Honda sending some competition to the naked middle weight

[jhonore]

Link from REVZILLA https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/honda-cb650f-comes-to-us?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5/13/2017%20-%20CT&utm_term=Common%20Tread%20%7C%20Combined

[mcbrien]

That's cool but look at all those pipes. I picked the 07 over the 09 because 2 pipes are better than 3.1 pipe would be even better. If this was a 700 single that was smooth it would be perfect. No I don'texpect you to agree but I miss my SRX 600. Just sold it a couple of years ago.

[i28]

Here's a video of the bike:

It's an inline 4. Looks great but at 454 pounds wet, they could have done better

[DewMan]

Is it just me or is it trying to be a 4 cylinder FZ-07 styling wise?

[Cruizin]

Well, plan on the FZ-07 getting a hp increase soon. Let the wars begin!

[Cruizin]

This Honda is at least 45 lbs heavier than the FZ-07, probably more. More power, more weight so it's probably pretty close to even in performance.

[762mm]

That's cool but look at all those pipes. I picked the 07 over the 09 because 2 pipes are better than 3.1 pipe would be even better. If this was a 700 single that was smooth it would be perfect. No I don'texpect you to agree but I miss my SRX 600. Just sold it a couple of years ago.

the words 700 and single will never equal smooth. 
I owned a duke and the 07 with upgraded suspension is better in EVERY way.
 
the cb650 has no low end and feels slow AF

[stickshift]

The rest of the world has this bike available for some years now.
 
I was considering one a couple of years ago but walked away. The CB650 doesn't do any one thing particularly well (sporty handling is probably its biggest strength), and the MT07 still comes out winning the group tests.

[faffi]

I do not like fours. I can live with flat and V-fours and fours with uneven firing like the R1/MT10, but I too prefer singles followed by twins. Triples are better than fours, but often have a very annoying vibration frequency that numb my digits rapidly. I've owned 3 Triumph 900 triples and my brother another two, and they all had this feature. None where equal, some could be ridden for an hour, others for minutes before they became annoying. My brother also has an old T150V that is even worse by some magnitude.
 
I have owned an XL500S and an XT600Z, and both were what I consider smooth. Same with an SRX-6, belonging to a mate, I rode quite a bit. Smooth for me means I don't get annoyed by the vibrations. And annoyed means body parts being put to sleep. I don't mind feeling an engine working. The FZ07 definitely can be felt working, but it isn't uncomfortable for me. Hence I consider it smooth.
 
My Z1300DFI six was what you must call smooth, but at 4000 rpm my fingers would go dead within minutes. Many fours also feel smooth at first, but there is an underlying tiny tingle that really start to gnaw on my extremities within short order. I've ridden three exceptions; my old CB350F, a mate's GPz600R and my son's CB400SF. All three so smooth at every rpm as not to bother in any way. But the worst thing with inline fours is that they sound so stressed, which I find very, very annoying the longer I ride them. I am always searching for a taller gear to calm the engine down.
 
 

[Beemer]

It looks nice and may handle better, may be more comfortable, may have a better dash but it appears to be just another run of the mill middle class bike to me. Nothing real special about it, unless Honda contracts Yamaha to put their FZ-07 engines in it.
 
 
 
That'll be the day! (IKR!) 

[jhonore]

I don't think that Honda has ever made anything that is great. They always try to make something that is pretty average at everything. They are too safe imo, styling and performance. For them to strive they have to think outside the box.

[ralph]

Though the Honda as been around longer than the 07 here in the UK you see many more 07's
cant remember seeing the 650 Honda on the road.

[faffi]

Honda used to be the one leading the direction of the motorcycle world. In racing, their engines turned safely over 20,000 rpm as far back as the mid-1960s. They had a 5-cylinder 125 and a 6-cylinder 250 back then. They sounded absolutely bonkers!
 
