Design Disadvantages of the CB1100

[davidsargee_imp]

All I can say is this bike seems like it was personally designed for me. It has more power than a sane person needs, and it can do, or be adapted to do, just about any type of street/road riding one might want.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I am an older, working class stiff, I do not have enough bank account for multiple motorcycles, (God bless you if you do, but I don't). I wanted a bike that not only looks and runs good, but is versatile enough to go for short rides, or to throw a couple of bags on and ride to the Grand Canyon, (plan to do that this spring, 2300 miles round trip). The CB1100 is by far the most suitable bike for my needs. I am going to ride it for years, take a few trips, etc. Once it is paid off, I might cafe it , then buy another bike for trips, maybe, or maybe not.

Disadvantages, I can't really think of any that matter. That's the point, just ride it, and see where you are when you stop.

This bike is what the gentleman from Australia, (among others), stated in an earlier post, it is a Gentlemans bike. Best UJM on the market, for sure.

Cheers
:beerchug:

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need. I like my bike, but I definitely wish it had another 20-30hp for getting into the HOV lane without worrying if you're going to get crammed in the butt. On my CBR, that's not any kind of a problem, that thing's a missile. And I don't ride fast, not by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly get 50+mpg on the CB (and 40+ on the CBR). It's just those small occasions when I would really like the confidence of accelerating like I'm entering low-Earth orbit so I know I won't get rear-ended.

Otherwise, the bike is nearly perfect. Except for the hand grips. They suck a special kind of suck.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.

 

[Dakota_imp]

A couple of points from Taylors book on engine design:

"V engines of 8 cylinders or more have excellent balance and freedom from vibrational problems. ... Two, four, and six cylinder V engines have balance problems. They are used chiefly in small sizes where the resultant shape is appropriate, such as in motorcycles."

Here's my list of design failings of the CB:

1. It's air-cooled. What were they thinking? It's so much easier to control engine heat, and thus provide more power for comparable displacements, with water-cooling.

2. There's no fairing. Riders are exposed to the elements, including wind-blast, rain, and cold. A large, modern fairing would not only resolve those issues, but would also provide a location to install features such as "Infotainment" systems, GPS, satellite TV, etc.

3. No luggage. Where the heck are you supposed to put your hair dryer if you take a road trip? A large top case and side-bags would go a long way here.

4. Chain drive. Are you kidding me? A shaft drive would be quieter, cleaner, and virtually zero maintenance. CB buyers are stuck with cleaning and lubricating chains for the life of the motorcycle.

5. I-4 engine layout. This engine design is simply outdated. A V-4 or horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine would produce more power and fewer vibrations.

6. Single headlight. Two headlights would provide better visibility for both the rider and surrounding traffic. Shame on Honda for not investing a few dollars more here.

Honda has used a second oil pump/ cooler circuit for engine cooling. It remains to be seen if this is the disadvantage you believe it to be. Honda claims the result to be comparable to liquid cooling. I like the idea of not having to worry about coolant changes, corrosion, or leaks into the crankcase.

A V4 has inferior balance. If you look at what is and has been put under the hoods of vehicles, a V4 is very uncommon. What technical reason do you believe would cause a V4 to produce more power than an I4? A horizontally opposed six wouldn't pay homage to the "CB".
It appears that V4 and opposed 6 engines are so absurd that the tables covering engine balance didn't even bother to include them so I can't give you a comparison of secondary shaking force and moment. It really looks like the design decision to use those configurations is driven mainly by packaging concerns. Is this the type of design compromise you'd rather have?

 

[calamarichris_imp]

A couple of points from Taylors book on engine design:

"V engines of 8 cylinders or more have excellent balance and freedom from vibrational problems. ... Two, four, and six cylinder V engines have balance problems. They are used chiefly in small sizes where the resultant shape is appropriate, such as in motorcycles."

Here's my list of design failings of the CB:

1. It's air-cooled. What were they thinking? It's so much easier to control engine heat, and thus provide more power for comparable displacements, with water-cooling.

2. There's no fairing. Riders are exposed to the elements, including wind-blast, rain, and cold. A large, modern fairing would not only resolve those issues, but would also provide a location to install features such as "Infotainment" systems, GPS, satellite TV, etc.

3. No luggage. Where the heck are you supposed to put your hair dryer if you take a road trip? A large top case and side-bags would go a long way here.

