Topic: Different SOHC models and the rider's personality, a connection?

[cbjunkie]

thanks, Philly. that's farkin hilarious...

[eldar]

 
What do 750s compensate for???
We are the fastest! Sure we dont carve as well but once on that straightaway, try not to let your mirrors fly off as we pass you!

 

[GroovieGhoulie]

I don't want this to devolve into people slamming each other's choices, but it seems that size issues are the crux of why people prefer the bigger bikes.  At my size, a 550 would be arguably perfect fit, but I prefer the smaller 400.

My brother, who wants the 750 is 6'2" and about 185 or so.  Yet he likes my 400 and says it's a sweet-riding machine.  However, he wants something more his size.

Some of it could be comfort factor, ie, the guys who grew up on big machines and such, but it seems to mostly be the size of the rider and wanting something that can pull them around.

[Noel]

Does it really matter? Sure these things dont make much compared to todays bikes, but then none of todays bikes will be remember 10 years from now. A busa will be nothing more than a footnote in history in a few more years, the 750 will live on and by extention, the smaller 4s.

What is an interceptor? you ask most people who ride today and they would not have a clue unless they googled it. It was just another early crotchrocket and nothing more.

That's a very valid point.

NONE of us would be here if we wanted performance and loads of hp. We are here for classic bikes. And of the classics listed, the 750 is the most powerful. So the displacement card is still playable.

 Really not trying to start a fight, but that seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. We're not here for performance, but we can still play the performance card? I guess maybe I'm just thinking that in the world of old slow motorcycles, "least slow" isn't of much value. Could be wrong though. What is the true performance difference, anyway?

Also, just because seat height may not be much different, it is the sum of all the parts. the 750 is larger in every aspect. Sure it is heavier but it has diet potential. drop the center stand for 1.

 Yabut, I can drop the center stand on my 500 too. The main thought behind my words about seat height was your mention of being almost as tall sitting on your 750 as standing next to it. And again, unless I'm missing something (which seems to be a regular occurence) you'd be just as tall on a 500/550/650 as on the 750.

For many, the 750 is the perfect blend of size, weight, and power they are looking for. For others it is the 500/550.

Exactly right! And again, I'm really not trying to pick on you or start a food fight. I just want to explore a topic that's been floating around in my mind for a while.

For me, if I wanted a smaller bike, I would do the 400 as it will outdo the 550 in almost every area.

Fightin' words!

Everything is based on a rider's own perspective. IF it was not, again, we would all be on crotch rockets if it was all about performance.

Yeah. There's a reason why we all share a passion for SOHCs. It might be hard to put a finger on, but it's definitely there.

It's funny when I see or hear some guy turning up his nose at an old Honda. I look at his GSXR1000 or whatever the latest "Hot Bike" is and think "God. How boring. Another guy who plunked down ten large and now thinks he's something special." To me, he's riding a cookie cutter bike that he "customized" with flush mount blinkers and a slip-on. Compared to my bike -- the one that's been torn down to bits, scattered across my garage -- not to mention the country, planet, etc. -- that has had every last bit personally handled and inspected by me, that has been TRULY customized from the ground up to suit ME -- compared to that bike, his bike is a boring old homogenized barge exactly like a thousand others in my zip code, but HE'S the one that thinks he's got something special. It always surprises me.

Anyway, that, to me, is the essence of the old bikes. YMMV!

[Noel]

Obviously, there's psychology involved, and a hefty dollop of aesthetics, with a pinch of nostalgia thrown in.

I think that's hitting the nail right on the head. Again, I won't knock anyone's choice of SOHC, even if their reasons for choosing it are imaginary.

I had a blast on my 750 and figure there's probably another one in my future. And the 400s are gorgeuos, IMO, and I'd like to have one of those someday too. Heck, I even have a hankering for a CB160, ever since one of the mainstream mags (Sport Rider?) did an article on CB160 racing. I just love motorsickles, and I'd bet that's true for all of us.

i have a hunch many of us on the forum would take a clean and/or cheap sohc of any size rather than, i dunno, a Virago or Interceptor, decent though they may be....

