I like it.

https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/honda-neo-cafe-concept-650-paris/

Not for me, like the 125 and 1000 much better.

I like it.  Also like the 1000.

I like it. Although, ive never ridden something that was inline. ive had a Honda shadow, victory vegas, and my fz. What are the characteristics of an inline?

I like it well enough. Could probably use a small cafe'ish bubble screen/fly screen.

42 minutes ago, Laben said:

I like it. Although, ive never ridden something that was inline. ive had a Honda shadow, victory vegas, and my fz. What are the characteristics of an inline?

No low end torque, has mid range punch and more top end power/speed.

An inline four can easily be made to make more power from idle to redline than that of an engine with less cylinders. But a 650-700 is rather small, so pumping and friction losses can be difficult to overcome at low rpm, where a twin like the MT07 can shine. Also worth nothing is that Honda is (in)famous for making even, bland powerbands in their engines, contrary to the Yamaha MT-series. So while a 75 hp MT07 is fun and exciting, a 90 hp Honda 650 is rather blah. Not to mention a 56 hp Honda 650 🤔

57 minutes ago, Laben said:

I like it. Although, ive never ridden something that was inline. ive had a Honda shadow, victory vegas, and my fz. What are the characteristics of an inline?

I like it too, except maybe the headlight surround...

 

13 minutes ago, Beemer said:

No low end torque, has mid range punch and more top end power/speed.

I wouldn't say "no torque", just less than most twins, plus they are typically "smoother"...

1 minute ago, zooman72 said:

I like it too, except maybe the headlight surround...

 

I wouldn't say "no torque", just less than most twins, plus they are typically "smoother"...

I agree and smoother is a quality that didn't cross my mind but you have to understand that when people say a bike has no torque on the bottom they aren't being literal, they just mean it doesn't have much. 

I like it a lot, well the headlight doesn't suit my preference but everything else is ticking the boxes. It would be interesting to see what MSRP$$ they put on it with the Rizoma stuff and SC projects exhaust.

 

2 hours ago, Beemer said:

I agree and smoother is a quality that didn't cross my mind but you have to understand that when people say a bike has no torque on the bottom they aren't being literal, they just mean it doesn't have much. 

Yes, maybe a better way to explain is that they (inline 4's) "have less urgency off the line"... 

 

That being said, I have found them (as a former owner so long ago of a 600cc supersport) somewhat easier to use with regards to small throttle inputs, such as when "putting around", and the 600cc+ bikes really didn't have much of a problem revving up to an appreciable power band.

 

1 hour ago, fzar said:

I like it a lot, well the headlight doesn't suit my preference but everything else is ticking the boxes. It would be interesting to see what MSRP$$ they put on it with the Rizoma stuff and SC projects exhaust.

That headlight surround (the light itself is LED and looks OK) just looks off - I know they are trying to match the other brushed aluminum trim pieces, but I think it would look better in black (along with the front fender supports.

 

As for the MSRP, Hondas are typically overpriced of late compared to similar bikes from the other "Big 3" - for example, compare their CBR500r to the Kawasaki Ninja 400.  Great bikes, but a tad underpowered and heavier in comparison too - not the best combination.  I also like the LED headlights and suspension on the newer Hondas, but dislike the guages (they are really poor/hard to read compared to the other Japanese offerings, and still no gear indicator!).

 

I doubt in will be available from the factory with the aftermarket bits (too bad), but will still be pricey - the CB650F is $8300, and the CBR650F is $8800 for example.  I suspect that this CB650R will be somewhere in the middle if they use the same suspension found on the other 650's, and if they use (or keep) a better upside-down fork (along with a better rear shock) and radial brakes, it will be more than the CBR650F.  I actually think both the CB650F and CBR650F are good looking bikes, but this new concept is the best of the three - wonder how close they will keep it's final appearance to this concept.  

 

Hopefully I get a chance to ride one in the future...

Here are two dyno charts, both showing a Suzuki 650; the SV V-twin and GSF inline four. Notice the four making more power everywhere compared to the twin, although very little differ in peak power. Also, the power delivery is noticeably smoother for the four. Interestingly, the twin revs higher than the four, a result of the four being tuned to deliver good, smooth power from just above idle rather than high peak power. In order to match the peak power of the four, the twin must be tuned higher, which again result in a loss of low rpm grunt.

