R9-t vs. Griso vs. CB1100

[rboe]

Retro Roadster Comparo + Video

 

[Rocky_imp]

This review is really hung up on horsepower.
I have no interest in the other two at all.
I'll stick with the CB, thank you very much.

 

[Firstfour_imp]

"Ridden alone, outside of a direct comparison test, the Honda seems a stellar motorcycle when measured simply by its pure proficiency at being a motorcycle. So, if you’re not a multi-bike owner looking to expand the caliber of your personal arsenal, the Honda could be the best choice for single-bike ownership."

That about says it all for me.

(as said in the post in CB in the press section below)

 

[lukeduck_imp]

Some pretty fair price differences there too.

 

[Papa Weeley_imp]

This review is really hung up on horsepower.
I have no interest in the other two at all.
I'll stick with the CB, thank you very much.

Ditto...although, as I've said here before, I wouldn't have minded an extra 20 or so hp myself. Still, it's a pity that it seems like the CB came in behind the other two almost exclusively due to that.
Regardless, it's still the best looking (subjective, I know), and best all-around bike available now (only somewhat subjective ).

 

[kevbroce_imp]

I loved this review. To me, 3 of the most interesting bikes on the market. If I were to do it all over again, I'd be thinking really hard about the Griso. I'd be really tempted to get one but it fills such a similar role as the CB, it doesn't make much sense as a 2nd vehicle.

 

[Ack-CB11_imp]

I've never ridden a Griso but I like the V motor.
The power between the others to me is strongly noticable down-low mostly. Keep the CB wound up, use the clutch and it will hang with those two. A good 600 will spank all 3. I've always loved the boxer motor and shaft drive. I never did like the para-lever front end too much so the 9T set up has all my favorite stuff. A bit like my BMW HP2, only more street and much lower. I think the CB is alot more comfortable and way smoother on the vibe meter. New boxers shake, vibrate and drink oil like crazy for the first 3 or 4000 miles. Mine is only half smoothed out now and will match the CB by next summer.

 

[rboe]

I own the Griso and the CB. When I bought the CB I thought the over lap would be too great and would sell the Griso. No such luck. Apples and oranges. Maybe I should consider the BMW.... :angel:

So, get a Griso. GRiSO ghetto - all GRiSO, all the time... is the main forum for us Griso owners; with a remapping the bike runs better (for some, a LOT better; I saw fewer benefits). The main thing, have a guy tune the suspension for you since from the factory its' too harsh. After that, it's the usual; farkle it up to suit you, as needed (I went with lowered pegs and a seat, rear rack, bar set backs, bikini fairing and Stelvio hand guards). I think you'll find the Griso better suited to the open road and fast sweepers with a pounding locomotive motor. The CB, more of a town bike, tight twisty bits bike.

I've never ridden the BMW, but to compare the Griso to the CB does a disservice to both bikes. Too totally different markets and riders.

If you test ride a Griso, make sure it's a long ride. It's the sort of bike that grows on you (the seat is highly subjective, my bum does NOT like it, but others can ride all day on it)

 

[holy666diver_imp]

On looks Honda nailed it! The BMW and the Griso look so odd with the twin engine sticking out the sides. Leg room and ergos should have been more of a factor too. Who cares about the Horsepower unless you plan on taking the bike on the track every week end. The other two are more expensive too. If it's about sport they should have done the CB1000R

 

[Henrik_imp]

I like the review. These were precisely the three bikes I had narrowed my choice down to when moving on from my Corsaro. My first choice was actually the R9T, but that was before I had tried the Honda. The difference in power between the three of them were not really an issue because they were all considerably down from my Corsaro, and I specifically wanted something a bit less powerful. Certainly the BMW was a quicker bike around the mountain roads around here, with a very good chassis, but I found the Honda more relaxing. As far as the Griso is concerned, I really liked it, and it reminded me a bit of a Ducati ST2 I had a while back. However, it did feel a little bit dated in comparison to the other two, and although brilliant in fast sweepers it was a bit of a handful when it got really twisty. That fuel injection could use some work...

