Another Honda NT on the Horizon?

[MaxPete]

1. 1100 cc ain't a mid-sized touring bike!

2. If I wanted to tell somebody at Honda that I wanted a mid-sized touring bike, to whom would I SAY SO LOUDLY.

I would guess that they are watching popular bike forums (fora?) like this one, ST Owners and other similar venues - so say it here.

 

[Hondafan]

1. 1100 cc ain't a mid-sized touring bike!

2. If I wanted to tell somebody at Honda that I wanted a mid-sized touring bike, to whom would I SAY SO LOUDLY.

Touring bikes seem to run between 800cc and 1800cc. Personally, I have no interest in an 1100cc motorcycle of any genre.

 

[MaxPete]

Agreed - I'd like a 650-750 rig but frankly, building an 1100 doesn't actually cost much more than building a 650.

The big difference is that they can charge a lot more for a larger engined bike.

Pete

 

[coaster]

That's true of cars; but, I suspect, less so with motorcycles. The frame has to be much sturdier to handle the power and the weight of the power package. Suspension, front and rear, has to be more substantial to handle the additional weight (800 pounds on the ST, versus 280 for my now-departed XT250).

Wheels, sprockets (if equipped) and brakes have to be basically re-designed for different, harder use.

There is, of course, the tendency to just up the price with the displacement; but I think less so today More common is the shifting of the norm - and that's what got Honda in trouble with the ST. Go big or go home, the market seems to be saying. Honda went big, and wound up with a two-wheeled car - and not an especially sporty one, either.

I don't know where the weight is coming from, comparing 650-1000cc bikes of thirty years ago, to today. Is there that much emissions hardware that just the weight of it bumps up the Wet Weight a hundred pounds? The original Gold Wing was IIRC 480 pounds. A big bike for 1975. Now a simple mid-sized standard weighs more.

I just looked up the specs on the 1975 Gold Wing, it lists the dry weight as 584 pounds.

 

[MaxPete]

That's true of cars; but, I suspect, less so with motorcycles. The frame has to be much sturdier to handle the power and the weight of the power package. Suspension, front and rear, has to be more substantial to handle the additional weight (800 pounds on the ST, versus 280 for my now-departed XT250).

Wheels, sprockets (if equipped) and brakes have to be basically re-designed for different, harder use.

There is, of course, the tendency to just up the price with the displacement; but I think less so today More common is the shifting of the norm - and that's what got Honda in trouble with the ST. Go big or go home, the market seems to be saying. Honda went big, and wound up with a two-wheeled car - and not an especially sporty one, either.

I don't know where the weight is coming from, comparing 650-1000cc bikes of thirty years ago, to today. Is there that much emissions hardware that just the weight of it bumps up the Wet Weight a hundred pounds? The original Gold Wing was IIRC 480 pounds. A big bike for 1975. Now a simple mid-sized standard weighs more.

Those points have some validity (although an ST weighs closer to 700 than 800 lbs), but I doubt that the extra cost of materials is all that important since these guys buy huge quantities by the kilogram. Besides, except for exotic materials such as carbon fibre, most grades of steel costs around $0.60-$1.60 / lb and aluminium is about twice that. Thus, an extra couple of hundred pounds of AUW wouldn't add more than a few hundred dollars to the price and since the metal doesn't know whether it is going on a CB125 or a Gold Wing (or in the car world, a Hyundai Accent or a BMW 7-Series), in my work with the auto industry, I have found that the cost of materials isn't really a big factor.

The key issue is the electronics and engine control and emissions sensors and actuators and assembly labour for more complex vehicles. Bigger bikes likely have higher costs there - although, like the difference between cars and pick-up trucks, most of the profit is in the larger vehicles - just because they can get more for them. The OEs make huge profits on trucks versus cars - and that is why most of the car models have disappeared. Check out Ford - they only build one or two car models now (the Mustang is notable) - everything else is a truck or CUV/SUV.

As for the source of the weight, it is things like ABS systems, cast wheels and all of that fancy electronics and the wiring to run it plus special features like electronic suspensions, DCTs and traction control on some bikes.

The average car had about 40-50 lbs of copper until about 1995 - but that has been increasing and now it is up to nearly 100 lbs - and it is in the wiring. That is why OEMs are looking at CANBUS and info-over-voltage systems as well as fibre-optics. It will make the vehicles waaaayyy harder to troubleshoot but much easier to build in the first place.

Anyhow, it is lots of fun to speculate and in the meantime, my simple as dirt Yamaha XS650s and the '83 BMW R100RS (about as sophisticated as a garden tractor) will do me fine.

 

[Hondafan]

Agreed - I'd like a 650-750 rig but frankly, building an 1100 doesn't actually cost much more than building a 650.

The big difference is that they can charge a lot more for a larger engined bike.

