90's bikes are the best!

[A_morti]

all the 'clean air' and battery vehicles leave me cold

Even my 286cc single now has EFi, a catalyst (ok, that's not so new), and fuel evaporation control (seems new to me).

[A_morti]

I reckon it depends which class you're looking in. Things have definitely changed, whether it's for the better depends on your angle.

Early 90's CBR250R: 4 cylinders with gear driven cams, 4 carbs, twin discs.
45hp, but shit on fuel (relatively) at 55-60mpg.

Current CB300R: single cylinder, EFi with catalyst and fuel evap control, single radial caliper with anti-stoppie ABS.
30hp, but gets better than 80mpg.

[Bigjawa]

VFR 750 and Fireblade definitely changed the game. It looks lardy now but comparing the CBR900RR with (its predecessor) the CBR1000F was like chalk and cheese.

Honda never really marketed the 1000 as a pure sports bike though, I don't think I ever saw one raced by anyone. The FZR1000 was the top litre sports bike after 1987.

VFR was a massive face saver for Honda, they were trying to salvage the V4 concept after the VFs all shit themselves.

[KungFooBob]

The VFR750 was a massive loss leader for Honda for many years, I don't think it ever re-couped the R&D costs.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Honda were just 30 years ahead of the curve on V4s

[KungFooBob]

IIRC honda fucked up by trying to grind the cam journals without cutting through the outer edge of the engine, so they wouldn't have to use those rubber bungs like everyone else does, but the technology at the time just couldn't do it with enough precision.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I've heard similar tales....something like trying to machine the caps separately from head.

[KungFooBob]

I think they just milled the journals into the head rather than line boring them like every other engine.

If you look at the old VF lumps they don't have the rubber bungs where the line boring tool would have cut away the edge of the head to get to the journals.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

On early VF750s the heads wore relatively quickly allowing the cams to wobble about and wear the cam journals even quicker.
Apparently the later ones are better, and as far as I know it's not something that affected the rest of the VF range (400,500 and 1000)
Hondas first production gear driven cam bike was the VF1000R, which cost a heady £5K in 1984.

Personally I don't like the V4 Hondas, all the ones I've ridden feel like two Superdream engines joined at the hip.

I don't know whether this is true, but rumour had it that Honda made the Fireblade a 900 because they couldn't get a 750 to make enough power to be competitive with Kawasaki and Yamaha 750s (we'll conveniently forget the Slingshot GSXR750)

[KungFooBob]

My Fireblade (last of the carbed bikes, 918.5cc), made 120bhp DIN at the back wheel with a pipe, filter and jet kit.

I believe the SRAD 750 pretty much made that out of the box.

The Blade had a bit more torque tho'.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

My Fireblade (last of the carbed bikes, 918.5cc), made 120bhp DIN at the back wheel with a pipe, filter and jet kit.

I believe the SRAD 750 pretty much made that out of the box.

The Blade had a bit more torque tho'.

Sounds about right, my SRAD was fast, but you had to rev it to make go, but all the 90s 750s were like that, YZF you had to rev the knackers out of it in 5th before changing to 6th if you wanted it to indicate over 160mph, FZR600R had more mid range than the 750 but was nowhere near as quick, my YZF would indicate 170 (eventually), FZRs indicated top speed was under 150 (still plenty fast enough).

BTW my SRAD would indicate a fairly comical 190mph quite easily, it felt more like mid 150s.

[KungFooBob]

I saw 180 on the blade clocks, but I ran it a tooth down on the front, so it was probably nearer 150mph.

I took my 330 coupe upto 140 and it felt considerably more dangerous than the Blade did at that kind of speed.

I did an indicated 180mph on a ZX9R and that felt proper fast.

[Potter]

I reckon it depends which class you're looking in. Things have definitely changed, whether it's for the better depends on your angle.

Early 90's CBR250R: 4 cylinders with gear driven cams, 4 carbs, twin discs.
45hp, but shit on fuel (relatively) at 55-60mpg.

Current CB300R: single cylinder, EFi with catalyst and fuel evap control, single radial caliper with anti-stoppie ABS.
30hp, but gets better than 80mpg.

I've never once, honestly, in all my life, considered what mpg any of my motorcycles did.
I have no clue, the furthest I've gone is working out a tank range for obvious reasons, but I never bothered doing the calculation to mpg.

[Supermofo]

My Fireblade (last of the carbed bikes, 918.5cc), made 120bhp DIN at the back wheel with a pipe, filter and jet kit.

My 1996 RRT made 119.8 on Harris's dyno with a pipe, filter and jet kit as well.

[Supermofo]

I saw 180 on the blade clocks, but I ran it a tooth down on the front, so it was probably nearer 150mph.

Fastest I saw on my Blade was just over 170 on the clock with standard gearing so 155 or something like that I'd guess.

Then I down geared it. 1 tooth off the front and 4 up on the back. It was fucking mental Bloke who bought it from the shop after me also had an R1, he got the Blade as a knock about bike, he asked the bike shop owner what I'd done as it made his R1 feel rubbish in the midrange

[Mr. Dazzle]

I've never once, honestly, in all my life, considered what mpg any of my motorcycles did.
I have no clue, the furthest I've gone is working out a tank range for obvious reasons, but I never bothered doing the calculation to mpg.

If I'm worried about MPG I'll take the car

My car with 5 seats and stereo will also do 80mpg on a run. Bikes are always shit economy.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I saw 180 on the blade clocks, but I ran it a tooth down on the front, so it was probably nearer 150mph.

I took my 330 coupe upto 140 and it felt considerably more dangerous than the Blade did at that kind of speed.

I did an indicated 180mph on a ZX9R and that felt proper fast.

I driven a small number of cars at over 125mph, and they all felt a bit dangerous once you got past 125, they felt a bit twitchy and unstable, I don't feel comfortable going that fast in a car, a Lamborghini on a race track might feel a lot safer

Fastest I've seen on a bike speedo was the SRAD, but that was obviously miles out, I saw high 170s on my R1 and K2 GSXR750 and both felt like they were going that sort of speed. Interestingly I had a little race with an AMG Merc when I was on the K2, and his Merc run out of speed at whatever the speed they're restricted to, indicated on the GSXR speedo, obviously I enjoyed my extra 20mph and passed him.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

If I'm worried about MPG I'll take the car

My car with 5 seats and stereo will also do 80mpg on a run. Bikes are always shit economy.

If I was worried about mpg I'd own a different car, mine does 40mpg on a 300 mile run if I take it steady, 25ish is what I get driving normally.

[Mr. Dazzle]

My 3 series would quite happily do 120mph with one finger on the wheel i reckon, but I've not tried! I often lament at the speed limits, it'd naturally lollop along at 100mph nay problem.

You need to drive some better cars

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

My 3 series would quite happily do 120mph with one finger on the wheel i reckon, but I've not tried! I often lament at the speed limits, it'd naturally lollop along at 100mph nay problem.

You need to drive some better cars

I'd lose my license - I keep looking at Evo 10s but I don't think 300bhp and me would be a good idea, I bad enough with 140bhp.