4. Chain drive. Are you kidding me? A shaft drive would be quieter, cleaner, and virtually zero maintenance. CB buyers are stuck with cleaning and lubricating chains for the life of the motorcycle.

5. I-4 engine layout. This engine design is simply outdated. A V-4 or horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine would produce more power and fewer vibrations.

6. Single headlight. Two headlights would provide better visibility for both the rider and surrounding traffic. Shame on Honda for not investing a few dollars more here.

Honda has used a second oil pump/ cooler circuit for engine cooling. It remains to be seen if this is the disadvantage you believe it to be. Honda claims the result to be comparable to liquid cooling. I like the idea of not having to worry about coolant changes, corrosion, or leaks into the crankcase.

A V4 has inferior balance. If you look at what is and has been put under the hoods of vehicles, a V4 is very uncommon. What technical reason do you believe would cause a V4 to produce more power than an I4? A horizontally opposed six wouldn't pay homage to the "CB".
It appears that V4 and opposed 6 engines are so absurd that the tables covering engine balance didn't even bother to include them so I can't give you a comparison of secondary shaking force and moment. It really looks like the design decision to use those configurations is driven mainly by packaging concerns. Is this the type of design compromise you'd rather have?

Thanks for the interesting quote about V-configurations.

I think the oil cooler is a good idea. Suzuki's GSXR's from the late 80's-early 90's were a successful oil-cooled design. BMW's Boxers are another good example. I test rode and rented several of those Boxers, and IMO the oil cooler was effective enough to make the cooling fins on the Boxer's cylinders primarily retro-decorations. The cylinders never really got hot, even after a few hours at highway speed.
The last big air-cooled I4 that I can remember was Yamaha's FJR1200, and that bike had problems with the #2 & 3 cylinders (inside) getting too hot, especially when left with stock jetting to comply with emissions standards.

 

[Deanohh_imp]

All I can say is this bike seems like it was personally designed for me. It has more power than a sane person needs, and it can do, or be adapted to do, just about any type of street/road riding one might want.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I am an older, working class stiff, I do not have enough bank account for multiple motorcycles, (God bless you if you do, but I don't). I wanted a bike that not only looks and runs good, but is versatile enough to go for short rides, or to throw a couple of bags on and ride to the Grand Canyon, (plan to do that this spring, 2300 miles round trip). The CB1100 is by far the most suitable bike for my needs. I am going to ride it for years, take a few trips, etc. Once it is paid off, I might cafe it , then buy another bike for trips, maybe, or maybe not.

Disadvantages, I can't really think of any that matter. That's the point, just ride it, and see where you are when you stop.

This bike is what the gentleman from Australia, (among others), stated in an earlier post, it is a Gentlemans bike. Best UJM on the market, for sure.

Cheers
:beerchug:

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need. I like my bike, but I definitely wish it had another 20-30hp for getting into the HOV lane without worrying if you're going to get crammed in the butt. On my CBR, that's not any kind of a problem, that thing's a missile. And I don't ride fast, not by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly get 50+mpg on the CB (and 40+ on the CBR). It's just those small occasions when I would really like the confidence of accelerating like I'm entering low-Earth orbit so I know I won't get rear-ended.

Otherwise, the bike is nearly perfect. Except for the hand grips. They suck a special kind of suck.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?

 

[Red Mist_imp]

All I can say is this bike seems like it was personally designed for me. It has more power than a sane person needs, and it can do, or be adapted to do, just about any type of street/road riding one might want.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I am an older, working class stiff, I do not have enough bank account for multiple motorcycles, (God bless you if you do, but I don't). I wanted a bike that not only looks and runs good, but is versatile enough to go for short rides, or to throw a couple of bags on and ride to the Grand Canyon, (plan to do that this spring, 2300 miles round trip). The CB1100 is by far the most suitable bike for my needs. I am going to ride it for years, take a few trips, etc. Once it is paid off, I might cafe it , then buy another bike for trips, maybe, or maybe not.

Disadvantages, I can't really think of any that matter. That's the point, just ride it, and see where you are when you stop.

This bike is what the gentleman from Australia, (among others), stated in an earlier post, it is a Gentlemans bike. Best UJM on the market, for sure.

Cheers
:beerchug:

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need. I like my bike, but I definitely wish it had another 20-30hp for getting into the HOV lane without worrying if you're going to get crammed in the butt. On my CBR, that's not any kind of a problem, that thing's a missile. And I don't ride fast, not by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly get 50+mpg on the CB (and 40+ on the CBR). It's just those small occasions when I would really like the confidence of accelerating like I'm entering low-Earth orbit so I know I won't get rear-ended.

