Honda “Concept CB”
First appearing at last October’s Tokyo Motor Show, Honda is trotting out the “Concept CB” once again next month at the Tokyo Auto Salon — the only Honda motorcycle concept making a second appearance after the motor show. This would strongly suggest that the Concept CB is headed for production with the cosmetic tweeks, including a reshaped fuel tank, new seat and more chrome, intact.
We tested the Honda CB1100 when it was first introduced to the U.S. market in 2013. We found it a relatively faithful retro (in terms of design) with enough performance to satisfy the target customers. What do you think of the design tweeks? A picture of the Concept CB can be found above, with the 2014 CB1100 DLX pictured below.
2014 Honda CB1100 DLX – U.S. Model
See more of MD’s great photography:
Amazing bike with strong wheels. Yellow color is looking very charming. All parts of this bike are seeming strong with best company. I would like to buy this. Is it for selling?
Not yet Amin this is a concept, but the CB 1100 EX is available in Europe and Japan which is very similar, and the DLX is available in the US only with mag wheels.
I’d buy it. Love the wire wheels.
I’m planning ways to get this bike if it comes to our market, even if it means having to sell my VFR800. For me, this bike (latest concept) is a must have.
Good luck with your plans, would be nice to see it in the lineup and do well.
Shine up this part, black out that part–both the 14 and Concept look good to me. I put some miles on the 14 and really enjoyed it. Nothing exceptional, just a good solid motorcycle for commuting, touring, or taking your sweetie to lunch. I loved the red, but the yellow looks pretty bitchin’
Well, after looking it over, my thought is that it is improved aesthetically over its predecessor, however with every “retro” bike that has ever been made, I’ve not agreed with all the basic assumptions, and so it goes. I prefer motorcycles that aren’t covered in plastic panels, for both aesthetic and pragmatic reasons. But I don’t understand why so much function has to be tossed out, along with the plastic panels. I don’t see the need for the dual shock absorbers (with springs).
To my way of thinking, dual shocks give the bike a more cluttered look, and aren’t as desirable functionally as a single-shock design. In a heartbeat, I would have said “No” to the use of dual shock absorbers.
As for being air cooled, there is no question that big radiators are ugly, and so are the fat hoses running both directions between the engine and the radiator. But I also do not think that fins are especially attractive. To me, in order for fins to be attractive, they would need to look more like low-profile ribs, and much thicker, with far fewer of them. And slanted in relation to the cylinder block, so that they are completely horizontal after the engine is mounted with a forward tilt.
Of course low-profile ribs wouldn’t provide adequate heat transfer to the air, which means that the engine would need to be water-cooled. If I were a motorcycle engineer, I would design a radiator on the concept of a longish hollow cylinder, either rectangular or circular in profile, with the water tubes running in a spiral around the cylinder and the fins extending inward, into the hollow center of the cylinder, and with the cylinder insulated so that no heat escapes through the outer wall of the cylinder. I would put a powerful fan at the intake end, blowing a large volume of air into the tube. I would mount it under the seat, and I might bend the tube into an arc extending over roughly 120 degrees, and placed over the rear wheel, with the cross section profile flattened so that it is wider than the wheel but only a couple inches in height.
I can’t think of a single reason why this wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t weigh significantly more than a conventional radiator mounted in front of the engine. and the ugly fat tubes would be concealed naturally. The whole thing would be naturally concealed in fact, and it would work.
Most advances in motorcycle design, that have appeared in the past fifty years, are things that were handed down from automotive design and then incorporated into motorcycles in whatever way minimized the effort. Motorcycle radiator designs are essentially car radiator designs stuck onto motorcycles in an unintelligent manner that is asinine. Motorcycle radiators should look nothing at all like car radiators, and should have little in common beyond the basic commonality of water running through tubes that have fins joined to the tubes. Honda, answer me this: with that fancy engineering that you do, and all the weird motorcycle designs that you bring out every few years, why haven’t you ever put any serious effort into solving the problem of the motorcycle radiator?
There are some twin-shock setups that work far better than some mono-shock setups. It all comes down to the quality of the shock. I imagine manufacturers prefer buying one, high quality shock over two. The twin shocks have the advantage of being placed far out at the end of the lever where they can be the lightest and most effective. A single shock needs to be close to the pivot and substantially strong to be effective there – very difficult to control minute movements of the wheel after if translates through the length of the lever and the slop in the linkages.
Where would you suggest you run your radiator tube? How easy would it be to build anything like you suggest in any shape other than a straight length?
This disadvatage of twin shocks are several although primarily I just do not like the looks. The mere fact that there are two instead of just one means that the total mass is inherently greater, all else being equal. You point out a reason or two why it is better for the spring to be further from the pivot, but off the top of my head I think that that is only partly correct. The spring spring stiffness has to be increased when the amount of compression decreases as it is moved closer to the pivot, but that also means that it is shorter. There is probably an optimal distance for the location of the spring that will minimize the mass of the spring. As for the damper, the amount of travel of the piston inside is reduced by placing it closer to the pivot, and off the top of my head there are disadvantages that occur to me. The volume of fluid pushed through a restrictor depends on the area of the piston face and can thus be made as great or as small as the engineer desires regardless of the amount of piston travel. You allude to the possibility of lack of control if the amount of travel isn’t appreciably greater than the distance the damper is free to move at either end, but I don’t see any reason why there should be any amount at all of free play of that sort. Of course if the piston doesn’t push fluid immediately when it begins to move or change direction, that is a different matter, but this again is something that shouldn’t happen in quality damper. There is also the matter of progressive spring force, which is assisted in monoshock setups via the use of links and geometry. And the monoshock mass is carried low where it actually lowers the center of mass, whereas the mass of the twin shock setup is carried higher, although not by a whole lot.
As for the cylindrical radiator, I explined that I would bend the tube lengthwise into an arc and place it over the rear wheel. It would not be difficult to make. Any half decent welder should be able to build it without any difficulty. The fins face into the hollow of the tube and run lengthwise. It could actully be made from a bundle of aluminum tubes wrapped by a copper coil for the water to run through, then wrapped with a layer of insulation, rock wool or similar, then a simple metal wrap over the insulation. Pretty simple actually. Slap on a 12 VDC fan at one end, to blow air into the aluminum tubes. Radiators are not complicated. Do you think I should patent it?
No. It’s been done. Google “Benelli Tornado”…
Nope, Scott, you are wrong. The radiator in the Benelli Tornado is a conventional radiator placed in a plastic box with a couple of fans. What I described is a fundamentally different approach to the construction of a radiator. I won’t repeat it. If you have any sincere interest, you can go and read it again. (Or more likely read it for the first time.) My sense is that you probably do not ever have any original ideas of your own, and this makes you put down other people when they have original ideas.
Wow, Tom. Offended, much?
I read your whole diatribe. Go ahead and file your patent, build your damn radiator, and for that matter, build a whole new type of motorcycle, since you’re obviously unhappy with everything about motorcycles as we now know them.
Have a nice day.
I was a little surprised that Scott didn’t reveal his idea for the best place to locate your proposed radiator design after a prototype is constructed. Maybe “shove” is a better verb than “locate”, though.
In all seriousness, I see three problems with your design:
1) For mobile systems, water pumps do not like to pump into a head, most traditional vehicle radiators can “free flow” (via gravity) a greater volume of water than the pump puts out – these pumps are “high volume, low pressure” designs. The “wrapped tube” design of your proposal would have excessive resistance to water flow.
2) A 12V fan of that small a diameter couldn’t move nearly enough air to reject anywhere near the power of a modern motorcycle engine. The “radiator fans” on autos (and bikes) are designed to move air when the vehicle is stationary, they actually become restrictors to flow above about 20 mph of vehicle speed, where “ram air” from forward vehicle movement takes over.
3) “Long, thin” (tubular) radiators do not reject anywhere near as much heat as radiators that have large frontal areas and are “shallow” in depth. This is because to reject the most heat with a given airflow, you want the maximum differential between the two fluids (in this case, ambient air and the engine glycol mix). As the air progresses down the tube in your concept, it would heat up significantly, greatly decreasing this differential, which would destroy efficiency – even if you could magically make the design much longer than there is space on a motorcycle to place it, once the air and the coolant are the “same” temperature, there is no more heat transfer. If you could somehow move enough air down the tube (with a giant gas-engined leafblower of some sort), maybe you could make it work. But where exactly would you mount such a fan? Keep repeating, Q=MCdeltaT, Q=MCdeltaT….
But I’m pretty sure you knew all this already, and you’re typing from under a bridge somewhere. Say hello to the Billy Goat Gruff when you see him.
Tom K., I just do not like it when anyone is hasty to be critical of someone else’s idea, without taking the time to even read what they wrote. I can think of no reason to go to any special effort to be nice to someone who does that. I don’t behave that way, and if I did, I wouldn’t expect the person that I behaved rudely toward, to be nice to me.
You obviously did read what I wrote and gave it some thought, which I appreciate. Your first point is correct with respect to present designs, but is not an issue for a different design that requires a pump capable of maintaining greater fluid pressure. Not a problem at all. Your second point is the same: it explains only why a different type of fan would be needed. In fact, the same potential problem exists with the Benelli, where it did not pose any actual problem. Your third point, on the other hand, is fully valid. Certainly it is true that with a long, tubular type of radiator, efficiency of heat exchange decreases the further you go down the tube, for the reason you gave. Eventually, the air becomes as hot, or nearly as hot, as the water. For this reason, a radiator of this sort is inherently less efficient than a radiator where every part is exposed to fresh air. This is manifestly the weak aspect of the proposed design, and it is potentially a reason why it wouldn’t work. Nevertheless, the advantages in terms of packaging could possibly be great enough, and the loss of efficiency not overwhelming, such that it could work.