 

 

22 hours ago, faffi said:

 

Honda is (in)famous for making even, bland powerbands in their engines, contrary to the Yamaha MT-series. So while a 75 hp MT07 is fun and exciting, a 90 hp Honda 650 is rather blah. 

The MT is fun and exciting because it has short gearing.

Half of red line on the MT is right around 70 mph.

I had a 2006 honda 599 (cb600f). It had  83 hp.  Half of red line on the 599 was around 85 mph. 

 

On 10/9/2018 at 8:42 AM, Laben said:

I like it. Although, ive never ridden something that was inline. ive had a Honda shadow, victory vegas, and my fz. What are the characteristics of an inline?

You should test ride a 4 and see how you like it. They have a shorter stroke so they turn a few more rpm's. If you get a chance test ride a Triumph Street Triple. They are small just like the MT but make almost 50% more hp.

15 hours ago, faffi said:

Here are two dyno charts, both showing a Suzuki 650; the SV V-twin and GSF inline four. Notice the four making more power everywhere compared to the twin, although very little differ in peak power. Also, the power delivery is noticeably smoother for the four. Interestingly, the twin revs higher than the four, a result of the four being tuned to deliver good, smooth power from just above idle rather than high peak power. In order to match the peak power of the four, the twin must be tuned higher, which again result in a loss of low rpm grunt.

 

 

The SV650 graph is showing h.p./torque at particular rpm's and the GSF graph is showing h.p. at particular speeds so I don't see this as showing the inline-4 having more power 'everywhere' or am I missing something?

Indeed! I did not notice that. Thanks for notifying. However, if the GSF made its max power around 8000 rpm, the graph is still relevant because gearing is fixed. But if it made max power at for instance 10,000 rpm, the graph is correct, but not the scale because you can no longer say that 3000 rpm = 30 mph and 8000 rpm = 80 mph.

1 hour ago, MT27 said:

The MT is fun and exciting because it has short gearing.

Half of red line on the MT is right around 70 mph.

I had a 2006 honda 599 (cb600f). It had  83 hp.  Half of red line on the 599 was around 85 mph. 

 

 

But the Honda still carried more rpm for any given speed in top gear, meaning the Hornet was shorter geared, but would rev higher. 

Here is another, direct comparison

 

38 minutes ago, faffi said:

 

But the Honda still carried more rpm for any given speed in top gear, meaning the Hornet was shorter geared, but would rev higher. 

Gear both bikes for the same top speed in top gear. I would bet that the 599 would be way more entertaining to ride. True the Honda will spin more rpms per mph but the MT will halve a higher piston speed in fpm per mph. 

I have a 4 cylinder 4 stroke, my mechanics says this means I have 18 stroke motor.  It needs oil for a multi stroke, multi cylinder that is capable of handling multiple strokes in multiple cylinders while running on all two cams

12 hours ago, faffi said:

 

But the Honda still carried more rpm for any given speed in top gear, meaning the Hornet was shorter geared, but would rev higher. 

Piston speed in feet per min at 70 mph  w/ stock gearing  (rpm)

2006 Honda 599   1587   (5,352 rpm)

Yamaha MT-07   2250   (5,000 rpm)

Gearing is still gearing, and the vehicle carrying the most rpm at any given speed has the shorter gearing. Hence an 1100 is typically taller geared than a 550, even if the 550 can theoretically - or realistically - reach a higher top speed due to the ability to rev higher.

 

But sure, if you would gear the MT and CB for the same theoretical top speed (as the MT has), the CB would offer better acceleration than it does with stock gearing. And the mechanical load would still be lower due to smaller valves, lighter pistons and shorter stroke. Fuel consumption would go up, though, and I personally would hate the extra revs as it would be buzzy and busy and also make anyone around wonder why on earth I would be riding in a low gear.

 

 

 

 

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:33 AM, faffi said:

Indeed! I did not notice that. Thanks for notifying. However, if the GSF made its max power around 8000 rpm, the graph is still relevant because gearing is fixed. But if it made max power at for instance 10,000 rpm, the graph is correct, but not the scale because you can no longer say that 3000 rpm = 30 mph and 8000 rpm = 80 mph.

In other words the comparison is bogus because of that big IF.

Inline 4's are buzzy and the feel just isn't satisfying. You notice that I said "inline 4's". V4's are much smother and have a better power band as well, they just don't scream at you.