Shawn K
Professional Cat Confuser
1200
Advantages of the V4 engine configuration?
- Thread starter Cunados
- Start date
1200
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,425
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
Mine is an 1800 and the flat six does not interfere with or force my feet or legs apart. Perhaps counter to intuition the Wing is actually an easier reach to the ground than an ST1300. The seat height is lower and the bike is narrower in midsection. The center of gravity is lower than my ST1300 and it pushes up off the side stand with less effort. I have a 29" inseam and amazingly the Wing is easier for me to paddle around.
It's more efficient. Every time you change direction of rotation you lose some power.
I sat on a new GW1800 and couldn't believe how easy it was to pull off the sidestand compared to an ST, almost threw it over! It felt very similar to when I sat on Mellow's new Tracer 900GT, which is less than 500 lbs. Glad I didn't throw that one over on its side!
Only riding STs for the past 7 years, I guess I've just gotten used to their top heaviness.
Same here! Master Electrician and contractor.
DaveWooster
'95 ST1100ALS and '98 Standard ST1100W
Can anyone provide a list of wheel base (lengths) for the ST1100 andI sat on a new GW1800 and couldn't believe how easy it was to pull off the sidestand compared to an ST, almost threw it over! It felt very similar to when I sat on Mellow's new Tracer 900GT, which is less than 500 lbs. Glad I didn't throw that one over on its side!
Gold Wings with engine sizes 1100, 1200, 1500 and 1800?
Someone mentioned paddling around on an 1800. How big of a boat is it?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,425
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
Shawn K
Professional Cat Confuser
Alesco
1997 30k mls ;o)
been in the game over 40yrs so far, and am starting to wind down now and enjoy my sweetheart and bikes( I have a few) loving my 4 day weekends Though being in enforced lockdown due to the virus - it's been a looong weekend so far !
BakerBoy
It's all small stuff.
It makes no difference. Every power transfer across a gear interfaces loses a portion of the power. Whether a 45* beveled gear (for a right angle power transfer) or a 0* gear (for an inline power transfer), both have one gear interface and have equivalent loss.
The difference, IF there is any is that one of the other (transvere vs. longitudinal) may allow ALL the other stuff to fit better, lower, more compactly, shorter, etc.. Longitudinal vs Transverse is entirely a geometry/space problem, or a form-factor problem (without implication to power)
DaveWooster
'95 ST1100ALS and '98 Standard ST1100W
Last edited:
I suggest searching for "GLxx00 specs"
Shawn K
Professional Cat Confuser
Or, like I said earlier...
www.motorcyclespecs.co.za
Your one-stop shop for specs on pretty much every motorcycle you can think of.
DaveWooster
'95 ST1100ALS and '98 Standard ST1100W
For an ST1100/A,
1555 mm or
61.2 inches,
from the Honda manual, page 1-4.
(The ST1100 wins by a comfortable margin, in my opinion.)
Last edited:
As usual, here I am with a counter-point. I had a 1975 GL1000. The flat four GL1000 was as short as the V4 and CG was significantly lower. Anyone who could drag the cylinder covers on it was doing better than me.
You can see in this pic that it was much lighter up top than an ST1100 (and WAY more than the ST1300). One reason was the miserably insufficient frame strength.
It was inhibited in angry cornering by a crap suspension and a frame that seemed to have a hinge in the middle of it. Boing, boing, spit-ui and off into the weeds you go. I remember thinking when they were advertising it as the first computer designed motorcycle that the engineers should have spent less time playing with computers and more time riding motorcycles. I never had any trouble with shin clearance or getting my feet down until I put crash bars on it. To find any rear support for the bars, they came around behind the engine and became shin-bashers (not unlike the Bing carburetors on the BMWs of the era). You can see in this pic there was no interference (barely) with my lanky 22 year old appendages before the crash bars were installed. I traded it off for a 1977 R100RS two years later because I wanted to corner harder than it wanted to.
The character of the two motors was very similar (smoothness, power delivery), except the GL1000 was down on power by about 20% vs. the ST11. I'm not convinced that the V4 was a better design than the flat-4. Pushing the cylinders up raises the CG and widens the ride just as it does between a BMW twin and a Moto-Guzzi twin. A BMW twin is smoother than a Guzzi and when the ST13 motor became solid to the frame, it required a balancing shaft that the ST11 didn't have in order to smooth it out acceptably. We never got a flat-4 ST to compare a V4 with. I'd have liked to see one. Correcting the frame strength and providing some suspension travel would have taken it a long way.