Otherwise, the bike is nearly perfect. Except for the hand grips. They suck a special kind of suck.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again? You always have a way of bringing us back to Earth, and I thank you for it...whew!

Strange that Honda has been dominating Motogp with a V4 to everyone's surprise.

Nothing to do with the CB1100 of course but Honda dominated Superbike racing with V4s for years and dominated Formula 1 GP with V4s as well, in the 1980s. F1 GP is of course what is now called MotoGP, which is pretty well-known but I'm clarifying anyhow. Can't begin to list how many races and champeenships have been won on Honda V4s but it's plenty.

Back to the OP, is this a search for a reason not to buy the bike due to longevity, durability, reliability, comfort, driveability, or other issues? Normally those concerns are mostly related to finances, so if one is looking for the best bang for the buck, the CB is NOT the bike of choice. For sure a liquid-cooled machine is a better choice if you are wanting to go over 50,000 miles without any issues. Personally I have never put quite that many miles on any one bike. I've come close with a few but spreading the miles across two or more bikes, and ultimately wanting something new and/or different, has kept my max single-bike mileage to 43,000, that being an air-cooled BMW. Had one Honda V4 that saw 37,000 and a few others that got into that range. Never had any problems with any of these bikes.

Honestly if you are looking for long valve-adjustment intervals and ultimate power, durability, and reliability, Honda's CB1000R is the bike to look at. As good as the CB1100 is, it's still rooted firmly in the past.

The Yamaha FZ8 and FZ1 are also much better long-term, high-mileage choices.

And let's not forget that Lorenzo and Marquez pretty much split the wins between them last year; Honda's victory was hardly a home run.

 

[Dakota_imp]

An SAE paper which commented on the CB1100's method of hybrid cooling: http://articles.sae.org/12639/

 

[calamarichris_imp]

Cool stuff, Dakota, thank you!
Glad to see Harley freezing hell over like that, and interesting to see The Motor Compay embracing the idea of catering to exports. With a radiator that big, those cooling fins are pretty much for decorative street cred.

 

[davidsargee_imp]

All I can say is this bike seems like it was personally designed for me. It has more power than a sane person needs, and it can do, or be adapted to do, just about any type of street/road riding one might want.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I am an older, working class stiff, I do not have enough bank account for multiple motorcycles, (God bless you if you do, but I don't). I wanted a bike that not only looks and runs good, but is versatile enough to go for short rides, or to throw a couple of bags on and ride to the Grand Canyon, (plan to do that this spring, 2300 miles round trip). The CB1100 is by far the most suitable bike for my needs. I am going to ride it for years, take a few trips, etc. Once it is paid off, I might cafe it , then buy another bike for trips, maybe, or maybe not.

Disadvantages, I can't really think of any that matter. That's the point, just ride it, and see where you are when you stop.

This bike is what the gentleman from Australia, (among others), stated in an earlier post, it is a Gentlemans bike. Best UJM on the market, for sure.

Cheers
:beerchug:

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need. I like my bike, but I definitely wish it had another 20-30hp for getting into the HOV lane without worrying if you're going to get crammed in the butt. On my CBR, that's not any kind of a problem, that thing's a missile. And I don't ride fast, not by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly get 50+mpg on the CB (and 40+ on the CBR). It's just those small occasions when I would really like the confidence of accelerating like I'm entering low-Earth orbit so I know I won't get rear-ended.

Otherwise, the bike is nearly perfect. Except for the hand grips. They suck a special kind of suck.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?
The subject is advantages and disadvantages of the CB1100. Many of us feel that the bike has plenty of horsepower, the designers certainly do. You are more than free to mod it, go buy a faster bike, whatever you want. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

Your presuming to know everything about what I or anyone else thinks is out of line though, and having sex with your bike is a personal matter you should keep to yourself.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

[Deanohh_imp]

Now you are the one jumping to conclusions. I do fondle my CB a little from time to time but that's as far as I go.

 

[Cormanus]

All I can say is this bike seems like it was personally designed for me. It has more power than a sane person needs, and it can do, or be adapted to do, just about any type of street/road riding one might want.

