Exotic/Rare Bikes

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's one of the things the NR is most famous for?

It has gauges too, but you still need to make the digital bit work.

[Yorick]

I was never that impressed by the NR750. Just a case of massive corporate willy-waving. A friend of mine knew Steve James the snooker player, who had an NR750 and let him ride it. He was suitably star-struck but confessed that it felt like a very posh, faster but rather heavy VFR - which it was really. The 916 did borrow a lot of styling cues from it, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your viewpoint.

The engine was nothing like the VFR

[Yorick]

It's one of the things the NR is most famous for?

It has gauges too, but you still need to make the digital bit work.

Try again.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Dunno what you mean TBH, is that not a digital dash then?

[Yorick]

Dunno what you mean TBH, is that not a digital dash then?

You're now a self confessed expert on the NR750, yet you know bugger all about it

[Mr. Dazzle]

I know its not called the NR750

As usual you ain't answering the actual question and are having a dig.

[Yorick]

I know its not called the NR750

As usual you ain't answering the actual question and are having a dig.

Boring. You think you know everything.

At least 2 of its major innovations have never been seen on a bike since

[Mr. Dazzle]

Seriously fella, I dunno what you mean by it not being a digital dashboard, it's right there in the photo. It's not a TFT screen like a 2022 bike, but its a digital LCD display and it one of the first things everyone mentions about the NR.

Digital dash with 'floating' numbers.
32 valves.
Carbon.
Iridium screen.

Those are the bits everyone knows.

[mangocrazy]

OEMs make stuff like the NR all the time. They all do it. They just build stuff with mad shit on it to see if it works, get some miles in their new idea, figure some stuff out etc. Most of them have fleets of highly experimental vehicles full of tech anywhere up to 10 years ahead of what they're selling to the public. The public never see any of it.

The impressive thing about the NR is that they put it on sale in a finished state. I've said it before, Honda would have learned loads in building the NR, loads of stuff which is perhaps not that obvious - things like welding techniques, glueing procedures, heat treatments, how to make reliable digital dashboards and "invisible" stuff like that. All things which then appear in their lower models later on.

You're clearly not aware of the NR's major selling point - a 4 cyl V4, but with oval pistons, 8 valves and twin con-rods per cylinder.

I guess it's an age thing...

[Mr. Dazzle]

I am very aware of the 32v thing, I thought we could all take that as read

Honda would have learned loads about making stuff even with that TBF. All the boring problems in metallurgy and machining and the like would still have been useful in 'normal' engines.

[mangocrazy]

I was never that impressed by the NR750. Just a case of massive corporate willy-waving. A friend of mine knew Steve James the snooker player, who had an NR750 and let him ride it. He was suitably star-struck but confessed that it felt like a very posh, faster but rather heavy VFR - which it was really. The 916 did borrow a lot of styling cues from it, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your viewpoint.

The engine was nothing like the VFR

Er, I am aware of that. Just relaying the impressions of someone who has actually ridden one.

[mangocrazy]

I am very aware of the 32v thing, I thought we could all take that as read

Honda would have learned loads about making stuff even with that TBF. All the boring problems in metallurgy and machining and the like would still have been useful in 'normal' engines.

The actual 'learning' took place quite a few years before. Google Honda NR500 to learn more. It was Honda's 4T answer to the all conquering 2T V4 race bikes, but working within the rules. V4, 500cc, 32V, oval pistons etc. etc. All in 1979.

It was a flop, although as you say Honda learned shitloads from it. It was spectacularly unreliable, much slower than the 2T opposition and was widely derided as the Nearly Ready 500.

But they did manage to use all the lessons learned in making 200 copies of the NR750. Like I said - corporate willy-waving.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Cagiva C594 is the one for me, beautiful in every respect IMO

They're tiny, even compared to other 500GP bikes.
They're also exquisite.

[Mr. Dazzle]

At least 2 of its major innovations have never been seen on a bike since

I assume you're referring to the 8v heads/oval pistons and the structural carbon frame? Or are you counting the heads and pistons as two?

