Posts: 293
Threads: 17
Likes Received: 3 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
(09-08-2016, 10:48 PM)The ferret_imp Wrote: rotor what does" and power to travel-mass ratio of 150 w/kg minimum and 200 maximum" mean? I am not familiar with this specification. The usual "power over weight" (it should be "power over mass", but let's ignore for the moment those that do not understand the difference between "mass" and "weight") quotient takes into account only the mass of the vehicle. However, when it comes to acceleration, it makes a whole lot of difference whether some particular motorcycle is ridden solo or with a passenger. Since I'm hardly ever riding with a passenger, the power over mass measure that makes sense to me is the power over the mass of the vehicle, the rider and the cargo.
As an example, my current bike has a curb mass of 215 kg, and I (with the full gear and a bag I normally carry on a trip) have a mass of 100 kg (give or take). So the traveling mass is 315 kg. The plant of that bike outputs 57 kW (some 70+ horsepower IIRC, cf http://www.onlineconversion.com/ if you prefer imperial measurements) and thus the power/mass quotient is 181 W/kg. For me, this bike is both powerful enough (when ridden solo!) for decent acceleration in urban traffic, as well as light enough to be maneuverable; it is also heavy enough to be steady in quite a bit of cross-wind on a highway and fast enough to make it possible for me to decide where I fit in a fast, divided highway traffic.
Two more things on this measure:
With a passenger, (total mass 215+220, as per manufacturers specifications) my current bike would have 131 W/kg. This is inadequate, based on my solo riding experience with either Honda shadow 750 (96 W/kg) or Honda CB500F (126 W/kg). And no bike powerful enough for two-up riding with necessary minimum of power/mass would be light enough for me to handle in dense urban traffic. But for me, it hardly matters: I ride with a passenger so infrequently that I can make any adjustment I feel necessary.
These numbers are based on my own experience and riding style. YMMW.
Posts: 2,542
Threads: 125
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-08-2016, 10:37 PM)rotor_imp Wrote: I came across CB1100 when looking for a replacement for my current motorcycle (CBF600N).
My ideal bike would have a 4-cylinder 600-800 cc engine, about 200 kg dry mass, seat height of no more than 800 mm, normal upright riding position and power to travel-mass ratio of 150 w/kg minimum and 200 maximum. While I like "the look" of CB1100, for me "the looks" is way down the list of criteria for selecting a bike. (I don't see much of a bike when I'm riding on it, and I couldn't care less about how the bike (and me on it) looks to others I'm passing on the road). While I am open to both air and liquid cooled bikes, I realize that the bike would probably have to be liquid-cooled to meet emission and my power/mass specifications
Why such precise specs? I need one single bike, (BTW just like my current one), that is well-suited for a solo rider in both dense urban traffic, as it is for a 1000's of km trans-continental motorcycle trip that includes riding on fast divided highways.
How is all of the above pertinent to this thread?
CB1100 was close to the bike I am looking for, even though it is somewhat over the displacement (and thus the mass) limit I have in mind. However, there is no bike, from any brand, available on the new bike market in Europe or North America, that would fit my specifications. It might well be that it is not CB1100 specifically that will be no more, it might be that there is no market for multi-purpose motorcycles in general. This market is disappearing as the use of motorcycle as a transportation device for working blokes is yielding to the use of motorcycle as a toy for the rich...?
This is an interesting observation although I'm not sure how much faith I would put in it. Part of the problem for me is that it seems people are getting taller every generation while at 5' 8", I wouldn't be considered tall at all. In general I would tend to think of today's multi-purpose motorcycles being something along the lines of Suzuki's V-Strom or Kawasaki's Versys. Bikes like these would be a bit of a stretch for me — both literally and figuratively due to my height and my visual preferences. While plenty here on the forum have demonstrated that the CB1100 can serve as a multi-purpose bike, it's probably perceived as much more of a niche bike by most.
I can tell you that the priority factors that influenced my decision were almost totally the opposite of yours. I purchased the CB1100 first and foremost because of the looks. Such a beautiful machine sporting the air-cooled, retro vibe really appealed to me, enough so that I was able to overlook the weight of the bike which was a concern (I still wouldn't mind if the CB1100 were another 50 pounds lighter). The only real deal breaker for me would have been a seat height much higher than where things stand right now. (I do like to be able to flat foot it when stopped.)