Well, I think the Interceptor has achieved a bit of classic status. It was a groundbreaker in much the same way as the was the CB750, albeit to a lesser degree. But yeah, I'd still rather have an SOHC. I actually know how to work on them for one thing.

And the Virago? Um, no. 

[dusterdude]

ok guys,you`re hearing this from a die hard harley guy.other than british bikes,there isnt but one bike that has the soul,character and class that a harley does and that is the sohc 750.now nuff said.

[eldar]

aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh tomato in the eye!!!!! aaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wait till I get you with my snak pak!!!!

[GroovieGhoulie]

ok guys,you`re hearing this from a die hard harley guy.other than british bikes,there isnt but one bike that has the soul,character and class that a harley does and that is the sohc 750.now nuff said.

Yeah, I think that should be taken with a whole carton of salt. 

[dusterdude]

WHAT???

[Noel]

Isn't "character" a euphimism for "breaks a lot"?  

I remember reading some tongue-in-cheek "guide to reading the used bike ads" that went something like

"Has character": breaks.

"Has lots of character": broken right now.

And so on.

Heehee!

[GroovieGhoulie]

WHAT???

You admitted to being a die-hard harley fan, so that indicates some bias, IMO.

I admit to bias too, one of which is not liking any harley that came after the AMF buyout.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Isn't "character" a euphimism for "breaks a lot"?  

I remember reading some tongue-in-cheek "guide to reading the used bike ads" that went something like

"Has character": breaks.

"Has lots of character": broken right now.

And so on.

Heehee!

Hondas don't break.  They also don't leak oil, rattle themselves to pieces, don't require constant fiddling and adjustment, have solid electrics and will start every day, even in cold-ass weather. 

[dusterdude]

thats true

[Noel]

They also don't leak oil, rattle themselves to pieces, don't require constant fiddling and adjustment, have solid electrics and will start every day, even in cold-ass weather.

Ha! Show me an oil-tight SOHC and I'll show a bike without any oil in it. And while they might not NEED constant fiddling and adjustment, that doesn't seem to stop any of us, eh? Aas for solid electrics, ask anyone who's ridden his 400 in the rain.

But okay, they don't rattle themselves to pieces.  

Seriously, I like Hardly-Runningtons too. I mean, I don't care for the stock bikes -- especially the stock bikes that they sell here in California -- but I don't really care for ANY stock bikes. I think those big old air cooled pushrod V-twins are pretty cool, and I especially like the kitted and "aftermarket" motors. Anything that makes triple digit power and torque figures at what would be near idle for a four, well, that gets my attention.

[mlinder]

It isn't just peak bhp. It's the torque curve as well. What does a cb550 put down in torque and hp numbers? 50ish hp and 30ish lbft. weighs in somewhere between 430 and 440 lbs... The 750 isn't really that much heavier (depending on year, I've seen 470 to 520 lbs).
The 550 is going to have a much 'peakier' power range.
hp per lb on 750 : .13 ish
hp per lb on 550 : .11 ish

lbft per lb on 750 : .09 ish
lbft per lb on 550 : .069ish.

Big BIG dif on the torque there, and like I said, likely a flatter tq curve on the 750 as well.

[Philly550K1]

It isn't just peak bhp. It's the torque curve as well. What does a cb550 put down in torque and hp numbers? 50ish hp and 30ish lbft. weighs in somewhere between 430 and 440 lbs... The 750 isn't really that much heavier (depending on year, I've seen 470 to 520 lbs).
The 550 is going to have a much 'peakier' power range.
hp per lb on 750 : .13 ish
hp per lb on 550 : .11 ish

lbft per lb on 750 : .09 ish
lbft per lb on 550 : .069ish.

Big BIG dif on the torque there, and like I said, likely a flatter tq curve on the 750 as well.

more number obsessing, there.  although i often find myself, peg to ground on an onramp, going, "god bless it, my kingdom for .02 more horsepower per pound!!!".... 

or, "torquey sunset.  not as torquey as if i were on my 750, but..."   

i do wonder why power-to-weight isn't more prominent in moto lit-richer, though....

