New Honda Rebel 300 and 500

[briantrice]

Originally Posted by gregsfc

But the cheapest electric bike that can make my one-way commute is $17K and trips are out or would have to be modified. And so if my employer would let me recharge and double my pay, maybe I could buy one and commute on it. I'd love to be able to do that, but the FE challenges make me wonder if that $17K bike would make the 30 miles considering what they've got to do to make the trip.

Anyway, I'm absolutely not against what they're doing, but am somewhat put back and surprised by all the battery size and weight considering what Zero advertises on range.

I'll detail how mine is performing right now, in case the picture is helpful:

My Zero DSR is making a daily 85 mile round trip commute at highway speeds, mainly because of windscreen tuning. When you rack up miles that quickly, the Zero starts to pay off (it does take a few years, so yes this is when the early adopters with the spare budget get in and tinker like Erasmo and others).

My employer does let me charge using a standard outlet, but I could get by without it. The one-way range is about 100 miles stock at 60mph, or 10% more or at 65mph with the right windscreen. My improvement is roughly 15% when I'm using my throttle lock.

Trips are just within reach, with my DSR able to make 400 miles per day (using a $3,000 charger upgrade, admittedly; a DIY charger can get you there with more work for less than half that price). Beyond a high-powered charger, aerodynamics help increase the ride-to-charge ratio (hopefully from 1.5-to-1 to 2-to-1).

Regarding the cost and weight, it's the most dense automotive battery you can buy, and almost half of the bike's price is the battery. My prior Zero came with two invoices that spelled that out explicitly. So, that's why EVs have a high price barrier to entry, in a nutshell, for now.

While I can't argue about the list price, it can amortize over the long term (right now that's about 60,000 miles or so) considering the lack of gas, oil, and most maintenance.

[gregsfc]

I'll concede that the 670 twin likely gives up around 15% to the 250 Honda single. That was right around my estimation for me and my riding and commute route, and that's only in a favorable scenario for the 670; comparing stock set-up machines to each other and only when comparing the 250 to the straight-shift-configured 670. I feel like, however, that the assumed 15% separates more when modifying and/or streamlining and for slower rides, i.e. 50 mph, just because the 670 is running so easy going with all that available torque at moderate highway speeds and such low RPM already in stock form, and so the potential for improvement is there, but likely not to the same extent. For instance, at 58 mph, I'm just barely breaking 3,000; and at 61, I'm still under the 3400 mark. Most likely, at those moderate steady highway speeds, the 670 is generating such low horsepower, that it's just sort of lugging along, but it's larger displacement means that it's already very near it's potential; whereas smaller-displacement machines can likely go way up in the same riding situation if measures are taken to lower the horsepower that they're generating at the same speed.

78 mpg (CTX) X 1.15 = 88.5 (CB250R)

CTX700 versus Rebel 300 ????

The figures above seems about what would happen for warm-weather commuting for my personal situation, but of course I'm only speculating and can't know without buying one and riding it, but it's still fun to speculate.

My intent is not to prove anything or to disparage any of these great Honda engines; only speculate and guess about things, because the Challenges don't have enough participation to bear these things out. I wish they would, because motorcycle fuel economy is something that interests me alot, and I find it fascinating yet frustrating that we don't know more.

I'm totally fine with not having the most economical gas bike on the market. The CTX700 is great for me; it's just my style with that low running RPM. And I think it's one of the most impressive for its size. I'd love to streamline either partially or fully and/or further modify it to improve mpg without making it unstable or unsafe, but I'm just not able financially or mechanically. Alternatively, I'd love it just about as much to see someone else do it and I'd love to see many others modify many other bikes as well; most-especially the new Rebel 300, since it'd make it an easier and cheaper project than ever before.

Stock bike comparisons also interest me. I'd love to see lots of different bikes with different power trains in stock form compete against each other, and at different levels of modification. I wish the electrics had more range where they could compete in stock form, because they interest me as well and they use just a fraction of the energy to do the same work, but I've been sort of taken aback by how much battery space and weight is being added just to make these not-so-long challenge rides. I would have thought that a stock Zero with it's biggest pack, when streamlinig to reduce drag, could have made it to the half-way point to charge, and then back considering their advertising. So that's a little disappointing to me, because it's not something I'd can consider even if I could afford it, and so it's not yet at the level of practicality for long commuters, but it is still very interesting to me to watch them progress!

[ProDigit]

The 300 and 500 supposedly use the same engine as the CBR300R/CB300F and CBR500R/CB500F.

They only further restricted the exhaust (more back pressure), and tuned it slightly different, resulting in more torque, but less HP.
If you ask me, they're great bikes for the city and suburbs, as well as occasional 10-20min interstate rides.
Some interstates here are known to have people ride 80-100MPH on. The Rebel 500 would barely do 100MPH (just like the CBR300R, and the CBR500R/CB500F).
Forget about the Rebel 300. That thing does 90-95 MPH tops.

Interstate riding really needs a quadruple 4:
A 44BHP at the wheels, 400CC, 4 stroke ptwin, weighing in at 400LBS hi-rev engine.
For a low rev engine, a 500-600cc would do.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

A 44BHP at the wheels, 400CC, 4 stroke ptwin, weighing in at 400LBS hi-rev engine.
For a low rev engine, a 500-600cc would do.

