2014 Honda CTX700 Threadfest

[GrahamD]

Looks like it's coming to OZ. Mid year launch, ready for spring over here.

[mrbreeze]

Originally Posted by L.B.S.

I think he was referencing the picture of the CB1100R concept cafe racer shown a few posts up, not the new production F.

you are correct, thank you. I guess I should have been more clear.

[Dranrab Luap]

Originally Posted by flatboarder

No. The NC700X is not at all similar to the CTX. Apart from utilizing the same engine basically, maybe sharing some parts and datasheet numbers, these are totally different bikes. I cannot see anything relevant that would make them appear similar.

Looking at the datasheets, the CTX thing now became more clear to me. These new bikes are very cheap, considerably cheaper than the NC. They appear to be targeted to the US market, and I guess this makes sense. Once more I may say, as an NC700X rider I really like this concept (with only one downside: the massive weight), I would always prefer it over a Versys, and I am far from calling it a beginners bike, but on the other hand, I would not consider getting the CTX; well knowing the engine is fun to ride, but the bike is out of my personal scope. Nothing wrong with this, in general.

According to http://www.hondanews.com/channels/po...9&page_size=20
(see concept bike images) Honda perfectly knows how to create a real cool NC700X.

I haven't seen the weight published. What is it listed at?

[flatboarder]

Originally Posted by Dranrab Luap

I haven't seen the weight published. What is it listed at?

478.4 pounds

http://powersports.honda.com/documen...700N_Specs.pdf

(Source: http://www.nc700x.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25877#p25877)

[ET-VT]

Originally Posted by flatboarder

No. The NC700X is not at all similar to the CTX. Apart from utilizing the same engine basically, maybe sharing some parts and datasheet numbers, these are totally different bikes. I cannot see anything relevant that would make them appear similar.

The first-look articles I've read say that it uses the same frame as the NC bikes, just with a little lazier rake.

"The low-slung, tubular-steel chassis is also identical to the NC700..."

[mrbreeze]

Cycle World is making some more info available:

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/02/08...MzExMDgxOTc2S0

"we believe its class-leading features and high level of value will appeal to many riders who have been waiting to begin their riding experience with a full-featured yet affordable automatic-transmission bike. we believe its class-leading features and high level of value will appeal to many riders who have been waiting to begin their riding experience with a full-featured yet affordable automatic-transmission bike. " - Honda Press Release

The release goes on to state: “These new models introduced today are just the first in a whole new family of CTX products of various displacements and engine configurations that will be rolled out in the future.”

Various displacements and engine configurations !

[RaY YreKa]

Originally Posted by flatboarder

478.4 pounds

http://powersports.honda.com/documen...700N_Specs.pdf

(Source: http://www.nc700x.de/forum/viewtopic...=25877#p25877)

Heavier than the 500 series then, which are about 430lbs curb weight, afaik.

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by Maytag Repairman

Just wanted to throw in that the CTX series is supposed to eventually come in multiple displacements. I have not heard if any will be larger.

That would be a new engine, which defeats the purpose (unless they'll bring out the new engine to the whole NC/CTX range) actually, even if they do that, what would be the point? A larger engine would kill mpg, and they'd need to beef up the chassis for the whole line to boot.

Seems sort of silly, unless they're going to make larger displacement bikes with similar ergos? I dunno - thats what has everyone in the thread so pissed. We'll see.

[dirtdreamer50]

Originally Posted by flatboarder

No. The NC700X is not at all similar to the CTX. Apart from utilizing the same engine basically, maybe sharing some parts and datasheet numbers, these are totally different bikes. I cannot see anything relevant that would make them appear similar.

Looking at the datasheets, the CTX thing now became more clear to me. These new bikes are very cheap, considerably cheaper than the NC. They appear to be targeted to the US market, and I guess this makes sense. Once more I may say, as an NC700X rider I really like this concept (with only one downside: the massive weight), I would always prefer it over a Versys, and I am far from calling it a beginners bike, but on the other hand, I would not consider getting the CTX; well knowing the engine is fun to ride, but the bike is out of my personal scope. Nothing wrong with this, in general.