As for advantages/disadvantages, I am an older, working class stiff, I do not have enough bank account for multiple motorcycles, (God bless you if you do, but I don't). I wanted a bike that not only looks and runs good, but is versatile enough to go for short rides, or to throw a couple of bags on and ride to the Grand Canyon, (plan to do that this spring, 2300 miles round trip). The CB1100 is by far the most suitable bike for my needs. I am going to ride it for years, take a few trips, etc. Once it is paid off, I might cafe it , then buy another bike for trips, maybe, or maybe not.

Disadvantages, I can't really think of any that matter. That's the point, just ride it, and see where you are when you stop.

This bike is what the gentleman from Australia, (among others), stated in an earlier post, it is a Gentlemans bike. Best UJM on the market, for sure.

Cheers
:beerchug:

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need. I like my bike, but I definitely wish it had another 20-30hp for getting into the HOV lane without worrying if you're going to get crammed in the butt. On my CBR, that's not any kind of a problem, that thing's a missile. And I don't ride fast, not by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly get 50+mpg on the CB (and 40+ on the CBR). It's just those small occasions when I would really like the confidence of accelerating like I'm entering low-Earth orbit so I know I won't get rear-ended.

Otherwise, the bike is nearly perfect. Except for the hand grips. They suck a special kind of suck.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?

That's not true and I really wish people would stop saying it. Whatever your reason for thinking so doesn't mean it has more power than anyone would ever need.
You are confusing "wants" with "needs". I live in the DFW area, if the bike can accelerate into HOV lanes here, it will anywhere. I have driven in Phoenix, very similar there to here.

While an 11.7 second E.T. in the quarter mile may not be "smoking" anymore, it is nothing to sneeze at either. Considering the bike is hitting the speed limiter at the end of the quarter, it has impressive acceleration.

You shouldn't have a problem entering the HOV lane, unless traffic exceeds 110mph, I could see a problem then.
According to the way you guys think, you wouldn't be allowed to have sex if you wanted it... only when you needed it. If that were the case I'd never get anything at all. At least I can have all the horsepower I want when I want it, if I'm willing to pay for it. What was the subject again?
The subject is advantages and disadvantages of the CB1100. Many of us feel that the bike has plenty of horsepower, the designers certainly do. You are more than free to mod it, go buy a faster bike, whatever you want. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

Your presuming to know everything about what I or anyone else thinks is out of line though, and having sex with your bike is a personal matter you should keep to yourself.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

And in a first for this forum, the shout went up: "NO PICTURES!!"

Here's my list of design failings of the CB:

1. It's air-cooled. What were they thinking? It's so much easier to control engine heat, and thus provide more power for comparable displacements, with water-cooling.

2. There's no fairing. Riders are exposed to the elements, including wind-blast, rain, and cold. A large, modern fairing would not only resolve those issues, but would also provide a location to install features such as "Infotainment" systems, GPS, satellite TV, etc.

3. No luggage. Where the heck are you supposed to put your hair dryer if you take a road trip? A large top case and side-bags would go a long way here.

4. Chain drive. Are you kidding me? A shaft drive would be quieter, cleaner, and virtually zero maintenance. CB buyers are stuck with cleaning and lubricating chains for the life of the motorcycle.

5. I-4 engine layout. This engine design is simply outdated. A V-4 or horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine would produce more power and fewer vibrations.

6. Single headlight. Two headlights would provide better visibility for both the rider and surrounding traffic. Shame on Honda for not investing a few dollars more here.

Goddamnit, Spaceman, you forgot the most important:

7. Two wheels. The thing'd be far more stable and safer in dangerous corners if it had another couplea wheels.

 

[calamarichris_imp]

As I said at the beginning: Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)..."

There is no perfect design. We choose the advantages most important to us, and which disadvantages are unacceptable. Just because we all draw those lines at different points, it doesn't make anyone right or anyone wrong.
It's like religion IMO: the only wrong answer is calling someone else's answer wrong.
I didn't come here to badmouth the CB1100 or call anyone here wrong.
I earnestly appreciate the guidance and perspective you fellows have shared. If you ever make it to North San Diego County or Palomar Mountain, shoot me a PM. I know all the best local breweries and silly-string roads.

Now you are the one jumping to conclusions. I do fondle my CB a little from time to time but that's as far as I go.

Don't deny your feeelings, Dean! If she's worth fondling, she's worth a shag.

