Topic: its here (in europe) but who wil buy it?

[nccb]

For the guys complaining about the power figures, just remember that this bike weights similar wet to a 750/4, and if you have ever ridden a cb750 with 87-90 hp you will know that they are no slug...

That's right! we'll spend crazy money to get to that level, and it is a fun level. But a showroom bike, bullet proof, leak free, with that kind of performance is real fun.

But building up our old bikes is a fun of its own. It's not apples to apples. But at 80+ hp its time to learn how to ride better.

you're right, I really don't care IF it was still a 750.  Whats the point of making an 1100 if you are producing about the same power as an 80s model?  I think it would be awesome if they redid the 750 entirely with upgraded and modern parts, metals, etc.

[Lostboy Steve]

I mean I hate to compare but here goes nothing. My buell xb9s makes about 60ft/lbs of torque and 90hp. It also weighs 390lbs. It goes pretty good. Will take most 600 bikes off the line but once I grab third they are gone on me. I took my riding test on it. (Which in NJ is un-heard of to the point that I had to reassure the DMV guy about 50 times that YES i wanted to do it.)  Mostly because its short and has a ton of "put put" torque. So I understand the need and want for low end power. Anyway my point is, its a v-twin 984cc with a single (small) throttle body. That's two power pulses less, and a hell of a lot less air. There is NO REASON that this new cb1100 should have hp and torque specs anywhere near my Buell. PERIOD.

[MCRider]

I mean I hate to compare but here goes nothing. My buell xb9s makes about 60ft/lbs of torque and 90hp. It also weighs 390lbs. It goes pretty good. Will take most 600 bikes off the line but once I grab third they are gone on me. I took my riding test on it. (Which in NJ is un-heard of to the point that I had to reassure the DMV guy about 50 times that YES i wanted to do it.)  Mostly because its short and has a ton of "put put" torque. So I understand the need and want for low end power. Anyway my point is, its a v-twin 984cc with a single (small) throttle body. That's two power pulses less, and a hell of a lot less air. There is NO REASON that this new cb1100 should have hp and torque specs anywhere near my Buell. PERIOD.

Not sure of your point. Did you mean "...should NOT have.." Anyway, its two completely different markets. Buell v CB. For example, there is nothing you could do, HP or torque wise, or value wise, to get me to want a Buell or a Jap 600cc Sportbike. If I had a pocketful of cash and was in the market, they wouldn't even be on my list.

I'd take the CB in a minute.

[Lostboy Steve]

No. My point was that the cb1100 should out perform the Buell in every aspect. Including overall power. Infact my cb550 seems to handle WAY better than the Buell through twisties even when Buell's slogan was "own the corners". At low speed the Buell is more agile though. They are both considered (standard) motorcycles arent they? If I could go back in time I would have bought my original love the 2003 cb919. Not that I hate the Buell, it owes me nothing at this point so I am just going to hold on to it. Although this season I rode it once vs the 3000 miles I rode on my 550.

[Killer Canary]

Twisted has a point. Unless the torque spec is REALLY impressive, the hp is worse than mediocre, for a big 4 anyway. All the same, the new Thruxton looks like a blast, without any impressive numbers. If anyone has ridden one, I'd like to know what it's really like.

[Lostboy Steve]

Twisted has a point. Unless the torque spec is REALLY impressive, the hp is worse than mediocre, for a big 4 anyway. All the same, the new Thruxton looks like a blast, without any impressive numbers. If anyone has ridden one, I'd like to know what it's really like.

The thruxton was also one of the bike I was interested in back in 2005 the power specs are very similar to the buell, or they were anyway.

[MCRider]

No. My point was that the cb1100 should out perform the Buell in every aspect. Including overall power. Infact my cb550 seems to handle WAY better than the Buell through twisties even when Buell's slogan was "own the corners". At low speed the Buell is more agile though. They are both considered (standard) motorcycles arent they? If I could go back in time I would have bought my original love the 2003 cb919. Not that I hate the Buell, it owes me nothing at this point so I am just going to hold on to it. Although this season I rode it once vs the 3000 miles I rode on my 550.

OK, I get it. You can make that case for sure.  I fall back on the idea that it's probably appropriately powered for the market its going for. And it provides the platform for DIY performance upgrades, like the old CBs. Again, appealing to the target market.

Or so I think.   

[Xnavylfr]

I would think the HP is about right for the 1100cc of the modern bikes, mostly like already stated for a CERTAIN market!!! If you want a 2 wheeled MONSTER get a BUSA or a V-MAX and experience levels of riders also has lots to do with it!!
I see the scenerio as a new OWNER stating he has an 1100cc bike not that he has 80HP.. I had a 78 KZ1000 (BORED to 73mm) and EASILY had 100HP and I loved to use it to play with the HD guys when they thought their bike was fast. I could take them off the line or rolling at 80MPH without dropping a gear!