According to http://www.hondanews.com/channels/po...9&page_size=20
(see concept bike images) Honda perfectly knows how to create a real cool NC700X.

They are more alike than you may like, but the NC and CTX share the new Honda concept of interchangeable motorcycles. One looks cruiserish, the other adventurish, but under the skin they basically handle, accelerate .and sell for about the same. That's why I posted the video. It described those aspects of the Honda concept line. .

[L.B.S.]

Originally Posted by ph0rk

That would be a new engine, which defeats the purpose (unless they'll bring out the new engine to the whole NC/CTX range) actually, even if they do that, what would be the point? A larger engine would kill mpg, and they'd need to beef up the chassis for the whole line to boot.

Seems sort of silly, unless they're going to make larger displacement bikes with similar ergos? I dunno - thats what has everyone in the thread so pissed. We'll see.

"kill" mpg might be a little strong of a guess, I think.

My F800ST is 800cc, and an "Old Concept" engine and I got a true 65 US mpg on it easily, fully decked out with maxed saddlebags, top case and camping gear for a month, and I was consistantly at the bottom of the whole Fuelly lot, when it came to economy figures!

Would you complain of an 1100cc NC engine bike that got "only" 60 mpg instead of low 30's or 40's?

[RaY YreKa]

Originally Posted by L.B.S.

"kill" mpg might be a little strong of a guess, I think.

My F800ST is 800cc, and an "Old Concept" engine and I got a true 65 US mpg on it easily, fully decked out with maxed saddlebags, top case and camping gear for a month, and I was consistantly at the bottom of the whole Fuelly lot, when it came to economy figures!

Would you complain of an 1100cc NC engine bike that got "only" 60 mpg instead of low 30's or 40's?

I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison, in the sense that BMW and Honda are the only marques paying attention to mpg. I think both are ahead of the curve.

For the opposite stance, see Aprilia and the RSV4 and Tuono; 25 mpg imperial. In today's economic reality, older mpg bikes are as relevant to the average buyer as fossils in bedrock.

For me, there's no point owning a bike I can't afford to fuel up. I don't like garage queens.

[xrcris]

Originally Posted by RaY YreKa

I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison, in the sense that BMW and Honda are the only marques paying attention to mpg. I think both are ahead of the curve.

For the opposite stance, see Aprilia and the RSV4 and Tuono; 25 mpg imperial. In today's economic reality, older mpg bikes are as relevant to the average buyer as fossils in bedrock.

For me, there's no point owning a bike I can't afford to fuel up. I don't like garage queens.

The only way you can mention the RSV4 and these turds in the same sentence,is: "what two motorcycles are at the opposite ends of the performance/fun/cool/desirable spectrum?"

[mrbreeze]

Originally Posted by ph0rk

That would be a new engine, which defeats the purpose (unless they'll bring out the new engine to the whole NC/CTX range) actually, even if they do that, what would be the point? A larger engine would kill mpg, and they'd need to beef up the chassis for the whole line to boot.

Seems sort of silly, unless they're going to make larger displacement bikes with similar ergos? I dunno - thats what has everyone in the thread so pissed. We'll see.

I would be willing to trade some of the mpg for a bit more oomph - I am sure that if Honda intends to add a bigger and more powerfule engine to the existing chassis, they designed the chassis with that in mind...

[mrbreeze]

Originally Posted by xrcris

The only way you can mention the RSV4 and these turds in the same sentence,is: "what two motorcycles are at the opposite ends of the performance/fun/cool/desirable spectrum?"

yeah, I'm not impressed with the RSV4 either.

[dirtdreamer50]

Originally Posted by mrbreeze

yeah, I'm not impressed with the RSV4 either.

Now that's funny. Thanks for the chuckle... tp