Design Disadvantages of the CB1100

[The Spaceman_imp]

Methinks Spaceman was pulling someones leg.

Methinks so too.

[Capo]

Scarlett Johannson's design flaws include a slight bump in her nose, and she's an inch or two too short. But I hear the 2014 Deluxe model includes some major upgrades.

[calamarichris_imp]

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

[calamarichris_imp]

Color me pessimistic, but I don't see you (Chris) being happy with a CB 1100 . Just a feeling. You come in being an acknowledged " card carrying Honda Hater" (see I did read every word of your valve adjustment procedure). You say you want to trade in an EX500 which is rather a milquetoast motorcycle ( but maybe a perfectly fine motorcycle, dont know, never ridden one) but you keep comparing the CB to your "mighty ZX9R " .

The CB is not going to compare to the ZX9. It was never designed to. The CB is designed specifically for the "smile on your face/sunny day sentimentality ". That is what the motorcycle is all about. Honda has built other models for other purposes with lighter stronger frames, sharper handling, physically smaller but more potent motors like the CBR1100XX Blackbird, or CBR1100RR but this bike was built rather heavy, rather slow, not very technically advanced, but in a style designed to appeal to those who impressed enough to own the original inline 4 Hondas, or those who were too young but wanted too. There are what some would observe as flaws in this motorcycle. Plastic used in the tail light assembly, engine covers, and headlight lens. A relatively short service span for valve adjustments, probably ball bearings in the steering head, and probably plastic or resin swing arm bushings if I were guessing. Steel frame, 8500 rpm redline, narrow tires and rims, and speed limited to 112 mph. Barely adjustable built to a price point suspension. Its got a lousy tool kit. It's heavy, it's slow and it costs a lot of money.

It's great that your ZX9 will "still hit an actual 100 mph in first gear" or that "it has a brutal hit at 9000 that still scares you on public highways", but the CB is never going to compete with that. Was never intended to. You seem to be hung up on a performance standard that the CB is never going to match.

There are any number of motorcycles that would seem to me to be more appealing to you... The Kawasaki Versys or 650 Ninja, the Suzuki SV 650 or maybe the new Yamaha FZ-09. Plus Honda makes some very nice, if not very exciting, NC 700 series of bikes for thousands less that would compare more directly to your current dog sled.

I'm confused, you don't seem old enough to want a CB for nostalgic reasons, you admittedly don't like Hondas, you obviously like to explore the outer limits of speed and handling on public highways, you seem bright and intelligent, and you are obviously mechanically gifted... Why are you even considering a CB 1100?

You’re not pessimistic, Ferret, and you may be right. I no longer consider myself a Honda-hater (I created that valve adjustment guide nearly 10 years ago), but before my Superhawk experience (and being told by the Honda technician: “I’m surprised you got this many miles out of it! I’ve never seen a bike with that much.”) I always considered Honda’s reliability unimpeachable. You get an A+ for attention to detail and recall—I didn’t even remember mentioning that. Now I’m more of a bitter old grouch than a hater of one specific brand. When I was young, old guys would always badmouth the new bikes and talk about how their old Bonnevilles, BSAs, and Nortons were so much better, looks like I've finally become one of them.

It’s not the technical advancement or high performance I’m looking for (god knows technical advancement has taken us backward into problems like electroplated cylinders.) It’s the efficiency and the longevity I’m after, but these things appear less a priority among the manufacturers than .

Sorry if my boasts about my 9R threw a red-herring into the mix. I ride like an old man usually, and I’m not looking for another 9R, nor did I come here to badmouth the CB. I honestly assumed the CB would have the perfect balance of an I4—the advantages of a vertical twin, AND of the parallel twin. IMO, anything more than 100hp on two wheels is overkill. I bought that 9R when I was much younger, but now I can't bring myself to part with it.

Thanks for the suggestions, but V-twins aren’t efficient enough for me, (and they’re too mechanically noisy, which is why I suspect most of them have aftermarket exhausts—loud pipes drown out the noise between your legs), and the Versis/650R are both vertical twins—basically just the latest version of my EX500, except that they commit the sin of electroplating cylinders in the top-half of the crankcase. For brevity’s sake, from now on, I’m just going to refer to these as disposabikes. The CBR1000 & Blackbird are both disposabikes.

I don't mind milquetoast. Golly-heck, I like milquetoast, which is one of the reasons I was drawn to the CB.

I thought that this would be an interesting thread titled "design..." yet there is not one bit of discussion on the actual bike engineering design. Three pages of nothing but meandering anecdotal blah blah blah.

Thanks for the contribution.

Here's my list of design failings of the CB:

1. It's air-cooled. What were they thinking? It's so much easier to control engine heat, and thus provide more power for comparable displacements, with water-cooling.

2. There's no fairing. Riders are exposed to the elements, including wind-blast, rain, and cold. A large, modern fairing would not only resolve those issues, but would also provide a location to install features such as "Infotainment" systems, GPS, satellite TV, etc.

3. No luggage. Where the heck are you supposed to put your hair dryer if you take a road trip? A large top case and side-bags would go a long way here.

4. Chain drive. Are you kidding me? A shaft drive would be quieter, cleaner, and virtually zero maintenance. CB buyers are stuck with cleaning and lubricating chains for the life of the motorcycle.

5. I-4 engine layout. This engine design is simply outdated. A V-4 or horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine would produce more power and fewer vibrations.

6. Single headlight. Two headlights would provide better visibility for both the rider and surrounding traffic. Shame on Honda for not investing a few dollars more here.

I4's are the most efficient engine design on a motorcycle period. I defy anyone to tell me of a more efficient platform. My hopes are flickering that this is just some journlistic poetic license, and a misprint in the service manual.

