2015 CB1100 Article in RideApart

I think the low compression ratio and modest power output is a tribute to the air cooling. This helps to keep low the absolute amount of thermal dissipation loss.

However, the disadvantage of low compression is mpg. The more compression, the better mpg. But then, if you'd like to go for economics, you might have bought a CBF1000F.

Last Sunday on tour with my friends I really enjoyed the smooth ride on my CB. There was no issue, floating around with my friends on their 163 HP BMW.
 
Nightrider said:

Most, if not all 4 into 2 pictures I see, are aftermarket on those old bikes.

You are simply wrong on this. From the factory they came with 4 into 2's. There were only 4 models that came with a 4 into 1 as I stated above, the 400 Supersport the 550 Supersport and the 750 Supersport. The 4th was the 750 Automatic. In 1979 when Honda went to the DOHC motor, the Supersports (750, 900, 1100) all came with 4 into 2's. The 4 cyl CB 650 Nighthawks and the 4 cyl CB 700 Nighthawks from 83 on all had 4 into 2's and the CB 750 Nighthawks from 1991-2003 all had 4 into 2's. I sold Hondas from 1974 to 1989. Trust me or better yet look it up.

Honda carried the 4 into 4 on the CB 750K's thru 81 and on the 900 and 1000 customs thru 86 I believe.

But there were no DOHC Hondas of any displacement with a factory 4 into 1 up until the 2010 CB1100 was released in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.


Nightrider said:

The single appears on the right side leaving no hot pipe on the traditional left mount side.

Yes, and above you said it was on the left, but apparently edited it to say "correct" side.

Nightrider said:

If the rider of a 4 into 2 CB 1100 weighs 50 lbs more than the rider of a 4 into 1, which is (itself) 30 lbs lighter, the rider on the 4 into 2 will have a much much higher GVWR (50 + 30 = 80!!!), his 4 into 2 bike will be slower run and the rider (non-sexist) will get worse mileage. But what's the point? The 4 into 1 is 30 lbs lighter just from the pipes and smaller size tank and even lighter still with both bikes topped off since it's tank is smaller and the higher weight 4 into 2 must carry more gas because it is heavier. So...a bike being 30 lbs lighter is not a small thing, it is a great advantage which is why the bike was designed this way to begiin with.

My reply:

You are correct I should have said 35 pound lighter rider not 20 pound lighter rider.

But what's the point?

Just having a 4 into 1 pipe will not necessarily translate into an advantage, nor will having a bike that weighs 30 pounds less than someone else's bike.

The lightest rider and bike COMBO will run fastest, and get the best mileage if riders are of equal riding ability. Hard to buck physics. If I weigh 180 on my 570 pound DLX race someone that weighs 240 on a 540 pound std who is going to be fastest and get the best mileage? I think physics would suggest I would, so the 4 into 1 was not an advantage in that case. If both riders weighed 180 then the guy with the lighter bike would obviously have the advantage.

The bike was designed with the 4 into 1 to honor the Supersport 400, 550 and 750s from 75 to 78. Weight was not a consideration by the engineers. They have said so in the history and design of the CB1100 as published by Honda. They didn't design the 4 into 1 for any kind of advantage. It was simply a styling nod to some past 70's models.
 
The ferret_imp said:
Nightrider said:

Most, if not all 4 into 2 pictures I see, are aftermarket on those old bikes.

You are simply wrong on this. From the factory they came with 4 into 2's. There were only 4 models that came with a 4 into 1 as I stated above, the 400 Supersport the 550 Supersport and the 750 Supersport. The 4th was the 750 Automatic. In 1979 when Honda went to the DOHC motor, the Supersports (750, 900, 1100) all came with 4 into 2's. The 4 cyl CB 650 Nighthawks and the 4 cyl CB 700 Nighthawks from 83 on all had 4 into 2's and the CB 750 Nighthawks from 1991-2003 all had 4 into 2's. I sold Hondas from 1974 to 1989. Trust me or better yet look it up.