 

[Guth_imp]

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

I find the engine on the CB1100 to be rather fascinating in this regard. While quiet, it does create a plethora of minor mechanical noises, a machine-made symphony of sorts. I have rather sensitive ears and very early on this was somewhat a cause of concern for me. Now I don't really think about it. I certainly find the engine very smooth, then again, my comparable is the V-Twin of my Hawk. Before purchasing the CB, I had read countless times how "boring" I-4s are. I wouldn't necessarily call the CB1100's engine boring. However, I would call it predictable. Due to the broad powerband, propulsion always seems so effortless. It's easily able to launch itself forward from a dead stop, by just letting out the clutch lever without applying any throttle. Going down the open road, needing to pass another vehicle, rolling on the throttle always yields some nice solid grunt when needed.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

My first couple of years with the Hawk, I probably spent as much time with it out in the garage as I did out on the road. Not that I really had to (I went through and replaced a lot of parts simply due to age), but I truly enjoyed the experience. Pretty much everything I've learned from my Hawk, I can apply to my CB, except for rebuilding carbs and that's okay by me.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

It sounds to me like we're actually saying the same thing when it comes to many Harley owners. For whatever reason, I've been under the impression that sportbike guys are far more interested in moving on to the latest/fastest option that they can obtain as opposed to hanging on to what the have. I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about that.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

I was commenting primarily on the tone of the exhaust. As I said, I'm not a fan of loud exhausts. I don't consider the Staintune to be loud at all, neither have any of my buddies who ride when they've heard it. It does however sound a fair amount deeper and throatier than the stock can and I much prefer the sound it makes to the stock exhaust note. I realize that exhaust tone has little to do with a technical deficiency of any sort, but they way my bike sounds now is simply one more facet that makes my ride that much more enjoyable (more of that subjective stuff).

 

[calamarichris_imp]

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

I find the engine on the CB1100 to be rather fascinating in this regard. While quiet, it does create a plethora of minor mechanical noises, a machine-made symphony of sorts. I have rather sensitive ears and very early on this was somewhat a cause of concern for me. Now I don't really think about it. I certainly find the engine very smooth, then again, my comparable is the V-Twin of my Hawk. Before purchasing the CB, I had read countless times how "boring" I-4s are. I wouldn't necessarily call the CB1100's engine boring. However, I would call it predictable. Due to the broad powerband, propulsion always seems so effortless. It's easily able to launch itself forward from a dead stop, by just letting out the clutch lever without applying any throttle. Going down the open road, needing to pass another vehicle, rolling on the throttle always yields some nice solid grunt when needed.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

My first couple of years with the Hawk, I probably spent as much time with it out in the garage as I did out on the road. Not that I really had to (I went through and replaced a lot of parts simply due to age), but I truly enjoyed the experience. Pretty much everything I've learned from my Hawk, I can apply to my CB, except for rebuilding carbs and that's okay by me.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

It sounds to me like we're actually saying the same thing when it comes to many Harley owners. For whatever reason, I've been under the impression that sportbike guys are far more interested in moving on to the latest/fastest option that they can obtain as opposed to hanging on to what the have. I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about that.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

I was commenting primarily on the tone of the exhaust. As I said, I'm not a fan of loud exhausts. I don't consider the Staintune to be loud at all, neither have any of my buddies who ride when they've heard it. It does however sound a fair amount deeper and throatier than the stock can and I much prefer the sound it makes to the stock exhaust note. I realize that exhaust tone has little to do with a technical deficiency of any sort, but they way my bike sounds now is simply one more facet that makes my ride that much more enjoyable (more of that subjective stuff).

Just get a louder aftermarket exhaust. I'm convinced that the reason they sell so well is because:
a) We're afraid of looking like a newbie who doesn't know how to work on bikes. and
b) Because the louder exhaust noise drowns out the troubling mechanical noise going on between our legs.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

I find the engine on the CB1100 to be rather fascinating in this regard. While quiet, it does create a plethora of minor mechanical noises, a machine-made symphony of sorts. I have rather sensitive ears and very early on this was somewhat a cause of concern for me. Now I don't really think about it. I certainly find the engine very smooth, then again, my comparable is the V-Twin of my Hawk. Before purchasing the CB, I had read countless times how "boring" I-4s are. I wouldn't necessarily call the CB1100's engine boring. However, I would call it predictable. Due to the broad powerband, propulsion always seems so effortless. It's easily able to launch itself forward from a dead stop, by just letting out the clutch lever without applying any throttle. Going down the open road, needing to pass another vehicle, rolling on the throttle always yields some nice solid grunt when needed.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

My first couple of years with the Hawk, I probably spent as much time with it out in the garage as I did out on the road. Not that I really had to (I went through and replaced a lot of parts simply due to age), but I truly enjoyed the experience. Pretty much everything I've learned from my Hawk, I can apply to my CB, except for rebuilding carbs and that's okay by me.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing, gaskets, & O-rings wear out more quickly than aluminum cooling fins do. And when those little gaskets start leaking, sometimes they can damage other components.