I know you're just being silly, but you're also wrong on chains. Chains're the most efficient final drive for a motorcycle. Shafts & belts do have their advantages, but efficiency isn't one of them. I have a belt-driven bicycle, and even when it's adjusted perfectly and broken in, that belt is a serious power drain compared with a well-adjusted/lubricated chain.

[lola_imp]

Chris, How did you find out about Sintered Cylinder sleeves on the CB1100? The only other person that mentioned sintered sleeves on the CB is the late Kevin Ash. The combustion chamber design on the cb1100 is a pentroof design which is a step forward. Also, the casting on the outside cylinder head has passage ways to make sure all cylinders are cooled down.

I always thought if the engine is aircooled the block would be a closed deck design but the CB1100 is an open deck, there must be a reason behind this.

I really like the simplicity of this aircooled engine. I just installed Samco Hoses on my street triple R with 50K miles and it was a cuss to get to most of the hoses....

I bought the bike because it spoke to me and I didnt even bother to go into detail on how this bike was made... Just total attraction.

The only down side to me personally is the speed govern.

[calamarichris_imp]

The only disadvantages for an I4 that I know of came from reading Kevin Cameron (Cycle World.) He puts some people to sleep but he did one article comparing I4s to V4s, mainly in racing applications, and since I own a V4 Interceptor I was able to stay awake for that one.

First, an I4 with a 180* crankshaft has a dead inertial moment twice every rotation as the pistons bottom out/top out at the same time. IIRC, this creates a need for beefier counterweights on the crank. Racing engines where the counterweights were lightened up too much resulted in "shuddering" at corner exit as power was applied at lower RPMs. In the V4, when two pistons are at the top/bottom of their stroke, the other two are in the middle of a stroke, resulting in continuing inertia, and the ability to use lighter counterweights.

With the heavier counterweights and a generally longer unit, the crank has much more of a gyroscopic effect, resisting turn in, and making the bike feel heavier. Again, V4s by nature have a narrower crank and produce less such turning resistance.

As Ferret mentions, the engine is wider in an I4 and can create a teeter totter effect compared to an V4, which is more centralized in the bike like a bowling ball.

Another difference between these two isn't an advantage/disadvantage, just a difference. The I4 makes its power fairly evenly with power pulses like x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o. That's a gross oversimplification, I think, but you get the idea. The V4 is more like x-x-o-o-x-x-o-o. That is also an oversimplification. In racing, the V4's gap in power pulses aided corner exit by acting like a kind of traction control as the "rests" helped the tire reconnect in moments of too much throttle while the bike is leaned over. However, in a street riding application, this has little utility.

Finally, there's the sound. An I4 can have that angry-hornet-riding-a-jet-turbine sound while a V4 has a distinctive growl often described as half of a small block Chevy. Both, frankly, are music to my ears.

Thanks for that. I'm big Cameron (and Gordon Jennings) fan. I'd read that Cameron article a long time ago. Your "gross oversimplifications" are helpful, however, I disagree with the V4's central-location as an advantage. One of the reasons V's never really dominated the way I's did is the rearward weight bias. They couldn't get the engine far enough forward and even Honda wasn't able to keep it competitive against the I's.
The only downside to Cameron's articles is they are more focused on racing. Racing frequently enhances design efficiency, but not always. For example, fuel economy is not a high priority among racers.

[redbirds_imp]

Strange that Honda has been dominating Motogp with a V4 to everyone's surprise.

[calamarichris_imp]

I haven't kept up, but that's news to me. I was referring to 10-15 years ago, before all the F1-level computerized traction control started creeping into GP. Honda's the biggest wallet on the block, so they could probably dominate with a diesel engine in the current climate. But back before the computers, when the shape of the metal was the primary maker-or-breaker, those V4's were not dominating, even with Honda's money.

[DAC]

Strange that Honda has been dominating Motogp with a V4 to everyone's surprise.

Actually, I think the current Honda MotoGP engine is a V5.

The Interceptor came out in '83 just after the Magna was introduced in '82. I drooled over both but was a college kid with just enough cash for tuition and an occasional pitcher of beer. (Okay, maybe more than occasional.) I made due with borrowing my buddies GS750e and my future brother-in-law's '82 750SC Nighthawk. I still have a soft spot for that GS - tight and nimble and could rev to the moon - the Nighthawk felt a little heavy and rubbery by comparison.

Anyway, Honda was reportedly surprised by the market response to both those early V4 production bikes. They were trying to homologate the engine and bike for racing purposes and only wanted to to sell enough to get that done. The Interceptor went on to win Superbike for three or four years, I think, in the eighties. And they had to juice the production numbers of the street bikes to meet demand.

[Red Mist_imp]

The only design flaw is that the bike didn't come with a personal assistant to handle my daily chores, thus giving me a lot more time to ride it.

There are quite a few old dogs on this forum and I'm one of them, so if I trot out all my riding experience I won't be alone. Suffice to say this damned Honda is the most fun, cool, rideable, useable bike in my garage and truth be told I'd probably pick it as the ONE bike, if I had to.

I've had the V-4 Hondas, the BMW boxers, the Harley sportsters and Big Twins, and quite a few singles. The I4 is of course (Spaceman's sarcasm aside) the most efficient engine design for a motorcycle. The CB1100's I4 is just superb. The powerband is flat as Kansas and it's pretty damn quick, too.

I've riding the cuss out of this bike the last week and can't find anything wrong with it, other than, for real, the rear suspension. The shocks need to be better. They're not bad at all for a rider of my weight (150), solo, for freeway, around town, and moderate scratching. But get up to over 50-60 mph whilst cranked way into a bumpy corner, you will be wanting to do something about them.

The easy fix is just slow down a bit in such turns.

Other than that one complaint, I can't find a single thing that I consider a flaw. See my new thread: "What's Great About the CB1100?"