As for the last part of your comment, it only reveals serious weaknesses in your character.
Scott, I definitely am not “unhappy with everything about motorcycles as we now know them”. Not even close, and I did not say anything that would have led any reasonable person to make that characterization. I merely said that for naked motorcycles, without plastic panels, that it would make sense to hide the radiator rather than the too-easy solution of going back to air cooling. Of course the Benelli Tornado is not a naked bike, which fact also seems moderately relevant.
I don’t make hasty comments that endeavor only to put down other people’s ideas, and I do not like it whenever another person does that. Whenever another person shares a new idea with me, I try to acknowledge their original thinking, which is one of the qualities that I most strongly value in other people. Even if there are obvious flaws in the idea, I try to approach the flaws slowly, by raising questions.
What exactly did I say that was untrue, or for that matter, even unkind? I calls ’em as I sees ’em.
But just for a second, let’s pretend you’re not trolling here, and look at your idea a little more closely. I would think (and I’m guessing here, I’m not a motorcycle designer) that a modern motorcycle engine cooling system (radiator) needs to be able to reject, on a continuous basis, maybe 80 or 90% of the engine’s peak horsepower output. For the CB1100, that would likely be 80 or 90 HP. And, it has to be able to do that with an incoming air temperature between 100 and 110°F (unless you don’t intend to sell your product in the southwestern U.S.). Because the specific heat of air is low, it takes a LOT of it to remove that much heat. Since your engine coolant temperature is limited to maybe 220-230°F, let’s assume an exiting air temperature of maybe 150°F for a conventional radiator. So, calculate how many cfm would be required using 80hp=MCdeltaT, and solve for M. Then, push at least that much air through your (very small) radiator cross section – what would the velocity of that airflow be? Then, calculate the power required to push that volume of air through that cross section (and that doesn’t count the restriction of your internal fins (and I’m assuming the whole thing would have to be made of pure silver to have a chance of rejecting the heat). Bottom line, it’s not happening with a 12V fan, maybe 460V would do it – I think you’re going to need more battery and alternator – the blades may even have to reach supersonic, a no-no.
Engineering something can’t just be “possible”, it has to be practical. Engineers need to meet requirements that are not limited to: aesthetics, packaging space, energy input requirements, operator safety and ergonomics, manufacturability, government regulations, and the all-mighty dream killer – cost. But again, working in a physics discipline, you knew all that.
You asked the question “Why haven’t the hot-shot engineers at Honda done this yet?” For the same reason they haven’t designed a personal mobility system that requires no outside power source – the operator would simply put on a pair of Honda roller skates, grab the excess on his belt, and pull himself down the road. How’s THAT for original, outside the box, thought?
Don’t feed the troll, don’t feed the troll, don’t feed the troll. When will I learn?
Another nice thing about the CB1100, it doesn’t need no stinkin radiator bwahaahaahaa
The quality of the shocks used have more impact than anything, but – all equal – a mono-shock works better because the distance traveled is much smaller in relation to the wheel. That means much less internal friction and much lower operating temps for the fluid in the shock while being able to provide far more suspension travel which was why the mono-shock was developed to begin with and why every modern motorcycle (except for those designed to look old) use a single shock.
I’ve also read that a monoshock offers more stability while cornering because a twin shock setup isn’t loaded evenly, and side to side transition is also improved with a monoshock for the same reason. However, I can’t find a credible source to back that up at the moment.
With respect to cost, a monoshock actually costs a little more to produce vs. comparable dual shocks due to the much greater component strength and tighter tolerances needed to handle the load. So said the Ohlins rep at the International Motorcycle Show, anyway.
AND, since we are talking retro here, twin shocks speak that louder than a monoshock. Speaking in generalities, which perhaps I shouldn’t, a twin shock setup doesn’t require as beefy of a swing arm as support is given closer to the rear axle whereas a monoshock is ahead at the pivot point.
Isn’t it interesting that Honda builds a bike heralding back to the original CB750 and as one might predict complaints roar in that it’s too retro, needs liquid cooling, a monoshock, more power, fatter tires, no tank seem, etc. I say move on then, if it doesn’t fit your needs or wants then there’s nothing to see here. If it doesn’t reach enough of a market then it will go away and be replaced with something else. Manufacturers aren’t stupid but this is a niche bike in today’s market. Aesthetically it pushes all the right buttons for many people, especially those who recall the years when the CB750 first hit the streets. In my life that was the heyday in motorcycling. That’s what this bike is all about.
Two rear shocks and two round gauges baby!
Just discussing the pros/cons of dual shocks vs. monoshocks. No complaints.
But since you mentioned it, yeh, it could use more power. 🙂 (Sorry, I can’t “move on” because I really want one.)
Right-on, Mickey. If we would only start making engine components out of Krell metal, not only would we not need radiators, we wouldn’t even need cooling fins (you’d need one heck of a good synthetic oil, though). Cooling systems are interesting in that they deal with waste, it would be wonderful if you didn’t need them at all. I’ve wondered myself whether you could turn things like fenders, frame tubes, etc. into pseudo-radiators, but it’s simply not practical, it’s all about available surface area, and unless you figure out a way to increase the temperature differential of the fluids, you’re pretty much stuck with a conventional radiator.
I like the CB1100, and hope they release this iteration to help the “brand” stay fresh (if a retro can be retro and fresh at the same time).
Interesting thought about the radiator. It seems an issue might be – besides being difficult to manufacture – that once heat transfers from the front of this radiator cylinder to the initial incoming air that you are now trying to cool the rest of the cylinder with heated air. I’m not so sure how effective such a design would be without substantially increasing surface area vs a standard radiator design. I suspect all radiators are pretty shallow for that very reason, otherwise manufacturers could improve cooling simply by making a particular radiator deeper as opposed to increasing length and width which is the way they always seem to go. I am no expert in cooling… just thinking out loud, here.
Tom, your radiator idea is extremely interesting…. there are some other options as to put it behind the seat passenger location as the Benelli Tornado did or the Britton where the radiator was under the seat, use the frame as such (kinda of what Buell did).
Maybe the con would be heat transfer between the radiator cylinder and the rest of the carter cylinders but you can always work with bad heat transfer materials like the ceramics.
Sometimes industry works that way, it’s not the best idea but the one were you have put more money, e.g. the motorcycle front forks vs BMW Telelever solution (a girder fork) or the internal combustion engine.
Last but not least consider patenting your idea and maybe do a version 0.1 of it, you can land a position in an aerospace industry.
Regards,
For anyone interested here is some light reading from Honda on the subject
http://world.honda.com/design/designers-talk/cb1100/
http://world.honda.com/CB1100/engineer-talk/episode1/
You’re killing me here. The more I read about what went into the design of this thing, the more I’m dying to own one.
You’re killing me!
That was a fascinating read. Like VLJ, my admiration and appreciation for the bike sky-rocketed after reading it. The CB was already one of those bikes that I have to keep talking myself out of buying because I believe that I would be bored with it after the honeymoon wears off. Reading the articles only makes the task that much more difficult!
All the work is interesting but if they had just started with the old CBX drawings. Then gave it fuel injection, a modern suspension and new instruments. I would have waited in line to pay full price for a new whack at the 6 cylinder. To me it is a mistake to say essentially that the japanese inline 4 was ever supposed to be a relaxed, and comforting ‘companion. It should be a do-all including an occasional arm stretching rip through the gear box. Air cooling has some practical limits on the street after 110 rwhp, but they could have done better. I personally don’t care about having the vibration right (enhanced) at 3000rpm.
Here ya go F fans
http://www.withme-racing.com/bikepartslist/parts/CB1100-ProjectF/main.htm
No. We want it stock from the factory, under warranty. We don’t want to have to pay extra for performance and/or style that ought to come standard.
Again, keep in mind that no one is asking for Ninja 1000 performance from the CB1100, never mind Super Duke 1290 performance. Power on the level of the air-cooled Boxer Twin is the basic goal here: a true one hundred ponies and seventy-five foot lbs of torque at the rear wheel. This is not unrealistic at all from a modern 1100cc I4, and those numbers in no way need come at the expense of the CB’s linear torque curve. The BMW mill manages it in spades, despite working with two fewer cylinders.
I know you say most CB1100 owners are perfectly happy with their bikes and the relatively meager power they make, and I believe you. I also believe that those same owners, yourself included, wouldn’t have a single gripe if the CB1100 motor produced twenty more rwhp and ten to fifteen more pounds of torque, which wouldn’t be the least bit difficult for Honda to achieve.
That’s the point. Additional power—reasonable power, not excessive power—wouldn’t alienate any current owners, but it sure would bring many more prospective buyers into the CB1100 fold.
Win-win.
That has been my feeling all along. The number of people that would be complaining about too much power out of a 100hp bike would be zero, while the extra juice would broaden the appeal of the bike to many more consumers. I bet a modest bump in compression and a different cam profile would be all it takes to get the bike there, too.
I’d agree with that as long as they didn’t disturb the sweet power delivery that the bike has now. If it lost bottom end at the expense of top end for me it would ruin the bike. I’ve already had lighter, faster, less bottom end with my Gen 1 FZ-1. Sold it to get a CB and couldn’t be happier. It’s just an absolute gem to ride.
