Posts: 333
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Stopped by State 8 near Peninsula Ohio earlier this afternoon, and noticed a lovely 2017 on the floor. I'd not taken any time in the past to look over one of these beauties, so the salesman pushed her onto the floor where I could give it a better examination.
It truly is a beautiful machine.
Would I consider trading or selling my 2014 and going with another CB instead of switching to a Triumph T120? Don't know ...... I'd have to spend a bit more time in the saddle of my buddy's 2016 Bonnie, then do a bit of demo time on a new CB.
It's taken me a while to get used to the inline 4 vs twins, but it'd be a close contest between the Triumph and the Honda. I like the fact that Honda installed better forks and double wall pipes on the new bike. I'm not a lover of tube type tires, but I lived with them on several bikes with few issues, including a 2000 W650 and a 2003 Bonneville Centennial Edition.
State 8 now handles both Triumph and Honda, though at different ends of the Cleveland area.
Bob
Posts: 12,677
Threads: 77
Likes Received: 3 in 3 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2014
It is a wonderful problem to solve. Enjoy every moment of it.
Posts: 16
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Nov 2016
Funny, I was looking at a 2017 at pretty much the same time. The salesman even moved some other bikes so that I could have a better look. It's gorgeous.
What is it about inline 4s that took you a while to get used to? Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Nate
Posts: 3,093
Threads: 64
Likes Received: 6 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 7
Joined: May 2013
Hard to fault either bike to live with unless they don't fit you. It's nice to have so many really good bikes to choose from.
Posts: 12,677
Threads: 77
Likes Received: 3 in 3 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2014
Also hard to ignore the great track record of Honda dependability. That is a big bias for many who suffer through the decision ordeal. 
Posts: 23,427
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 511 in 233 posts
Likes Given: 664
Joined: Apr 2025
Every time I ride my CB 1100 I think "what a great motorcycle". Not kidding...every time! Said it on this morning's ride.
My brother has a 2016 T-120 and it's every bit the equal to the CB performance wise. I have ridden it several times. What absolutely bugs me when I ride it is the thump you feel when riding it. My 2003 360 Bonneville was so much smoother than the 270 degree crank model. It's not a vibration, it's a thump. Like 1 cylinder is firing hit or miss.
I could not live with that, but my brother doesn't mind it at all. He notices it, and comments on it, he just doesn't mind it.
Posts: 12,677
Threads: 77
Likes Received: 3 in 3 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2014
Can't agree more. In fact, once in the country side, there is usually that moment where I go, "Ahh ... this is good, ... this is good.". A genuine release.
I never did that on previous bikes.
Posts: 853
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Regarding the '17 CB1100 vs the T120, I remain slightly torn. Each bike offers a few definite advantages. The CB absolutely outhandles the Triumph. The '17 Honda steers and turns so much more effortlessly than the T120, and its upgraded suspension is markedly superior. Helping the Honda's case is its matching 18" wheels with slimmer tires, and much wider handlebars. Whereas the Triumph steers very truckishly, due to its overly narrow handlebars and mismatched wheels and tires, the wonderfully balanced Honda handles like a much lighter bike. To me, that is the Honda's greatest advantage over the Triumph. That heavy-steering front end was the one aspect of riding the Triumph that bothered me, whereas the smooth, effortless handling of the Honda is the one aspect that I truly enjoy whenever I ride my CB.
Only time will tell, but I feel that the Honda offers superior long-term reliability, along with a slight edge in the looks department. The Triumph looks nearly perfect; about as perfect as a modern retro can look, given that it's saddled with a radiator. It's not a big issue with me. Compared to Kawasaki and their Z900RS, Triumph did a great job of minimizing the visual impact of that tall, narrow radiator. Still, the no-radiator look is better. The Honda with nothing but its four cascading downtubes and glorious cylinder fins looks so much cleaner and classier. Also, the welded seams on the T120's tank are a serious eye-sore, especially compared to that elegant seamlesss tank on the '17 CB.
The other main advantage I would give to the Honda is its smoother fueling and easier clutch. My CB1100 has the best low-speed throttle response/clutch take-up I've ever experienced. The Triumph's isn't bad, but the Honda's is a bloody miracle.
Lastly, the brakes. The Honda's are better. Despite being the heavier machine, the Honda simply turns and stops better than the Triumph.
On the other hand, the Triumph has a few advantages, as well. For starters, it sounds and feels cooler to me. I prefer the Triumph's smoother P-Twin throb and deep rumble to the CB's high-frequency buzz. The CB is smooth as glass from tickover to 3,500 rpm, and again from 5,000 rpm to redline, but between 3,500-5,000 rpm the I4 buzzing is borderline annoying. I never find the Triumph's vibrations to be anything but pleasant and satisfying. Similarly, the '17 Honda sounds really good, and certainly better than the 2013-2014 CB1100, but it doesn't sound nearly as good as the Triumph.
