Vfr1200 Torque

The new 1200cc motor produces 90% of it's torque at 4,000rpm, meaning that it puts out 114Nm of torque in the cruising zone.
Just so you know, that's MORE than DOUBLE the same torque of a VFR800 VTEC motor at 4,000 rpm (51Nm) which is only making 65% of its peak torque at the same rpms.

No wonder they're saying this engine feels alive. One of the things I don't like about my '02 is needing to kick it down a few gears for decent acceleration.

I think there's something in these stats for everyone and can't wait to see a dyno report.

[image: View Post]kaldek, on Oct 11 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

The new 1200cc motor produces 90% of it's torque at 4,000rpm, meaning that it puts out 114Nm of torque in the cruising zone.
Just so you know, that's MORE than DOUBLE the same torque of a VFR800 VTEC motor at 4,000 rpm (51Nm) which is only making 65% of its peak torque at the same rpms.

No wonder they're saying this engine feels alive. One of the things I don't like about my '02 is needing to kick it down a few gears for decent acceleration.

I think there's something in these stats for everyone and can't wait to see a dyno report.


That is bloody impressive. No wonder Honda keep going on about real world user friendlyness....

As impressive and useful as this sounds, part of the VFR for me is the drama and urgency of winding it up on a quick blast down a long straight before dropping back to less silly speeds.

I hope you can still rev this thing when the mood takes you, not something you can do much with the Blackbird I've found.

[image: View Post]vfr_steve, on Oct 11 2009, 07:47 AM, said:

As impressive and useful as this sounds, part of the VFR for me is the drama and urgency of winding it up on a quick blast down a long straight before dropping back to less silly speeds.

I hope you can still rev this thing when the mood takes you, not something you can do much with the Blackbird I've found.

Considering it has more than 150% of the horsepower of the older models and only ways 40 pounds more, I don't see why this would be a problem. I'm sure it'll be geared slightly lower, but should definitely accelerate faster. I love my VFR, but having to cruise at over 6,000 RPM to have any punch gets annoying. Add a passenger and bags and it's far worse.

Torque is teriffic. I have no doubt she'll have more than a useable top end too, and definately more than the current VFR

I had a '03 ST1300 (115.2nm Torque) and in many ways that bike felt quicker then the VFR. Of course it wasn't when you compare actual performance numbers and realize that the ST weighs nearly 200lbs more.

I imagine that the new VFR is gonna feel very fast and should have plenty of go-juice no matter where in the RPM range the rider has the engine.

Torque rocks!
But why did they make it so damn heavy at 600 lbs? :unsure:

[image: View Post]VFR4Lee, on Oct 12 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Torque rocks!
But why did they make it so damn heavy at 600 lbs? :unsure:
Because they wanted to motivate you to lose 40 lbs of your own? :goofy:

Well, at least that is 588lbs curb weight. So, "wet" in other words. The 6th gen is 551lbs wet, so really, with the better suspension coming with this one, and the WAY more power. I wouldn't worry about it.

[image: View Post]magicman, on Oct 15 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

Well, at least that is 588lbs curb weight. So, "wet" in other words. The 6th gen is 551lbs wet, so really, with the better suspension coming with this one, and the WAY more power. I wouldn't worry about it.

and: way bigger brakes, shaft drive, bigger seat, luggage mounting points, etc etc

It's too heavy. All it needs is the optional Goldwing options and it'd be the complete porker. ;)

I know we all wanted a 300lb bike with 200hp, but get over it already.

If people obsessed as much about there own wieght as they do this bike, so many people wouldn't be over wieght.

35 or so lbs over the 6th gen is not that much when you figure how much more power this bike has and how much better it will handle.

I would think this bike would smoke all the other generation vfr's on a track or in the twisties.

Yeah, I think most folks are still of the mind set that the 7gen is another 800. 35lbs for 400 more cc's and a DOUBLING of the amount of torque is a very good trade off IMO.

Having owned several liter v-twins and a bandit 1200 all of which had fat torque motors in the mid-70 ft/lbs range and having spent many miles on a friends FJR1300 with 100ft/lbs, I can tell you the 7gen motor will be err............. lively. :warranty:

Now, I do love light bikes too. I worked hard to get my RCBVFR down to nearly 100 lbs lighter than the 6gen and I would love to see a 600cc VFR-RR added to the line up. :wheel:

If I remeber correctly, the wheel base is also longer. :huh:

If that's the case, it won't handle the corners as well. You should still be able to take it in the twisties.

Around Washington, we have our fair share of twisties. I'll keep my 06' :biggrin:

[image: View Post]roadrunner, on Oct 16 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

If people obsessed as much about there own wieght as they do this bike, so many people wouldn't be over wieght.

35 or so lbs over the 6th gen is not that much when you figure how much more power this bike has and how much better it will handle.

I would think this bike would smoke all the other generation vfr's on a track or in the twisties.

+1 on the weight.

Why will it handle better?

[image: View Post]gradus, on Oct 16 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

Why will it handle better?

better suspension, more linear power delivery, better brakes, lower center of mass, probally better chasis etc....

other than a longer wheel base why wouldn't it?

