Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Weird my CX500 feels heavier than the vulcan 1600. Then again the CX was known for being really top heavy

I have a Vulcan 800 and I love it, but I dont have much to compare it to because it's my first bike, however my Husband has a Vulcan 1600 and he loves to ride my 800. He takes it around town like a ten speed bike.

I've been riding for 33 of my 55 years. I've learned that bigger is not always better. When I started riding, my Honda 350 was considered a mid-sized bike. A 750 was a monster. I just shake my head in bewilderment when I see 750cc bikes referred to as "starter bikes". That's just plain wrong. Someone who has never driven a motorcycle should not be starting out on one that weighs 600 pounds, as my XS750 Yamaha does. Bike manufacturers realized long ago that it's all about testosterone levels. Who's got the biggest "fill in the blank". The engine in my first car was 1200cc. Now they make motorcycles with 2000cc engines. That is completely ludicrous. But of course, there is always someone who is willing to pay whatever they must for the bragging rights of owning the biggest. I am 6 feet tall and weigh 215 pounds. I would think nothing of loading up my 750 and driving from Maine to California. What possible use anyone could have for a bike with an engine twice the size is beyond my comprehension. When they got to 1500cc, I thought the situation was out of control. Where does it end?

If saying so makes you feel better about owning a "smaller" bike, go right ahead. Some of us, however, like to get our 600lb+ machines going in a hurry at times and enjoy cruising at 80mph while spinning a meager 3700rpm. Furthermore, a bike's balance has far more to do with its candidacy as a beginner bike than does its weight. Just because a bike weighs 600lbs doesn't mean a beginner should automatically steer clear of it. There are some seriously top-heavy 500's out there that I wouldn't wish upon a newbie.

like mine. My CX is quite top heavy, I can handle it but I would not wish it on a shorter person.

I have sat on 600lb cruisers that feel lighter and easier to handle at low speeds than my 471lb CX500

"If saying so makes you feel better about owning a "smaller" bike, go right ahead."
So a 750 is a smaller bike than a 1500. Where does it end? When they are making 3000cc bikes, will you just have to have one because that little 1500 is just an embarassment?

"Some of us, however, like to get our 600lb+ machines going in a hurry at times and enjoy cruising at 80mph while spinning a meager 3700rpm"
What's that got to do with a total novice learning how to drive a motorcycle safely?
One of the main reasons I'm still riding after 33 years of riding is that I don't do things like cruise at 80mph. Ever seen what hamburger helper looks like in the skillet before you cook it? How 'bout sticking to the posted speed limit instead of giving us all a bad name.
I understand what you're saying about the importance of balance vs. weight. Nonetheless, 600 pounds is 600 pounds regardless of how it's balanced. I'm hoping my son will want to learn to ride. Of course I'm hoping that will go smoothly, but if I do have to pick up a bike off of him in a parking lot, I'd much rather it be a 250 pound bike than a 600 pound bike.

brucealmighty wrote:One of the main reasons I'm still riding after 33 years

Then you obviously remember when a 350 was considered to be a mid-range bike and a 750 was a big bike. I remember when the first Gold Wing came on the scene; so many people thought that a 1,000cc flat four was pure overkill back then. Now it seems that 1,000cc is almost in the beginner bike range. I found that my old 1100 Sportster had more than enough "oomph" to handle traffic situations, now the new 1200 version is considered as an entry-level machine. 1340cc Harleys were just fine IMO, but my new Superglide came with a 1,450cc powerplant, apparently in response to customer requests for bigger engines. If I wanted to, I could drop some serious coin and turn it into a 1,690cc unit using factory parts but I just don't see the need when the stock motor is perfectly capable of carrying me along at the speed limit (and, um, sometimes in excess of it).

You are so right about "where does it end". As long as there are people out there who mistakenly think that bigger is better, the manufacturers will continue to crank out larger displacement machines. Does one REALLY need a six cylinder 1,800cc Gold wing? Or a three cylinder 2,200cc Triumph Rocket Three? Cr*p on a stick, they make CAR engines smaller than that!

Well, for those that like less horsepower and more than two wheels...
























RollerCycle Personal Power Accelerator

While this should appear as a strikingly bad idea to the lot of you, I’m sure there’s one of two “extreme” folk out there, salivating at the RollerCycle—a 1.5 hp engine that ups your max speed, on blades, to 25 mph. Honestly, I have not the words, except to say Cycle at your own peril. Just $450 with a signed insurance waiver.

Gummiente wrote: Does one REALLY need a six cylinder 1,800cc Gold wing?

Yep. I've ridden the 1200 and the 1500 and the 1800 that I followed through Rogers Pass a couple of years convinced me that it was a good move......
Could they have done it with less ccs? Probably. But that 1800 handles WAY better than 1200 or 1500 could have ever imagined.... The extra ccs did not hurt a thing in this case...

brucealmighty wrote:So a 750 is a smaller bike than a 1500. Where does it end?

Where ever the market says it ends. The V8 powered Boss Hoss sells just fine, after all.

brucealmighty wrote:When they are making 3000cc bikes, will you just have to have one because that little 1500 is just an embarassment?

I didn't buy my 1600 because my NightHawk 700SC was an "embarrassment". I wanted more power because I was tired of losing speed to a headwind and having to drop two gears to locate adequate passing power. If your 750 meets your needs just fine that's great. My dad's 800 is, according to him, more than enough. But then again, we ride differently.

brucealmighty wrote:

ZooTech wrote:Some of us, however, like to get our 600lb+ machines going in a hurry at times and enjoy cruising at 80mph while spinning a meager 3700rpm

What's that got to do with a total novice learning how to drive a motorcycle safely?

Nothing. You're mixing messages.

brucealmighty wrote:One of the main reasons I'm still riding after 33 years of riding is that I don't do things like cruise at 80mph. Ever seen what hamburger helper looks like in the skillet before you cook it? How 'bout sticking to the posted speed limit instead of giving us all a bad name.

Where I live, you either cruise at 80mph or you become Hamburger Helper. It's called "riding with the flow of traffic".

brucealmighty wrote:I understand what you're saying about the importance of balance vs. weight. Nonetheless, 600 pounds is 600 pounds regardless of how it's balanced.

That couldn't be more incorrect. A motorcycle's center of mass is an extremely important consideration when determining if it makes for a good starter bike or not.

brucealmighty wrote: I'm hoping my son will want to learn to ride. Of course I'm hoping that will go smoothly, but if I do have to pick up a bike off of him in a parking lot, I'd much rather it be a 250 pound bike than a 600 pound bike.

Again you're mixing messages. Of course a 250lb bike would be easier to pick up than a 600lb bike. But I guarantee you my 1600cc Mean Streak would be easier to pick up than the CX500 I had. I once lost my balance on said CX500 just from putting up the kickstand, and that thing went over so fast and so hard I thought all was lost. It took every ounce of strength to keep that thing from touching down. My Vulcan, on the other hand, leaned just as far one day when I pulled-in to a spray booth and the front wheel slipped on the soapy drain, and it didn't require near as much effort to recover it.

Point being, a bike's engine size and/or it's overall weight are not tell-tale indications of whether or not it's appropriate for use by a novice.