Chit-Chat
This page is for any comments, pictures, stories or information you might want to impart to the site that don't necessarily
fit anywhere else on the website.
There are rules!
Primarily don't be rude, offensive or obnoxious, for more details CLICK HERE
See Older Posts
Henrik said :-
Topbox will destroy ballance ,... the proof:
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1MQhhyH8Wi/
26/07/2026 21:00:39 UTC
Henrik said :-
Topbox will destroy ballance ,... the proof:
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1HwQQzamYr/...
26/07/2026 21:02:43 UTC
ROD¹ said :-
I think that the post must be magnetic!
27/07/2026 07:57:35 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
You can't undo stoopid.
27/07/2026 08:40:02 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
DOH!
27/07/2026 16:52:26 UTC
Occasional Lurker said :-
Once again, the MCN owned "Visordown" web-site, has posted yet another "teaser" regarding a new GB500, for the UK ...
Scant on details, they were certain it was based on the Indian market CB350 H'ness , and was bored out to 501cc ...and gave a power output of 27 bhp ... They also claimed, trademarking of the GB500 name, was confirmed for Europe ... I know some voted to leave, but, I for one, hope that this also means us ..!!!
I have just last week, sold my 1989 GB500TT,at an auction in the National Motorcycle Museum... It went for a whisker over my reserve, and my creaky knees, and sore wrists, may just be tempted to have a closer look at this new offering ...
Hers's hoping for ally rims, spokes, and an exhaust from the Australian model, ( a fully chromed exhaust, and not just a heat-shield)... Regards, Tony
28/07/2026 14:24:05 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
I'm struggling to get my head around 27 horses from 500 cc. It's as though Honda haven't even tried to extract much more, perhaps low bhp is what the public want. But.....I would think 500's in the post war years were developing this much per cc, Ian will know.
I'm not saying 27 bhp can't = fun, just why have Honda taken this route. From recollection my first 250 in the 70's produced more power and they were fun. For those of us that survived intact at least.
Upt.
29/07/2026 10:04:50 UTC
Ian Soady¹ said :-
I do, I do! I think it's the old bhp versus torque dilemma. You can get high power out of an engine at the expense of needing high revs whereas a low revving engine can produce a flatter torque curve making it easier to ride (in my opinion). 1950s 500s could produce anywhere between low 20s (BSA B33s etc) and mid 40s (DBD34 goldie). The latter however were almost unrideable in traffic especially with the close ratio RRTT2 gearbox and GP carb. Horses (and ft-lbs) for courses.
Perhaps the most unpleasant bike I've had was the 400 4 cylinder Honda grey import with no power at all below about 6,000 rpm and a ceiling around 14K if I remember correctly. Even when I eventually got it to run properly I hated it.
29/07/2026 11:10:28 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
Well you'll be pleased to hear I rode the GB350S this weekend and a review will be forthcoming.
It was a "peculiar" experience and quite contrary to my range of experience. It truly really was all about torque, super duper oversquare bore/stroke, massive flywheel, tall gearing, hitting the rev limiter, and a different concept of what to expect from a motorcycle. Upt', we know Honda can extract considerably more power from a 500 single but can they make that power appear at 2500rpm?
If VisorDown et al are to be believed the 500 will be more of the same but with a little more poke. As for spoked wheels Occasional Lurker - no thanks unless they'll take tubeless tyres.
29/07/2026 13:19:29 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
Yes I agree totally about the bhp and torques thingymabob. But my little 650 will pick up from a standstill, rev like a good un and return decent mpg. Is it impossible to replicate some of this in a single. Triumph and RE seem to manage it.
I look forward to your test report, it's a handsome bike, yes it is.
Upt.
30/07/2026 09:20:13 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
Are you talking of the CB400 Super Four Ian - circa early 90s? I was provided with one of these when I became a full time motorcycle instructor. You're right in that down low in the revs its was as timid as a 125 and as the revs rose it became rather rapid.