 

[the Ferret]

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

 

[HikerToo_imp]

Hmmm....for me, these %'s would be higher.
Appearance 77
Cool 73
Grin Factors 56

 

[Firstfour_imp]

Hmmm....for me, these %'s would be higher.
Appearance 77
Cool 73
Grin Factors 56

Obviously, all subjective, but the CB rates 100 on all those for me. Those are the reasons I bought the darn thing!

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

As an example of what too much power can get you, the service writer at the local motorcycle dealer had an R1, rode it like it is apparently intended, ended up getting 3 way-over tickets in about 2 months and lost his license. He ended up selling it to get a bagger.

 

[Henrik_imp]

In my opinion it is also much more a question of how the power is delivered. My Ducati ST2 was not very powerful with soething like 85hp, but it had a lot of torque right at the revs you normally ride at. This made it feel much more powerful than what it was, and much more enjoyable on the road than the more powerful ST4.

Supersports may have silly power figures, but it is always way up in the revs. Personally I hat 600 supersports away from a race track.

 

[The Spaceman_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

 

[grover_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

^ this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DAC]

They didn't mention that if you want the BMW, you need to wait a year or two until some parts grenade and they fix the flaws. (See S1000RR and R1200RT.) But maybe the R9T is a one year special.

 

[Firstfour_imp]

If I had read the text alone, I would have assumed the CB won. Then the chart puts the CB at the bottom. The knocks they have on the BMW and MG are pretty harsh; lousy fueling from the MG, seriously bad fork dive (also noted by Motor Cyclist) on braking, etc.

If they'd factored in durability, maintenance, cost of ownership, and dealer support, the CB would have walked away with it.

And one of their "sighs" is: So perfect it can seem a little bland. Uh, OK. I can live with perfect. They want imperfection, they can
have it. A strange thing to hanker for...:huh:

 

[rboe]

I'm not sure why they dinged the fueling on the Griso, mine, a 2012, ran very well with the stock map. I've been playing with the newer maps (more torque down low where we normally play on the street) and perhaps better mileage. But I also thought they were overly harsh on the CB. Kinda like complaining that the US flag is lacking because it only has three colours. WTH?

 

[pechorin75_imp]

I said this in the other thread on this subject:

The CB 1100 is just a drama free pleasure to ride. Why do they test all motorcycles by playing Ricky Roadracer? 600 super sports or hypermotards, sure run the snot out of them in the curves. For retros and cruisers it should be a leisurely ride out in the country. In that environment, 120 hp is a detriment instead of an asset

and let me add why..... because if you ride with any kind of sanity at all, with any regards for safety or the law, you can't use 120 horsepower on the street. Having owned several bikes in the 125 horsepower range, I found there is no place you can really open them up save for some empty spaces out west. I guarantee you, where they tested those 3 bikes as evidenced by the video, a rider with any talent at all on a 690 KTM Duke with 65 horsepower would blow them off the side of the road as he passed. My humble opinion of course

I guess I don't mind them playing racer with the bikes (I like going fast too), but with machines like these it'd be nice if a little more attention was paid to how they behave in day-to-day riding for people who aren't carving canyons or drag racing every weekend. 600 supersports? Sure, go wild. "Standard" bikes obviously aimed at a well-heeled, older crowd that's unlikely to ever take them to a track? Not so much.

But...that's clearly the riding culture the writers are steeped in. I mean, it's obvious there's a major difference in perspective. I don't think I realized quite how major until the first time I sat on a ZX-14R and discovered just how relative the phrase "relaxed, comfortable ergonomics" actually is.

And then there's the need to declare a winner (and I'm not just saying that because the CB came in 3rd here). I know why they do it--the whole horse race thing--but if I'm reading a comparison test, I'm really more interested in an honest assessment of the differences and similarities between the bikes, preferably taking into account different riding styles and preferences. Yeah, you end up getting that info out of most decent comparisons, but in my opinion the "Which is better" arguments just get in the way most of the time. Give me the facts and I'll decide which is better for me.

That said, it'd be great if more manufacturers followed BMW/Harley's lead on test rides. Then prospective buyers wouldn't have to rely so much on articles like this...