Xnavylfr(CHUCK)

[Killer Canary]

HP isn't about right for 1100cc, not even 100hp/litre; a magic number which the japs have been striving to attain since the 70s. I think that you're right about the market; I also remember the hp limits due to be imposed in Europe if the manufacturers didn't take care of it themselves. 100-110 hp would be about right still leaving it completely civilised. IMH and somewhat confused O

[LesterPiglet]

If they were striving for 80ish HP why not just make it a 750? Easily done with today's technology.

[Killer Canary]

Absolutely, it seems that Honda's engineers aimed for underachievement; that's not how Honda earned it's reputation.

[simon#42]

My buddies 96 zx6 that has hardly been maintained made 129 hp on the dyno. My brothers zr-750 would be lucky to make 80+hp.

ZR 750 engine is from the 70's, can't really compare the two.

that will be the best 96 zx6 in the world then .

[Killer Canary]

The AMA teams must be wondering how that was done

[Xnavylfr]

They probably did it that way (low HP) to give a LOT of room for improvements, for some of us STOCK don't do it !!!


Xnavylfr(CHUCK)

[750resurrection]

I think it's a convenient mpg gas saving the earth fuel conspiracy - maybe meeting some obscure gov regulation, and a bit too conveniently fits "the target market".

 Maybe that low HP is all they figure the handling characteristics can withstand as well, also allowing a cheaper roll out on those suspension parts etc., parts that thus don't need to be excellent.

 It's disappointing.

[Lostboy Steve]

If they were striving for 80ish HP why not just make it a 750? Easily done with today's technology.

OK Killer Is right and Lester is as well. Any bike in the 1100 market should make at least 100hp right?! Todays industry should be able to produce a 750 with a TON of low end torque (realistically lowering the rev limit), while still keeping the horsepower in the 100-125 area I would think.

[Lostboy Steve]

My buddies 96 zx6 that has hardly been maintained made 129 hp on the dyno. My brothers zr-750 would be lucky to make 80+hp.

ZR 750 engine is from the 70's, can't really compare the two.

that will be the best 96 zx6 in the world then .

The 96 (or maybe 95?) Ninja, was the most powerful 600 in its era.

[K5 Keith]

I like it, but not sure I'd be able to afford one...
Good album from facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/HondaCB1100/photos_stream

[nccb]

the top two have older styled tanks, looks much better then add those 4 into 4s and it looks solid.

[nccb]

hell one good thing that may come out of this is if they keep remaking all our old colors so we can repaint ours

[Lostboy Steve]

hell one good thing that may come out of this is if they keep remaking all our old colors so we can repaint ours

Good call.

[Greggo]

Where do they sell this?  Because I think I'm gonna move there

[simon#42]

My buddies 96 zx6 that has hardly been maintained made 129 hp on the dyno. My brothers zr-750 would be lucky to make 80+hp.

ZR 750 engine is from the 70's, can't really compare the two.

yes it was , it made just over 100 hp

that will be the best 96 zx6 in the world then .

The 96 (or maybe 95?) Ninja, was the most powerful 600 in its era.

[Lostboy Steve]

Yeah I should have said it also had a FULL D&D system and was professionally dyno tuned when he bought it. But since then he barely changes the oil. Dynos are have been known to lie, but out of the box it made like 110 or something like that.

[Terry in Australia]

Mick in Darwin bought one new a couple of years ago, and he loves it's comfortable riding position, flexible engine, and modern fuel injection and brakes, styled (IMHO) more from the early DOHC Honda's. I personally don't see any resemblance to our SOHC bikes at all.

The HP figures are disappointing though. Yes I know that CB750's with 87HP are thrilling to ride, but that's mostly because to get 87 HP out of a CB750 you've gotta run radical cams which don't work well under 6000 RPM, so to enjoy that HP, you've got to rev the piss out of them, and they're under-inspiring below "Go to Jail" speeds. A stocker is much more enjoyable at legal velocities.

My stock Suzuki GS1000 was rated at around 100 BHP with the introduction of the big port head in 1980, and my mate John's minty 1984 Honda CB1100F makes 110. I think a figure of around 120 for the new 1100 would easily be achievable without losing any of the flexibility of the bike's design brief. (commuter/tourer/occasional canyon racer)

I wonder if the European model is a detuned version of the bikes we've had here in Oz since 2010? I certainly wouldn't sell my Suzy to buy the new Honda if I know that the Suzuki is a better performer, I think I'll just bolt on some four piston calipers and spend the rest on Chivas............