I'll add that while my CB1100 is not my only mode of transportation, I do manage to spend more time aboard it riding about than I do inside of my truck driving around. This is because I commute via motorcycle year round (in a dense urban setting). I don't ride to work during the nastiest of weather or while the temps are low enough for the bridges to freeze, but I get plenty of riding days in during the year. So while I'm certainly not a hard-core rider when it comes to racking up the miles, I also don't consider my bike to be a toy. I suppose that I'm probably just the opposite of the average casual rider who take their bikes out primarily during the weekends and only during nice weather. This is largely because I'm typically doing things other than riding motorcycles during the weekend, although a few here on the forum finally managed to get me out for a nice ride a while back.
Still if my motorcycle was going to be my only form of transportation, then I can tell you that it probably would not be a CB1100 for me because I do care about looks and I honestly don't think that I would be able to live with the look of permanently mounted luggage or at least permanently mounted luggage racks messing up the lines of the bike. (I have a rear mount rack for my CB and don't even leave it on when I'm not using it for the same reason.) Jeez, now that I think about it, if I didn't care about looks and needed to get by with just a motorcycle, then something along the lines of a V-Strom (with a way to lower the seat height) might actually be where I would end up.
Posts: 293
Threads: 17
Likes Received: 3 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
(09-09-2016, 07:31 AM)Guth_imp Wrote: (09-08-2016, 10:37 PM)rotor_imp Wrote: I came across CB1100 when looking for a replacement for my current motorcycle (CBF600N).
My ideal bike would have a 4-cylinder 600-800 cc engine, about 200 kg dry mass, seat height of no more than 800 mm, normal upright riding position and power to travel-mass ratio of 150 w/kg minimum and 200 maximum. While I like "the look" of CB1100, for me "the looks" is way down the list of criteria for selecting a bike. (I don't see much of a bike when I'm riding on it, and I couldn't care less about how the bike (and me on it) looks to others I'm passing on the road). While I am open to both air and liquid cooled bikes, I realize that the bike would probably have to be liquid-cooled to meet emission and my power/mass specifications
Why such precise specs? I need one single bike, (BTW just like my current one), that is well-suited for a solo rider in both dense urban traffic, as it is for a 1000's of km trans-continental motorcycle trip that includes riding on fast divided highways.
How is all of the above pertinent to this thread?
CB1100 was close to the bike I am looking for, even though it is somewhat over the displacement (and thus the mass) limit I have in mind. However, there is no bike, from any brand, available on the new bike market in Europe or North America, that would fit my specifications. It might well be that it is not CB1100 specifically that will be no more, it might be that there is no market for multi-purpose motorcycles in general. This market is disappearing as the use of motorcycle as a transportation device for working blokes is yielding to the use of motorcycle as a toy for the rich...?
This is an interesting observation although I'm not sure how much faith I would put in it. Part of the problem for me is that it seems people are getting taller every generation while at 5' 8", I wouldn't be considered tall at all. In general I would tend to think of today's multi-purpose motorcycles being something along the lines of Suzuki's V-Strom or Kawasaki's Versys. Bikes like these would be a bit of a stretch for me — both literally and figuratively due to my height and my visual preferences. While plenty here on the forum have demonstrated that the CB1100 can serve as a multi-purpose bike, it's probably perceived as much more of a niche bike by most.
I can tell you that the priority factors that influenced my decision were almost totally the opposite of yours. I purchased the CB1100 first and foremost because of the looks. Such a beautiful machine sporting the air-cooled, retro vibe really appealed to me, enough so that I was able to overlook the weight of the bike which was a concern (I still wouldn't mind if the CB1100 were another 50 pounds lighter). The only real deal breaker for me would have been a seat height much higher than where things stand right now. (I do like to be able to flat foot it when stopped.)
