Triumph T120 v CB1100a

[SUPERCRUZ_imp]

An interesting thread over on the Triumph Forum. Thought I would share.

http://www.triumphrat.net/water-cooled-t...1100a.html

Cheers

[Cormanus]

Good read. Thanks.

[LongRanger_imp]

Excellent, thanks for posting. I've long held that there are no bad bikes -- choosing one is simply a matter of which one speaks to you.

[Rebel73_imp]

Must admit I'm a bit jealous of the 96hp on the Triumph, but for the money, I think my next bike will be a Yamaha XSR900.

[url=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/RobertB755/media/2016-yamaha-xsr900-first-test-review-canyon-action_zpszkswn2yo.jpg.html]

[Ulvetanna_imp]

An interesting thread over on the Triumph Forum. Thought I would share.

http://www.triumphrat.net/water-cooled-t...1100a.html

Cheers

I noticed your posts there, of course, and you exemplified perfectly why the CB1100 is no longer for sale here in the USA.

The perception is that for some reason an air-cooled bike does not do as well in traffic or heat.

I have had a lot of air-cooled bikes and cannot support that notion which is why I call it a perception. I've owned and ridden plenty of air-cooled singles, all dual-sports such as the XL600 Honda and a few XT Yamahas. I was much younger and rode them hard. None ever overheated or failed. I had a 2006 Dyna Glide, air-cooled, and rode in extreme heat and traffic all the time. It never gave me the slightest trouble.

Yesterday I rode my CB1100, hard, 250 miles, in temperatures exceeding 102 degrees F. I bounced it off the rev limiter once and held sustained speeds on the freeway of 80 mph plus, keeping it tached in the twisties between 6-8K much of the time. The bike never hicupped, stumbled, or twitched. It also did not use a drop of oil. The valves were all perfect at 8000 miles as well.

So that is an erroneous perception, but people buy based on perception.

I understand these are the usual way those words are used, but in fact the experience of riding - unless the bike is a museum piece eliciting nostalgia - is what evokes a soulful and emotional response. If the experience is not a good one, the way the bike looks is not going to make up for it.

Soul and emotion can't really be provided by the machine, they are human qualities. What I look for, myself, is a machine that I can interact with effectively and intuitively. I am the one with a soul, I experience emotion. I can describe my experience in those terms but the motorcycle cannot provide them and doesn't have them.

To my eye, the Thruxton 1200 looks cooler than the CB1100. Way, way, cooler. But I'm pretty sure I will be happier riding the CB1100. And like a horse that may be long in tooth, and a bit swaybacked, but is reliable and easy to manage, the CB1100, despite its lack of bling and cache, will eventually win the rider over if given a chance.

That chance is not often given when the solutions aren't readily at hand and the next bike is gleaming on the showroom floor.

[Papa Weeley_imp]

I loved my 2012 Bonneville (and really loved my Ducati 900SS), but the bottom line is, I guess I'll just always be an inline-4 guy. I'll never warm up to the sound, feel, and vibes of a twin, no matter how much power it's got, or how much I like the bike itself.

[Ulvetanna_imp]

I loved my 2012 Bonneville (and really loved my Ducati 900SS), but the bottom line is, I guess I'll just always be an inline-4 guy. I'll never warm up to the sound, feel, and vibes of a twin, no matter how much power it's got, or how much I like the bike itself.

I too really prefer the I4s. I have owned many V4s, they are a neat engine, but the I4s just seem to be very efficient and cost-effective and that's what I look for.

Now in an ADV, a twin is better, methinks.

[Rebel73_imp]

"To my eye, the Thruxton 1200 looks cooler than the CB1100. Way, way, cooler."

Maybe stock for stock, but there are some pretty bad-ass modded CBs out there.
The Thrux is an "out of the box" cafe racer. The CB is a great platform on which to build your own vision of one.

[Guth_imp]

If we're talking about looks then the issue is pretty cut and dried for me. Nothing released since the 2013 CB1100 has removed it from atop my list of the most desirable looking bikes. I get how other people are drawn to some of the other models mentioned, but they just don't do it for me.

From a mechanical standpoint, one of the really cool things (no pun intended) about the CB1100 was the fact that Honda actually committed to producing and using an air cooled engine. Who knows, the air-cooled engine in the CB1100 may be the last of its kind. Honestly, I would be more interested to see what Honda might do with a modern version of the Hawk GT than I would with a a water cooled CB. A new Hawk GT that was slightly larger than the original would grab my attention for sure. A water cooled CB1100 would just strike me as a bit off.

Obviously the CB1100 isn't for everyone. As Ulvetanna has said elsewhere, I'm glad that I got mine.

[Frulk_imp]

"To my eye, the Thruxton 1200 looks cooler than the CB1100. Way, way, cooler."

Maybe stock for stock, but there are some pretty bad-ass modded CBs out there.
The Thrux is an "out of the box" cafe racer. The CB is a great platform on which to build your own vision of one.

Rob, you hit the nail right on the head with your post. Out of the box the CB is a great canvas to leave blank or start to 'paint' into whatever you want it to be...your bike being a perfect example, as well as CB4ME, Motogeezer and so on. I REALLY like the ThruxtonR as a capable café bike right off the showroom floor that's also a looker. The power difference between the two of them to me is a wash because in truth the 82-86 HP the CB produces are right at my upper limit of being able to control when I ride it hard (a mans got to know his limitations). This puts me right back on the drum I've beat in half a dozen posts now, that being the aforementioned guys and many more of you having put together bikes that in my estimation are far more pleasing to MY eye than a stock ThruxtonR.