Yet you admit you rarely ride the thing above 4K rpm. There is no need for an I4 if it’s only going to be lugged around like a Lincoln Town Car. May as well ride a Burgman 650 or a Valkrie, if that’s the case. This was never the purpose of the original CB Hondas, all of which were designed to represent the sportier side of the Standard niche.
Besides, again, this is a modern, fuel-injected, 1100cc I4 built by Honda, not by H-D or John Deere. Honda’s engineers would have zero problem retaining the easygoing low-down power you love while adding a decent shot of increased midrange and a more exciting top-end rush. An 1100cc I4 is a lot of motor. In terms of shaping the powerband, there’s plenty of room to spare.
OK, let’s suppose why Honda did NOT infuse this bike with higher horsepower? They must have had reason, right?
In regards to higher horsepower bringing in more sales, why would Honda sacrifice that?
A survey on the CB1100 forum found most owners spend the vast majority of their time running in the 2500-3500 rpm zone. Why? Simply because they use this bike for riding the back roads where the speed limit is 45-55 mph. Unless I’m going on a trip where I hit some freeway, that’s where I do all of my riding, the curvy back roads of southern Ohio. I admit to hardly going over 4000 rpms because on the CB, 4000 rpms translates to over 80 mph and I just don’t run the two lanes that fast. Peak torque is at 5,000 rpms but comes on strong at 2500 rpms. It is very satisfying (for me and apparently most owners according to the survey) to ride in the fat part of the torque band. There is simply no need to wring this bike to have a satisfying riding experience.
“In regards to higher horsepower bringing in more sales, why would Honda sacrifice that?”
I suspect they looked at the class benchmark – the Bonnies – and saw that Bonneville customers gobbled those slow, flimsy bikes up like hot cakes year after year and decided they could get by with making the bike nice and friendly as opposed to going through the extra engineering cost of dialing some attitude into the CB.
Also, I’m sure long-term reliability/durability, operating temperature, ease of emissions compliance and the character they were after were all better achieved with what they ultimately chose to go with. To make the “give me power” crowd truly interested, Honda probably would have needed to cut some weight out of it, too. Honda had to have figured that there just aren’t enough guys like me out there to go through the additional cost and trouble.
I do get it somewhere in the back of my mind. I just don’t like it.
My Norge is in the same vogue, produces torque and power close to what the CB does. I’m not shy about using the full rev range but I rarely need to. That’s especially true around town but even once out onto the super slab or higher speed secondary roads I don’t really need to. This is not the same as saying I just putt around. Would I welcome another 10, 15, or 20 hp? Sure, but as Mickey says if it does so by running the torque band higher in the rev range I’m not so sure that’s a trade I’d make.
I have a higher revving Interceptor in the garage if I want to play that game but the comfort and easy going nature of the Norge has me riding it most often.
mickey, you keep mentioning the CB1100 forum and how the owners there love their bikes. I don’t disagree with this, even though there are countless posts there from people wanting to add power to their bikes. Regardless, you can’t convince me that the membership numbers there wouldn’t swell with many more new owners if the bike weighed less and made more power. I know there are a lot of people who don’t want to spend $12k on a slow, pretty Honda that requires a more exciting stablemate in order to satisfy the occasional need for a bit of performance. Many riders want to do more than simply putter around at cruiser speeds, and with an 1100cc I4 there ought to be a decent top-end rush to go with loads of torque down low.
If the CB1100 weighed less and made more power, you and every other member there would still love your bike. With that large of an I4 motor, Honda is easily able to increase the torque and peak HP without sacrificing the loafing power down low you so dearly love.
Again, we’re not talking FZ-1 or Ninja 1000 power. We’re not talking about bumping it from 85 rwhp to 125 rwhp. This is still an air-cooled, traditional I4. No, we’re talking air-cooled Boxer Twin or even air-cooled Bandit 1200 power: 100 rwhp, with 75 foot pounds of torque. These are not outrageous numbers requiring a complete rethinking of the entire CB1100 ethos. Rather, they would simply imbue the bike with a necessary shot of sporting excitement to complement its easygoing nature. For many people, the addition of twenty hp and a decent torque bump would turn the CB1100 into an only-bike-needed, and they would get off the dime and buy the thing.
I would already own a CB1100, if this were the case. So too would many others, many of whom have remained on the fence in the hopes that one day Honda would move the CB1100 out of the cruiser-performance idiom and into the realm of a proper (modern) Japanese UJM.
VLJ I already said this above
“I’d agree with that as long as they didn’t disturb the sweet power delivery that the bike has now.”
but the fact is, how Honda built this bike is how they built it, whether you like it or not. It is what it is. If it doesn’t make you happy because it doesn’t have enough HP and torque for you, and it weighs too much for you, there is little that can be done about it. Honda already built it. Wishing it’s something it isn’t, won’t make it so.
“Wishing it’s something it isn’t, won’t make it so.”
And there it is. In one short sentence you just killed Santa Claus, organized religion, the porn industry, and, for that matter, the entire internet!
Wow, lol, you’re welcome.
So do you think Rossi will talk to either Jorge or MM this season? It’s almost time. ( Big smile)
I think Rossi will treat 2016 as a Derek Jeter-style, season-long going-away party. I don’t expect him to lead the championship again.
That’s why I was so bothered by the events that concluded last season. It went from a dream ending to a nightmare, with one of the most unsatisfying final races imaginable.
VLJ that was simply for the people that said they wanted it to look like a 79 F. It’s a body kit to make it look exactly like a 79 CB900F. No extra power included lol
Careful what you wish for lest you end up with a Suzuki B King with a Honda badge
BMW gave us the RnineT with great performance. That bike has “soul” without being cantankerous. It does a fine job of highlighting the company’s heritage without being slow, heavy, and uninspiring. I think Honda keeps trying with the CB1100, but in my mind they’re missing the point. None of us older folks remember our CB’s as being slow and heavy. They were cool and period-fast. Lop off 50 pounds. Give it 100 horsepower. Make the darn thing cool, not just pretty. Soul, baby.
The R9T may be a fantastic motorcycle ( but it has no more soul than any other bmw opposed twin imo) and it’s not very retro in my eye. i dont recall any BMWs from my past coming with no rear fender, 2 pipes on 1 side and a solo seat. Now if they have made it look like an r90/6 or an r90/s I would have placed it in the retro category. It does sort of look like someone gave an r90/6 to a street garage to chop up, but no one was doing that to BMWs back then. It’s more of a BMW street fighter and street fighters are not retro they are just butchered up sport bikes.The R1200R prior to 2015 was much more retro than the R9T. They even made a Classic version with spoke wheels and pinstripes. Much more retro than the R9T.
Like I said, the R9T is a neat bike, it’s just not a “in the same genre” competitor for this bike IMO. Great hipster bike though.
I said it “highlights the company’s history.” I never said it replicates anything from their past. I also never even said the bike was “retro,” though I think the general consensus is that the styling is influenced by bikes of yore.
This is from BMW’s website: “The instruments consisting of speedometer and tachometer harken back to historical times and emphasize the essential and minimalist visual appeal of the motorcycle.”
Also, the reviews I’ve read on the R Nine T rave about the bike’s soul and character. I haven’t ridden it myself. Perhaps you have, in which case I defer to your opinion.
Well I think the discussion on this bike has been overwhelmingly toward it’s retro roots, so bringing the R9T into the discussion would seem to indicate it is retro too. A round speedo and tach is certainly retro but the rest of the bike not so much. I don’t see any historical influence in that bike with early BMWs other than black paint and an opposed twin engine.
I have not ridden the R9T, but I rented an R1200R for a nine day tour of Europe. I thought it was an awfully nice motorcycle and considered buying one when I got home. But BMWs final drive failures and reports of expensive repair issues kept me from doing so. Then the CB came along, and although VLJ wont want to hear it, I think the power deliver of the CB is much, much sweeter than that of the R1200R I rode, regardless of hp and torque figures. I could easily be happy with an R1200R, but I am thrilled Ho da decided to bring the CB1100 into the country..so much so I bought 2 of them.
Well said. That is my take on the CB1100, as well. It is a very nice bike, but “nice” wasn’t what I was hoping for when the first concept showed up several years ago.
I don’t know about the whole “soul” thing, but I do agree with the “period-fast” thing. Slow and heavy—unnecessarily so, to boot—diminishes the Cool Factor, or, at the very least, the Fun Factor. Lop off fifty pounds and give it an honest one hundred rwhp and seventy-five foot pounds of torque (the same power numbers as the aforementioned air-cooled 1200 cc Boxer motor) while retaining the classic good looks and the CB1100 becomes an absolute no-brainer.
As it sits now, it leaves room for doubt.
When I sold my restored ’70 CB-750 last Spring I bought a leftover ’13 CB-1100. It is a modernized CB-750, in effect, and I do like the bike. However, it pales in comparison to my cherry ’91 VFR 750F! DFO
My perception is that the Japanese companies design and build retro bikes based on a new generation’s idea of an earlier generation’s bikes. Hence the prevalence of chromed, lower performance “standard” bikes like the CB1100, the revised Yamaha SR400, and the Kawaskai W650/800. By comparison, many Americans of a certain age, who are still riding and not on Harley’s or BMW’s, long for the modified superbike-style rides of their youth. Hence we would prefer a mildly updated (good suspension and brakes, lighter weight) CB900F or GS1000. Only Kawaskai, with the ZRX1100/1200R, came close. I know it’s a cliche to say “I’d buy one if” it had this feature or that, but I think I’d buy a CB1100 if it had a plastic tail section and was offered in silver with a blue stripe like my long-gone and much-loved CB900F.
