Honda DN-01 700 "Sport Cruiser"

[Ninja Geoff]

That thing's nose fairing is ugly as sin. Other than that, i like it.
scanevalexec wrote: Also the Victory concept bike included an automatic transmission of sorts (what's that belt thing called with the variable pulley?).
Continuously Variable Transmission. It works by keeping in a certain rev range and adjusting the pulleys in a way that speeds up the vehicle. For instance, if you do 1/4 throttle, the motor may only operate at 2,500 rpm. But mash the throttle and the motor will put itself close to redline for the duration of accelerating. So, no building of HP is needed, it's all there from the start. BUT they still have more powerloss than an standard transmission, though not as much as a conventional automatic transmission. Though depiste the constant HP, a standart trans equipped vehicle will still out-accelerate a CVT equipped vehicle. That, or Top Gear lied to me.
From what i've heard, the CVT vehicles drive silky smooth as there's no sudden gear changes, even under hard acceleration.

[scan]

GeoffXR200R wrote: That thing's nose fairing is ugly as sin. Other than that, i like it.

That's actually a good point. If you look at it objectively, it's just a modern cruiser, but they went to far with the sporty fairing. Maybe if they scaled back that look a bit, it wouldn't look so bad.

Or maybe I'm just post whoring to get to 1000 posts. Yeehaw!

:motorcycle:

[Venarius]

Sevulturus wrote: I was sort of agreeing with you Venarius, some of what you were saying was kind of making sense, until you got to the acceleration bit... I've seen first hand the difference between a sportbike, and a cruiser, and well, you live in a fantasy world.

You seem more intent upon proving to us that you got the right bike then actually stating anything.

Test it out.

I'll run my VTX1800 against your sporty. I bet you that I'll get the jump off the line and have the lead up until your sport bike gets to around 25-30 mph and then your engine can spin up and you will pass me.

I'm not saying that I will win the quarter mile against a sport bike, but If we're only talking the length of the intersection you need to cross, My bike will accelerate faster than a sport bike. Even if we're only talking stop light to stop light, I'll at least be able to keep up with your sport bike, you won't be "dusting me".

However, if we were to take it on to the highway where you could utilize your power once your engine spins up enough RPM's, there would be no contest your sport bike would win.

But as I said, if you (sport bike) and I (big twin cruiser) are both stopped at a red light, and an 18 wheeler comes barreling at us from behind, and we both roll on the throttle at the same time...I'll be across the intersection before your sport bike. And its not because cruisers are "power demons" it's simply because they make more torque. My big twin makes more torque at idle than most sports bikes do at peak power.

[Venarius]

or to put it a simpler way...

A sport bike (most likely an inline 4) generates most of its power in the high RMP range. A big V twin generates most of its power before the 3500rpm range.

In the time that it takes the inline 4 (sport bike) to spin up enough RPM's to get into its prime power range, the V-twin will have already hit its peak long before, giving the V-twin bike a jump off the line and a lead up until the inline 4 can spin up to a high RPM. However, once the inline 4 spins up enough RPM's, you will come flying by the vtwin.

It works out to give you the following consequence.

A big twin will have the jump off the line and lead the sport bike up until around 25-30 mph when the sporty will spin up enough RPM to generate the power needed to come flying past the big twin.

Big twin wins to 30mph,
Sport bike wins after that.

Quote: You seem more intent upon proving to us that you got the right bike then actually stating anything.

The right bike...for me.
I'm not trying to preach that sporty's suck and cruisers are the only "real bike"
I'm responding to the original comment of "Cruisers are for fat, old, married guys".

That original statement holds as much water as saying "Sports bikes are for young, immature, boys who want to impress everyone". Someone can't make a blanket statement like that...

Both bikes have pluses and minuses.

[Ninja Geoff]

Venarius wrote: or to put it a simpler way...

A sport bike (most likely an inline 4) generates most of its power in the high RMP range. A big V twin generates most of its power before the 3500rpm range.

In the time that it takes the inline 4 (sport bike) to spin up enough RPM's to get into its prime power range, the V-twin will have already hit its peak long before, giving the V-twin bike a jump off the line and a lead up until the inline 4 can spin up to a high RPM. However, once the inline 4 spins up enough RPM's, you will come flying by the vtwin.

It works out to give you the following consequence.

A big twin will have the jump off the line and lead the sport bike up until around 25-30 mph when the sporty will spin up enough RPM to generate the power needed to come flying past the big twin.

Big twin wins to 30mph,
Sport bike wins after that.

Quote: You seem more intent upon proving to us that you got the right bike then actually stating anything.

The right bike...for me.
I'm not trying to preach that sporty's suck and cruisers are the only "real bike"
I'm responding to the original comment of "Cruisers are for fat, old, married guys".

That original statement holds as much water as saying "Sports bikes are for young, immature, boys who want to impress everyone". Someone can't make a blanket statement like that...

Both bikes have pluses and minuses.
That's why you rev high and slip the clutch on a sport bike. And i don't think taking all of 2 seconds to get to 30 mph is slow.

[Venarius]

2004 GSXR-750
0-60 = 3.06 seconds

2003 VTX 1800
0-60 = 3.5 seconds.

My bike is only .44 seconds slower 0-60 than a GSXR-750...and it weighs over 300 pounds more.



Unless your actually running them up to top speeds (135mph+) the speed differences are not as great as you think.

[scan]

True or not, you are only serving to agitate folks with this line of defensivness. You're the best dude. Take it easy. We all wish we bought your bike.

[Venarius]

woah there killer. Chill I havn't said anything of the sort...remember how I started on the defensive here to the "cruisers are for fat, old, married guys".