Sound and feel preferences are entirely subjective, of course. Whereas mickey is put off by the Triumph Twin's thumping character, I definitely prefer it. I enjoy the feel of the Honda motor, most of the time, anyway. I love the feel of the Triumph's motor.
I also prefer the Triumph's slimmer build, lower seat height, and superior legroom. Overall, I prefer the T120's seating position.
I would need to ride them directly back-to-back now, because I sure didn't notice it when I rode the Triumph before, but the Triumph is supposed to be a lot torquier than the Honda. When I rode the T120 (three times), I always came away feeling that the bike was only barely punchy enough to be do-able. With the Honda, I do sometimes long for more torque down low, and certainly more power up top, but it generally feels about the same as the Triumph, in terms of low-down grunt. It shouldn't, either. The Triumph makes a ton more torque and power than the Honda down low, plus the Triumph weighs less. The magazine testers all seem to agree that the Triumph has a lot more motor than the Honda, 90% of the time.
I don't know. Like I said, to me they felt very similar. I do know, however, that there is no fun to be had in revving out the Triumph. All its power is concentrated right at the bottom. There is no point in revving the thing. There are no rpm to play with, and the power tails off so early that it's a moot point anyway. At least with the Honda there is still a bit of extra power to play with above 5,000 rpm.
I said earlier that the Honda has superior brakes, and it does, with one caveat. For the 2017 model Triumph added rubber dampers to the front rotor mounts, eliminating the chronic brake squeal of the 2016 model. In that regard, the Triumph beats my '17 EX, the incessant brake squeal of which continues to annoy the ever-loving crap outta me. I remain steadfast in my opinion that the '17 EX would be a perfect motorcycle, at least for what it is, if only the brakes didn't squeal, and the motor didn't have that vibey patch between 3,500-5,000 rpm.
Meanwhile, the Triumph would be the perfect bike—again, for what it is—if it had lighter steering, better overall handling, no unsightly tank seams, and more motor, especially up top. For me, the perfect Triumph would be a T120 with the Thruxton/Speed Twin 17" wheels, steering geometry, and 'HP'-spec motor. The T120 looks so much better than the new Speed Twin, which needs the new Scrambler 1200's seamless tank and level tank and tailsection, rather than the forward-canted mess that it sports now. (Thanks again, mickey, for ruining the Speed Twin for me!)
Right this moment, having owned the '17 CB for almost a year now, I would be hard-pressed to choose between my CB and a new T120. Were it not for the brake squeal, I would likely still opt for the Honda. Because of the brake squeal, however, I might go for the Triumph now, just as a change of pace, to try something different. Two weeks into T120 ownership, however, I would likely miss the Honda's superior handling and overall refinement, and regret my choice.
They're both beautiful, flawed bikes. The Honda is less flawed. The rest is mostly down to subjective preferences, so just buy the one that tugs hardest on your heartstrings.
Posts: 333
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
(12-29-2018, 09:06 AM)Elevenminusoneblade_imp Wrote: Funny, I was looking at a 2017 at pretty much the same time. The salesman even moved some other bikes so that I could have a better look. It's gorgeous.
What is it about inline 4s that took you a while to get used to? Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Nate VLJ - re the squealing brakes on your CB ........ have you tried, for lack of a better term, "brake paste" or "brake grease?" I've used both the tacky paste and heavy brake grease on the backs of the pad backing plates, and squealing went away. My W650 sounded like a train coming into the station until I did the 'fix.' Apparently the noise is caused by high frequency vibration between the backs of the pads and the caliper pistons. Don't recall other specific bikes, but I've owned a couple where the squealing was eliminated this way.
Bob
Posts: 12,677
Threads: 77
Likes Received: 3 in 3 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2014
(12-30-2018, 02:46 AM)VLJ_imp Wrote: Regarding the '17 CB1100 vs the T120, I remain slightly torn. Each bike offers a few definite advantages. The CB absolutely outhandles the Triumph. The '17 Honda steers and turns so much more effortlessly than the T120, and its upgraded suspension is markedly superior. Helping the Honda's case is its matching 18" wheels with slimmer tires, and much wider handlebars. Whereas the Triumph steers very truckishly, due to its overly narrow handlebars and mismatched wheels and tires, the wonderfully balanced Honda handles like a much lighter bike. To me, that is the Honda's greatest advantage over the Triumph. That heavy-steering front end was the one aspect of riding the Triumph that bothered me, whereas the smooth, effortless handling of the Honda is the one aspect that I truly enjoy whenever I ride my CB.
