| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
It sure is different looking though. Looks like a cross between a scooter, a Busa, and a VTX. | ||
| Glitch |
I wonder how much (crank or rear wheel) horse power those little 50s have that we have so much fun on. While I don't care for the bike, at all (feet forward/sit up and beg) I can see someone having a ripping good time on it. Open mind, I got one... around here somewhere...  | ||
| Doughnut |
It sometimes amazes me how fast some are to trash another bike that they have never been on, and then defend Buells from the same sort. | ||
| Rubberdown |
I was pretty amazed the first time I rode the Honda Silver Wing 600cc super scooter a few years ago. No,... I was damn impressed. .... and I've ridden and owned a lot of bikes. | ||
| Ustorque |
i am not into the looks of this bike at all, but like all hondas this bike will find its place in the market and it will be a well performing and damn near bullet proof bike like most hondas are, anyone who owns or has owned one knows they take one hell of a beating | ||
| Xl1200r |
don't know what the "to the ground" number was for the 'Bolt, but possibly within a horse or two of the new Honda? That is entirely not likely. I can 99% promise that the 60hp number given in that article is at the crank. Even if it's not, it's something like 25hp shy of an XB12 at the wheel, and weighs 200 lbs more, and because of it's lack of displcement won't be making the midrange torque the Buell does. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Almost every Harley ever sold fits the description, 60hp twin. The only current Harley that makes something around 60hp is an 883 Sportster. My 2004 Sportster was rated at 70hp from the factory, and I can remain fairly certain that it would kill that honda in a torque battle. | ||
| Blake |
I can't believe we're comparing Buells to that thing. It's kind of embarrasing. Doughnut, I take your point well, but BadWeB is a Buell enthusiasts' site, yes? Some folks will always feel better about their own bike if they can criticize another. I know I do.  Not really. Well, kinda. ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) Me? I just don't like. I'm a naked bike fan. errr... I mean, I'm a fan of naked bikes. They don't list the wheelbase, but it looks to be something approaching infinity. Definitely not a sporting machine in the handling arena. Wheelies might be difficult. But I bet it cruises over bumps like a dream. I'd like to see Jerry take one through a parking lot skills course. The poor thing wouldn't know what hit it.  | ||
| Ryker77 |
When gas prices hit 4-5.00 per gallon a nice bike like this will fill the market demand. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Even if it's not, it's something like 25hp shy of an XB12 at the wheel, and weighs 200 lbs more, and because of it's lack of displcement won't be making the midrange torque the Buell does. Xl1200r, i'm inclined to agree, altho until i see numbers published by an independent source i'm taking the hp, torque and weight claims - good, bad or ugly - with a shaker of salt. and i'm not saying the new Honda will match a Buell (or anything else) engine-wise, only that i think the bike's performance will be surprising considering the overall package. Slaughter mentioned the performance capabilities of Suzuki's SV650, another import i've got a lot of seat time on. this is another bike that shouldn't be able to hang with a Buell (or other liter or liter-plus sportbike), considering the displacement disadvantage...but it can. My 2004 Sportster was rated at 70hp from the factory, and I can remain fairly certain that it would kill that honda in a torque battle. as it should, considering the displacement advantage. but "kill" may be too strong of a word. i'd sure love a chance to prove myself right or wrong.  Definitely not a sporting machine in the handling arena. Blake, with all due respect, i think it's a bit naive to look at a bike that one hasn't ridden and assume what it can or can't do. my heavy, long and decidedly low-tech Road King shouldn't be able to hang with a well-ridden sportbike. but in many situations it can. i expect the new Honda will be able to hold it's own in any arena a competent rider chooses to enter it in. I'd like to see Jerry take one through a parking lot skills course. The poor thing wouldn't know what hit it. erm, two of the last three times i've parking lot skills course'd, it was the ground that hit it...  | ||
| Xl1200r |
Xl1200r, i'm inclined to agree, altho until i see numbers published by an independent source i'm taking the hp, torque and weight claims - good, bad or ugly - with a shaker of salt. Well, the article states that the Honda weighs in a 593 lbs and makes 60 hp, so those are facts as far as anyone is concerned. It's also a fact that a Buell XB makes 103hp at the crank and weighs 395 lbs. I've seen dynos of stock XB12's making anywhere from 85-95hp at the wheel. I was using the lower end of this spectrum for the comparison. No salt needed I can't agree with some of the comparisons you're making - for instance, your road kinf versus a sportbike. I've seen guys throw around big touring bikes pretty good before - VERY impressive. But the same ridier would likely cut his lap times in half on a sportbike that they were used to. It's about getting the right tool for the job. This Honda just tried to be too many things to me. Sure, a Leatherman is great to have, but I woudln't try to do a complete engine tear down with one as my only tool. | ||
| Spike |
I've read 2.5hp for a stock Z50R. I've heard from other sources that an XR100R is just under 7hp, so 2.5 for the Z50 sounds about right. For what it's worth, some of my worst road rash has come from a Z50R.