This seemingly bipolar character was in fact a boon for what I was using the bike for. I could easily and incredibly smoothly (4 pots) potter around with students as they learned to ride, I'd keep the revs low. Once I was without customers I could then have a play with the higher revs. The customers would often be trained un the Suzuki GS500 parallel twin. These were lumpy and unrefined, it was quite common for me to put "struggling" customers on my Super Four where the soft power delivery and smoothness would be much easier to manage. I'd advise them to keep it below 6k.
I developed rather a soft spot for the Super Four - but then it was my first "big" bike and you know what they say about first loves.
30/07/2026 10:14:27 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
You talk of decent mpg Upt', the SV650 should return what, 60-70mpg? It's no match for the over 100mpg the GB350S seems to be achieving.
30/07/2026 10:16:58 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
Mpg and motorsiccles is an odd subject Ed, a bit like "what oil do you use" threads.
Yes, a STrom 650 will not be as economical as a GB350S (what does the S stand for), but then if I can cover ground more swiftly will I need less nights on the road to get to the mountains, how much fuel can you buy for one overnight stop, but I digress.
I would think if you put two folk and luggage on a GB350S and ride it at motorway speed limits and maybe a little more you will not achieve anything like 100 mpg, but I may be proved wrong.
My own take on fuel is that I don't want to be ruined by the fuel costs of a trip and I need decent range, 300 miles of easy riding range is a nice comfortable area to be in. My Pan devoured fuel at continental motorway speeds but the six gallons still provided around 240 miles of peace of mind, likewise the STrom, although it holds less fuel it seems to do more mpg at motorway speeds. That may be that the barn door on the Pan related to over exuberance, probably.
On the first tank of the year, I don't know why I checked, I did around 320 miles on a tank and still had about 20 miles of fumes left.
I think if anyone fixates on just mpg they could be missing the point, both from a financial and enjoyment aspect. I too could work out how much fuel we're saving on Er'Indoors new motor, but the mpg is a very minor aspect of ownership costs. Depreciation will be greater, tyres will be more expensive and that ten year warranty will be ruinous in servicing costs.
30/07/2026 14:00:26 UTC
ROD¹ said :-
Having owned a 100mpg 350 I can confirm that Upt' is correct, these bikes do not do 100mpg when ridden at normal road speeds.
One thing that I didn't realise is how much slower my 350 was than my R1150RT riding at the same speed.
I tried to do a mpg comparison between the two bikes and intended to post the results on this site. However it did not work out as I had planned. I selected a route with A roads B roads and a short stretch of duel carriage way and set off first on the BM I stuck religiously to the speed limits and made mental notes of how many minutes it was taking to reach easily remembered way points.
I then set off on the Enfield, the first part of the ride was an A road, and by the end of this section I was a few minutes down on the RT riding as I thought at the same speed. The next section was B road so I shouldn't get further behind on this section as I was only riding the RT at 50mph. Despite riding at full throttle along this section of road I was still loosing time to the RT. I was not prepared to ride the Enfield any harder, (what was the point) so I gave up the test.
On reflection what was actually happening was the bikes were ridden at the same speed, but the RT would be up to 60mph within a few yards and the Enfield would take until the end of the straight to reach 60mph.
The only way to compare bikes for mpg (or anything else) is to ride them together on the same roads.
So the comparison I can give is that at 60mph two up the RT would give 60mpg. At 60mph two up the Enfield would give 75mpg.
30/07/2026 15:20:29 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
Yeah there's little doubt that doing motorway miles 2-up with luggage on the GB350S will be drinking some juice! Perhaps not quite as much as a "big" bike but the difference will be nominal. Science is a hard master and simple physics states that to do X number of miles at speed Y requires a certain amount of energy. The only thing you can do is reduce drag, reduce weight, and increase engine efficiency. And weight only matters in acceleration and rolling resistance.