I'll add that while my CB1100 is not my only mode of transportation, I do manage to spend more time aboard it riding about than I do inside of my truck driving around. This is because I commute via motorcycle year round (in a dense urban setting). I don't ride to work during the nastiest of weather or while the temps are low enough for the bridges to freeze, but I get plenty of riding days in during the year. So while I'm certainly not a hard-core rider when it comes to racking up the miles, I also don't consider my bike to be a toy. I suppose that I'm probably just the opposite of the average casual rider who take their bikes out primarily during the weekends and only during nice weather. This is largely because I'm typically doing things other than riding motorcycles during the weekend, although a few here on the forum finally managed to get me out for a nice ride a while back.
Still if my motorcycle was going to be my only form of transportation, then I can tell you that it probably would not be a CB1100 for me because I do care about looks and I honestly don't think that I would be able to live with the look of permanently mounted luggage or at least permanently mounted luggage racks messing up the lines of the bike. (I have a rear mount rack for my CB and don't even leave it on when I'm not using it for the same reason.) Jeez, now that I think about it, if I didn't care about looks and needed to get by with just a motorcycle, then something along the lines of a V-Strom (with a way to lower the seat height) might actually be where I would end up. Who, I wonder, has convinced new generations of motorcyclists that being able to flat-foot a bike when stopped is desirable - as opposed to required? It is, of course, a rhetorical question - it is the bike manufacturers, who for some unfathomable reason keep designing and building ever bigger bikes, with ever increasing seat heights. Where the heck is that übermench race of bike riders that can flat-foot the new Africa-twin (87+ cm seat height!?!) hiding? I only see some occasionally playing basketball on TV, never around me in real life...
Posts: 23,403
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 482 in 220 posts
Likes Given: 597
Joined: Apr 2025
As a munchkin I haven't been able to flat foot a bike on both sides in years, and I can't on either of the bikes I own now, even though I had the seat foam lowered an inch on one of them. For me it is at least desirable to get the balls on my feet down on both sides. Almost all of todays bikes are too tall for me. I'd love an adventure bike but until they start building them with 29 or 30" seat heights, I'm afraid I'm out of luck.
Posts: 3,454
Threads: 129
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2015
I can flat foot 'em all. I'm 6'6" (36" inseam). But today's contemporary-styled bikes are so darned ugly, there's absolutely no reason to bother.
Posts: 23,403
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 482 in 220 posts
Likes Given: 597
Joined: Apr 2025
Lucky duck. If I was 6'6" I'd be breathing different air, and riding all kinds of bikes
Posts: 56
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Feb 2016
I'm not only short, I'm old. 5'6" and the CB is pretty comfortable, but I couldn't go any taller. I also have the new Triumph Street Twin, which is a very comfortable flat foot seating ride. I got rid of a BMW K1200RS because it was a heavy beast and tall for me.
Posts: 3,454
Threads: 129
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2015
I really like the Street Twin, but it does have a fairly low seat. Funny you mention your K1200RS. It's only about 20 lbs heavier than a CB1100DLX, but the ergos are obviously a lot different.
Posts: 1,020
Threads: 51
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Seat heights have become ridiculous...I straddled a Ducati Hypermostradatardale or whatever at the dealership last week and at 5'8" and a 30" inseam, I couldn't come close to touching down both feet. Really counter- intuitive for an industry looking to broaden it's riding base. Must be the SUV- syndrome.
That being said, it's not just seat height but shape and the bike's width. The Thruxton R is narrow waisted and easy to flat foot, and my Tiger 800, while a tall- rounder, is two feet flat for me with the slightly lower adjustable gel seat.
I know, topic discipline has gone astray here, so back to the original topic, I'm not sure Honda doesn't have another trick in the book for the CB. The retro/ standard market is still hot, and they have a lot invested in this design, with ample heritage. Lets see what 2017 brings.
Posts: 281
Threads: 8
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2015
(09-09-2016, 11:38 AM)The ferret_imp Wrote: As a munchkin I haven't been able to flat foot a bike on both sides in years, and I can't on either of the bikes I own now, even though I had the seat foam lowered an inch on one of them. For me it is at least desirable to get the balls on my feet down on both sides. Almost all of todays bikes are too tall for me. I'd love an adventure bike but until they start building them with 29 or 30" seat heights, I'm afraid I'm out of luck. Mr. Ferret, you must have toes of a ballerina.
Just kidding...
|
