defects CB 1100

[GoldOxide_imp]

If the CB1100 was 8 inches taller, I'd be all over it again.

 

[Cormanus]

I, for one, am very pleased it isn't! Sorry Au3O2.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

I, for one, am very pleased it isn't! Sorry Au3O2.

So-kay. It looks much better as is. :beerchug:

 

[peterbaron]

even if we look at ergo cycle it is confirmed that the cb 1100 is the most uncomfortable bike among the modern classics, the truth is that one can make it go well but it is not a comfort bike at all for those who are high above 1.70

I am 172 cm tall and can easy clock 2000 kms within 2 days, and 500-700 next few days, no discomfort... :biker:

 

[pdedse]

The Bonneville T-120 is significantly slimmer than the CB1100, and offers much more legroom. The CB1100 requires a much greater bend at the knees. Even though the Bonneville has a lot more legroom, it still feels significantly smaller than the CB, because of its slimness. The Honda feels thick and dense. The Triumph feels thin and waifish.

Motor-wise, the Bonneville is much torquier, with less vibration throughout the midrange, but there is a lot less peak power. It has no revs to speak of. The Honda doesn't offer many revs either, but it's a lot more playful than the Triumph.

Handling? No contest. The Triumph handles like a truck. The front end steers so heavily, so slowly. The CB almost feels like a sportbike in comparison, its handling is so much lighter, quicker, sharper, better.

"Much more legroom"...I didn't find that to be the case. But maybe that's because I don't notice the tightness on the CB1100--for me it's in the hip area--until about 30 minutes into a ride. I came to the T-120 test ride after owning the CB1100 for two years, so for me, if the leg room were "much more", I think I would have noticed. All I can say is it felt about the same.

"Much more legroom"...I didn't find that to be the case. But maybe that's because I don't notice the tightness on the CB1100--for me it's in the hip area--until about 30 minutes into a ride. I came to the T-120 test ride after owning the CB1100 for two years, so for me, if the leg room were "much more", I think I would have noticed. All I can say is it felt about the same.
You are correct. I should have said a "much greater bend at the hips," not at the knee.

My bad.

Anyway, yeah, the T-120 has a lot more legroom than the CB, requiring much less of a bend at the hips.

I guess when I hear the t-120 has "a lot more legroom" or "much more" than that of the CB1100 I shake my head no and say maybe a bit, but that's because a lot more room for me would have to be something in a different class of mc, like an adventure bike; example, my klr650 w/ 35" seat height gives me a lot more leg room.

Having said that, a little difference can go a long way. I've mentioned that I use a simple 1" foam seat pad on my CB1100, and this takes away any tightness in my hips even if I ride 3+ hours. So if the t-120 were to straighten out my hip angle by that 1 inch, that might be enough to take away the need for a seat pad in my case. If that turned out to work, then I'd more agree it has more leg room. I'm just saying it didn't feel that much on my test ride.

In the end, what I would say to someone who experiences tightness at the hips / knees is maybe try a higher seat, a seat pad, lower the pegs before thinking of a new bike...because otherwise it looks so nice and has many more positives if the ergonomics can be worked out.

 

[LongRanger_imp]

We’re simply built differently. At 1,98 (6’6”), my DLX was perfectly comfortable for 300-400 mile rides. I have other bikes that are roomier, but I knew that going in, and I didn’t buy the CB to be a tourer.

 

[run-tmc_imp]

I agree with pdedse on earlier experiences with the CB being a bit uncomfortable, but the body adjusting with time. I recall getting cramped up after a few hours in the saddle, but for the most part, those feelings have gone away. I ride for 300 km intervals with a bit of stiffness here and there, but easily tolerable. Long days on this bike are an absolute joy. I say this AFTER having installed my clip-ons too. Many miles bring many smiles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wisedrum]

even if we look at ergo cycle it is confirmed that the cb 1100 is the most uncomfortable bike among the modern classics, the truth is that one can make it go well but it is not a comfort bike at all for those who are high above 1.70

I don't confirm your statement. The 'truth' is, if one wants to speak of truth, not an easy term, some can adjust to the CB, some can't. I won't bring in a body length of 170cm as an index after which the CB doesn't fit anymore. That's not the case for all CB riders. Truth is what the case is.(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

I'm much taller than 170cm and ride the CB without feeling cramped or feeling pain somewhere in my body. I just use the CB as it is build and feel comfortable. It of course depends on your ability and sometimes on your will to adjust to something bodywise, mentally and spiritually. For me the CB makes all these adjustments easy.

I don't like the seating position on choppers. The Cali goes more into this direction than anything else. I prefer a normal classic street bike. The CB is one with a very good layout for this kind of motorbike. My opinion. The CB is not build for everyone but for those, who can enjoy her. Not all owners are able to do it over a longer period of time. Than they sell her. Normal in a tempting colourful world full of changes, that can lead us to this or that. Sometimes we follow, sell and buy.

Wisedrum

 

[bioman_imp]

I'm 1.88 mtr tall but find the the seating position on the CB1100 perfectly fine. No complaints there.
My main (and only) complaint for longer trips however is the seat/foam. After 2 hours my a$$ starts to get numb and I start moving around to find a more comfortable spot. I guess I will have to try out sheepskin or any of the other options to make the seat more comfortable for longer trips.

 

[Olof_imp]

The headline is 'defects' but we're discussing preferences, by definition a personal thing. This has already been stated (several times), but to me preferences are also fluid if I'm motivated.