In which case we're into what your looking for in a bike. Do you wish to cruise effortlessly on the motorway 2-up therefore saving on stopover costs? I can see the benefit of that particularly if you're travelling through an area you're not interested in to get to the place you are interested in. Do you wish to be able to carve the bends and power out the corners too? Big bike every time.
If you're looking to cruise through the countryside without fearing the rear end power slides and speed cameras, having time to see things as you potter along? If you're looking for a calm meander? Of course a big bike can go slowly but it'll be easier and more efficient on the smaller bike.
It all boils down to the fact there's nothing perfect. If I want to be in the south of France in 2 days then I'd choose a Gold Wing. But when I get to Nice ideally I'd want a 125 twist-n-go scoot in the town. Then in the hinterlands I'd want a sporty but comfortable Tracer 700. When I'm back home and riding to Sharon's the GB350. When I'm out with my pals I'd be back on the Tracer. If someone could produce a bike that does all this they'd make a fortune.
For myself personally (particularly as Sharon now has her own bike) my Current CB500X is the best compromise. Not too slow my mates get bored of waiting for me, fairly good on fuel, big enough for touring 1-up, big enough for 2-up too when Sharon's having a rest day, and small enough for me to manage. If Sharon ever said to me she wants to come touring with me as pillion (particularly if camping) I could do it on the 500 but ideally I'd want something with more "real estate" (space for luggage and a bit more bant).
30/07/2026 16:41:49 UTC
ROD¹ said :-
Of course, the other problem that most people never think about (and I have been guilty myself) is the legality of two up with luggage.
The bike has maximum carrying capacity of 180kg.
The average male in the UK weighs 86kg and the average female weighs 72kg add 10kg each for bike gear and that is 178kg without luggage.
Just the weight of a rear rack and top box would take it over the maximum capacity without luggage.
I know that you are very unlikely to be stopped, but if you are, a police officer would not be allowed to let the rider continue their journey even if they just cautioned the rider.
This would mean leaving your luggage or the pillion.
If you are involved in an accident, the investigation may find that overloading contributed to the accident and the insurance company would have a reason not to pay out.
The carrying capacity of my bike is good and our weight is 15kg under the average, but we still struggle to keep legal when taking camping gear!
31/07/2026 11:30:27 UTC
ROD¹ said :-
31/07/2026 11:30:59 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
I think the STrom has about 200 kg carrying capacity Rod, but I think we probably get very close to it. I think the GVW is around 420 KG and it goes over the scales at around 230 with everything on including empty luggage, so we're left with about 190 kg for ourselves and clobber. So after me and Er'Indoors (who really needs to diet) we've got about 25 kg left.
Like I say close, but probably just under.
I've never seen a motorcycle weighed at the roadside to prove an offence of being in excess of the GVW and doubt I will. But your points are a worthwhile reminder to encourage healthy eating. Now where are my custard creams.
Upt.
31/07/2026 12:47:23 UTC
Ren - The Ed¹ said :-
You're absolutely correct ROD - I'll add a link to where we discussed this previously.
As you say it's one of those things that's OK until it's not OK. It'd be all to easy to have even a minor bump and when the insurance is having a look at the report and images they might be keen to ask "errr... what's the total mass on the bike at the time of the incident?"
https://bikesandtravels.com/biker.aspx?ride=7173...
31/07/2026 13:40:05 UTC
Upt'North ¹ said :-
Ed me duck, after much waiting and deliberation we've taken out what I think was your suggestion although ours is an annual policy with Aviva for travel insurance. You are covered for motorsiccle travel and the cover seems mors than adequate for our needs.
We actually waited in order to cover trips up to the end of August next year, so using man maths two years for the price of one. Seemed a good idea.
Ta me little Manchester duck.
Upt.
01/08/2026 16:48:19 UTC
Name
Comment
Add a RELEVANT link (not required)
Upload an image (not required) -
Uploading...