Check this out at 2min 20sec - if this doesn't get you excited check with a mirror that you are still breathing

[level41]

A honda 650 never is 650cc.
It often is a lot less, like 625cc.
The extra weight gain is for the 4 cylinders, instead of 2 larger ones.
This bike is mostly good if you'd be running high rpms.
Even then it'd be close to the FZ-07.
A 4 cylinder 650 also is less efficient than a 2 cylinder version. (extra valves and friction comes into play).
 

[faffi]

Not entirely true. If you took a 650cc engine of 1, 2, 3 and 4 cylinders and did the best you could with each of them, you would get the most power at every rpm from the 4-cylinder engine, and the least from the single cylinder. Let's say you designed the twin to deliver 80hp. You can then design the four to make 82 hp and also make more power than the twin from idle onwards. Or you could design the four to make 120 hp and just spin it faster so that it would deliver more rear wheel horsepower at any given speed, even though it would make less power at lower rpm than the twin with less peak power.
 
The Honda CB650 engine simply is not made for optimum performance, but to be smooth, tractable, forgiving and userfriendly. The FZ is designed to give lots of grunt and instant power at lower rpm, which makes it feel quite exciting, but at the cost of top end power.
 
Personally, I am no fan of fours in any way, but I cannot deny that they are very efficient. For instance, my Suzuki VS1400 V-twin felt like it had enough torque to rotate the Earth, but the Suzuki GSX1400 made more power everywhere plus 40 hp more on top.
 
Here you can see the CB650 compared to the two-cylinder competition, complete with hp and torque charts http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/reviews/honda-cbr650f-vs-kawasaki-ninja-650-vs-suzuki-sfv650-vs-yamaha-fz-07-mc-comparo-road-test#page-15
 

[Beemer]

Honda used to be the one leading the direction of the motorcycle world. In racing, their engines turned safely over 20,000 rpm as far back as the mid-1960s. They had a 5-cylinder 125 and a 6-cylinder 250 back then. They sounded absolutely bonkers! 
Check this out at 2min 20sec - if this doesn't get you excited check with a mirror that you are still breathing

El Diablo!  
I would really like to see a graph comparing our FZ-07 to H.D.'s Street 750 and spread it all over the net.
 

[hachirokutoy]

Pretty much the FZ-07 has more torque and CB650F has more top end. There's a Video on YouTube comparing the two bikes on a track in Brazil (language is in Portuguese though and the guys is pretty biased to Honda), and the Honda was a little faster than the FZ-07, but both were faster than the CB600F Hornet.

[faffi]

 
To me, it looked like the rider - who most definitely wasn't what you would call immensely fast - was almost sandbagging on the Hornet. The Hornet was by far the most composed of the 3, yet it posted a lap time similar to that of the Yamaha R3.
 
Here are the specifications lifted from MOTORRAD, perhaps the most thorough motorcycle magazine on the planet. Note that this is for the older 2003 version of the Hornet with 97PS claimed.
 
2003 600 HORNET (2014 CB 650 F) [2014 MT-07]
 
Claimed hp: 102PS (87) [75]
Top speed: 229 km/h (205) [207]
0–100 km/h 3.3 sek (3. [3.8]
0–140 km/h 5.9 sek (6.7) [6.9]
0–200 km/h 14,3 sek (21.2) [24.7]
Roll-on in 6. gear:
60–100 km/h 4.8 sek (4. [4.0]
100–140 km/h 5.3 sek (5. [4.7]
140–180 km/h 6.4 (8. [6.4]
Fuel consumption: 5.0 l/100km (4.4) [3.5]
Wet weight: 202 kg (212) [181]
100-0 km/h: 40.1 Meter (43.4) [39.4]
Fast slalom: 21.1 sek (20. [20.9]
Slow slalom: 28.4 sek (29.3) [29.9]
Circle lap Ø 46 Meter: 10.9 sek (11.1) [11.3]
 
On the handling course, the Hornet was hampered by a fork with too little damping and too much negative wheel travel. Slow throttle response was also frowned upon.
 
The CB 650 F got flak for harsh throttle response that made it hard to hold a steady line, and limited cornering clearance, especially on the left.
 