Your Hawk was as great a bike as my Superhawk was a POS. And it's not the number of bikes that makes for a wealth of experience. I know guys who buy a new bike every 18 months who still don't know the first thing about maintaining (heh--or riding) a bike well.

I disagree about the Harley owners and crotch-rocketeers: I've met a few Harley guys (bikes always seem to be at home) who absolutely believe that Harleys are the best, fastest, only real bikes on the planet. (Nevermind that my little EX500 twin will walk away from every Harley but the V-rod.) And most of the sport-squids with whom I've ridden/spoken are under the mistaken impression that all their bikes will last at least 100,000 miles--it certainly helps their own resale value to believe that myth, because I seldom see one with 50K miles.

Strange to me that you prefer a louder exhaust. I love a quiet bike. I used to get frustrated with everyone getting the loudest aftermarket exhaust possible, thinking they were "creating a bad name for motorcyclists", but that was a dumb thing to think. I've decided it's entirely to my benefit: I didn't spend a penny, and now I have a garage full of stealth bikes. It's true! I regularly travel at ~15 over the speed limit, and I never get tickets.
LEO’s have become so utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise that I regularly ride past speed traps at illegal speeds, and the cops just nod at me. It’s as if all the other gazelles have voluntarily donned belled collars to let the lion know that dinner is on the way.

My first bike was a '93 Harley Sportster. I rode it all over Colorado, all over California, and even out to Key West once. I put 70,000+ miles on it in less than 3 years, but it was stolen. I cracked the rear cylinder at about 50K, and it wept a little bit of oil, but that bike got 50mpg no matter how easy or hard I rode it. Fun little bike, until I rode a Japbike and got addicted to the power & efficiency.



Peace & safe riding.

It sounds to me like we're actually saying the same thing when it comes to many Harley owners. For whatever reason, I've been under the impression that sportbike guys are far more interested in moving on to the latest/fastest option that they can obtain as opposed to hanging on to what the have. I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about that.

Everything designed by the hand of man has its advantages and disadvantages. As PeeWee Herman says, "Everyone I know in life has a big but(t)...":
~Harleys sound great and you never have to adjust the valves, BUT they're slow, inefficient, and the rear cylinder does not get as much cooling air as the front. (That, and you have to ride everywhere with a serious scowl of determination on your face, as if you are on your way to commit your third-strike felony.)
~Crotch-rockets are light & fast, but the cylinders are bored into the top half of the crankcase (disposabike) and being stuck behind an RV on a twisty road sucks even worse when you're on one of them.
~Vertical Twins (one piston goes up while the other goes down) can rev higher and are generally more efficient overall, but they get lumpy and weak at low rpm.
~Parallel twins (both pistons rise & fall together) are terrific at lower rpm and have a sweet, balanced sound, but they create a pressure maelstrom in the crankcase which inhibits higher rpm power.

So what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the CB11's engine? Not interested in the smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day advantages. Every design has its disadvantages, what are the CB11's?
Heavy weight?
Plastic bits?
Throttle governor?
Less cooling air for #2 & 3 cylinders? (Are they jetted identically with #1 & 4, or richer/cooler?)

Of course, the advantages of and disadvantages of those things designed by the hand of man pale in comparison to the advantages and disadvantages of man himself. In this case, I'd ask what exactly is it that you're looking for from this engine? Only by answering this question can you begin to address advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the CB1100. (i.e. If your not inclined to ride over 110 mph, then the speed-limiter isn't a disadvantage.)

How many Harley owners are concerned about riding overly fast or how much cooling their rear cylinder is getting compared to the front? Chances are it's a very small percentage. Conversely, what percentage of supersport class bike owners are concerned with how sedately their bike cruises when not being pushed or even have thoughts of long-term ownership? How many guys with twins are really worried about the lack of low-end or high-end power of their respective machines? For most, these disadvantages from a purely technical sense aren't disadvantages at all. Those who consider such items as disadvantages are more than likely those who didn't properly consider their own needs.