Sounds like a simple mod. You should give it a shot – or save yourself ten grand and buy a CB900F and install some Ebay CBR suspension/brakes/wheels on it.
Like this one?
http://www.cycleworld.com/2015/04/28/win-this-freddie-spencer-replica-honda-benefiting-pediatric-brain-tumor-foundation/
Here’s a cute little CB1100/Freddie Spencer video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2h_7GwTs6g
Pretty much, but more specifically;
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/honda506/GALLERY/show_image_v2.html?id=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.c.yimg.jp%2Fres%2Fblog-40-cf%2Fhonda506%2Ffolder%2F962541%2F61%2F32830261%2Fimg_0%3F1432795336&i=1
Naked bikes aren’t terribly useful in Oregon, unless you only ride in the summer. But I will say that while I grew up on a CB like everybody else, I rode the new CB1100, and found it to be perfectly capable, but not all that inspiring. Sure you could have a great day on it all day long, just like you could on a 650 single, but you expect more motor, better brakes, and a better chassis that you get, or maybe you just remember them that way.
We have quite a few forum members in Oregon. As a matter of fact the owner/administrator of the CB1100forum commutes on his daily and lives in Portland. His other bike is a Honda HawkGT 650 … Also a naked bike
The CB is a niche bike, which competes well in the marketplace against other niche bikes like the Triumph Bonneville, the V7 Guzzi’s, Indian Scout 60 etc. No way will it compete in mainstream with the FZ09, Speed Triple, GSX Suzukis, Kaw Z800 or 1000, or it’s sibling CBR1000….not enough horsepower, not sharp enough handling, not as high tech suspension or electronics.
In it’s class, it’s the creme of the crop IMO. Beautifully styled, has typical Honda fit and finish and reliabilty, great motor for just riding, great transmission, great brakes, handles pretty well and evokes emotions and comments from strangers you just won’t get on more ” modern” bikes. Like the Bonnievilles, every gas stop requires a conversation with some guy in his 50s or 60s who has to tell you about owning a CB when he was younger, or some young guy who has to tell you remebering getting rides on his dads CB750 when he was growing up. You have to explain that it is not a mid 70s restoration but a brand new bike. I doubt anybody walks up to the owner of an FZ09 and reminices about an XS1100 Yamaha he owned back in the day. Just not enough similarity between the products to evoke the emotion.
Too retro? Not retro enough? Honda was careful not to make it a clone of any one particular early Honda, but it has enough styling cues from many early Hondas that it could be a 1968 SOHC or a 78 DOHC Honda. A version resembling a Freddie Specer CB750F would be most welcome, but would still only appeal to a certain demographic, the same demographic this bike appeals to.
If you don’t follow this bike you don’t know, but there are forums in US, England, Germany, France, Taiwan, Japan etc and on the US forum we have members from 21 countries. This bike is appreciated all over the world, and it amazes me that it draws so many motorcyclists from so many corners of the globe together. It also reminds me what an amazing effect the original CB750 Honda had on the world.
It certainly is the cream of the crop as far as retro bikes go. There currently isn’t another retro that can touch it on a performance bar. (The new 1200cc Bonnies may or may not set a new benchmark for the category – interested to see.) I also think it makes for a great all-around motorcycle regardless of its niche status.
I don’t like retro bikes because they look old but because they look minimal and purposeful: engine, seat, handlebar, headlight, fuel tank, two wheels – check! That formula will always look timeless to me. I want that. But I also want modern performance to go with it. I am not after “period correctness.”
Give me a fat USD fork with some beefy twin discs and monoblocs on the front. I like a broad powerband with a nice midrange, but give me a little step-up in power at the higher rpms for a little top-end rush on my way to 100hp or so.
The 2016 Triumph Thruxton R is my last hope for a bike like this, though I am afraid it is going to be powered by a “High Power” tractor engine. However, if that bike manages to put 95+ hp to the wheel, I’ll go on record and proclaim that I will put one in my garage.
Yep they are unveiling the new Bonnies today at a shop in Coumbus. Unfortunately I was there Saturday and it’s a 2 1/2 hour trip from my house. Sure will be interesting to see how they are recieved.
Despite not using “CB” in my screen name, I grew up riding my dad’s CB350four and I have owned a 900F and still own a 550 (no, it’s not for sale). I’ve ridden them many thousands of miles with as much reliability as mechanical objects can muster in use. Still, I have absolutely no desire to ever buy a new version. I’ve been there and done that. There were more desireable bikes within a couple of years after the CB’s introduction, but many of these were a bit too needy in maintenance to ride a few hours away from home. Now there are way-way more desireable and modern bikes in comparison with most being reliable enough and many being more reliable than Honda’s current offerings. These might resonate with those still listening to the music that was popular when they were in high school in the 70’s or 80’s.
Maybe it needs a new retro Vetter fairing…
I’m sure there’d be some takers.
A guy on the CB forum already mounted one up, with lowers. It looks great actually. Black 14 std with a black jammer and lowers. I believe he also posted up the pics on the Vetter forum.
So sick, like every naked bikes, we won’t get it in Canada.
Changed the rims from spokes, the tail light/plate did not get helped, seat tank and mirrors took minor remodels, looks like they dropped chrome for brushed metal/black, though the biggest difference to me is the horn instead of integrating it with a fixture it just hangs out there.
So sick of retro
So sick of transformers
So sick of transformers (which there is WAY more of)
So sick of
Cruisers
Power cruisers
Baggers
Bobbers
Café’ racers
Sport bikes
Origami bikes
Touring bikes
Sport touring bikes
Supermotos
Adventure bikes
Dual sport bikes
Scooters
Trikes
LOL; bass boat time (or a snowmobile if you live in the great white north)…
Tsk tsk Mickey, surely you jest with tongue in cheek-LOL!
So sick of
Motorcycle boutiques
Clown suited pretenders
Distracted drivers
Cartoon hide
Whiners
LOL yes I was… actually they all have their place on our highways and I’ve ridden every kind of bike there is I can think of, except a trike (unless you count my one ride on a 40’s Harley servicar).Enjoyed them all for what they were. I do have my preferences..but generally they have to have a motor, handlebars, seat, tank,wheels and brakes after that I’m good!
haven’t ridden an electric bike yet, but I would love to test ride one. Does that have a motor? lol
Actually, *only* electric bikes have motors. The rest have engines! Ha.
I test rode a couple of different Zeros, the “S” and the new supermoto version. They’re surprisingly fun. The S gets off the line nicely, and its roll-on performance is pretty stunning. From 40 mph, you give it a little twist and you’re at 70 before you can say “holy crap!” It would be an awesome daily commuter. It feels a lot more solid than I expected, not like some flimsy scooter, but like a real motorcycle.
The supermoto was an absolute hoot to ride. Nimble, fickable, wheelie-able… One of the best big-boy toys you could ask for.
I would highly recommend a test ride on one of these things!
Scott – an engine is actually a specific type of motor. “Motor”cycle is not only still correct, it sounds way better than “Engine”cycle.
If you thought the S model was “holy crap”, try the SR. You’ll probably crap your pants! Just don’t pin the throttle in sport mode from a dead stop in the rain. Trust me on that one.
Interesting observation, Scott. The Zero S I rode felt similar to an old Ninja 500 in performance. Pretty good compared to the old handmade, lead acid battery bikes I’ve experienced in the past but definitely not as quick as most gas bikes available now. I didn’t think the benefit of passing gas stations was worth giving up the sound and feel of a nice engine going through the gears.
My local dealer has an SR in stock now. Maybe I’ll take it for a spin… 😎
(It just occured to me the Zero I rode was a “DS”, which is pretty much the same as the S, but with a 19″ front wheel and dual-purpose tires. Motor performance is the same, as far as I’ve heard…)
I don’t think many of us who grew up with gas-powered bikes are going to give them up and go all-electric, but there are plenty of us who have more than one motorcycle, and adding an electric bike to the fleet is a viable option. Variety is the spice, right?
These things just keep getting better and faster – and more affordable – and there could very well be a new generation of riders coming around the bend who start riding on batteries and never switch…
And now we come to the part of Festivus, where we air our grievances!
Transformers….ARGH!!!!
Retro anyway with modern performance.
I really like the concept overall and am tempted for sentimental reasons. The only glitch for me is a rather small fuel capacity (I realize the Deluxe model has a slightly higher capacity) and Honda’s lack of putting any enthusiasm in it’s bikes. This bike should have fantastic power but it is so lacking. I lean toward the fire breathing bikes of today an am not willing to just putt along for nostalgias sake. I might assume braking response would be yester year as well. From my observation Honda has lost its leadership in its bikes and cars. Everything is just ho hum, rather boring. Good products but not enough for me to part with my cash. An I grew up as a very Honda person.
Since Soichiro Honda passed away the company seems to be direction less.
You certainly share an opinion that isn’t rare. However Soichiro would have steered the ship is open to debate but Honda is still No. 1 in worldwide sales. I’m not one to equate number one in sales as being the best but for whom and why? Here in the U.S. there is among a rather large outspoken group of riders of the opinion that the bike with the highest point on a power chart to be the best. Unless a bike literally can scare the crap out of them with the fiercest acceleration then they’re not interested. In that regard this bike may not be for you but for many it’s just great, not boring at all.
I’ve not ridden one but been on rides where one’s along and it seems to have plenty of scoot, but is it enough for you? (I’m a very Honda guy too, first one in 1966) Now as far as cars go, Honda has always been a family car type company. They don’t really cater to the Tuner car crowd here as in the past (but check out the new 2016 Civic Type R coming to town). However, it’s long been anticipated and boasting over 300 hp in Euro trim!
