2026 Honda CB1000GT confirmed - Big Red jumps in!

:sleep-2x: Believe it or not, what turned me off was reading it has 147 hp at 11,000 rpms. (I'm sure someone who just read that spilled their coffee on themselves and their keyboard. Sorry. ) The styling was a close second.

It's trying to compete with the Suzuki GSX-S1000 (150hp), Kawasaki NINJA® 1100SX (134 hp), BMW M1000XR (201 hp) and BMW S1000XR (170 hp). I wish the manufacturers would focus on bikes that can be ridden on normal streets and be fully appreciated --- and less on bikes that can only be fully utilized on a race track.

147 hp on a sub-500 lb bike is ...a lot of adjectives cross my mind. "Crazy", and not in a good way. "Donor-bike" is another that popped into my mind. And you only get that 147 hp when you're up at screaming high rpms. The only way you could fully utilize that kind of acceleration and speed would be while being featured on the 5 o'clock news where the video shows 5 police cars following you home.

I like where the NT1100 sits. I think it has 105 hp, the same as my F900XR. One of the other guys at church has a BMW S1000XR, and I've done a bit of comparing of his bike vs my F900XR. One web site says his bike with 170 hp will get to 60 mph in 3.0 seconds. That same web site says my XR with 105 hp will get to 60 in 3.2 seconds. Why are the times so close? Because his hp isn't developed till he gets to 9000-11000 rpms. Most of us would never ride in that rpm range for more than 5% of the time. Useful on a track...not so much on public roads.

That's a long convoluted way of saying I'd rather ride a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow. ;)

Chris
 
Uncle Phil said:
It is to me - and what's wrong with white socks and penny loafers?
They seemed to have worked pretty well for quite a while ... ;)
Styles change but that doesn't mean they get better looking!
Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...
Imagine 90 year old riders still pining for carb ticklers, pudding bowls, and good old drum brakes. After all, they worked good for quite a while.

Styling is subjective but bikes designed 40 years ago perform in objective areas like bikes designed 40 years ago. Brakes, suspensions, powertrains, electronics, rider comforts have come a long way. Are they necessary to enjoy riding a classic bike? No of course not. But dismissing objective improvements as change for the sake of change sounds remarkably like the grumpy old guys carping on cheap 70s Jap bikes that ran circles around their British and American motorcycles.
 
dduelin said:
Imagine 90 year old riders still pining for carb ticklers, pudding bowls, and good old drum brakes. After all, they worked good for quite a while.

Styling is subjective but bikes designed 40 years ago perform in objective areas like bikes designed 40 years ago. Brakes, suspensions, powertrains, electronics, rider comforts have come a long way. Are they necessary to enjoy riding a classic bike? No of course not. But dismissing objective improvements as change for the sake of change sounds remarkably like the grumpy old guys carping on cheap 70s Jap bikes that ran circles around their British and American motorcycles.
Click to expand...
My friend, opinions are like armpits - everybody has couple and most of them stink.
Just because in your opinion it looks great does not mean I have to think it looks great in my opinion.
Styling is the issue here - not objective improvements (brakes, suspensions, powertrains, electronics, rider comforts) that you mention.
Those type of improvements are not 'change for the sake of change'.
If I didn't make it clear I was talking about the looks of the thing, then I do apologize but I thought that would be obvious from my comments.
I rode the old Brit bikes with ticklers, drum brakes and Lucas the Prince of Darkness electrics more miles than most folks.
So I appreciate new and improved in function but 'looks' is whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Imagine 25 year old riders (probably hard to find many these days) pining for a simple motorcycle that didn't look like it came out of a Transformer or Tesla Truck design shop ... ;)
 
Last edited:
Moto-Charlie said:
I rented the old CBF1000F several times for my Alps tours when it was a current year model. It was detuned to approx. 100 - 105 HP but with a significant torque increase. Back then Honda considered it a basic bike at a reasonable price. Magazine reviewers thought it performed better than its specs would indicate. I thought so too. It handled pretty good, was comfortable and had plenty of speed. The rental bikes included the side cases and top case. It never came to the USA. I know the upcoming GT is a different bike but I'm looking forward to seeing how it all comes together in person (if it comes to the USA).