I havn't said anything short of trying to disprove an ignorant assumption.

Why are you trying to make it seem like I'm on the offensive trying to convince everyone that their choice is wrong.

Show me where I said anything about sport bikes being a "bad" bike to own, or even where I really degraded sport bikes.

Just cause you all got your panies in a twist when I point out that the performance difference between a cruiser and sporty is not everything your penis envy desired...and then back it up with facts...doesn't mean I'm bashin sport bikes.

[Ninja Geoff]

Venarius wrote: 2004 GSXR-750
0-60 = 3.06 seconds

2003 VTX 1800
0-60 = 3.5 seconds.

My bike is only .44 seconds slower 0-60 than a GSXR-750...and it weighs over 300 pounds more.



Unless your actually running them up to top speeds (135mph+) the speed differences are not as great as you think. the 750 does it with less than half the displacment.

[Venarius]

and? It also does it on a bike thats almost half the weight...


Fine, when they make the 1800CC inline 4 then your performance will be worlds away...

But right now, in the real world of Bike's offered,
We can only use what's already out there.

Your point that it takes less than half the displacement is moot. All it does is serve to underline my original fact, big twins are that way to make the power down low. Your lighter, smaller displacement inline 4 makes power up high. You can't design a high revving big v-twin without sacrificing torque.

the bigger the pistons, the more power (torque) each pulse produces but the extra mass prevents it from spinning up to a higher RPM needed for high HP.

[scan]

Cool enough. I've over-reacted.

I'm old, fat and married, dude. And I ride a naked, retro crotch-rocket. I hate calling it that. I always say "it’s a standard".

So anyway, it did sound a bit like you were working pretty hard to validate your point, and printed words can sometimes be missing inflection, or tone of your point.

I think most things on two wheels are pretty damn fast, and there are many numbers to support the argument either way.

The VTX1300 (ok, so I couldn't dig up 1800 quickly enough, but stick with me for a moment)
60 hp @5000 -77 ft lbs @ 3000

The 599 is 89 hp @9750 -47 ft lbs 9700

So yeah, you can see the torque is on early for the VTX (even 1300), but you reach a maximum hp available sooner. The 599 can pull up more revs and use the HP where torque for the size of a bike becomes irrelevant.

So each has it virtues.

112 @8500 - 80 ft lbs @6750 is a lot of fun, I can tell you from personal ZRX saddle experience.

It’s that we ride, not what - right?

Sorry for over-playing your intent.

:rockon:

[Venarius]

I agree, your point about the 1300 and 599 is exactly on

Horsepower is actually a factor involving RPM and torque. the faster a engine spins the higher the RPM. 4's have small pistons, twins have large pistons. The larger pistons generate more power per pulse, but their larger mass prohibits them from spinning up to astronomical RPM's of nice inline 4 sport bikes. The smaller pistons in the sporty generate less power per pulse (little power at beginning of powerband) but their less mass lets them rev up to very high RPM, what, almost 17,000 RPM on a R-6 and my X can only rev to 5750 RPM.

And just if your interested...

The 1300 you quoted has times/power similiar to the 1200 sportster's and the such. The 1800 runs with about 105 foot pounds and 100hp. My bike, an S model (retro spoke wheels) weighs 750 pounds. So its quite heavy. As far as times, the 1800 runs a 0-60 in 3.5 and a quarter in mid 12's.

Just for the sake of knowledge.

I[m really interested to see what kind of times this new DN-01 has. With the little twin (mine's almost 3 times the displacement) I wonder... hopefully they designed it very light weight...

See ya out there.

[freebird]

RE: "I'm really interested to see what kind of times this new DN-01 has. With the little twin (mine's almost 3 times the displacement) I wonder... hopefully they designed it very light weight..."

The 2006 Deauville-700 will share the same engine as the DN-01. The 2006 Deauville Sport-Touring model with hard bags and large fuel tank weighs 520-lbs dry and 566-lbs wet. I would expect the DN-01 to weigh less. With most Harleys weighing 700-lbs and putting out 50-hp, the Deaville at about 500-lbs and 65-hp should do just fine for the intended market. The Deauville-700 will be out in March... I'll be curious to see the reviews on the engine performance.

Here are the 2006 Deauville specs:

ENGINE
Type Liquid-cooled 4-stroke 8-valve SOHC 52° V-twin
Displacement 680.2cm3
Bore x Stroke 81 x 66mm
Compression Ratio 10 : 1
Max. Power Output 48.3kW/8,000min-1 (95/1/EC)
Max. Torque 66.2Nm/6,500min-1 (95/1/EC)
Idling Speed 1,200min-1
Oil Capacity 3.2 litres

WEIGHT (DEAUVILLE)
Dry Weight 236kg
Kerb Weight 257kg

"The Deauville’s new, freer breathing combustion chambers and improved fuel delivery system combine to realise remarkably improved power output and performance. In fact, its stronger surge of power, especially as it translates to roll-on performance, is much more impressive than its mere 33cm3 increase in displacement would suggest."

---------------------------------------

[jmillheiser]

Honda needs to bring that 700 v-twin to the US market, would be perfect to compete with the SV650

[Venarius]

See that's why I think this bike is born to fail.

With something this radical in designe Honda needs to back it up with a more powerful engine. I would be interested with that if it had 120hp and at least 65 foot pounds....maybe throw a RC51 V in there, or hell, even (I know its not quite the engine for the specs I want) their V twin 1800 in there.

But maybe I'm wrong. I know lots of people are intersted in bikes now that they are becoming shiftless, but I however would refuse to buy a bike with a clutch and all.

But I think that this design will do better in Japan than the US...until Honda realizes that we american's like things big and want more power.