-jc

[mlinder]

It isn't just peak bhp. It's the torque curve as well. What does a cb550 put down in torque and hp numbers? 50ish hp and 30ish lbft. weighs in somewhere between 430 and 440 lbs... The 750 isn't really that much heavier (depending on year, I've seen 470 to 520 lbs).
The 550 is going to have a much 'peakier' power range.
hp per lb on 750 : .13 ish
hp per lb on 550 : .11 ish

lbft per lb on 750 : .09 ish
lbft per lb on 550 : .069ish.

Big BIG dif on the torque there, and like I said, likely a flatter tq curve on the 750 as well.

more number obsessing, there.  although i often find myself, peg to ground on an onramp, going, "god bless it, my kingdom for .02 more horsepower per pound!!!".... 

or, "torquey sunset.  not as torquey as if i were on my 750, but..."   

i do wonder why power-to-weight isn't more prominent in moto lit-richer, though....

-jc

roofles 

I wouldnt mind seeing comparison dyno charts betweena  750 and a 550 though. I've found one for the 750, but none for the 550.

[Noel]

I think the torque comparison is valid. I do disagree with the weights given, though. Someone's guilding the lilly!:D

Dry weights, from the Honda manuals:

CB750A: 531 pounds

CB750K1-K8: 480 pounds

CB750F: 499 pounds

CB550: 423 pounds

CB500:  403.5 pounds

CB400: 375 pounds

CB350: 373 pounds

So the 500, which is my particular dog in this particular fight, weighs from 80 to 100 pounds less than the 750s while giving up something in the neigborhood of 15 BHP.

Now, I'm going to go have lunch and when I come back I expect to see everyone in agreement that the 500 is superior.

[mlinder]

I think the torque comparison is valid. I do disagree with the weights given, though. Someone's guilding the lilly!:D

Dry weights, from the Honda manuals:

CB750A: 531 pounds

CB750K1-K8: 480 pounds

CB750F: 499 pounds

CB550: 423 pounds

CB500:  403.5 pounds

CB400: 375 pounds

CB350: 373 pounds

So the 500, which is my particular dog in this particular fight, weighs from 80 to 100 pounds less than the 750s while giving up something in the neigborhood of 15 BHP.

Now, I'm going to go have lunch and when I come back I expect to see everyone in agreement that the 500 is superior.

I do believe the listed 530 lbs on the K0 is curb weight. That is, with alll it's fluids and a full tank of gas. The others are listed as dry weight, as far as I can tell.

/edit: I've also seen lists of 485 lbs curb weight for the K0. Losts of conflicting data on that, as far as I can tell. My clymers also lists it at 470 something dry weight.

/edit 2: the 750 automatic weight an metric assload, somewhere over 600lbs, if I remember correctly.

[Noel]

Methinks you've misread. I didn't post the weight for the K0 'cause I couldn't find it. The 531 number is for the "A", which is kind of an unfair number to post. But I did it anyway. 

< edit >Oops, beat me to it.

[mlinder]

Well, conceivably, one could drop a 750 into a 550/500 chassis, I'd imagine. Might be a tight fit, but probably doable.

[Noel]

Anyway,  I'd revise your table to read

hp per lb on 750 : .135
hp per lb on 500 : .125

lbft per lb on 750 : Don't know the torque figure for the 750. Only one I've seen is 33, which seems low.
lbft per lb on 500 : .075

[clarkjh]

Now, I'm going to go have lunch and when I come back I expect to see everyone in agreement that the 500 is superior.

[clarkjh]

Brain fart

better gearbox/clutch on the 550

James

[mlinder]

Anyway,  I'd revise your table to read

hp per lb on 750 : .135
hp per lb on 500 : .125

lbft per lb on 750 : Don't know the torque figure for the 750. Only one I've seen is 33, which seems low.
lbft per lb on 500 : .075

44ish

Again, peak numbers don't tell the whole story though. I had an old boxer 750 that had so much torque you could start from 3rd gear from a stop. This makes a difference for roll-on acceleration. It wasn't that it made tons more peek torque than say, the honda 750, it just made more over the entire rev range.