0-60

[DanH]

LBS I have the same aversion to owning any bike that can't ride 'slow' I test rode 14 bikes before i got the NC and have to say that although they were all bar one absolutely amazing machines the majority of them failed on the slow riding, The only ones that could do it were all the Triumphs (maybe its a 3 cylinder thing) and the NC
Mike

My final choice came down to the Triumph Tiger or the NCX - $4000 cheaper and a frunk made the choice easy.

 

[bo7o]

I leave every car in the rear view mirror... Without even trying, so the power is just fine with me. I think it encourages good decisions, especially when already going 65mph.

@westgl more pics of your stripped down goldwing - it looks awesome... Great idea!

 

[Rocker66]

View attachment 4536For my adrenalin runs i jump on one of my Goldwings,

Here is a picture of one of my wings a 86' that was fully faired, Faring, trunk, saddlebags, it was 700-Lbs fully dressed, But now she has Gone Naked,

and she now weighs 550-Lbs I took off everything I could to get the weight down and also put on some 80's goldwing parts as well as others to make her a little custom

also converted her to a single seat and 59' caddy tail lights

I have to say once you get all the weight off of the earlier Goldwing and add good rubber, they handle very well, the weight is surprisingly low, Brakes are also very good

Now she is down to approx 550-Lbs and 97 h.p. = 5.67 Lbs per H.P. and she still gets 42-46mpg

But still Nothing is better than the NC700X, One Throttle Body, No carb syncing.

To bad that Honda didn't go with hydraulic lifter's on the NC700X

The more I look at that picture the more I like your Wing

 

[Beemerphile]

0-60 performance is important to me for getting up to speed on a busy highway when entering from a side street. The road that I live on intersects a main highway just down from the top of a hill. Cars top the hill at speed and there is little reaction time (especially for distracted drivers) to brake for an accelerating vehicle. However, the 0-60 of the NC is completely adequate for me. I agree with the comparison to what we consider to be quick cars. When I leave in my little 4-cylinder Toyota Tacoma I have to stomp it hard and hope. My M35A2 Army truck is way worse than the Toyota, however in that case it is THEY who are in jeopardy. I would probably not even hear the crash over the roar of the turbo diesel.

0-60 in, uh, well, it won't DO 60 for very long without blowing up!

 

[dog]

0-60 in, uh, well, it won't DO 60 for very long without blowing up!

I believe I drove one of those from Cairo to Alexandria when we shut down after Bright Star '85 and I'm fairly sure we were doing around 60 most of the way. In any case, hope you wear ear plugs when you drive it.

 

[Beemerphile]

I believe I drove one of those from Cairo to Alexandria when we shut down after Bright Star '85 and I'm fairly sure we were doing around 60 most of the way. In any case, hope you wear ear plugs when you drive it.

I don't have a motor pool with spare crate motors to toss in when I bin one, so I limit my 1970 multifuel to 2,500 RPM. It will do more than that. Also, in 1985 you would have probably had the M35A3 with Cat diesel motor. It will do 60 all day long.

 

[westgl]

That is one Big Heavy truck, it is a Nice looking truck

I'll bet a rogue deer crossing in front of you doesn't make you flinch, poor deer, more like deer pate, or is it deer grease

 

[frozenpoet]

deer tartar

 

[tew47]

I guess if the NC is turning 3229 rpm @ 60 mph that's right at 18.6 miles per hour per thousand rpms in 6th gear.

 

[PPWW]

It's 1 AM in here and - suddenly - I am hungry...

There goes the diet, cheers guys!

 

[westgl]

I want to take a picture of my warthog Goldwing Next to, side by side with the NC700X as a comparison to see the size difference in length and would it be width or is it girth

The more I look at that picture the more I like your Wing

 

[westgl]

one is enough

 

[Mr_Krabs]

Test's done by cycle world magazine on a manual non abs model
1/4-mile 13.86 sec. @ 94.23 mph
0-30 mph 1.6 sec.
0-60 mph 4.9 sec.
0-90 mph 11.9 sec.
0-100 mph 17.3 sec.
Top gear time to speed:
40-60 mph 6.9 sec.
60-80 mph 8.7 sec.
Measured top speed 111 mph
Engine speed at 60 mph 3229 rpm

And my favorite part =)
View attachment 2210

gotta love that torque curve, this looks very much like my friends 2001 GSR integra's TQ and HP curves. Looking at this im gunna go out on a limb and guess our bikes have variable valve timing.. at least on the intake

These things were important to know to me before buying the bike, because a lot of reviewers state how it is "no sport bike" when you accelerate, which was fine for me as long as it was faster than my car =). I could not own a bike that was not at least a couple seconds faster than my car 0-60.