I’m just saying that anything is possible, Honda is still a great company still picking itself back off its knee from the ’08 downturn. It’s rather obvious that their first priority isn’t playing top of the power charts with other brands but delivering bikes for their bread and butter.
Looks great in yellow. Gotta admit, it keeps getting better every year. Perhaps there’ll be an “F” model soon.
I wouldn’t count on an “F” model anytime soon,I would rather see a stripped down Goldwing with the old 1200cc motor.The Valkrie was a behemouth!!! I own a 1982 F model and they aren’t near what this new CB 1100 is.
As the company that gave us the four cylinder superbike, Honda have street cred with this design. It does need the signature piece of the original CB750 though – four exhaust pipes! It would cost more, but would really nail the retro style they are trying for.
Any serious bike enthusiast would love a CB750, but most aren’t interested in the grief that owning a near 50 year old bike would bring. That’s a big potential market to be tapped and Honda should build it.
As the company that gave us the four cylinder superbike, Honda have street cred with this design. It does need the signature piece of the original CB750 though – four exhaust pipes! It would cost more, but would really nail the retro style they are trying for. Any serious bike enthusiast would love a CB750, but most aren’t interested in the grief that owning a near 50 year old bike would bring. That’s a big potential market to be tapped.
It’s a very pretty bike (42 bikes since 1964) but would I sell either my Gold Wing or my Harley to buy one? No. Would a younger person really appreciate what Honda has done here? No.
I really like the fact that Honda went ahead and brought back the silver triangle shaped side panels in this concept. This was a key component of the original design of the CB1100.
Honda did have some precedent for using a side panel in a contrasting color that was more triangular shaped and did not cover up the frame on the 1976 CB400F, which I still find to be one of the more attractive bikes that Honda ever produced.
The gas tank is….unseamly.
Man, I crack myself up.
A lot of people want a new bike that looks like an old bike. Harley has been doing this for years, and now Indian. Cruisers are the biggest sellers. Why? One reason might be that they all have a retro look to them. I think Honda and other manufacturers have underestimated the demand for a retro style bike in a non-cruiser form.
I think the reason the UJM just won’t die is it’s so practical. The Old label is unfair – it’s a great design. You can do anything from a Scrambler to a Superbike. A Café Racer to a coast-to-coast tourer. In between is just a nice bike for an afternoon ride for half the price as a H-D jukebox with much better performance and without the B-S attitude.
My only real gripe with the current CB platform is the damper-rod forks. Manufacturers always have their canned excuses about cost but I refuse to believe there’s no cost-effective alternative to drilling holes into a metal tube.
Too retro. Prefer the 2014 pictured, including lack of spokes.
I agree. But I like the retro look, don’t get me wrong. I lived and rode through the times when these styles first came out, circa late 60’s 70s, and early 80’s. Then it was a situation of compromises and lack of technology that you just had to put up with. Like nonadjustable suspension, mediocre brakes, mediocre power, and others.
Why can’t we get a retro style with these modern updates. I don’t want to completely relive the past.
Give me the style, but include modern tech where it was needed back then.
applause to Triumph for combining both attributes in the new Bonnies and Thruxtons.
Bartman50
I’ve said it a million times but I think there’s an opportunity for another modern late 70’s/early 80’s Superbike. The ZRX had a great run but that was over 10 years ago – there are plenty of updates to be made and the Race Replica market has since tanked. A Wes Cooley GS or Freddie Spencer CB could be just as successful.
Part of the visual appeal of these bikes is their inherent simplicity of form that I think also evokes the most basic pleasures of riding. You literally can discern the function and purpose of every part in a brief glance. That’s something you dont pick up in today’s designs with various plastics, shrouds and stamped and extruded parts whose purpose is hard to, at least visually, at once comprehend. With the UJM, it’s more what you see is what you get and what you get is what it does sort of thing.
I agree. It’s the reason why I lose interest in the Speed Triple with each iteration. So called Nakeds like the Z1000 just don’t do it for me. I can still see it in Monsters but then you have to deal with Ducati price, reliability and maintenance.
Yep, and to my eye the first iteration strikes a nice balance between capturing the character of a basic motorcycle (aka UJM) (aka all the good bits) without looking a little too old about it. If that makes any sense….
To my eye, it’s what a motorcycle ought to look like.
Nah, too conventional. We’ve seen this UJM before.
Having ridden the CB1100 and after owning a 1979 CB750K and still owning a CB900F (which this bike is more comparable to) I can say that the modern version is better in every way.It not only looks better but shifts and stops better also.
I went back and read MD’s review of the 2014 model and agree with their findings.The newer model even has a sportier riding position than my 1982 F model.Appears to have a larger oil cooler,and the fuel injection is a huge plus as the originals were cold blooded.Modern sporting rubber can be used but the suspension is “about the same”.If the new concept is released in the US and those spoke wheels are tubeless it would be a logical replacement for my 900F.It’s a nice all around bike that will not awe you with performance but may surprise you in the fun department.I wouldn’t expect it to sell as well as a Bonneville but I thought it would do better than it has,bought used it could be a real bargain.
“I wouldn’t expect it to sell as well as a Bonneville but I thought it would do better than it has,” Gham
Gham, the trouble is we don’t really know how well it sold because Honda will not release those numbers. I have contacted American Honda with that very question and a few others such as number of units produced per model (starting in 2010,11,12,13,14std,14dlx,EX, 2015 Japanese Special Edition) but so far no response from Honda.
People will say “yea but there are left overs sitting in dealerships”. Newsflash…There are leftover “everythings” sitting in dealerships. The FZ09 is claimed to be Yamahas biggest seller, but last time I looked there were 975 new ones listed by dealers on Craigslist. My dealer has a couple. he said they sold well at first now he can’t sell them.
I do know there is a thriving after market for CB1100 farkles in Japan from many manufacturers (Whitehouse, Samurider,Webbike etc), and doubt the list of items would be that extensive, if there were not a market to sell them to.
Same here…always see FZ-09s sitting in dealerships, never see them on the road (though the same goes for pretty much anything other than Harleys and the occasional BMW around here).
My theory is that they got so much bad press over the throttle response / suspension issue that it eventually killed sales…and then the fix to the throttle never really got publicized very well. I’d love to have a ’15 in yellow if I could find room/money for another bike…
I would like this, in the american market: http://www.honda.co.jp/CB1300/
LOL! Yeah, we already had that, like 15 years ago. Big, heavy, giant tank of a motorcycle, and nobody bought them back then…
Actually, the U.S. never got the CB1300, what you’re likely thinking of was the “CB-1” – I believe it was 1000cc, and otherwise pretty much as you describe, even Honda nicknamed it “The Big One”. I remember it was kind of underwhelming in the performance department at a time when 600 and 1000cc sport bikes had taken over the world. You’re correct in that sales didn’t exactly catch fire on them. My favorite iteration of the big, nostalgic UJM was the Suzuki 1400 (which was also never available here), that bike nailed it with respect to looks.
I’ve never seen one of the new CB1100’s in person, but I’d like to. Maybe I need to get out more….
No, I’m aware of the “upgrade” to 1300cc on the newer bike. So it’s just bigger, and heavier, and, um… giant-er than the old one. I don’t think there would be a waiting list for this bike in the US…
The CB-1 was 400cc
You’re correct, Todd, it was the CB1000 I was thinking of, made in the early 90’s, at 1000cc’s, that Honda called “The Big One”, I was bike-shopping at the time, and chose the V-Max over the CB1000 and Suzuki’s big naked at the time (GS1200-something?). Honda’s had more CB’s than the U.S. Navy, LOL. But I still have no memory of a U.S. spec CB1300, it was shipped to the rest of the world”, but not to us. I like the look of the bike in Sylvio’s link, but then again, I think Cher still looks pretty good. Sigh….
Love the wire wheels, love the black engine, love the digital display on the gauges, Love the old tank better though. This should be a hit but is a little expensive. Wait a year, buy a new one, save a bunch.
Love the yellow and the lack of a seam. Like the 2014 tank badge better. Would prefer aluminum, tubeless spoke rims. Chrome bits would look better black against the yellow. Save the chrome for the red models.
Beautiful. I love the yellow. I also vote for an “F” model. Oh and the triangle sidecover is a very nice touch.
I don’t like that kind of motor.
Tanks seams? That’s what we’re going to bitch about today? Do any of the girls griping on this site actually ride or just sit around and gripe about crap. Even own a bike? Anyone ridden one of these? Or just flapping their gums about something they really don’t know anything about. I love my ’13 1100F and I don’t stare at it looking at the seams and asking myself wtf?. In fact, I would put it against anything as far as fit and finish. And as far as total satisfaction goes, I’m satisfied. Reminds me of my ’81 CB900F and I loved that bike. I would like to see a Super Sport version though. So if the girls want to complain about something, why don’t they complain about those ugly Yamahas? That origami look sucks and it always will.
First time here, I take it?
Yeah, and “girls” as an insult no less.
First off. Not my first time here. Been watching this site for years but only started commenting in the last couple or so. Do get tired though of the constant whining about seams, not enough power, too much weight, another cruiser, blah blah blah. Has anyone griping about the ’13 CB1100 actually ridden one? Love mine. Comments on here about Harleys and the incessant ragging on H-D. Anyone bitching about em on this site ridden or own one? Own a ’13 Road King Classic and love it. People seem to think reading a spec sheet or hearing something from their girlfriends sister in laws cousins boyfriends mother makes them some sort of expert. Are my bikes perfect? No. But as a total ridng experience, I would put them up against anything out there. As far as the “girls” insult goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. I don’t have a disdain for origami styled Yamahas. I have disdain for all Yamahas. And don’t talk to me about tank seams when there are bikes that are just fugley front to back, including the Honda CB1000R. The point is they’re tank seams. Going to bash the whole bike over tank seams? What do you ride that is so much better?
