Test riding CB1000R

[MentalFacility]

Sorry - stand corrected that was the big old 900 Hornet at 108 hp.

Have you given up on the CBRR?

Nah i haven't=)

[MentalFacility]

FZ1 is a very cool looking bike too.

I also found a tricked out one on the web.

[R6_kid:Me]

That's a fucked up R6... stay off the crack.


This is a tricked up FZ1... done right.

[Big Dave]

stay off the crack.

That's where the little finger goes silly.

[slowpoke]

I don't like the retuned idea of a sportsbike engine, I think honda did a fantastic job detuning the hornet (just a bit lacklustre around 100kph). Its punchy down low, pulls from 1500 odd rpm (gawd thats low for 900cc) and is super smooth.

What's up with a 'retuned' sportsbike engine? On a naked bike they are hugely understressed but still provide plenty of fun if you are that way inclined.

The "problem" with naked bikes for manufacturers is that they can't gear the thing for 290km/h as per the original fully faired donor bike. As a result it's that much harder to harder to meet emissions and noise reg's: more revs at a given speed means more sound/emissions nasties. Instead they have to lean the fucker out and fit quiet, restrictive airboxes and slow acting secondary throttle butterflies etc which emasculate the bike through the mid range where most emissions testing is carried out.

I reckon a CB1000R or FZ1 would make a great starting point, and with a bit of tinkering a la The Stranger's I reckon they would be awesome real world bikes....but then I never did like "standard".

But why not make your own? An early Fireblade/R1/GSXR/ZXR is cheap as chips and you get a full monty motor, better suspension and can recoup some costs by selling off unwanted panels etc.

[Gremlin]

I think its quite an individual taste thing. Having had a 1L sportsbike (and lost the license) I found it reasonably unusable for most of the time. Try to abuse the throttle, and you're long past the instant license loss point. Most of the time, I was having more fun on the hornet 900.

To me, the nakeds I like aren't a sportsbike without fairings (eg, the fz1). They have relatively low down grunt, but can still fly through the country as they are more usable.

r6 kid was making a difference between re-tuned and de-tuned. Re-tune being the fz1, detuned the hornet. I like the de-tuned idea, and don't need more than 120hp odd.

[Fatjim]

Mate, I'd take the cb over the fz1, just, the Zthou has been getting some really bad press lately.
But why waste your time, get the trippe, or better yet the Tuono. There's good deals on the Tuono at the mo. Or you can wait a little for the cb to be repriced at something more reasonable.

[pritch]

Having them would also make it easir to consentrate on the riding fast.

According to all the tests I've read this is where Honda win hands down. Their bikes do not require you to adapt to the built in eccentricities. They allow riders (of whatever level) to be all they can.

BIKE recently did a comparo: CB1000R, Speed Triple, Tuono, and FZ1.
A similar impression to the above was attributed to the Honda, "You get on with riding and don't worry about me."

Only favourable comments about the steering, and no mention of any need for a steering damper. Nor have I ever seen any mention of this requirement when reading of the Hornet, or felt same when riding it, and both bikes have very similar steering head angle and trail.

One interesting little snippet concerning "retuning", under 5,500 rpm the Predator makes more ponies than a CBR1000RR. And after all that's where the bike will likely spend most of its life. You may disagree, but that must equate to 135kph or thereabout. Legalities aside, on a naked bike that's more than enough wind pressure for anyone to handle for a sustained period.

Then again lads of the WBTYM persuasion may well disagree.

The ultimate choice is very much up to personal taste. BIKE chose the Aprilia (again). My "Lotto bike" would also be the Aprilia. The BIKE "second opinion" chose the Honda, and if I had to actually hand over my money, I probably would too.

[The Stranger:Me]

To me, the nakeds I like aren't a sportsbike without fairings (eg, the fz1). They have relatively low down grunt, but can still fly through the country as they are more usable.

Hmm, according to this chart my FZ1 develops more torque than the 919 at all points except a couple of brief interludes - at 2,500 rpm and again at 6,500 - just prior to ripping your head off by 7,000.


Was trying to get a comparrison on the CB1000R, but the only charts I could find were at the Akrapovic site and clearly flawed. This simply can't be the same smooth torque bike that Big Dave was referring to. The torque curve looks more like a mountain range.

In a world where HP rules and we have just got 200hp bikes in the quest for the fastest and so many lament the crippled naked that doesn't measure up to the original from which it was derived, we now find 100 - 120 is enough.
Is this the the work of Katman?
Are some riders getting old prematurely?
Oh well you guys would love my XT - 47hp.

[jrandom]

The "problem" with naked bikes for manufacturers is that they can't gear the thing for 290km/h as per the original fully faired donor bike.

I don't see why not. My GSX1400 is geared for 300km/h in sixth at redline. 3,000rpm at 100kph.

Then again, it's a ground-up design (with the engine presumably derivative of all the other big Suzuki aircooled IL4s), not a reskinned sprotbike.

[Insanity_rules]

I threw my leg over a CB1000 at big boys toys, can't wait to take one for a rip. Looked and felt SEXY!

[The Pastor]

if you ask me, any more than 250cc is being gready

[R6_kid:Me]

I think its quite an individual taste thing. Having had a 1L sportsbike (and lost the license) I found it reasonably unusable for most of the time. Try to abuse the throttle, and you're long past the instant license loss point. Most of the time, I was having more fun on the hornet 900.

Thats where the FZ1's engine character comes in to play. Apart from the fact that we all know you lack self control, the FZ1 build in 'two stroke kinda way'... below about 7k it's smooth and not really very enchanting. I mean, it moves dont get me wrong... but get over 7k rpm and the engine spins up something mental and you're now playing in superbike territory.

So basically - to keep your licence, or keep the ride flowing nicely for you're good looking pillion, simply keep it below 7k and use the gears accordingly. Wanna fly? - use the revs and it shall deliver. It's equally capable of eating up country roads either way - you're right hand and left foot decide which way you play.

[JDMC]

I rode one this week end. I agree about steering damper & gear indicator. Rest of the bike is great. Good mid range. I'll stick with my CBR 1000rr with fairing.

[slowpoke]

The "problem" with naked bikes for manufacturers is that they can't gear the thing for 290km/h as per the original fully faired donor bike.

I don't see why not. My GSX1400 is geared for 300km/h in sixth at redline. 3,000rpm at 100kph.

Then again, it's a ground-up design (with the engine presumably derivative of all the other big Suzuki aircooled IL4s), not a reskinned sprotbike.

If you gear a naked for 300klicks as per your 14 then you effectively reduce the useable gears by 1. As per my old 916 with it's stratospheric gearing, 6th was more of a theory than an actuality 'cos it was good for fuck all.

I'd prefer to gear it for 250 and have 6 useable gears than 5 gears + an overdrive that wouldn't pull the skin of mum's gravy. That's for any naked with vaguely sporting pretensions anyway, if you prefer more "regal" transport you may prefer something different.

It all comes down to mission statements. Without knowing exactly what the manufacturers have set out to build how can we say it's no good?