Thanks for your input. I agree. I'm not very technically or mechanically minded, but have done some thought lately that if HPS used the same engineering concepts built in to my CTX700, they could maximize a real-world, highway-capable bike around 80-90 pounds lighter than my 494 lb bike and somewhere in the 550-570 cc range with that same kind of low-rev performance that's built in to my 670 cc parallel twin that would likely exceed a 300 cc bike with regards to mpg for highway riding, but probably lower mpg around town. They may even be able to get just a tad more out of such a hypothetical engine per cc w/o sacrificing mpg by adding something like dual fuel injection (DI + PFI), but of course they'd be an added cost for something like that, and that may make the torque too flat for a motorcycle.

I absolutely don't see anything like that on the horizon from HPS or anyone else for that matter. HPS has taken alot of grief from enthusiasts and the media about that kind of motoring for a motorcycle. For some reason, that is beyond my understanding as a former scooter rider and as someone who rides more for practical reasons, there is this a need for more top in performance by most enthusiasts. I didn't grow up riding, nor have I done alot of riding of typical motorcycles, so it's hard for me to understand what's missing on an mc with car-like or scooter-like performance. For my liking, the CTX700 is plenty fun, and it is for goodness sake, a cruiser; not a sport bike.

[HHOTDI]

Originally Posted by sendler

The Honda 700 is a very fuel efficient engine. A very bold move by Honda. It very well might actually beat the 500. Neither one will get within 15% of the single given the same dedicated rider.

Hey Scott, we sold the hippie bus and i started to ride the little cbr. I quickly found that i'm getting too old to ride in that position any longer. So it's up for sale and i scored a really nice NC700x manual. Wow it i so much more comfortable for me. Easy to ride, sit upright, great power and spectacular "Smiles to the Gallon".

I purchased it back in Feb and got 55mpg on the way home. Mid 20's, snow flurries and gusty 20-30mph winds. i aired up the tires and lubed the chain and got 64mpg on the next tank. I changed the oil to Rot T6, K+N air and oil filters, added a throttle lock and lubbed the chain again and netted 75mpg. I lubbed the chain again(it was really dry when i bought it) and the very next tank netted my best to date of 86! So now once the baby R sells i'd like to start making a Vetter streamlining kit for it. I'll start a build log for it when i get it started! :{)

[sendler]

The 700 is an amazing engine. A very bold move by Honda. We had someone ride a CTX700 with us at Ohio once and got mid 90's.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by sendler

The 700 is an amazing engine. A very bold move by Honda. We had someone ride a CTX700 with us at Ohio once and got mid 90's.

That was me. It was atypical to be sure. Mine was a straight shift that Honda used to offer in the States that I theorize could achieve much better than the dual clutch automatic for FE. I had not come within 13 mpg of that result before it happened and some of those low-to-mid 80s tank achievements were slower and more conducive to high mpg than was that 96.1 mpg run than I had. That was 2014 Vintage Days event. However, I never tuck back home, but in that ride I tucked except when braking or urban riding. It was hot. It was calm weather, and I had a large Dewalt tool box strapped in behind me. I kept RPM fairly low, but just like back home, I focused more on light throttle pressure than I did low RPM. The box was about 55 liter volume, narrow (like me) and tall. Vic suggested that my tucking, combined with the big box may have created a streamline effect. It was way, way more than I expected, because I'd measured my mpg probably over 100 times, and so I had very consistent results and fill method; etc. Back home, I could expect mid 70s for commuting and low 80s for a winding road trip in hot weather, but nothing into the 90s ever. I think my high up to that point was around 83.3 after correcting for the estimated trip meter error, which I always do in any vehicle.

I went back one more time; 2016 I think, and achieved 88 mpg; again tucking, but this time with rectangular milk crate behind me. Most other scores were better this second time around than the others did the first time I went, but for me, it was more like what I expected than 2014. The 2016 ride was super short though, and so none of us liquid fuel guys felt very good about having enough data (miles) for a good measurement. I'm 5'8 and weigh only a buck fifty.

The first time may have been an anomaly (although I usually don't get anomalies), but more likely the tucking with the big box gave me a partial streamline like Vic suggested. I'm real careful about how I measure mpg; much like most who do these sort of things as a hobby or interest. Just like right now I can tell you that my F150 has around a 1.8% pessimistic trip meter error and that the mpg calculator has an error that ranges between 1.3-2.0 mpg; the higher my actual mpg, the more the error by the computer. I get consistent results in all vehicles that I drive, because I observe and take notice to any possible variables, and therefore correct over time. I'm sure it's the same way for Sendler.

I've sold the bike and plan on getting a Mitsubishi Mirage; slightly used, in about a year and a half. Something cheap that I can commute in all seasons in safety and get up to 50 mpg. The only thing that fits that bill that I can think of that can satisfy a 61 mph, 58 mile round trip commute is a Mitsubishi Mirage. Must be manual shift. A diesel Chevy Cruze hatch could also achieve this, but remember, one of the rules is that it has to be cheap. The diesel isn't cheap.

[ethonof]

t looks better than the current model, which isn't saying much of anything. But it's better looking than the Suzuki GW, but not the TU. ummmm, kill it with fire? But who knows, it might be awesome.