Specs were about halfway down the page, just above the other photos. Wheelbase was listed as 1.610m (~63.4").
I'm all for anything that puts more people on two wheels, but I don't expect that the fuel mileage of the DN-01 will be great enough to sway people away from traditional motorcycles. I've had my eye on the Burgman 650 for a while (638cc twin with CVT), but according to the Burgman forums they average 45-60mpg. On the street I averaged anywhere from 42-59mpg on my ~90rwhp XB12R, so I was expecting better from a "scooter" with half the displacement. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Well, the article states that the Honda weighs in a 593 lbs and makes 60 hp, so those are facts as far as anyone is concerned. correct me if i'm wrong, but the specs in the article are actually part of a Honda press release, right? just me, but i'd have a hard time believing that the numbers are absolute until i see them published by a respected independent source. I can't agree with some of the comparisons you're making - for instance, your road kinf versus a sportbike. I've seen guys throw around big touring bikes pretty good before - VERY impressive. But the same ridier would likely cut his lap times in half on a sportbike that they were used to. well, i'm not talking lap times here, obviously. the new Honda is not aimed at the track, nor is my Road King. but out in the real world, where most of us ride most of the time, my RK has done quite well against perhaps a dozen different sportbikes, including several Buells, and i'm betting the new Honda has the potential to do the same. track? sure, i'd be outgunned by a Buell on either of the above bikes, no question. but i don't think it'd be as easy as you think... | ||
| Court |
>>>I can't believe we're comparing Buells to that thing. It's kind of embarrasing. I'm kinda in the same mindset. I think it's interesting but ugly as sin. No problem. Some folks don't care for the looks of the 1125R. To every season . . . We'll see how they sell. Knowing what I know about Honda, I'll bet it's a well thought out vehicle. That would not be the first Honda that D rode very well. . . My "mental image" of her is on a VFR and she played 2nd fiddle to no one. If she rides it, I'd enjoy hearing her impression. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
It's also a fact that a Buell XB makes 103hp at the crank and weighs 395 lbs. I've seen dynos of stock XB12's making anywhere from 85-95hp at the wheel. FWIW: Buell XB12S Lighning ('03) measured hp: 92.2 @ 6750 measured torque: 71.9 @ 5750 wet weight: 462 pounds Buell XB9SX CityX ('05) measured hp: 73.9 @ 7250 measured torque: 56.7 @ 6000 wet weight: 449 pounds source: Motorcyclist, 02/2007 | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
>>>I can't believe we're comparing Buells to that thing. It's kind of embarrasing. I'm kinda in the same mindset. I think it's interesting but ugly as sin. no one's comparing a Buell to it. | ||
| Xl1200r |
just me, but i'd have a hard time believing that the numbers are absolute until i see them published by a respected independent source. I'm confused - are we basing arguments by ignoring what information we have availible? but out in the real world, where most of us ride most of the time, my RK has done quite well against perhaps a dozen different sportbikes, including several Buells, and i'm betting the new Honda has the potential to do the same. When I read this, I'm hearing about a very skilled rider on a Road King outpacing an unskilled rider on a sportbike. Until the bikes are the only variable, this argument is invalid. A Snicker's bar will melt under the 12 o'clock sun in July in Florida, and a 3 Muskateer's will reamin solid at midnight, outside in Maine in February. Clearly the Snicker's bar melted because it has a lower quality nugat. sure, i'd be outgunned by a Buell on either of the above bikes, no question. but i don't think it'd be as easy as you think... Again, it's more a question of if you could outgun yourself, not if I could outgun you. I don't know you or your riding skill level, so I won't engage in a pissing contest about it, but I have no doubt that you would beat yourself by a considerable margin on a Buell than on your road king. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