Pete

You would think the 1100 would be cheaper to produce than the NT motor...less cams, less timing chains, less castings etc. One thing I try to avoid are shim under bucket valve trains. Very time consuming to check valve clearances. I just spent 6 hours doing the valves on my Versys 300 (8 valves)....it takes half that time on the NT.

 

[MaxPete]

True - and I prefer the even simpler screw and locknut tappets that are on my XS650s and R100RS.

One thing about the bucket and shim systems - the valves may only require one adjustment over the entire life of the engine - and some never need any. However, it is a significant task of adjustments are needed.

 

[Coyote Chris]

We beat this horse to death a few months ago.....
I am no expert on Euro bike emission standards but it will effect us all.

What You Need to Know About Euro 5 Emission Standards for Motorcycles

With EICMA taking place next week, we're now well into new model season and you’ll probably hear a few mentions of Euro 5 emission standards.

www.motorcycle.com

.

I think you can kiss off screw tappets and heavy costly shaft drives. And even sensible enclosed chains. The pipe dream of the electric motorcycle will not come true till the next generation of battery energy density comes forward....and even then, I dont want one and I will be dead so I will want one even less.

Will there be an NT1100? Maybe. Maybe for Europe only....maybe eventually to the US. But not for me. Smaller, lighter, lower ....thats what I want. And I bet the NT1100 wont be cheep.
Right now, those fake computer drawings of the bike are just that....pipe dreams.
Remember what Abraham Lincoln said..."Just because its on the web doesnt make it true"
Nice 200 mile ride today...around lake Coeur d'Alene....on a heavy expensive 150 mph shaft drive bike with an electric cruise control and wind screen. A bike I would never buy today...but am glad I bought for $13,900 left over price when I did...just cause it looks cool.

 

[Brillot2000]

Agreed - I'd like a 650-750 rig but frankly, building an 1100 doesn't actually cost much more than building a 650.

The big difference is that they can charge a lot more for a larger engined bike.

Pete

Not to mention insurance premiums. I do not think that I will own another bike over 1,000cc for that very reason.

 

[MaxPete]

Yes - the effect of displacement on insurance can certainly make a big difference in many jurisdictions.

I certainly agree - a 650-750 based on the Africa Twin engine with a shaft - or even a belt drive - would be ideal for most folks. In my observations, riders are getting older (less interested in huge bikes - just look at Harley sales.... these days) and most of my buddies ride solo these days - so brute pulling power to get two people and baggage up a hill at 130 MPH simply isn't necessary.

sigh.....

 

[Brillot2000]

1. 1100 cc ain't a mid-sized touring bike!

2. If I wanted to tell somebody at Honda that I wanted a mid-sized touring bike, to whom would I SAY SO LOUDLY.

My 82 GoldWing was 1100cc. That was the biggest offering for a Touring Motorcycle in its day.

 

[Camelot]

The NT 1100 6 speed manual is 524lbs wet, well below the NT700V and with modern suspension it will certainly be a step up from the 700, not to mention the electronics package. I would love to ride one but I doubt it will come to the states, to small a market.

 

[ST1100Y]

The NC 1100 6 speed manual is 524lbs wet...

corrected that for you...

And according to various German MC-rags, the (rear) suspension sucks... big time...

 

[Phil Tarman]

The English bike mag "Bike" rates the NT1100 very highly.

 

[Camelot]

Indeed the New Touring bike, likely would take away some Gold Wing sales in the states as folks get older and have less strength.

 

[ST1100Y]

....likely would take away some Gold Wing sales in the states as folks get older and have less strength.

And the fact that Honda cease production of the GW (as a number of other successful models) in foreseeable time...

 

[harryhendo]

A (yawn) parallel twin, in a (yawn) steel chassis, with (yawn) chain drive, and the looks of an angry insect. It's a Honda parts bin creation to cheaply fill a gap in the lineup.

 

[harryhendo]

The NT 1100 6 speed manual is 524lbs wet, well below the NT700V and with modern suspension it will certainly be a step up from the 700, not to mention the electronics package. I would love to ride one but I doubt it will come to the states, to small a market.

The only thing I can see that is a "step up from the 700" is the 6 speed transmission. Otherwise, it has a parallel twin engine instead of a V-twin, a step down, the suspension looks standard and no better than a 700, and it has chain drive, a step down.

 

[Phil Tarman]

The only thing I can see that is a "step up from the 700" is the 6 speed transmission. Otherwise, it has a parallel twin engine instead of a V-twin, a step down, the suspension looks standard and no better than a 700, and it has chain drive, a step down.

Why is a parallel twin a step-down from a V-twin?

 

[Brillot2000]

Why is a parallel twin a step-down from a V-twin?

Because Honda has already done all the EPA emission testing for this engine family, they do not need to design a new engine, go through all the required testing, and then get the EPA approval to move it into production.