Quite right that no-one, not even Honda, have done the engine thing again. My point is though, its still a useful exercise to develop it and they'd have learned all kinds of useful stuff which is helpful elsewhere. That what I was referring to in my original post. At OEMs we do loads of stuff which is way ahead of what is on sale, most of it never goes on sale but nearly all of it teaches useful things and is hence worth doing. The cool thing about the NR (and all the other race bikes before it) is that they actually culminated in a road vehicle. Very unusual.

Carbon frames is less impressive IMO, that it tech that already existed in aircraft and cars. Simple case of being too expensive to figure out/apply.

[Mr. Dazzle]

The actual 'learning' took place quite a few years before. Google Honda NR500 to learn more. It was Honda's 4T answer to the all conquering 2T V4 race bikes, but working within the rules. V4, 500cc, 32V, oval pistons etc. etc. All in 1979.

It was a flop, although as you say Honda learned shitloads from it. It was spectacularly unreliable, much slower than the 2T opposition and was widely derided as the Nearly Ready 500.

But they did manage to use all the lessons learned in making 200 copies of the NR750. Like I said - corporate willy-waving.

This is par for the course with automotive tech development TBF. I've spent most of my working life doing R&D for motorsport, aerospace and automotive things and you can generally see the decades long history of various inventions...in fact I'm currently working on road car electric motor tech I first worked on in F1 nearly 15 years ago

The NR is "just" a really easy to see and understand history/development path. Like I said, very impressive achievement from Honda to actually have the balls and capability to follow it all the way through.

[Yorick]

OEMs make stuff like the NR all the time. They all do it. They just build stuff with mad shit on it to see if it works, get some miles in their new idea, figure some stuff out etc. Most of them have fleets of highly experimental vehicles full of tech anywhere up to 10 years ahead of what they're selling to the public. The public never see any of it.

The impressive thing about the NR is that they put it on sale in a finished state. I've said it before, Honda would have learned loads in building the NR, loads of stuff which is perhaps not that obvious - things like welding techniques, glueing procedures, heat treatments, how to make reliable digital dashboards and "invisible" stuff like that. All things which then appear in their lower models later on.

You're clearly not aware of the NR's major selling point - a 4 cyl V4, but with oval pistons, 8 valves and twin con-rods per cylinder.

I guess it's an age thing...

He will now. Mr Google strikes again. Now he's an expert on oval pistons. Well. In the last 5 minutes.

[mangocrazy]

The actual 'learning' took place quite a few years before. Google Honda NR500 to learn more. It was Honda's 4T answer to the all conquering 2T V4 race bikes, but working within the rules. V4, 500cc, 32V, oval pistons etc. etc. All in 1979.

It was a flop, although as you say Honda learned shitloads from it. It was spectacularly unreliable, much slower than the 2T opposition and was widely derided as the Nearly Ready 500.

But they did manage to use all the lessons learned in making 200 copies of the NR750. Like I said - corporate willy-waving.

This is par for the course with automotive tech development TBF. I've spent most of my working life doing R&D for motorsport, aerospace and automotive things and you can generally see the decades long history of various inventions...in fact I'm currently working on road car electric motor tech I first worked on in F1 nearly 15 years ago

The NR is "just" a really easy to see and understand history/development path. Like I said, very impressive achievement from Honda to actually have the balls and capability to follow it all the way through.

Rule #1 - Never lose an opportunity to buff one's credentials.

Rule #2 - Gloss over one's lack of historical knowledge. See rule #1

[mangocrazy]

Cagiva C594 is the one for me, beautiful in every respect IMO

They're tiny, even compared to other 500GP bikes.
They're also exquisite.

Absolutely. Nothing comes close in terms of beauty.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Rule #1 - Never lose an opportunity to buff one's credentials.

Rule #2 - Gloss over one's lack of historical knowledge. See rule #1

I have actually seen an NR piston, in Honda's F1 factory. In exotic MK.

Wouldn't want to buff my credentials though

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I've seen the spam tin pistons out of the race NR750 that competed at the Bol'D'Or

What's more amazing about Honda is how quickly they had a competitive 2 stroke GP bike.