Honda carried the 4 into 4 on the CB 750K's thru 81 and on the 900 and 1000 customs thru 86 I believe.

But there were no DOHC Hondas of any displacement with a factory 4 into 1 up until the 2010 CB1100 was released in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.


Nightrider said:

The single appears on the right side leaving no hot pipe on the traditional left mount side.

Yes, and above you said it was on the left, but apparently edited it to say "correct" side.

Nightrider said:

If the rider of a 4 into 2 CB 1100 weighs 50 lbs more than the rider of a 4 into 1, which is (itself) 30 lbs lighter, the rider on the 4 into 2 will have a much much higher GVWR (50 + 30 = 80!!!), his 4 into 2 bike will be slower run and the rider (non-sexist) will get worse mileage. But what's the point? The 4 into 1 is 30 lbs lighter just from the pipes and smaller size tank and even lighter still with both bikes topped off since it's tank is smaller and the higher weight 4 into 2 must carry more gas because it is heavier. So...a bike being 30 lbs lighter is not a small thing, it is a great advantage which is why the bike was designed this way to begiin with.

My reply:

You are correct I should have said 35 pound lighter rider not 20 pound lighter rider.

But what's the point?

Just having a 4 into 1 pipe will not necessarily translate into an advantage, nor will having a bike that weighs 30 pounds less than someone else's bike.

The lightest rider and bike COMBO will run fastest, and get the best mileage if riders are of equal riding ability. Hard to buck physics. If I weigh 180 on my 570 pound DLX race someone that weighs 240 on a 540 pound std who is going to be fastest and get the best mileage? I think physics would suggest I would, so the 4 into 1 was not an advantage in that case. If both riders weighed 180 then the guy with the lighter bike would obviously have the advantage.

The bike was designed with the 4 into 1 to honor the Supersport 400, 550 and 750s from 75 to 78. Weight was not a consideration by the engineers. They have said so in the history and design of the CB1100 as published by Honda. They didn't design the 4 into 1 for any kind of advantage. It was simply a styling nod to some past 70's models.
I didn't know that. I always assumed that they went with the 4 into 1 because the first thing that everybody did with their 70s/80s UJM 4s was to slap an aftermarket pipe on them. Stock pipes were passe' back then. :P
 
As I've said in the past, for me the attraction to the CB1100 is mostly about the looks. All other positives are just icing on the cake and I'm probably less worried about horsepower than a lot of guys shopping for bikes today. I have to admit that I got a chuckle out of the author's comment about the boxy tank on the Deluxe. Boxy tank and all, the first photo featured in the article header is a great shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Notice the two bikes in the picture here with designer . Clearly the two bikes pictured were the primary inspiration for the CB1100. The CB 750K ( with rlets and gaiters btw) and the CB 400 supersport. Original design had a 4 into 4 system. Updated designs had the snaky headpipes from the CB400 fours 4 into 1.

Honda Motor Co.,Ltd.|Honda Global Corporate Website

With regards to tank shape, for the EX/DLX they wanted to increase capacity. One of the design goals was to let the rider view the engine from the riders seat, so it couldn't be wider. Going longer would mean less room in the rider/passenger area, so it couldn't be longer. Only 1 way to go and that was up, hence the boxier look. I think the 13 tank is probably a better looking tank, but I don't find the tank shape of the DLX objectionable, just different, and maybe closer in shape to the original CB750. It goes with the 4 into 2. It would not look as good on a 4 into 1 model, as it is not as sporty.

On another note I must correct a mistake I made above when I said no DOHC I4 had a 4 into 1. That was wrong. I was thinking about this as I went to sleep last night. Honda did put a 4 into 1 on a couple of models. The 600, 900 and 1000 cc fully faired sport models called Hurricanes and models designated RR's (road race) but most relevant, the naked Honda 599 and 919s. I was still working for Honda when the first 600 and 1000 Hurricanes were released, but not when the later RRs or 599/919s were released so they didn't readily come to mind. Sorry about that.
 