In my mind, you have to have something to measure against (in this case the desired use for the bike) to try and identify the respective disadvantages. My needs are bound to be different from yours and therefore what I see as an advantage or disadvantage might vary quite a bit from you, especially if your not concerned about the "smile-on-your-face while riding on a sunny day" type of stuff. It's honestly hard for me give you much feedback as one of my actual requirements was for a bike that I got as much enjoyment from looking at it when I was off of the bike as I did from actually riding it. What can I say, I went to school for engineering and ended up working for a number of years as a graphic designer, I'm a bit skewed.

I quickly identified two issues with the bike that were a disappointment to me. Thus far these are my only real gripes:

1.) The weight of the bike when moving it around in the garage and so forth. Obviously this can't be chalked up just to the engine, but the size of the engine surely plays a part in this. I'll simply live with this and won't be addressing it further. Once the bike starts rolling, however slowly, I'm good with it.

2.) The tone of the factory exhaust. Simply too peaceful for me. I'm not a fan of loud exhausts, but I do like an exhaust note with a bit of soul if you will. I addressed this by adding a slip-on exhaust from Staintune and I've been very pleased with the result.

Some issues, such as engine longevity, will only be answered in time. People can theorize as much as they want, but until enough units have withstood the test of time and miles (or not), theories will remain just that.

At this point, I can't tell you much at this point about working on the bike. That will change over time as I plan on doing pretty much everything on my own. I'm no expert mechanic by any means, but I've learned a heck of a lot by doing all of my own work on my Hawk GT (the only other street bike I've ever owned) over the past 7 years, and I like the feeling of satisfaction that I've received from that experience. No reason to change things up at this point. If I fail at something, then I can pay somebody else, but until that time comes, I'll keep turning my own wrenches.

With all that said, as mentioned, my Hawk GT is the only other street bike I've ever owned. A 647cc V-Twin and an 1140cc Inline Four don't exactly make for a wealth of experience. Therefore, for better or worse, my expectations are probably far different than many guys here who have owned a wealth of bikes over the years and have a lot more comparables to draw from.

Hmm... thanks Guth.
I'm looking for the balance, symmetry, quietness, and smoothness of an I-4; also conservative engineering (therefore I don't mind extra weight), a long service life. I like the simplicity of air-cooling, because all the additional plumbing,

 

[Guth_imp]

No doubt, that's such a great image. Given my preferences, Honda just really nailed it with the design of this bike.

 

[enzo_imp]

I got close and personal with me Honda when it was on heat, just to hear it ping and all I got was a scared face. cuss!

 

[Cormanus]

It's a lovely thing. Thanks for posting that photo, Chris. You know f*$k all about beer.

 

[Lord Popgun]

Great picture! Thanks for posting it.

I saved it for future reference. And oh yeah, those internet rules sure are true on the boat board I visit! And on that ADV site.

 

[calamarichris_imp]

It's a lovely thing. Thanks for posting that photo, Chris. You know f*$k all about beer.

Haha--I might surprise you Pal. I raced bicycles in Limburg and lived there for 3 years--down in the little geographical Dutch nutsack dangling between Germany (West Germany back then), and Belgium. Was just about 70km from Cologne/Koln, and I was a regular at all the best Kolsch breweries. After visiting me, my father started brewing his own microbrews and won many awards; (this was back in the dark days of Coors & Budweiser, before microbrews caught on in the US.)
And now I live about 4 miles from ground-zero of San Diego's microbrew big bang. I have growlers from 8 of the ~20 different breweries here (though most of them are obsessed with this IPA fad right now, which doesn't make much sense to me in a time of refrigeration and sanitation.)

I was a little tipsy on the pilsner last night, and was just joshing about Aussie beer. Cheers mate! If you ever make it to the upper half of the world, bring your boots & helmet. We've got some terrific breweries here, and even better silly-string roads.

 

[Cormanus]

Now the question is: do I follow the aforementioned internet rules and continue the slanging match. My late father used to tell me an argument is a bald misstatement of fact followed with a long string of personal invective. Clearly, he anticipated the internet.

I think I may have understood the joke, but I'm pretty sure there's another internet rule about never missing an opportunity

That road looks magical. Likewise, comrade, if you're in Oz, we've a few good sillystring roads (I really like that term) and the odd decent beer, also bought about by the enthusiasm for microbreweries.

 

[the Ferret]

What road is that Chris? Holy cow that looks like fun.