So you have your opinions, just like everyone else. What’s the difference? It’s okay to criticize an entire brand, but you’re a “girl” if you don’t like one particular feature of one bike? WTF.
And you darned kids better get off my lawn!
“Has anyone griping about the ’13 CB1100 actually ridden one?”
Yes. I think it is a very polished bike for those who like to ride around slowly. And for girls.
“Comments on here about Harleys and the incessant ragging on H-D. Anyone bitching about em on this site ridden or own one?”
Yes. Spent lots of time on several different models as H-Ds are often the only bike I can rent when I travel. I think they are unrefined, silly-looking bikes for riders who don’t value acceleration, handling or the ability to stop. And for girls.
But that’s just me. I respect your opinion. To each his own. 🙂
The difference? I don’t get on here and voice my opinion on every bike or feature I don’t like. This is the first time in 15 years or so I think I’ve griped about anything. Guess you could say I took it a little personal because I do like this bike very much. Some critics on the forum tend to think their opinion or comment is something extra special. They’re always giving it. As far as Harleys go, I used to hate em with a passion. Hell I had an HD rider flip me off while I was riding my then new ’83 750 Intercepter. Needless to say that didn’t set well. But opinions and mindsets change and product quality does also. Anyway, not trying to piss people off. It would be nice to read a forum without a bunch of negative comments. If it’s Honda or H-D themed, generally most of the comments are negative in some way.
Okay, Doc, point taken. I get tired of all the negativity as well, and I’ve been scolded here for pointing out the same thing.
However, the internet as a whole has turned into a giant bitch-fest, so you have to expect it any more. You can’t go anywhere online without seeing someone complain about something, no matter what the subject matter.
Your “girls” quip probably wasn’t the most tactful way to make your point. It doesn’t help the perception of HD riders (y’know, like the guy who flipped you off for riding a Honda).
And it’s ironic that you decided to bash Yamaha – which wasn’t even the subject here – in your defense of Honda. See… negativity is contagious, isn’t it?
Don’t take any of it personally, Doc. Forums are like therapy for those of us taken with the mental illness of motopsychopathy. I am for the most part surrounded at home and work with people who have zero interest in motorcycles, a subject I can – no, need to – pretty much talk about 24/7.
We (most of us anyway) critique these bikes not to be explicitly negative but rather to point out the things that we each would change to make a bike more ideal for us personally. While I’ve read and heard the words “beak” and “tank seams” more that I would have cared to, I have no issue with anyone wishing to point out the things they would like changed on a motorcycle or even that they are sick of a particular genre, brand, feature or whatever.
I come here to hear these guys praise and bitch. I come here to praise and bitch. If I don’t care to voice my opinion or be exposed to anyone else’s, I can stop at the end of the article. But I won’t. And neither will you, I hope.
Go on. Tell us how bad Yamahas are. We can take it. Just don’t bitch about our bitching! 🙂
I myself don’t see others’ critiques of specific motorcycle models as “bitching”. I come here to here the opinions of others, many (most?) of whom have more depth in the subject than I do. In this manner, I learn, and most of the time, am entertained by the back-and-forth. Otherwise, why come to a forum, where differences of opinion are virtually guaranteed? If all I wanted to hear was my own opinion, I could have that while walking in the woods. I do filter out what I recognize as “background noise”, mainly prejudices devoid of thought or substance, but those are the exception, not the rule, at least on MD.
I guess your disdain for “origami-style” Yamahas is just as acute as their aversion to tank seams. So does that make you a griping girl as well?
I like it. More info please. My buddy has a red one,and I like it,but this restyle I like better. I’d sell my BMW and buy one. Yes it would be yellow!
Everything in the concept is great except for silver side cover. The color of the side covers should always match the color of the tank as it always did for pretty much all the Japanese bikes back in the day. I don’t know why Honda keeps forgetting that.
There were some exceptions to side covers being tank colored, the CB750F1 being an example.
The SRX600 had the same red with the same silver side panels. It was probably one of the inspirations to stray from the past CBs.
Superhawks, from the sixties, had silver frame covers. None were painted base model color. CBX also had black frame cover, in contrast to base model color. Where in the instructions on how to color a bike does it say, frame cover must match tank color?
Good catch – I forgot about the ones with the black covers. The SRX600 is from the 80’s so that doesn’t count. Clearly most of the Honda standard CB line from the 70’s that defined the style that this bike is trying to echo had matching side covers, so I don’t know why Honda would stray from that.
“The SRX600 is from the 80’s so that doesn’t count.”
Not to mention, it’s a Yamaha. So I don’t know what that has to do with anything…
Because Yamaha got it right. Honda is not so full of itself that it can’t look outside its own portfolio for inspiration. In fact, it’s healthy. Inbreeding spawns all sorts of abominations.
It has to do with the fact that for this model Honda is clearly looking to its 70’s era CB line for retro inspiration. 80’s styling had already begun to diverge substantially.
I like it. The wire wheels help it look vintage. The seamless tank (Like so many others, I cant see why its such a big deal to have the seam showing) seems to be larger, and yes probably does look smoother. I don’t care for the yellow, but it would look good with any other color. Honda has done their homework here, its biggest problem is COST. Now that I am getting up in age, I continue to look at something like this as something I might buy. (current bikes VFR800, VFR1200, CB1000R, past bike include most everything including RG500) It would be nice for Honda to give one to Roland and see what it looks like all blacked out, with Vintage Race impression lavished on it.
Pretty motorcycle its doesn’t require anything more.
A lot of people are talking about a smaller version. Honda needs to remember the best selling Ninja was the 250.
Fantastic. Love all the chrome. Love the wheels. Perfect.
I find it odd that the brake suppliers haven’t come up with retro looking brake calipers. It doesn’t seem to me to be such a difficult thing to do.
I also find it odd how few people praise the lack of a tank seam given how easy it is to go kayaking on the river of tears the dread tank seams always seem to produce on retro models.
Huh? I see tank seams on it. Of course it has seams, it’s a steel tank. I think it looks good and seams on a steel tank are appropriate.
The tank seam on the yellow bike is nearly invisible. On the red bike it’s obvious. Don’t know if it’s trick photography, or two different tanks?
Two different tanks on two different models.
I’ve have a 2013 CB1100, bought new 2 years ago. I have been an active rider for 50 years and owned all manor of sport, ADV and standards spanning all the Japanese brands plus BMW, Triumph and Guzzi. The CB1100 is by far my favorite. It’s specs do not seem that impressive but riding it is. The engine is a jewel with good torque from idle on, brakes are strong and progressive. With the accessories available from Samurider, you can personalize the CB to most any style that pleases. It’s not for everyone but no bike is.
Fabulous rendition of the ultimate standard Japanese motorcycle. If I wanted one exactly like the old ones, I should buy an actual old one, and suffer the maintenance and performance problems. This one wins for me.
Nice bike but a 599 version would be nice for newer riders and lower insurance!
I’d want a 400 (399?) because it would be lighter still, handle better, be less expensive, and probably quicker through all the roads I ride on. The CB1 was a gem and needs to be revisited.
agree, when are going to make this in a smaller version? I am thinking about 500 cc would work nicely.
Me too.
The generation of Japanese the CB is made for, have shorter legs and more flexible knees than the average American mc buyer……….
I guess Honda sees all the retro rage in the market, but to me this design is still too conservative. They need to sex it up quite a bit. A good place to start would with the the original Z1’s teardrop tank or Honda’s own 400F’s.
Aluminum rims would be a nice touch.
Other than the tank seams, I prefer the previous model.
Still a nice bike. Best of the Retro’s IMO.
A little too much chrome for my taste.
Aluminum rims would be a nice touch.
Other than the tank seams, I prefer the previous model.
Still a nice bike. Best of the Retro’s IMO.
I love these. The new tank is not as attractive as the old one to my eye (despite the removal of seams), and spokes are hard to clean and who really wants to run tubes? They can really ruin your day.
If Honda feels they need to change the CB1100, they should build something like a ’82 CB900F Supersport with this as a basis.
http://s82.photobucket.com/user/wu_sha_mustang/media/bd8c544d-cc18-43d7-b0ac-1b67412d56b5_zps46dfcc36.jpg.html
That certainly takes me back to the era I was first riding in. Went from an ’80 CB750F to a CB900F and finally to a CB1100F. I would certainly buy one with modern brakes and suspension.
Mark think you would love to read the Dec/Jan 16 Issue of Café Racer Magazine where they test the 83 CB 1100 and the 2013 CB 1100 against each other in an article called “Distant Cousins”
Mickey, I am going to have to take a look at that. Thanks for the heads up! I really loved the styling on that series of bikes back then. Buddy of mine even had a Dunstal fairing on his ’80 750F. Biggest issue was outrunning the headlight. Thanks again Mickey!
Love the spoke wheels and chrome fenders
The new tank and spokes, (make them tubeless) along with the black on the engine are a nice improvement. Make that bike, in a few different colors, and then make a Super Sport version. Give that model the looks from the old 400 Super Sport, with it’s 4 into 1 exhaust and slightly lower bars!