Years back, when I spent a lot of time on tracks, I routinely and extensively modded everhing that was unfortunate enough to enter my garage, 'fixing it' so it would be 'rideable'. An old friend of mine, professional motocrosser in the 50s and 60s (Lito-framed Ariel 500, raced in Sweden, Belgium and France) just shook his head: "Learn to ride what you got first. Adapt. Then modify, if you really need to". That stuck (eventually) and I found that his philosophy went a long way.

While this aimed for improving lap times it also works on the road, and with the CB. For example, coming from sports bikes I prefer head-down-tucked-in riding position which the CB does support at all. But if I just shift back on the seat and bend my arms a little I'm fine, and in city traffic the upright position is bliss. Another: the CB seems to like steering 'helps' through the pegs much more than I'm used to. So I relax input through the bars and try to focus more on the pegs. Awkward at first, second nature after a while. A third: spirited oovertaking calls for a bit more planning and downshifting than my previous big bore twins. So I try to get used to that, eventually finding it engaging and enjoyable.

So, no mods needed. But, which is important, I need to be motivated to adapt. If I don't really like the bike that much I just can't be bothered. The CB motivates, however. The more I experience this bike the more I consider myself lucky I've got one and I really enjoy 'getting it'.

By the way, my friend still has his Ariel 500, complete with spare engine in a wheathered wood box, just as it finished its last race, and rides it every now and then. And not slowly either

 

[j3gq_imp]

The headline is 'defects' but we're discussing preferences, by definition a personal thing. This has already been stated (several times), but to me preferences are also fluid if I'm motivated.

Years back, when I spent a lot of time on tracks, I routinely and extensively modded everhing that was unfortunate enough to enter my garage, 'fixing it' so it would be 'rideable'. An old friend of mine, professional motocrosser in the 50s and 60s (Lito-framed Ariel 500, raced in Sweden, Belgium and France) just shook his head: "Learn to ride what you got first. Adapt. Then modify, if you really need to". That stuck (eventually) and I found that his philosophy went a long way.

While this aimed for improving lap times it also works on the road, and with the CB. For example, coming from sports bikes I prefer head-down-tucked-in riding position which the CB does support at all. But if I just shift back on the seat and bend my arms a little I'm fine, and in city traffic the upright position is bliss. Another: the CB seems to like steering 'helps' through the pegs much more than I'm used to. So I relax input through the bars and try to focus more on the pegs. Awkward at first, second nature after a while. A third: spirited oovertaking calls for a bit more planning and downshifting than my previous big bore twins. So I try to get used to that, eventually finding it engaging and enjoyable.

So, no mods needed. But, which is important, I need to be motivated to adapt. If I don't really like the bike that much I just can't be bothered. The CB motivates, however. The more I experience this bike the more I consider myself lucky I've got one and I really enjoy 'getting it'.

By the way, my friend still has his Ariel 500, complete with spare engine in a wheathered wood box, just as it finished its last race, and rides it every now and then. And not slowly either

Like this tune a lot, and I will certainly have to figure out in spring whether I am already doing the 'peg steering' intuitively (without being aware of it), or whether this will become a trick for my toolbox.

 

[rboe]

Declaring a bike uncomfortable is very subjective; we all bend differently. Ones height is not the full story either, Inseam, arm length - both are very important. Big bum and small bum probably has a fair amount of bearing too.

Being in shape to ride long rides is huge. Which is why the ride home is usually a lot easier than the ride out - you got pummelled into shape!

I'm beginning to understand why folks will trailer a bike to a destination.......

 

[the Ferret]

Declaring a bike uncomfortable is very subjective; we all bend differently. Ones height is not the full story either, Inseam, arm length - both are very important. Big bum and small bum probably has a fair amount of bearing too.

Being in shape to ride long rides is huge. Which is why the ride home is usually a lot easier than the ride out - you got pummelled into shape!

I'm beginning to understand why folks will trailer a bike to a destination.......

Probably why I have no issues with stock seats or long hours in the saddle. Nearly daily riding since 1965 has kept my bum and body pummelled into " riding shape"

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

I wonder if it wasn't for the Iron Butt Association, if today it would instead be called the "Hard-@ssed Association"? (given that over the decades many words have been relaxed)

 

[IndianRider_imp]

thank you guys.
known that many consider the engine anonymous and many have raised the saddle and lowered the motorcycle footpegs as it is designed for Chinese and Japanese with average height different from us Westerners.

This the the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on this forum even if I have traveled far and seen many cultures and barriers including half of Italy and I love Italians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cormanus]

I'm sure you've noticed that it's been the subject of some discussion already, IndianRider. I regret not deleting it when I first saw it.

 

[rboe]

To be fair, considering his tall stature, it's an easy knee jerk assumption to make. Once a little bit of thoughtful reflection (and some added data from concerned forum members) one can see the folly in the statement.

I know over the years I've said some pretty dumb things not knowing the full picture. Alas; I don't seem to avoid that pitfal - but I seem to do it less.

So I'd cut him some slack.

 

[the Ferret]

I have heard that statement (minus the Chinese part) for 50 years. That these bikes are built for short Japanese riders that weigh 150 pounds. This is nothing new. Dont believe the statement to be true, but it's nothing we haven't heard for decades.

Unfortunately it's hard to design/build bikes that fit 5'5" guys like me, and 6'4" guys like Longranger or Rboe, and guys that weigh 130 and guys that weigh 250. That's how the aftermarket got its start, making bike built for the middle, to fit guys on the opposing ends of the height/ weight spectrum.

 

[LongRanger_imp]

6’6”. 6’4”, I wish!

 

[Houtman_imp]

Rboe , I still say dumb things at seventy years old .