No variable valve timing. A flat torque curve is what's achievable with long stroke and decent tuning. People assume things like VTEC is made for increasing top end power. That's actually a false assumption. Even in the 1980's with carbed motorcycles with fixed timing, when they're tuned for top end power their power outputs were insane and comparable to engines even today. A 750cc carburetted super sport in the 1980's made about 105 hp. A modern day GSXR 750 makes about 123 hp so no huge difference. In peak power.

The difference is better engine management and design enable a flatter torque curve. VTEC is really just a way to enhance lower RPM engine torque and fuel efficiency. It's the ricer that believes it was made to give more power.

 

[Bubba Satori]

A 750cc carburetted super sport in the 1980's made about 105 hp.
A modern day GSXR 750 makes about 123 hp so no huge difference. In peak power.

The '81 CB750F made about 72bhp at the rear wheel, not 105bhp,
and was the most powerful 750 at the time.
The latest GSXR has in fact doubled it up.

Honda CB750F

 

[westgl]

Here I took a quick picture of my warthog next to my NC7X to get an idea if the size difference.

As you can see there was some liquid sunshine coming down, so i wanted to get the bikes out of that so they didn't melt

 

[westgl]

1st picture is warthog's brother

2nd picture is another project called 4cylinder Valkyrie, since Honda never made one i decided to build one myself, it is still a project till I can get my new shop up and going.

This bike will use a Harley street glide style puller shock, instead of the normal compression style shock, shock position will be under the bike instead of typical between the swing arm and under seat frame attachment

 

[Rocker66]

Hey westgl do you have to keep posting pictures of that Wing? It makes me really envious

 

[Mr_Krabs]

The '81 CB750F made about 72bhp at the rear wheel, not 105bhp,
and was the most powerful 750 at the time.
The latest GSXR has in fact doubled it up.

Honda CB750F

That wasn't a power tuned engine, it was a relic from the 60's held over years for the longest time. When Honda designed a purpose built power tuned engine they got it right, a 1986 VFR 750 made 100 hp, so did the air cooled 1985 GSXR 750. So only a few years later did a giant leap in power occur, from then on peak power only incrementally went up.

And take a look when the GSXR bikes got water cooled, 1992 GSXR 750's made 118 hp. 20 years later a fully modern GSXR makes 123 hp. 20 years and only 5 hp.

 

[Rocker66]

Power increases were limited due to the ever increasing legislation on emissions and noise especially in Europe

 

[Mr_Krabs]

You can't just blanketly blame smog regulations. New technology has overcome the previous power robbing limitations of smog devices. If you take a look at comparable car engines, say a 1985 carburetted Honda Civic, with a 1.5 liter engine and all of 63 horsepower, and a new Honda Fit v-tec, which still is a long stroke torque tuned engine, you've got a massive increase in horsepower to 109 hp using the same displacement. It's just with long stroke torque tuned engines there was more power simply to be unlocked. It definitely isn't smog equipment holding back the development of engine power. It's actually physics holding back the engine.

When it came to high power to displacement N/A engines we've actually been able to extract nearly all the power theoretically available since the 1970's. Heck some of the most powerful F1 cars ever were made in the 1980's before they realized the engines had too much power. All it really takes is high airflow rates and a short stroke large diameter piston so the piston doesn't exceed the speed of the combustion. The incremental increases in power of these high revving designs were usually due to better materials and manufacturing not the basic design of the engine which roughly uses the same formula of short stroke large bore large valve area. It's just that those engines were peaky, finicky, and undriveable in the real world. With modern electronics and injection we're able to have the power of the peaky engines but the tractability and torque of more traditional tamer engines.