You can see in this pic that it was much lighter up top than an ST1100 (and WAY more than the ST1300). One reason was the miserably insufficient frame strength.
It was inhibited in angry cornering by a crap suspension and a frame that seemed to have a hinge in the middle of it. Boing, boing, spit-ui and off into the weeds you go. I remember thinking when they were advertising it as the first computer designed motorcycle that the engineers should have spent less time playing with computers and more time riding motorcycles. I never had any trouble with shin clearance or getting my feet down until I put crash bars on it. To find any rear support for the bars, they came around behind the engine and became shin-bashers (not unlike the Bing carburetors on the BMWs of the era). You can see in this pic there was no interference (barely) with my lanky 22 year old appendages before the crash bars were installed. I traded it off for a 1977 R100RS two years later because I wanted to corner harder than it wanted to.
The character of the two motors was very similar (smoothness, power delivery), except the GL1000 was down on power by about 20% vs. the ST11. I'm not convinced that the V4 was a better design than the flat-4. Pushing the cylinders up raises the CG and widens the ride just as it does between a BMW twin and a Moto-Guzzi twin. A BMW twin is smoother than a Guzzi and when the ST13 motor became solid to the frame, it required a balancing shaft that the ST11 didn't have in order to smooth it out acceptably. We never got a flat-4 ST to compare a V4 with. I'd have liked to see one. Correcting the frame strength and providing some suspension travel would have taken it a long way.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,425
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
The ST's were outliers of a sort. Besides the quirky CX500/650 Honda's other V4s turned the engine 90 degrees where it was carried lower in the frame than an inline twin or four could be thus lowering the CG and the top of the engine to the ground dimension. Mounted transversely and tilted back sufficiently it was still short enough front to rear to not adversely lengthen wheelbase. It packaged well in a motorcycle frame. Sochiro Honda believed the V4 was the engine beyond the inline 4 which in the 70s and 80s was powering every other UJM but they lost the battle in the showroom with it and were forced back to the inline four in the mid 80s. Fortunately for us the technology was proven and the R & D was done on large V4s and the ST1100 was the beneficiary. IMHO Honda didn't consider BMW as a primary competitor on it's sporting properties. In the 70s BMWs were aptly carrying the "Rubber Cow" moniker and handled poorly even compared to Japanese bikes which handled only slightly less poorly.As usual, here I am with a counter-point. I had a 1975 GL1000. The flat four GL1000 was as short as the V4 and CG was significantly lower. Anyone who could drag the cylinder covers on it was doing better than me.
You can see in this pic that it was much lighter up top than an ST1100 (and WAY more than the ST1300). One reason was the miserably insufficient frame strength.
It was inhibited in angry cornering by a crap suspension and a frame that seemed to have a hinge in the middle of it. Boing, boing, spit-ui and off into the weeds you go. I remember thinking when they were advertising it as the first computer designed motorcycle that the engineers should have spent less time playing with computers and more time riding motorcycles. I never had any trouble with shin clearance or getting my feet down until I put crash bars on it. To find any rear support for the bars, they came around behind the engine and became shin-bashers (not unlike the Bing carburetors on the BMWs of the era). You can see in this pic there was no interference (barely) with my lanky 22 year old appendages before the crash bars were installed. I traded it off for a 1977 R100RS two years later because I wanted to corner harder than it wanted to.
The character of the two motors was very similar (smoothness, power delivery), except the GL1000 was down on power by about 20% vs. the ST11. I'm not convinced that the V4 was a better design than the flat-4. Pushing the cylinders up raises the CG and widens the ride just as it does between a BMW twin and a Moto-Guzzi twin. A BMW twin is smoother than a Guzzi and when the ST13 motor became solid to the frame, it required a balancing shaft that the ST11 didn't have in order to smooth it out acceptably. We never got a flat-4 ST to compare a V4 with. I'd have liked to see one. Correcting the frame strength and providing some suspension travel would have taken it a long way.
Notably and to your point, the head engineer on the GL1000 initially favored a flat 6 of 1470cc. Honda reportedly built 60 prototypes and 20 engines on the GL1000 project and of course a liter sized 4 made the cut. 15 years later that same engineer, Shoichiro Irimajiri, was at the helm of Honda and for the 4th generation Goldwing it was a flat 6 of 1520cc.
Shawn K
Professional Cat Confuser
The only counterpoint I'd have to that is that a flat-4 is about the most bland, uninspiring sounding engine ever created. My GL1200 was a very capable tourer, but my goodness it was a dud in the aural department. I'd rather listen to a V-4 any day of the week. Even the flat-6 in my GL1800 sounds better than a flat-4.
The expression gummikuh (rubber cow) was first used by a motorcycle journalist named Ernst Leverkus to describe the shaft-jacking effect which caused the rear of the bike to be lifted by the cardan drive and driveshaft. The effect was introduced in 1955 when the bikes went from plunger frames to swingarm rear suspensions. The soft long travel suspensions made the effect more apparent. At a time when all other motorcycles sank in the rear under acceleration, he made a comparison with cows, as they usually rise with the rear part first. He did not intend it as a remark on the bikes handling poorly, but it certainly came to be used with that insinuation. It went away with the Paralever suspension in 1988.
I know they say that "anyone who says they remember the 70's wasn't there", but through the smoke and haze I don't recall the Japanese brands handling even slightly better. BMW's were under-sprung and over-damped. The Japanese bikes were over-sprung and under-damped. Neither has a solid enough frame. Ducatis and Triumphs handled, but who had one of those? BMW's got sloppy at the limits and the Japanese bikes got squirrelly. Bikes like the Kawasaki Z1 and the big triples would even get squirrelly trying to go in a straight line over the dollar mark. In addition to losing the race, drag racing one of them meant you had to be ready to dodge a rider who either bailed or got pitched. A BMW, even dragging the valve covers through a turn, never felt unsettled or about to flick me like a bugger into the trees. I've owned Honda CB500's and 750's and ridden the rest. The first big Japanese bike that I remember handling well, and significantly better than my BMW, was the Suzuki GS750 in 1976. It was a great handling bike in its day.
I think the bottom line in this engine format discussion (to drag us back to the topic) is that they all have their place. "Horses for courses" as our British friends would say. I have an older air-cooled and carbureted Triumph 900 Scrambler. The parallel twin on it is excellent. The bike would only be worse with a big, wide, hot, and heavy V4. My Triumph's 50 hp twin would be equally disappointing in the ST. The engine in use in my current favorite road bike is the old boxer twin from 1923 with a double armload of technology thrown at it. I think we are fortunate that through the years a number of fine engineers from a number of countries have directed their considerable genius at new and novel ways to hurl our lame butts down the road with ever-increasing levels of speed. dependability, style. and safety.
God bless their pointy little heads.
I do like the V4, it sounds different, it feels different on the move, it's good to look at, what you can see of it anyway. I've ridden an ST off and on since 1998 so I must have got used to them by now.
Between 2008 and 2012 I had a CBF1000, don't think the states got them but Canada did? It was a retuned Fireblade engine in a steel frame and pretty basic suspension, with a half fairing. Plus big enough for two in comfort with a full luggage option.
It was a very underrated bike, the press thought they were a bit soft and soggy, so the fashion police deterred many. But can you truly beat a good across the frame straight four when it's on song. It would rev so quickly from bugger all to the redline, with plenty of torque, unlike the Fireblade and return 50 mpg. That's a proper gallon.
As you say, horses for courses.
Upt'North.
Between 2008 and 2012 I had a CBF1000, don't think the states got them but Canada did? It was a retuned Fireblade engine in a steel frame and pretty basic suspension, with a half fairing. Plus big enough for two in comfort with a full luggage option.
It was a very underrated bike, the press thought they were a bit soft and soggy, so the fashion police deterred many. But can you truly beat a good across the frame straight four when it's on song. It would rev so quickly from bugger all to the redline, with plenty of torque, unlike the Fireblade and return 50 mpg. That's a proper gallon.
As you say, horses for courses.
Upt'North.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,425
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
Oh come on Lee. The shaft jacking on /5, 6, 7s was extreme and carried on through the monoshock 80s boxers. If ever anyone doubted the adage "never, ever, ever, ever, ever chop the throttle in a turn" found out the hard way when their BMW sank two inches mid-corner and ground a hole in the right hand valve cover before levering the wheels off the pavement or dug the left-side centerstand pedal into the pavement where it broke off being so cheesy. At least after it broke off there was more ground clearance on the left side. Next up on that side was the tang for the side stand, properly ground off from factory length.