Love that they finally ditched the tank seams. That one was long overdue. Glad they returned to the triangulated battery cover panel. I really don’t like the way the forward portion covers the frame on the ’14 Deluxe. On the other hand, I prefer for the cover to match the color of the tank, so chalk that one up in favor of the ’14. Also, the new seat looks like a cheapo aftermarket affair. Blech. The old one’s classic pleated seat looks much better, as does its solid silver motor. I have no real preference regarding the new chrome pieces and spoke wheels, vs the blacked-out pieces and Comstar-style wheels on the ’14. Either wheel is fine with me.
Now, let’s see the shootout between this Honda and the new Triumph Bonneville T120. The Triumph will likely be lighter and have a bit more power, and it will probably have less high-frequency buzz at freeway speeds. Heated grips and traction control come standard on the Triumph, and cruise control will be an available option. 12K valve adjustment (okay, valve check) intervals, vs 8K for the Honda.
Pricing should be similar, with the Honda perhaps coming in slightly higher, and the Triumph has a two-year warranty vs the Honda’s one-year warranty.
In terms of visual appeal, that’s a tough call. They’re two of the very best-looking bikes on the market, especially now that Honda ditched the, ahem, unseemly tank seams.
So, what’s your preferred retro flavor here? Classic ’70s Japanese I-4 UJM, or classic ’60s British Twin? A Made in Japan, air-cooled Honda, or a Thai-built, liquid-cooled Triumph?
Will be a tough choice for retro buyers. Triumph really upped the game with the new T120 although some will balk at the liquid cooling. Wouldn’t bother me if I wanted another Bonnie, and the horsepower boost was much needed on that model. Some also don’t like that Triumph abandoned the classic 360 firing motor in favor of the 270 firing motor. They are afraid it will mess up the exhaust note, but it will make it smoother.
BTW you won’t feel any buzziness at freeway speed on the CB, unless you are running in lower gears. With the 6 speed box 80 mph comes in at 3750 rpms, well below tingle speed.
Mickey, every time I watch a CB1100 video the Lust Factor goes into warp drive again. I still want one, badly.
This would be my perfect CB1100…
Take your red ’14 Deluxe, give it the triangle side covers and seamless tank of this new one, add the optional heated grips, and figure out a way for it to lose fifty pounds. I could probably live with the extra heft, but I do want more top-end power and a decent bump in peak torque. I might also say that at $12,999 sans heated grips, traction control, cruise control, etc., the Honda is overpriced by at least a thousand bucks.
I suppose I could live with the higher price tag, and also the additional weight. I know Honda does a great job of making heavy bikes feel surprisingly light once under way.
No, the main thing for me is the power. As much I love the design of the CB1100, I’ve always worried that I would quickly grow bored with riding it. Merely “adequate” power from such a large, heavy bike doesn’t sound like my idea of a recipe for a successful long-term moto-relationship. I’d hate to be six months into ownership of the thing, well past the honeymoon period, only to find myself thinking, “This was a mistake. You knew you wanted more performance than this. Every time you go from something sporty to something sensible, you quickly miss the handling and overall Fun Factor of those lighter, better handling, faster bikes.”
This is why I’m hoping the new Triumph will come in under 530 lbs wet while sporting something close to an honest 100 rwhp. The stated hp spec of 77 ft lbs should translate to 70-ish in the real world, so it ought to have a bit more torque than the CB1100. Just waiting on the hp and wet weight figures, but the Triumph sure is a looker.
I still think your bike looks better, though.
Yea Honda list price for the DLX $11,899 (not 12,999) was an expensive buy in but few actually paid that. Still the high priced DLXs became highly sought after and actually sold out early in the year. I have seen the 2014 stds being scooped up new for $ 7999 and for that kind of money it is one heck of a bike. That’s price equivalent to an FZ07, or an NC700
One must be happy with the HP and torque of their motorcycle, so I understand where you are coming from. Some people are happy with the power of an R3, but I test rode one this summer and I had outgrown that kind of power in the late 60 s lol. Same with the FZ07. I need more than either of those platforms provide. The CB however satisfies all my power needs.
I am wondering why Triumph is being shy about mentioning a horsepower figure for the new Bonnies. One has to assume that it will be around 90 hp or a few more than the CB but why cant anybody just come out and tell us? Bore, stroke and torque .. Kind of like cruiser manufacturers want to tell you because they are embarrassed by their hp figures.
Btw the std CB comes in at 540 wet so I would think the Bonnie twin could best that by at least 30 pounds being a twin, but we shall see. Coming from my background, 550 pounds sounds right for an inline 4 liter bike, so I dont consider it heavy. My ST1300 is 717 pounds. I consider it heavy. Push the ST around the garage or driveway for awhile and the CB feels like a supermoto. Wish you lived closer ( heck you may I have no idea where you live) but you’d be welcome to take an extended ride on my CB ( as long as you promised not to flog it lol)
I used to own an ST1300 so, yep, I know from heavy bikes. 🙂
The CB is clearly not that sort of heavy. Also, by all accounts the CB’s larger, narrower tires make for surprisingly light, agile handling.
Not sure where I saw the $12,999 msrp for the Deluxe, but you’re right, Honda’s website lists it at $11,899 for the ’14. Not too bad.
I need to bag a test ride on one. Here in NoCal, however, Big Four dealers typically don’t offer test rides, and there weren’t any ’15s to ride anyway.
“So, what’s your preferred retro flavor here? Classic ’70s Japanese I-4 UJM, or classic ’60s British Twin? A Made in Japan, air-cooled Honda, or a Thai-built, liquid-cooled Triumph?”
Can I get a made-in-Japan Honda Thruxton 1200?
Lol I always wanted a Honda made air cooled Beemer
I love the look, love the concept (UJM), love everything about it except power and weight. Either more power or less weight, preferably less weight.
They are absolutely gorgeous motorcycles; hard to tell which look better. For my taste they need to have 2 separate exhausts, one per each side, not like earlier CB 1100.
I grew up with the original CB750s and loved them. My first ‘full sized’ bike was a 1977 CB750K that I have wonderful warm and fuzzy feelings about to this day. If I saw one like it in good shape I might buy it. My next bike was a 1979 CB750F that I also loved. That said, I just don’t get the appeal of this CB1100. It isn’t a replica-ish bike in the same way that the Triumphs are, it’s got lackluster (many call it boring) performance, it’s not particularly economical…just not feelin’ it.
On a side note, I concur re: the hydraulic lifter thing. I had a Nighthawk S that was flogged (and I mean _really_ flogged) for over 65,000 miles, and one of my buddies had one that wasn’t treated anywhere near as gently as mine was for over 120,000 miles, and neither of us ever had any issues. If the system worked for us (ever try to keep up with an 86 GSXR750 that’s race prepped and piloted by an insane AFM racer on a CB700SC?), it would definitely work on this bike.
I freakin’ love it! I think the additional chrome suits the bike. The yellow color is not my favorite but the only thing that is yellow is the gas tank and that does have any stripe appliques that i can see…so it should be really easy to get it repainted in any color you like by any professional paint shop for not much money!
I don’t understand why they wont make it as close looking to the 69-70 CB 750 as possible — i would love to go back to a modern air cooled bike
Rocky, they do make kits for that google Whitehouse K10 kit for CB1100
Mickey
Thanks –that does look great –now the 4 pipes
Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EKtBRpz7Qg
Boring, heavy, boring. Also heavy. And boring.
I was on vacation…. sorry I missed it.
This was today’s winner
Went back to the 2013 report and after real soul searching and the perception that the 750 was the bike of the past century as it surely was I think they should go with the SOHC design which was absolutely classic and far more compact though *radical* at the time.
Tank looks like it is from Yamaha and we need to see the original lines there.
Later CBs were great bikes but they were not THE CB.
It’s a beautiful bike in need of a soul. Add 30 horsepower and remove 50 pounds and I’d buy it.
Wait…I thought “soul” translated to “unreliable and vibrates like a Magic Fingers bed.”
(For the record, I wrote the above BEFORE seeing that your screen name includes “ktmracer.”)
no, that’s the definition of “character” lol
As a person who actually rides their bike, there’s no way I would buy a bike that requires a valve service about every time you change the oil like this CB1100 does.
I don’t understand why Honda didn’t stay with the hydraulic lifters, like they had on the Nighthawk S….one of my favorite scoots that I never had : – (
Is there a reason that we still have to worry about valve adjustments? Cars don’t need valve adjustments.
All cars use hydraulic valve lifters, so they never need adjusting. But hydraulics can only function up to a certain rpm. To get higher horsepower, you need higher rpm, and fixed valve lifters can go higher. As valve seats wear, the clearance needs to be adjusted. Reality is, many engines don’t wear that much, but manufacturers have to play it safe and so they have their recommended inspection intervals.
Tough enough to get the average car owner to change the oil once in awhile. Try getting them in for valve checks…
Some do, check your owner’s manual.
In general, cars use hydraulic lifters which are self-adjusting. Motorcycles don’t because they rev to RPM’s that hydraulic lifters can’t handle.
Some cars do need valve adjustments – check your owner’s manual.
Cars that don’t need adjustments use hydraulic lifters. However, hydraulic lifters are limited to about 6-7K RPM and most motorcycles rev higher than that.
That’s not the reason hydraulic lifters are not used. The Nighthawk S redlined at 10,600 rpm and was very reliable. The same engine is in late model CB750’s. I have no idea why Honda doesn’t use them in current models. More service work for their dealers?
http://i52.tinypic.com/28tx7cm.jpg
I had always heard and accepted as gospel that the Nighthawks were very reliable, but I wonder if that is really the case (at least relative to other Honda engines with solid tappets.) I know a couple of Harley riders that really stack up miles, and both of them treat the hydraulic lifters as a maintenance item and replace them every 25K miles because the failure rate past that point is fairly high.