Only time will tell, but I feel that the Honda offers superior long-term reliability, along with a slight edge in the looks department. The Triumph looks nearly perfect; about as perfect as a modern retro can look, given that it's saddled with a radiator. It's not a big issue with me. Compared to Kawasaki and their Z900RS, Triumph did a great job of minimizing the visual impact of that tall, narrow radiator. Still, the no-radiator look is better. The Honda with nothing but its four cascading downtubes and glorious cylinder fins looks so much cleaner and classier. Also, the welded seams on the T120's tank are a serious eye-sore, especially compared to that elegant seamlesss tank on the '17 CB.
The other main advantage I would give to the Honda is its smoother fueling and easier clutch. My CB1100 has the best low-speed throttle response/clutch take-up I've ever experienced. The Triumph's isn't bad, but the Honda's is a bloody miracle.
Lastly, the brakes. The Honda's are better. Despite being the heavier machine, the Honda simply turns and stops better than the Triumph.
On the other hand, the Triumph has a few advantages, as well. For starters, it sounds and feels cooler to me. I prefer the Triumph's smoother P-Twin throb and deep rumble to the CB's high-frequency buzz. The CB is smooth as glass from tickover to 3,500 rpm, and again from 5,000 rpm to redline, but between 3,500-5,000 rpm the I4 buzzing is borderline annoying. I never find the Triumph's vibrations to be anything but pleasant and satisfying. Similarly, the '17 Honda sounds really good, and certainly better than the 2013-2014 CB1100, but it doesn't sound nearly as good as the Triumph.
Sound and feel preferences are entirely subjective, of course. Whereas mickey is put off by the Triumph Twin's thumping character, I definitely prefer it. I enjoy the feel of the Honda motor, most of the time, anyway. I love the feel of the Triumph's motor.
I also prefer the Triumph's slimmer build, lower seat height, and superior legroom. Overall, I prefer the T120's seating position.
I would need to ride them directly back-to-back now, because I sure didn't notice it when I rode the Triumph before, but the Triumph is supposed to be a lot torquier than the Honda. When I rode the T120 (three times), I always came away feeling that the bike was only barely punchy enough to be do-able. With the Honda, I do sometimes long for more torque down low, and certainly more power up top, but it generally feels about the same as the Triumph, in terms of low-down grunt. It shouldn't, either. The Triumph makes a ton more torque and power than the Honda down low, plus the Triumph weighs less. The magazine testers all seem to agree that the Triumph has a lot more motor than the Honda, 90% of the time.
I don't know. Like I said, to me they felt very similar. I do know, however, that there is no fun to be had in revving out the Triumph. All its power is concentrated right at the bottom. There is no point in revving the thing. There are no rpm to play with, and the power tails off so early that it's a moot point anyway. At least with the Honda there is still a bit of extra power to play with above 5,000 rpm.
I said earlier that the Honda has superior brakes, and it does, with one caveat. For the 2017 model Triumph added rubber dampers to the front rotor mounts, eliminating the chronic brake squeal of the 2016 model. In that regard, the Triumph beats my '17 EX, the incessant brake squeal of which continues to annoy the ever-loving crap outta me. I remain steadfast in my opinion that the '17 EX would be a perfect motorcycle, at least for what it is, if only the brakes didn't squeal, and the motor didn't have that vibey patch between 3,500-5,000 rpm.
Meanwhile, the Triumph would be the perfect bike—again, for what it is—if it had lighter steering, better overall handling, no unsightly tank seams, and more motor, especially up top. For me, the perfect Triumph would be a T120 with the Thruxton/Speed Twin 17" wheels, steering geometry, and 'HP'-spec motor. The T120 looks so much better than the new Speed Twin, which needs the new Scrambler 1200's seamless tank and level tank and tailsection, rather than the forward-canted mess that it sports now. (Thanks again, mickey, for ruining the Speed Twin for me!)
Right this moment, having owned the '17 CB for almost a year now, I would be hard-pressed to choose between my CB and a new T120. Were it not for the brake squeal, I would likely still opt for the Honda. Because of the brake squeal, however, I might go for the Triumph now, just as a change of pace, to try something different. Two weeks into T120 ownership, however, I would likely miss the Honda's superior handling and overall refinement, and regret my choice.
They're both beautiful, flawed bikes. The Honda is less flawed. The rest is mostly down to subjective preferences, so just buy the one that tugs hardest on your heartstrings.
A nice piece of writing VLJ.
|