[image: View Post]roadrunner, on Oct 16 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

[image: View Post]gradus, on Oct 16 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

Why will it handle better?

better suspension, more linear power delivery, better brakes, lower center of mass, probally better chasis etc....

other than a longer wheel base why wouldn't it?

I think the 3" longer wheelbase, increased trail, heavier and that bigger 190 rear tire. On paper it doesn't look like it would be as easy to flick around as the earlier bikes, but I'll wait for the reviews.

I'm thinking that the center gravity might be lower on this new bike. My stock VFR 06 mufflers are quite heavy and high. Moving the bike from side to side results in a lot of lateral displacement of the tall mufflers. I bet you could move around twice the weight of those mufflers if you lower it on the bike. The 1200F muffler is easily > 15" lower, and weighs the same or less than the two on my bike, making it 'feel' light.

That might be why it handles a bit better......if it does.......

BI

Handling is where my concern is with the new 1200f....If honda didnt improve or atleast leave the handling characterstics alone, the new VFR will be a HUGE dissapointment to me, and my replacement bike will be a Sprint or Busa. I really hope it handles atleast as good as the previous gens scince i really do want to stay on a VFR and really do like alot of the new features (such as the shaftdrive..AWSOME!) Only time will tell..Im on pins and needles to hear some real world reviews!!!!!!

[image: View Post]JJbigbird, on Oct 17 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

Handling is where my concern is with the new 1200f....If honda didnt improve or atleast leave the handling characterstics alone, the new VFR will be a HUGE dissapointment to me, and my replacement bike will be a Sprint or Busa. I really hope it handles atleast as good as the previous gens scince i really do want to stay on a VFR and really do like alot of the new features (such as the shaftdrive..AWSOME!) Only time will tell..Im on pins and needles to hear some real world reviews!!!!!!
When was the last time you read about a Honda CBR or VFR handling worse than the previous generation?

I'm pretty sure it's going to be suh-wheet.

v twins have a nice flat torque curve....i do NOT like them at all. to me, i love the way the v4 and i4s wind up and hit a "turbo" point. it really excites the soul. yes, i agree the flat torque makes it more rider friendly, but if it loses its soul, then i'd rather have a (close your eyes kids)...cage for "friendly".

[image: View Post]turtlecreek, on Oct 17 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

yes, i agree the flat torque makes it more rider friendly, but if it loses its soul, then i'd rather have a (close your eyes kids)...cage for "friendly".


I always thought just the opposite. I've owned a zx6r wich was all hp no trq, that bike didn't have much soul. I always liked the stump pulling trq in a vehicle. I think there is a direct corelation between the two.

[image: View Post]roadrunner, on Oct 17 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

I've owned and zx6r wich was all hp no trq, that bike didn't have much soul. I always liked the thump pully trq in a vehicle. I think there is a direct corelation between the two.


I like to think of it this way: hp makes you hold on to the bars as your a pulled forward while tq feels like a force going straight from the rear wheel right up your spine. :wheel:

I'm curious as the the weight distribution. Not front to back like they measure cars but top half versus lower half. If the bike is 30 lbs heaver than the current but but actually has more weight down low that could in theory feel like a lighter bike, is this correct?

No wonder they're saying this engine feels alive. One of the things I don't like about my '02 is needing to kick it down a few gears for decent acceleration.
))))))))

I like working a motor , drop two and go warp , by the sound of it , vfr1200 has more than adaquate power though.

If it gets less fuel milege than vfr that would be a big negative


I'm thinking about just getting a dual sport single carb and Hunt sport bikes, much cheaper and simpler

[image: View Post]spud786, on Oct 17 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

I like working a motor , drop two and go warp , by the sound of it , vfr1200 has more than adaquate power though.

I'm the same way and like wringing the bikes neck and working the higher RPM ranges. I've ridden bikes with 140-160hp - not the best bikes to work the engine in the twisties. I'll hurt myself.

[image: View Post]JJbigbird, on Oct 17 2009, 12:12 AM, said:

Handling is where my concern is with the new 1200f....If honda didnt improve or atleast leave the handling characterstics alone, the new VFR will be a HUGE dissapointment to me, and my replacement bike will be a Sprint or Busa.

All but guaranteed to handle better than a 'Busa.

[image: View Post]RE-Agent, on Oct 17 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

I'm curious as the the weight distribution. Not front to back like they measure cars but top half versus lower half. If the bike is 30 lbs heaver than the current but but actually has more weight down low that could in theory feel like a lighter bike, is this correct?

Correct.

That will be the key on this new bike. The engine might be a bit taller, due to the narrower V, but a lot of the powertrain weight is in the transmission, so if Honda managed to move its CG down just a tad it will show handling improvement. WRT the engine weight, maybe there is a weight reduction as a result of the simplified head design. This is a double gain, because the head weight is way high.

That new drive shaft has got to weigh a LOT more than a chain setup (>30lbs more?), (but it is down low), and they seem to have managed to shave off weight in other areas to compensate. On the down side it is unsprung weight.

Brian