200hp V-4 Norton...

http://www.cycleworld.com/norton-has-200hp-v4-superbike-on-way

Let's see how it finally turns out.

 

And still Honda has nothing in this category! They fricken race V4's in MotoGP for f@cks sake!

 

^ was thinking the same thing...

 

What are you guys talking about? Honda has the RC213V. You know the bike most people will never see much less afford to buy. ;-)

 

Don't think a lot of people are going to be able to afford the Norton either.

 

Well in the states it doesn't have 200hp!

 

Is it really necessary to have another reason to bring up the RSV4 :target:

 

Yeah, true, but for Fucks sake, if Norton can beat Honda to a 200 HP V-4, fucking Norton, then Honda has got some real Shit for brains people working for them or leading them...

 

Poor Norton whose name gets passed around like a ten peso hooker at a frat party.

 

The fast dudes here that know all aboot bikes should get together and tell Honda to get it's shit together or else. I nominate SOW as leader of the PAC.

 

How about a 1000 hp Triumph!


https://www.wired.com/2016/08/make-motorcycle-go-400mph-make-25-feet-long/

 

Pshhh! V4s are old hat. Honda needs to buy out an old Renesis plant and make a Rotary bike. Turn the industry on it's ear. If they're lucky, it might finish a couple races too. Same displacement as a Hayabusa with a way cooler battle cry.

 

Both Norton in one of its many iterations and Suzuki have had rotary (Wankel) engines. The Suzuki was the Se5. They ran hot and got terrible mileage and went like stink. Norton was racing several and winning a bunch until nobody could figure out how the displacement was measured. ie one chamber or all three. I think whoever spread the most pesos around to all those rich dudes who really run the show, finally won and it was adios Sr. Norton con Wankel.

 

I've actually seen two of the Suzukis in person. A little ugly and a lot dated, but cool nonetheless. No idea that Norton was ever in the Wankel camp though. Neat!

How exactly do they not know how to measure displacement? You measure all three of course. You wouldn't measure just one cylinder and call that the engine size because the others weren't firing at the time, would ya?

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken, methinks that the rotary Suzukis were badged as the Re5 and not Se5. "Re" has been a popular designation for rotaries for a while now.

 

Some clever publicity wording on this one. Current LSR for bikes is 376.36 set in 2010 at Bonneville. Triumph holds an LSR for Triumphs at aboot 100 MPH less.

If the Triumph can do it then they picked the right guy to operate it. Fastest of the fast guys..

 

Right you are. I could say it was a typo or that S follows R in the alphabet when in fact I was having a brain fart.. E Plurbus Unim..(one of many)

That was the basic argument on displacement. They knew how to measure all three chambers but one camp said that the displacement was one chamber since it was the one that provided the power (stroke) and the other camp said it was all three chambers since that was the total volume of the engine.

Nobody won except the Wankel Nortons that when they raced, kicked some serious ass. I lay if off mostly on those old dudes in Europe that are holding the big sack of pesos.

There were two Re's in my MC club. One guy would bring his runner to regular meetings and the Isle of Vashon TT. Real gas burners and I can recall him saying they had inadequate brakes.

Got a bud who has one of the first Mazdas with Wankels to come into the US. He bought a totaled RX7 (??) for the engine, added the hotrod manifolds, messed with the suspension and brakes and the fucking thing is a rocket. Same guy also builds drag cars and is a real fast guy.. The car looks like a POS, warts and all.

That's the whole idea with this guy..

 

There's talk of bringing back the Rx-7 for another run next in the next couple of model years. Word is that Mazda won't release the car until they're confident in it's ability to spank the Porsche Cayman and base 911 in every category (including emissions.) We shall see. Until then, they'll just have to settle for me protecting the rep and destroying the ozone in the '93. Sorry for the thread jack fellas. Carry on.

 

If this is the case, youre never going to see that new RX-7, for two reasons. their rotary will never beat a turbocharged small-displacement engine for fuel economy, (or a non-turbo large displacement for that matter :tongue and it will never be faster than a Porsche, cause no other brand can touch their performance for less than ~$40k more dollars than a 911.

Back to the question at hand: Can anyone tell me if the CBRs are on the cutting edge for road-going bikes? I've never been that into supersports. Anyway I know it's probably a whole different crew but if Honda's motorcycle division is run anything like its car division, ultra-high-performance and exclusivity are no longer in their vocabulary, so don't expect them to release a world-beating V4 supersport to compete with an RSV4 or S1000RR or 1199 Panigale any time soon. As long as their sales are good, they don't seem to mind finishing last place in style and sportiness in the car world, and it's probably the same for their bikes. This is all coming from someone who has owned an loved more Hondas than any other brand, btw.

 

No CBR's are dated design. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current CBR1000R dates back to 06 or 07. That being said it's still a liter class sportbike & is probably more than enough for the average rider.