1761058935651.png1761059316487.png
Click to expand...
At a BMW rally in PA I remember talking with a Canadian couple that were both riding a pair of CBFs about 15 years ago. At the time I wished Honda would import it to the USA to supplement the ST1300. Theirs had Honda luggage IIRC. Nice looking bike and very sport tour capable, 200 lbs lighter than the ST1300.
 
Uncle Phil said:
My friend, opinions are like armpits - everybody has couple and most of them stink.
Just because in your opinion it looks great does not mean I have to think it looks great in my opinion.
Styling is the issue here - not objective improvements (brakes, suspensions, powertrains, electronics, rider comforts) that you mention.
Those type of improvements are not 'change for the sake of change'.
If I didn't make it clear I was talking about the looks of the thing, then I do apologize but I though that would be obvious from my comments.
I rode the old Brit bikes with ticklers, drum brakes and Lucas the Prince of Darkness electrics more miles than most folks.
So I appreciate new and improved in function but 'looks' is whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Imagine 25 year old riders (probably hard to find many these days) pining for a simple motorcycle that didn't look like it came out of a Transformer or Tesla Truck design shop ... ;)
Click to expand...
1761080522170.png
 
bdalameda said:
1761080522170.png
Click to expand...
Speaking of 'stink' ... ;)
But then I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but here I think you'd have to blind to appreciate that 'beauty'!
 
STRider said:
This will redirect my new bike urges away from the NT1100 for a minute or three... Luggage. please?
Click to expand...
Well, it does say "sport tourer", don't it?
They'd best offer bags for this one.
mello dude said:
Dunno who is doing styling on there recent bikes, but it's meh....like a refrigerator.
Click to expand...
Gosh, it says Honda on it. How much more style than that do you need?. ;-)
dduelin said:
Styles change although some of us are still into white socks and penny loafers - and that’s OK no judgment…..
Click to expand...
Shows how out of touch I am.
I thought these days the style was sandals and black socks. ;-)
 
I dont remember where this came from... but I like it! Wish Honda would put a fairing like that on the new bike...Double round headlight plz...
 
dduelin said:
Imagine 90 year old riders still pining for carb ticklers, pudding bowls, and good old drum brakes. After all, they worked good for quite a while.

Styling is subjective but bikes designed 40 years ago perform in objective areas like bikes designed 40 years ago. Brakes, suspensions, powertrains, electronics, rider comforts have come a long way. Are they necessary to enjoy riding a classic bike? No of course not. But dismissing objective improvements as change for the sake of change sounds remarkably like the grumpy old guys carping on cheap 70s Jap bikes that ran circles around their British and American motorcycles.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Suzuki 250 x6 Hustler have double leading link front brakes? Very high tech! Where did I set my pudding cup?
 
In all seriousness What is the actual definition of a Sport tourer? In my often-misinformed mind it is a machine that is designed to deliver very sporty handling / performance (with minimal maintenance requirements) and near opulent comfort and weather protection with generous luggage capacity for two up riding on multi-day long distance trips. Possibly screaming across deserts at triple digits or scraping pegs through the mountains or can also be used for commuting. Does the presented Honda CB 1000GT "SPORT TOURER"? (Or possibly "SPORT BIKE"!) fit this description? Or am I once again misinformed?
 
diferg said:
Does the presented Honda CB 1000GT "SPORT TOURER"? (Or possibly "SPORT BIKE"!) fit this description?
Click to expand...
Nay, as its classified as Crossover...
So its more in the league of the VFR1200X Crosstourer and VFR800X Crossrunner... already those where neither fish nor meat... top heavy, etc...
Interesting side note though:
~60% of the MOTORRAD audience (by their own definition 'the largest MC rag' in Klingonistan/Germany) don't like the CB1000GT... :unsure:

And for me they can just replace that capital C with a capital G and be done with it... :sneaky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom