different ways there was to skin a cat with a motorcycle. Cars not so much. V twins in various configurations and cylinder angles, Flat sixes, inline 4s, parallel twins, singles, two strokes, 3 cylinders inline, air cooled, water cooled and on and on.
Had a 2003 1200 sportster and had no gripe with the engine at all. 66 hp at the crank and I think 72 ft lbs. It was the rest of the motorcycle I had issues with because it was a rigid mount. Shook like nothing you have ever witnessed. For a lack of a better way to describe the experience it was like buying a new Model A Ford in 2003. Handling and braking sucked. It was not user friendly and would wear you out quickly because of the vibration. The vibration caused all sorts of havoc with loose motor mounts and other stuff constantly needed tightening up. It was imo a poorly engineered motorcycle for its time with a pretty darn good engine. Otherwise it was reliable mechanically.
From the 2003 1200 Sportster to a 2003 CB750 Nighthawk. Talk about night and day literally. Similar weight, size, and power and totally different animals. Its a fair comparison because of those things plus they were both the same year model. The only things on my Honda that are worse than the Sporty are the seat and the stock head light imo. The 750 will out run it in an all out drag race (but not by a ton), out handle it by a ton, out brake it by a ton (and the NH could use better brakes). But, it just superior imo for everyday use and getting from point A to B. The one thing the NH does not have is torque. 45 ft lbs vs 72 or so for the 1200. But the 750 has 75 hp at the crank. The strange thing is from riding it is that I dont notice it all that much but you have to grab a gear or two down to really get it to roll if you have to vs the Sportster you could just roll on the throttle and it was there. The Honda though you can just run through town in high gear at 35 mph and 2500 rpm and you could not do that on the Sporty because the engine would not come up on cam till about 2000-2200. It was lugging below that.
I would love to ride a EFI rubber mount 1200 Sportster but I like what I have so much that I dont think I will ever go back. I just really like how docile this motorcycle is and how it can be fairly quick when called upon and everything about it to me at least is very user friendly and super easy to work on. It suits me and my riding style pretty well. It has its shortcomings for sure but I like how smooth these inline 4s are and the general character of them. Predictable, reliable, easy to ride, easy to work on, and plenty of power when you really need it but do you really ever have enough? I just wish I had a little bit more torque and some better brakes and EFI. Bought this 750 used 11 years old and now have ridden it enough that I finally trust it. I would get on this thing and go anywhere at the drop of a hat.
Posts: 178
Threads: 5
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2013
(07-09-2014, 02:24 PM)OldF7Guy_imp Wrote: The thought occurred to me the other day on how many different ways there was to skin a cat with a motorcycle. Cars not so much. V twins in various configurations and cylinder angles, Flat sixes, inline 4s, parallel twins, singles, two strokes, 3 cylinders inline, air cooled, water cooled and on and on.
Had a 2003 1200 sportster and had no gripe with the engine at all. 66 hp at the crank and I think 72 ft lbs. It was the rest of the motorcycle I had issues with because it was a rigid mount. Shook like nothing you have ever witnessed. For a lack of a better way to describe the experience it was like buying a new Model A Ford in 2003. Handling and braking sucked. It was not user friendly and would wear you out quickly because of the vibration. The vibration caused all sorts of havoc with loose motor mounts and other stuff constantly needed tightening up. It was imo a poorly engineered motorcycle for its time with a pretty darn good engine. Otherwise it was reliable mechanically.
From the 2003 1200 Sportster to a 2003 CB750 Nighthawk. Talk about night and day literally. Similar weight, size, and power and totally different animals. Its a fair comparison because of those things plus they were both the same year model. The only things on my Honda that are worse than the Sporty are the seat and the stock head light imo. The 750 will out run it in an all out drag race (but not by a ton), out handle it by a ton, out brake it by a ton (and the NH could use better brakes). But, it just superior imo for everyday use and getting from point A to B. The one thing the NH does not have is torque. 45 ft lbs vs 72 or so for the 1200. But the 750 has 75 hp at the crank. The strange thing is from riding it is that I dont notice it all that much but you have to grab a gear or two down to really get it to roll if you have to vs the Sportster you could just roll on the throttle and it was there. The Honda though you can just run through town in high gear at 35 mph and 2500 rpm and you could not do that on the Sporty because the engine would not come up on cam till about 2000-2200. It was lugging below that.
I would love to ride a EFI rubber mount 1200 Sportster but I like what I have so much that I dont think I will ever go back. I just really like how docile this motorcycle is and how it can be fairly quick when called upon and everything about it to me at least is very user friendly and super easy to work on. It suits me and my riding style pretty well. It has its shortcomings for sure but I like how smooth these inline 4s are and the general character of them. Predictable, reliable, easy to ride, easy to work on, and plenty of power when you really need it but do you really ever have enough? I just wish I had a little bit more torque and some better brakes and EFI. Bought this 750 used 11 years old and now have ridden it enough that I finally trust it. I would get on this thing and go anywhere at the drop of a hat.
I am interested in the issue of torque with respect to the two bikes. It seems to me the sportster is "fussier" for the lack of a better word then the CB1100 is. The sportster pulls like a tractor IF it's in the right gear but it really does not like to out of it's torque sweet spot. The CB not so much. So from that I would have guessed the CB had more torque?? I could be entirely wrong on this but it would be an interesting comparison to have done on a dino. I like both bikes. The biggest plus for the sportster for me is it's better suits the vertically challenged. And there is absolutely no comparison of my 2012 to even the 2006 I had and I can only imagine the earlier sportsters.
If you could just mix and match the best of all the various bikes. A couple that I've had that I really liked are the 2003 Honda Magna. The Triumph Bonneville SE the CB1100 and the CTX700 DCT that I am riding now. If the engine on the sportster was as refined as the Magna or the CB it would be just about perfect. Still a nice bike
Posts: 102
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
"I am interested in the issue of torque with respect to the two bikes. It seems to me the sportster is "fussier" for the lack of a better word then the CB1100 is. The sportster pulls like a tractor IF it's in the right gear but it really does not like to out of it's torque sweet spot. The CB not so much. So from that I would have guessed the CB had more torque?? I could be entirely wrong on this but it would be an interesting comparison to have done on a dino. I like both bikes. The biggest plus for the sportster for me is it's better suits the vertically challenged. And there is absolutely no comparison of my 2012 to even the 2006 I had and I can only imagine the earlier sportsters."
<SNIP>
Your impression is spot on. Having owned Sportster's and bigger Harley's as well as ridden other twins, it seems to me a 4-cylinder engine's power pulses are closer together, giving smoother power (torque) delivery. My BMW six has an even broader torque band than my Honda. Cam timing has something to do with this too, but the CB1100 just makes more torque than a Sportster 1200 does - H-D claims 71 lbs./ft, Cycle World's dyno said the Honda made 82 lbs./ft. Nuff said...