Regarding the MT-07, it drew criticism for too soft suspension, particularly damping in the rear, and for a tendency to fall into corners. The suspension caused a lot of pogoing. Limited cornering clearance further reduced the speed of the bike.
 
I do not have the points scored by the Hornet, but these are for the CB 650 F and (MT-07)
Engine: 145 (167)
Chassis: 171 (162)
Convenience: 146 (140)
Safety: 103 (98) – but the Yamaha lost 12 points due to no ABS
Cost: 68 (72)
 
Total score: 633 (639)
 
Performance vs price (1 is best): 1.3 (1.0)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[level41]

In every way, form or shape, if you had a 4 cylinder bike of 75hp, and a 2 cylinder, the 2 cylinder would outdo the 4 cylinder every time.
Both in performance, weight, cost and fuel efficiency. The only drawback would be a few cc more on the 2 cylinder (eg comparing a 600cc 4 cylinder with a 625cc 2 cylinder) .
It would be the fairest comparison to make, to compare same HP on both bikes.

[faffi]

I tend to disagree. You may be able to save a few pounds on the engine, but not a lot. There will also be more complexity with the twin as a balancer shaft is virtually unavoidable. The twin will be narrower, though. And likely a bit more frugal. But I am confident the four would make more power from idle onwards and be able to make its 75 hp at a lower rpm than that of the twin. And the four will be more flexible since it can pull from lower rpm without shaking itself to bits.
 
The issue with most current inline fours vs twins in the middleweight classes in particular, is that the engines are dumbed down racers. So when Honda needed a 78PS engine, they started with an older CBR600 and dumbed it down. Now, when Suzuki with their SV and Yamaha with their FZ designed their twins, they already had a goal of a top end in the 70s and could optimize the engines for that target. Hence they make better low-end power than a neutered four.
 
But take a look at this Suzuki 650 four compared to the Ninja twin. Although coming from a sportbike, these engines have always had a focus on making real world torque.
 

 
Here is another comparing a twin to fours. Observe how narrow the band of advantage the twin hold over the fours; it cannot match them at either low, nor high rpm, only surpass them in the midrange.
 

 
Unfortunately, it is difficult for either of us to present real proof because AFAIK, nobody have ever made a mid-sized engine for designed from the beginning to match the top-end of a twin with better low- and midrange performance. Hence we will more or less be left to retain our own flawed and subjective ideas of what is correct or not
 
 

[level41]

While a twin needs a balancer, a 4cyl needs 4 counterbalances.
Each piston needs to push connecting rods and valves of the 3 other pistons, which also add to it's overall efficiency drop.
 
A 4 cyl will indeed run more smoothly, but it won't particularly be having more torque.
 
Sure, one could create a 4cyl, with more torque than a twin, and yet the same HP.
A 4 cylinder 900cc, with severely limited exhaust, could potentially have massive amounts of torque, while the HP could be forced down to 75HP. It is possible indeed.
But I'm more speaking of an engine, tuned for HP, side by side.
 
The twin takes advantage by having a much closer to the perfect size cylinder (200-350cc), for good combustion, while the 4 cylinder has much smaller cylinders.
Smaller cylinders than 200cc, and larger than 400cc per cylinder, is considered to give a less efficient combustion process.
Multiple cylinders also have more friction. More valves, more counterbalances.
 
A twin takes benefit of lower weight.
 
A 4 cylinder, becomes more effective than a twin, once you're looking at the larger bikes in the 1200cc region.
 
Most optimal range for cylinders: cc range : avg cruising speed : avg mpg
1cyl: 125-300cc : 35-60 : 80-100
2 cyl: 300-700cc : 50-100 : 60-80
3cyl: 600-1000cc : 60-120 : 40-60
4cyl:1000-1500cc : 75-150 :30-45
 
My apologies if it's not very clear, it's 6:30 AM, and I need a shuteye.

[norcal616]

The CP3 motor puts down 120whp, its dyno graph is almost an identical picture to the GSXS-1000 dyno graph ?