I'm confused - are we basing arguments by ignoring what information we have availible? my argument, which isn't an argument at all, is my belief that the performance of the new Honda is unlikely to be "lazy." i've stated my belief that the new Honda may actually be surprising in terms of its performance, in spite of it's relatively small engine displacement. When I read this, I'm hearing about a very skilled rider on a Road King outpacing an unskilled rider on a sportbike. Until the bikes are the only variable, this argument is invalid. my argument, which isn't an argument at all, is to try to help folks understand that a motorcycle's capabilities may not be exactly what you think they are. this is especially true when one makes an assumption about a motorcycle they've never ridden. it's been stated in this thread by someone whose opinion and intelligence i greatly respect (hi Blake) that the new Honda can't possess sporting capabilities because of its overall length (i'm paraphrasing). i used my Road King as an example to illustrate my knowledge (not belief, knowledge) that a big, long and heavy motorcycle can possess quite respectable sporting capabilities. and if i can hang with well-ridden sportbikes on the Road King, which i have, two of them as recently as Monday (i've ridden for almost 20 years longer than you've been alive, have done several track schools, have ridden around this country five times, and have a shelf-full of "parking lot skills course" trophies, so i hope you'll trust me when i say the sportbikes were indeed well-ridden, and i hope i don't sound like i'm bragging), then i feel fairly comfortable in stating my belief that the new Honda will likely be able to hold its own in terms of sporting capabilities, in spite of its apparant length and weight, and in spite of its "smallish" engine displacement. this isn't a pissing match, unless you want to turn it into one. i haven't dissed you or Buell motorcycles, and i haven't said my Road King or the new Honda is faster-better-badder than your ride or anyone else's ride. ...I have no doubt that you would beat yourself by a considerable margin on a Buell than on your road king. agreed. but then, that wasn't my point. FB | ||
| Rubberdown |
My HP2 has a wheelbase close to 66". Sum bitch can turn well too ... and do a lot of thing smartly as well. Numbers are relatively meaningless individually; ..., if the whole package works. | ||
| Spike |
Ferris, By your definition, what motorcycle--if any--could be called lazy? | ||
| Court |
I've never (truth be known) bought a motorcycle based on horsepower or turning radius. Somehow passion seems to take over and I've ended up owning a really odd and eclectic mix of stuff. I doubt Honda ever intended for this to be a sporting sort of bike. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Ferris, By your definition, what motorcycle--if any--could be called lazy? Spike: wow, good question. i don't have a lot of recent seat time on anything smaller than Denise's former SV650, which was anything but "lazy" IMO (that bike could really rip). i could make some assumptions regarding the performance capabilites of some current smallish-displacement bikes, and given what i know about the bikes in general i'd probably be on the mark, but truthfully they'd only be assumptions. to try and answer your question, and to keep my comments related to this thread, i'd be inclined to say that a "lazy" motorcycle would be one that absolutely could not hope to hold its own against a well-ridden sportbike. as before, i'm not talking track. if i couldn't hang with the likes of y'all on a technical road because the bike's performance just wouldn't allow it, that to me would be a "lazy" motorcycle. not a bad motorcycle, neccesarily, but one i'd probably be disappointed in over the long run. i can't give you a specific example of a bike that would fit this category, as i don't have the recent personal experience, but i know they're out there. as i've already stated, my belief (not knowledge, just belief) is that the new Honda could hang with a well-ridden sportbike. right or wrong, it'd sure be fun to try. FB | ||
| Slaughter |
The following is meant to be deliberately annoying to those who are inclined to be annoyed: If the Honda doesn't have the power you're looking for then it is NOT the bike for you. Don't buy one. If I wanted a bike that had good mileage, acceptable handling and was comfortable over longer distances, it might end up on my short list. Hell, working nights in a buddy's restoration place, I might just end up with an Aermacchi next so I really shouldn't be taken too seriously in ANY of my comments. I might even be racing Sunny's vintage VF500F Honda starting this month until the Buell XB gets back on its wheels... - but I digress... I have a hard time understanding the discussions that revolve around power of a bike that is CLEARLY not designed to be a powerful bike (unless it's somewhere in Honda's literature) What IS the power of the Burgman, of the Vespa, of the Scarabeo? Maybe it's along the lines of the arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... and then you have to ask yourself WHICH dance... and how much room they need to do the dance... and somebody else reminds you that you can get 4 times the number of angels on the pinhead if they're slow-dancing... and then you will be reminded that slow dancing is so much better than the jitterbug and takes less room... and somebody reminds you that the jitterbug was all but outlawed in Germany during the Nazi rule... and somebody else says that the Bush administration is Nazi-like... and another person says the topic should be moved to the political discussion... ... and somebody else asks... "What were we talking about?" | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
