[westgl]

I do Not Like a Top heavy Pig.

I hope the CTX1300 will have a Low CG like they say it will.

I was surprised by the NC700x and how light it felt, even though it was a 600+ pound bike, it did not feel that heavy.

I have come to the conclusion through my bike riding career that I really like a bike that feels light and nimble, with a fairly quick turn in.

The test ride should tell the full story

 

[cheeken]

From the design it seems like the COG is pretty low

But I won't know until I ride one myself.

 

[westgl]

I would like to know what they did to take the CG from high on a ST1300 to lower on a CTX1300.

Is the engine mounted lower in the chassis?
I think I read the tank/fuel is mounted lower, to get the weight down.

But is the CG low enough, for me and my discerning tastes in bikes

 

[Gizmo]

I would like to know what they did to take the CG from high on a ST1300 to lower on a CTX1300.

Is the engine mounted lower in the chassis?
I think I read the tank/fuel is mounted lower, to get the weight down.

But is the CG low enough, for me and my discerning tastes in bikes

Truth of the matter, the ST 1300 has a 7.7 gallon fuel tank. Most of the fuel, when full, sits right in front of you as you sit on the bike. Talking with ST 1300 owners, they say if you only fuel up to about 3-4 gallons, the "top heaviness" disappears because now the fuel sits in the lower fuel tank/main tank. Personally, IF I owned a ST 1100/1300, which I always "kind of" wanted (V-4 fan), I would ONLY gas up IF I was making a "long" ride (over 200-250 miles) on good highway roads, non-stop.

 

[cheeken]

The tank is high up. Like always

The motor does seem to be low enough. But it does look like alot of the bike is up top

Its hard to say.. You really have to ride one to get a feel for it.

 

[SoCalRyder]

How the exhaust is mounted seems like heat coming from it wont be an issue at all. Still would like to hear what a reviewer has to say about it.

 

[Firenzen007]

The gas is under the seat; it just looks like it has a regular tank. It is evident Honda has worked very hard to make this new CTX Series, total Game Changers and low CG was a top target. This all said, it also requires a fine balance of art and science to successfully advance game changers; too easy to push past the "bleeding edge...". So as one example, it LOOKS like it has the gas in the usual place.

 

[scott]

I read about the gas actually being under the seat. It should make the 750 pouds be easier to handle that way.

 

[cheeken]

The gas is under the seat; it just looks like it has a regular tank. It is evident Honda has worked very hard to make this new CTX Series, total Game Changers and low CG was a top target. This all said, it also requires a fine balance of art and science to successfully advance game changers; too easy to push past the "bleeding edge...". So as one example, it LOOKS like it has the gas in the usual place.

That is what I've read too

But we will see

I'm not too worried though.

 

[SoCalRyder]

I read about the gas actually being under the seat. It should make the 750 pouds be easier to handle that way.

Yeah thats what I was thinking just after finding out where the gas tank location was. Would love to hear what some reviewer has to say about riding the CTX and how the gas tank location has improved it's riding dynamics

 

[sleepngbear]

It just looks lower than the ST. That can't just be an optical illusion. Seating position is higher on the ST. It also has a lot of bodywork up there. And there's the fuel tank under the seat, as a few have already pointed out. I can't imagine the CTX 1300 not feeling less top-heavy.

 

[westgl]

I would like to see a over lay of the two bikes.

I know that Honda has really been making strives to get much better riding bikes, on their newer models by lowering the CG substantially.

I hope this is the case on the CTX1300.

 

[cheeken]

wonder when is the next opportunity for any of us to sit on a CTX1300 in person..

 

[PanzerRider]

You should keep an eye out for your local motorcycle shows and see if anything pops up at the Honda booth.

 

[Firenzen007]

First of all, sorry for all the text. *I'm sure someone will be offended so fair warning I need a *great* editor for my own biz plus have a cold; hence patience genuinely appreciated, okay?!

I will wager someone viewing this thread, or perhaps already signed as a member, enjoys doing the physics/ math on such "puzzles." *I admit I was known to at least try a bit of that, WAY back. *But then the puzzles of life and biz, largely displaced my own "extra cycles", so-to-speak, for my even wanting to attempt dusting off my math and physics/similar, from far too long prior...

This said, seems that some of the key, most obvious considerations for the challenge of lowering CG here, would include:

1) Rider's own weight. *Surely FAR too simplistically (I mean dusty recall on such calculus!); you lower the average Rider's own CG placement by say just two inches and that's going to have a bigger effect than lowering roughly 40ish lbs or so last I reminded myself what gas weighs and the tank size/ likely weight here, by six inches. *This variable is also obviously a function relative to the weight of the bike. *Small displacement sport bikes ridden by big riders obviously "care more" than big cruisers ridden by "light as a bird," riders. *(WARNING: bad puns set ups!)

A) Of course, designers of small sport bikes will surely cry "foul" (or "fowl" in comparison?!), as designers for cruisers "get to" consider their more commonly "porcine" riders. *Sorry guys; but we gotta face facts, right?! *

B) No question mass kills or protects. *Cruisers FAR (!) too often see their design limits exceeded and I guarantee this plays into the increased death rate trending markedly in more recent years to cruiser riders versus the years ago sports bike youngsters. *Age does, too; how often did a rider simply have a heart attack and then missed that curve? *But I digress...

C) To further complicate such considerations a bit, you might successfully build and market (!) a sport cruiser *sporty enough,* such that you manage to actually shift the market appeal enough, resulting in "weighty impacts," so-to-speak, to your rider demographics. *Flash forward two years and perhaps CTX1300 riders will tend to be more physically fit and trim than some other brands' typical "porker" (I'm starting to Puns-Pain myself here so hopefully not too many others of you are too-pained now also). *I further suspect I'm risking getting into "endless loop" zone with all the variables, too?!