Some people believe that the only reason hydraulic tappets aren’t being used in motorcycles is to intentionally create service work for dealers, but businesses rarely benefit in the long run by screwing the consumer. Even in low-revving motorcycles, especially those that share their engine oil with the clutch and transmission, I suspect blockage of the tiny orifices in the lifter and channels required to supply the oil pressure are a major source of concern for manufacturers with respect to longevity.
This is all speculation on my part, of course, but I think we would see hydraulic tappets in more motorcycles from all manufacturers if they felt those items exceeded their standards for reliability and longevity vs a solid tappet. Maybe this engine tech so common in autos just doesn’t work as well when scaled down for for use in a motorcycle engine and the challenges that come with that.
Honestly I think the decision is strictly one from the beancounters: solid lifters are less expensive than hydraulics, as well as take up far less space in the head. So maybe it is a packaging decision also? o.O
On this bike I’m pretty sure to say it was a cost decision.
The CB uses the same valve arrangement used by nearly all the major manufacturers on almost all bikes, shim under bucket, which rarely needs actual adjustment. My 2014 has 18,000 miles on it and has required no adjustments. My ST 1300 has the same valve arrangement and has not required any adjustments in 66,000 miles. My brothers Triumph Bonneville, same arrangement no shims needed in 40,000 miles. It’s like that for most modern bikes.
Hydraulics would have been nice, however most of the mfgs have determined this is the most reliable system for valve adjustment durability.
So then you are suggesting to skip the required valve service that the manufacturer themselves have stipulated for this bike?
Not suggesting that at all, just relating experience with this valve set up.
Are you suggesting to change the oil at 8000 mile intervals even though the manufacturer themselves stipulates every 4000 miles for this bike?
Yes, skip them and save the money unless you are running at redline all the time. My shim under bucket bikes also stayed well within spec. I also have a friend with a Triumph Bonneville who even at 50K miles his valves were adjusted but still within spec. Yamaha shop also said the shim under bucket check was a complete waste of money until 25K and even then he does not waste the time nor money to look at them. 50K he said, easy, unless you are beating on the motor.
Great points. Additionally, many overhead cam bikes with rocker arms and screw-type adjusters routinely went for twenty thousand miles before any adjustment was needed. The manufacturer’s recommended interval is the interval at which the manufacturer recommends that the clearances be checked, but there is no strong implication that adjustment per se will be necessary at that interval. Shim/bucket stays in adjustment longer, but when an adjustment is needed, it’s more work. Sort of six of one, half dozen of the other. Personally and subjectively, I thought that rocker arms with screw-type adjusters was the ideal approach.
I am puzzled by the OP’s (Sentinel) comment. Perhaps he was lamenting the lack of hydraulic lifters, as other posters evidently inferred. Or, maybe he thought this bike uses rocker arms and screw-type adjusters. Even if that was what he was thinking, and if that is incorrect as you indicate, this still would not be a reason to think that valve adjustment would be required as often as he thinks. And even if that were the case, the time needed to do the check and adjustment depends largely on how much effort is needed to get to where you can remove the valve covers and the little cover at the end of the crankshaft. On this bike, that all looks relatively straightforward.
One point is the fact that the industry standard for shim-under-bucket valve service is around 15,000 miles on most bikes, while this Honda is scheduled for 8,000, and with this more labor intensive type valve system, that’s just too much.
so I guess you ride a Yamaha with their 26,000 mile valve check intervals, because even 15,000 mile checks would be too much if you could go 26K instead, or a Harley because they have hydraulic lifters?
Most motorcyclists according to KBB ride 1900 miles per year on average, so for most that would mean a valve inspection on this bike every 4 years. For those of us who ride a bit more it’s just means we pay a little more for our pleasure. Considering I saved a good $10-20 grand over buying some other more expensive bikes like a Multistrada or Motus or something, I have some money to play with for maintaining my bike plus some for tires and gas.
I hope you change your oil more often than 15K miles. The CB1000 has shim under bucket valve adjustment system. With average riding you could check the clearance every 20k miles and they still not need adjusting. This system is used on engines back to the 70’s. My 1978 KZ650 had shim under bucket system.
This bike is a real beauty, spoke wheels and real chrome fenders—-I love it, way to go Honda
It’s to keep the service department at your dealer busy. And employed, so you have a place to buy your new motorcycles.
I like the look of the new tank. It looks like it would hold more fuel, too. Also, I don’t see any tank seams, either unless my eyes deceive me.
Nice!
Loved my 2013 CB1100. Love my 2014 CB1100 DLX even more. Great motorcycle and a true UJM. Guys are turning them into tourers, sport tourers, café racers, neat roadsters etc and yes one guy even mounted up a Vetter faring. Another a Don Vesco Rabid Transit Fairing.
BTW even though rev limit restricted in low gears and speed restricted, stock it will still get into the high 11’s.
We have guys that have had them de-restricted and are running 135 mph top speeds. One with minor mods has dynoed 96 HP.
The 14 deluxe models have been sold out all year and are hard to find even used. There are still some 14 std models left at dealers. There were no 15 models (except in Japan).
A lot of us are running the Pilot Road 3’s with a 160 on the rear, since there are limited choices in replacement tires.
“One with minor mods has dynoed 96 HP.”
What kind of minor mods are we talking about?
Full exhaust ( yosh I think) pod air cleaners, de-restricted ecu I believe Jeremy. There isnt much more you can do to them really. There are no hop up kits, no cams, etc. available. Free up the intake, free up the exhaust and unleash the electrics.
Those are pretty good gains considering most of the published dynos show the stock bike around 82 hp – assuming the dynos used are comparable.
Part of the problem with dynoing a CB1100 is the rev restrictions in the first 3 gears. Unless they take it up to 4th or 5th for the dyno run it won’t pull redline. Then you run into the speed limiter at 112 mph. It’s also the problem with the magazines doing the 1/4 mile testing. Electronic nannies are holding this bike (and others like the FZ-09 back)and giving a poor view of their true and full potential.
The full exhaust removes the cat.
like I said the reflashed ecu allows full potential, removing the rev limiters and actually allowing it to rev 500 rpms higher and removing the speed limiter. This runs about $375.
BTW mine is stock. I don’t need to go any faster than 112 personally and don’t need to rev it any higher than 4,000 rpms to make me happy.
build it, and they will whine
Ain’t that the truth.
I sometimes wonder how many people on this site actually ride motorcycles regularly…
Seems to me as though the whiners gripe at anything other than their favored brand(s)/models. It’s like their way to try to discredit anything but the way they see it. No wonder the M/C market here in the US seems so mixed up! Now that they have a world-wide audience they let it fly.
I sure don’t like the idea that we should all be riding the same brand or model of bike before some people are happy. Different people have different tastes and tastes do change over time. Vive la difference!
Too much chrome.
I agree.
I hope all the retro purists are finally happy. It’s 1975 all over again.
+1
+2
Beautiful machine.
Put the motor from the old CB1(400cc) in something like this, and I think it would be the coolest small displacement bike out there. That said I think the CB1 could hold its own in today’s market.
The CB1, what a beaituful bike. Over the years, i just saw one on the road. The cost of this bike was way too high. Now, with today’s market that is more friendly to small bikes, maybe a new CB1 could take a little share. But, even back then, i was more over the Yamaha XJR400, especially the one with yellow and black racing colors.
XJR400 wasn’t a USA model was it?
What about the other version of the concept—the one without chrome? I think it was a “cafe-inspired” theme.
I think it’s a beautiful machine! A lot more chrome than before, will it have tubeless tires? I would personally hope it comes in a color other than yellow, my least favorite. It has perfect symmetry and I like the tire size/width. It would be cool if Honda came out with a CB1100F version but I guess the owner and aftermarket could do that.
Understand and to each their own, but I like seeing a little color put back on bikes. I actually like yellow on it. Very handsome machine.
Agreed… i never liked black cycles, and flat paint just doesn’t do anything either…
Good looking cycle with chrome, color, and classic style… nice
(Now, where is my ‘do it yourself Turbo kit’?)
An F-model – now you’re talking!
The bike that I would like to see is the CB1100R shown in 2007. MCN it stating that it may become a production bike according to the patents recently filed. Simply gorgeous. If they ever produce it they would probably ship us a silver one while making the red white and blue only available to those in the EU. Hondaaaa WHY?
The R is what I want as well. I’d like to think it will make for a fun track-day bike.
Time to dust off the old Vetter fairing.
Spoke wheels, new tank and seat look great. A fine looking bike now more properly finished.
looks good.now give it enough horsepower to get into the very low 11’s in the quarter and some nice 17″rims with a 180 on the back and I would be interested.
I like everything you day except the 180, which will only ruin the lines of the rear as well as slow down the steering for no true benefit. A 170 is more than sufficient for the target.
Even a 170 is overkill. It’s not like a wider tire puts more rubber on the ground (as if it needs it), the tire is round. Contact patch size is fixed by the bike’s weight and the tire’s air pressure.
The tire is round-ish, but not round, and a larger tire will provide a larger contact patch.
I agree, that’s why I carefully used my wording of “[a] 170 is more than sufficient” – as in, even a 170 is too much. A 160 would be perfect, I believe, for a 5800lb retro-bike providing, say, 115HP in an upgraded form.