I doubt Honda ever intended for this to be a sporting sort of bike. i respectfully disagree. | ||
| Ryker77 |
I'm all for anything that puts more people on two wheels, but I don't expect that the fuel mileage of the DN-01 will be great enough to sway people away from traditional motorcycles. I've had my eye on the Burgman 650 for a while (638cc twin with CVT), but according to the Burgman forums they average 45-60mpg. On the street I averaged anywhere from 42-59mpg on my ~90rwhp XB12R, so I was expecting better from a "scooter" with half the displacement. I too would like to see better MPG - but a CVT trans and 600cc still burns up fuel. But many non-bikers would like the little Honda scooter and the CVT trans is a must have for most Americans. For most people 45mpg is double or tripple what there SUV takes. I like the new 250r Ninja. 300lbs 6speed twin 250. | ||
| Court |
>>>i respectfully disagree. You're grouchy today. Let me rephrase that . . . "Honda never intended for this to be THEIR PREMIER sporting bike". Like your Road King it can be skillfuly ridden in a sporting manner. I doubt it's intended to bugle the end of the CBR. Lazy? No one better qualified than me to answer that . . . Lazy is my 4.5 HP American Made and powered by the fabled "Husky" motor Cushman 711 Highlander. Lazy? . . likely the TW200 . . both of them you turn the throttle and eventually things begin to happen . . . you lazyily roll down the road bouncing with each bump you find. Apply the brakes and the thing eventally slows. Lazy can be an absolute hoot to ride. I'm lusting over a couple bikes now and all of them could arguably be called lazy. I seem to be hitting the "slow bikes, fast cars" stage of my life. | ||
| Rubberdown |
"Lazy? . . likely the TW200 . . both of them you turn the throttle and eventually things begin to happen . . . you lazyily roll down the road bouncing with each bump you find. Apply the brakes and the thing eventally slows." HA, I've got one. Lazy my ass ...I was power sliding it the other day ... and riding wheelies on it ... C'mon Court, my TW and your what the F ever .... let's get it on . hehehehhe | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
You're grouchy today. nope. if i was, i'd have omitted the "respectfully" and the " ". Let me rephrase that . . . "Honda never intended for this to be THEIR PREMIER sporting bike". couldn't agree more. but i bet the thing will still rock. i'm also betting that Joe Boyd is pleased. Lazy can be an absolute hoot to ride. i know. i've got a Road King... | ||
| Spike |
See, I think we just have a different definition of lazy when it comes to motorcycles. By that definition, almost no modern motorcycle could be defined as lazy, assuming you allowed some flexibility in rider skill and kept things to a street pace. A good rider can run an impressive pace on nearly anything. | ||
| Xl1200r |
I'm sorry, but this is just making my head hurt. You claim that your Road King can hang with well-ridden sport bikes (and I'm assuming we're not talking about 125cc Aprilias here). If that were the case, some guy would be racing Road Kings in professional ciruits and doing at least respectfully. But there is no such person, because a Road King cannot hang with a well-ridden sport bike. No harm, it wasn't meant to. Physics just don't allow it. A bike which weighs twice as much, has half the power and half the lean angle of it's competition will not hang with said competition when both bikes are being ridden by riders with equal skill on each machine. Race track or not, it's just how it works. I don't doubt you were hanging with some guys on sport bikes - but next time, tell them to go balls out and see where you end up. It won't be on their tail. I've reread some of your posts and found the same comment - that this new Honda may "surprise" those of us who doubt it. I will agree that it might, however... -It won't be as fast as a CBR1000RR -It won't handle like an XB12R -It won't tour like a Road King (or Gold Wing) -It won't get as good mileage as a sensible scooter -I don't believe it will do anything particularly well aside from look "different". The bottom line is this bike will probably only really appeal to folks who don't really like motorcycles. We all know the type - they want one because they want a bike, but could care less about who made it or what it could do, as long as it's pretty. |