The most important question from the article is what boots is he wearing? The article says Redwing 84206, but I can't find that number on Redwing's website and the link provided takes me to a boot on Amazon that is clearly not what is in the photo.
 
Looks like about a 10" dark brown leather lace up Sea.

I am amazed looking at the pic that Cormanus et al posted, that a 6'5" 210 lb guy has that much space on the seat behind him.
 
Interesting story hb9400. Thanks for the link.
 
The Modern Cafe, well that phrase put me off right away so I didn't read the article. It's not a cafe bike, never intended to be a cafe bike and who ever says it is does not know what they are talking about. (in other forums the reader can now assume the writing going off on some anti-hipster rant :angel: which would fit rather nicely save that I'm not anti-hipster but can see why that opinion would come about).

It does make me think Honda understands us, but the younger riders do not. Dang I feel old now. On the other hand, the younger riders need to find their own path to riding. No matter how dumb, stupid, contrived and shallow that may be....... OK, I'll go get some coffee now. :)
 
Young guys think the black one, at least, is a cafe. I'm okay with that. I hope they buy and personalize (tastefully) lots of them.
 
jerrycon_imp said:
Young guys think the black one, at least, is a cafe. I'm okay with that. I hope they buy and personalize (tastefully) lots of them.
The obvious connection is that to make a cafe, one generally starts with a standard bike. I think cafe-capable would probably be the most accurate term. :P
 
I have to laugh about all the statements about HP. The bike is not a super sport, its not a muscle bike, its not a naked street fighter, its a standard bike plain and simple. It has adequate horse power for most people. I highly doubt that 90% of the riders here would even use the bike to its full potential to begin with let alone do anything more even if they did have more HP. I'm just getting off a bike with 130hp and only used its full potential two or three times. The mid range torque was much more use full than the top end which was about 156mph. Had fun doing that several times. I'm still breaking this bike in but have found that this bike likes to play within the 4k to 6k rpm range. Little use for six gear unless pounding some relaxed miles on the highway. I've touched 100 on this bike easily so far. I won't push too much until first service is done but if you wind it up it will go and its more than plenty for most. I still have a touring bike but got rid of the sport bike, Kawi Z1000 and this bike will fit the bill nicely. I used to have a XR1200 with similar HP and weight to the cb1100. The XR was just a little more torqey due to the V twin. If you need more HP then maybe you should be riding a bike in a different class. Been there, done that. Enjoy.
 
uscgmac_imp said:
I have to laugh about all the statements about HP. The bike is not a super sport, its not a muscle bike, its not a naked street fighter, its a standard bike plain and simple. It has adequate horse power for most people. I highly doubt that 90% of the riders here would even use the bike to its full potential to begin with let alone do anything more even if they did have more HP. I'm just getting off a bike with 130hp and only used its full potential two or three times. The mid range torque was much more use full than the top end which was about 156mph. Had fun doing that several times. I'm still breaking this bike in but have found that this bike likes to play within the 4k to 6k rpm range. Little use for six gear unless pounding some relaxed miles on the highway. I've touched 100 on this bike easily so far. I won't push too much until first service is done but if you wind it up it will go and its more than plenty for most. I still have a touring bike but got rid of the sport bike, Kawi Z1000 and this bike will fit the bill nicely. I used to have a XR1200 with similar HP and weight to the cb1100. The XR was just a little more torqey due to the V twin. If you need more HP then maybe you should be riding a bike in a different class. Been there, done that. Enjoy.
YES, this is exactly right. Every time I read that comment I'm thinking do they not know what bike they just got on to ride? It is a "standard bike plain and simple" which is why I bought it. I did not want a super sport, muscle bike, naked street fighter or a GL1800 . . . .
 
Back
Top