2) shaft drive isn't light. *Especially when most cruisers use belts. *Advantage to Honda here obviously due shaft is nice and low. *Of course, it isn't quite centered so that needs weighed in.

3) engine and driveline inclusive of counterbalancers, of course. *All else "being equal," four cylinders weigh more than two and air cooled will be lighter. *And configuration/ layout obviously plays in. *A clean sheet design helps and Honda clearly did that here. *With virtually everything. *

...prudent, smart and clearly ultimately also; good for us!

4) obvious offsets above Target CG by fairing, etc.

5). And surely centering and tires. *For example, we all know how "squared off" tires, can find our bikes feeling like they drop off a cliff, when we're riding to those edges. *And by centering here, I especially mean that clearly if you have "too wide" a mass, the progression as you lean off center is going to want the bike to drop too fast, etc. *

For fun now (to someone...heck, anyone?) here, I'm also thinking we'd presumably also want more "linear" progression as we lean the bike. *This as opposed to, shall we say, "Richter Scale" like. *Yup, I mean geometric/ exponential, much like earthquakes! *I did say for fun; we've all felt our own "earth move" in moments of panic as we lose our balance, right?!

Okay then, I just hurt my head and it already hurt from my head cold! *So I should stop before i go Hog Wild with all this...

I look forward to some of you folks far less dusty on such toolsets/ considerations to correct any of my folly here or otherwise weigh in with your thoughts; light or otherwise! *And for my part at least, I'm far more inclined nowadays to much prefer the real world experience (the ride!) as opposed to reading, visualizing it or otherwise hoping "digital" will suffice, to say the least...

Sent from my iPad

 

[Firenzen007]

Well that's interesting and annoying, sorry; haven't seen that EVER happen before. At any forum. All those asterisks when I cut and paste from my iPad. To try and edit some to make reading hopefully at least a bit friendly for everyone. Seasonal Humbug!

 

[sleepngbear]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what any of that was about. Now my head hurts, too.

 

[Firenzen007]

I Did Also Find My Own T'Bird 1600 SE Great Therapy for Hurting Head & More

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what any of that was about. Now my head hurts, too.

Small world there, Sleepngbear. That I'd "hurt your head" sooner, it seems, than others. This due I very nearly also did a post about the small world (relative to real and not complex math now) of our both having Triumph's new, Cruiser of the Year twice-in-row, from Cruiserworld, I think it awarded same?

So we would both know just a bit more than most cruiser riders as regards, the REAL world impacts of good low GC planning and builds. Which Triumph did very nicely with this current generation and upsized T'Bird! I'm convinced the heavy counterbalancers they needed helped with that, while also helping with momentum, I'm guessing, for very respectable mileage. If we ride according, of course given it's clear Power Cruiser credentials.

Sorry We're not closer or I'd offer you a therapy ride and a brew after. I owe you at least that, after also hurting your head, too.

 

[sleepngbear]

Small world there, Sleepngbear. That I'd "hurt your head" sooner, it seems, than others. This due I very nearly also did a post about the small world (relative to real and not complex math now) of our both having Triumph's new, Cruiser of the Year twice-in-row, from Cruiserworld, I think it awarded same?

So we would both know just a bit more than most cruiser riders as regards, the REAL world impacts of good low GC planning and builds. Which Triumph did very nicely with this current generation and upsized T'Bird! I'm convinced the heavy counterbalancers they needed helped with that, while also helping with momentum, I'm guessing, for very respectable mileage. If we ride according, of course given it's clear Power Cruiser credentials.

Sorry We're not closer or I'd offer you a therapy ride and a brew after. I owe you at least that, after also hurting your head, too.

Hmmmm... not exactly neighbors, are we. Another T-bird owner, eh? Would we also agree that it isn't that bike's shortcomings that have us ogling this latest offering from our Asian compadres? 'Cos as a power cruiser, it sure doesn't have many.

Well, the thought is much appreciated anyway, and I'd be happy to indulge in a brew as well.

 

[Firenzen007]

Difficult to Have Been More Thrilled w/ The Bird

Hmmmm... not exactly neighbors, are we. Another T-bird owner, eh? Would we also agree that it isn't that bike's shortcomings that have us ogling this latest offering from our Asian compadres? 'Cos as a power cruiser, it sure doesn't have many.

Well, the thought is much appreciated anyway, and I'd be happy to indulge in a brew as well.

Absolute agreement here. Just as SO very many Thunderbird Forum owners have made clear; the Triumph T'Bird 1600 & 1700 consistently ranks as the overwhelmingly best bike ever owned by a lot of seasoned, highly experienced riders. Triumph true to their heritage originally securing Paul Newman's loyalty as a result, did a very nice job designing and building the Bird to those leaning more to performance with a cruiser, than not. As in actually riding it including in curves. Numerous posters at one forum I've frequented, commonly call out how often they blow the minds of sport bike riders in some of the most challenging usually sport bike runs. This said and as well know, despite how well Triumph did their work, it is still a heavy cruiser. So while it can handle surprisingly well, dealing with a changed line in a curve, it's mass can't possibly forgive as well as much lighter sport bikes.

...but you knew all this already!

One key reason besides being born in England and being thrilled to watch Triumph's return, that I bought the Bird, is that it was at the time, one of the very few such cruisers with ABS. As I like to ride year round and I'm in the NW, traction control is one key appeal for me, as one example.

As to a ride sometime then a brew, Sleepngbear I'm seriously due for a big break from biz and visiting some family back east. So with any luck, this coming year will allow that.

Best,
Steve