• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

I Want a New Honda VFR!

Forums New posts
Call it whatever you like I love mine. It's got power the 800 just can't match.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
Well, that's just Super. I'm sure the fat chick from Wilson Phillips has pleased more than a few but, with all due respect, this isn't what we're talking about

(and, yes- I rode the VFR1200 as a loaner bike- my opinion of it will be withheld for another post at another time)
 
Last edited:
The 800 is obsolete. They need to do away with the vtec engine and stick to the 1200 design. The cam setup is more reliable, smaller, and less complicated. Ok maybe make the displacement less sure.

Having done track days on both bikes, the 1200 is a better platform all together.

Hey if someone wants to compare the rsv4 here, then the 1200 should be better represented.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
Also, the fat chick reference almost had me on the floor. Lol

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
Id take the RSV4 in a heartbeat. The VFR1200 does not do it for me at all.
 
Let me also add that I test rode an 01 VFR800, and an 02 Sprint ST back to back. The Sprint was the winner, so thats what I ride.
 
Rsv4 is bad *** no doubt. But it's in the same league as the vfr. That's a v4 supersport. And a **** nice one.

The 800 and the 1200 are more in the futura range really. Always wanted a figurative too. Killer machines.

I adore my 1200. Not every bike appeals to everyone.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
Also, I've owned many bikes. A k1200lt, an f650gs, an R1100s, a tl1000r, and on and on.

Of all of them, my vfrs were best. And my 1200 is taking top honors. Best bike I've ever owned.

Mind you, I'm 6'6" and 315 lbs. It's not like the size and weight of the 1200 are a problem for me.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
To bash the RSV4 a bit, the motor is incredibly thirsty at usually less than 30mpg with any type of spirited riding. With a tiny fuel tank and poor mileage the range is far less than 100 miles per tank. My comparison from earlier was the level of power and tech (suspension/brakes/electronics) that is included for the asking price. I was not trying to directly compare the two bikes to each other. Just what you get for the same amount of money. I really like the new VFR, I just want more bike(POWER) for that kind of coin.
 
That's a good point- VFRs have never been good at the numbers game. Their riders usually prefer to simply ride their bike in the real world and leave horsepower arguments to the other guys. As an example- twenty years ago my friends thought I was crazy getting a VFR when their bikes cost less and had more power. Those bikes were almost immediately outdated when the next year's latest/greatest came out. Nobody I know brags about the bike they rode back then, but they all still remark on how classy that VFR was. It is a different kind of bike for a different kind of rider. It's nice to have so many choices and the new VFR looks like a real honey.
 
El Fenix said:
Let me also add that I test rode an 01 VFR800, and an 02 Sprint ST back to back. The Sprint was the winner, so thats what I ride.
Click to expand...

To each his own but I used to own a 2001 VFR and I test rode a Sprint ST. The Honda was a far better bike.
If I remember correctly, the VFR was THE sport tourer for almost a decade and several manufacturers tried to build a better bike (emphasis on "tried"). Go back and check out magazines from the early 2000's and you'll see the VFR was king.
I'd consider an Aprilia Futura even before I'd take a look at an ST.
 
misterO said:
That's a good point- VFRs have never been good at the numbers game. Their riders usually prefer to simply ride their bike in the real world and leave horsepower arguments to the other guys. As an example- twenty years ago my friends thought I was crazy getting a VFR when their bikes cost less and had more power. Those bikes were almost immediately outdated when the next year's latest/greatest came out. Nobody I know brags about the bike they rode back then, but they all still remark on how classy that VFR was. It is a different kind of bike for a different kind of rider. It's nice to have so many choices and the new VFR looks like a real honey.
Click to expand...

Hang out on VFRd and you'll see tons of people complaining about the lack if HP in the VFR.
Many *want* more power, but wouldn't get a different bike due to the rest of it.

Somewhere, I saw the VFR described as the jack of all trades; master of none.

For me, the VFR is sporty enough and tour-y enough to be a lot of fun.
Can ride it all day, and/or take it to the track.
Can load it up and head for <distant place> or rail around the local curvy road.

I'm still surprised how much Honda is asking for the new VFR800F. $15k? That's a lot! Especially considering that Japanese brands rarely invest enough in the suspension (to be fair, these sound much improved over my weeny-legged '02)
 
Once I got spoiled with litr+ bikes, it's mighty hard to settle for 781cc. Heck, I had a C14, and that's almost twice that size. Granted I never felt I needed all that power all the time. But when the need arises or the mood strikes, it sure is nice to have it on tap. For a round and about bike tooling around town, or a track bunny, middleweight makes a good argument. But for a sport tourer, I wouldn't want less than the Sprint ST's 1050cc.

No doubt many are okay with middleweight ST's. I'm just saying I'm not.

As for the VFR1200... yes it's a polarizing bike. The too-fat-for-a-sportbike and too-sporty-for-an-ST fits my wants and needs perfectly. But I certainly can see why a lot of folks don't like it.
 
gore-tx said:
Why? Care to explain?
Click to expand...

The vtec system in the 800 was Honda trying to figure out how to conserve fuel and stick to a known design.

The 1200s valve train is based on the 450x valve system. It's significantly smaller, is not vtec, and even with the larger displacement, it's still better on fuel economy (trust me I know)

The 800 is a good bike. I had one, and I loved it. If Honda were to take the 1200 design and make the displacement smaller and eliminate the vtec system, vfr lovers would be very happy indeed.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
rimmy said:
The vtec system in the 800 was Honda trying to figure out how to conserve fuel and stick to a known design.

The 1200s valve train is based on the 450x valve system. It's significantly smaller, is not vtec, and even with the larger displacement, it's still better on fuel economy (trust me I know)

The 800 is a good bike. I had one, and I loved it. If Honda were to take the 1200 design and make the displacement smaller and eliminate the vtec system, vfr lovers would be very happy indeed.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have a vague recollection of Honda trying to design some fuel saving mechanicals in the VFR-1200 engine. Something similar to VTEC or cylinder cut out. Does anyone remember?
 
bmcdonau said:
I have a vague recollection of Honda trying to design some fuel saving mechanicals in the VFR-1200 engine. Something similar to VTEC or cylinder cut out. Does anyone remember?
Click to expand...

Nothing I can remember. I've read up on just about everything related to the VFR1200. Honda varied the intake tracks of the front cyl pair vs. The rear pair. This supposedly gave the two banks different torque and power characterstics. One makes better top end, the other better midrange. The combined effect is a broader powerband and less of a turbo like rush.

Typical.street riding, mine gets 38-40mpg. I'm at sea level and ride solo lightly loaded. Even "spirited riding" only dips down to 35.
 
MidlifeCrisis said:
Nothing I can remember. I've read up on just about everything related to the VFR1200. Honda varied the intake tracks of the front cyl pair vs. The rear pair. This supposedly gave the two banks different torque and power characterstics. One makes better top end, the other better midrange. The combined effect is a broader powerband and less of a turbo like rush.

Typical.street riding, mine gets 38-40mpg. I'm at sea level and ride solo lightly loaded. Even "spirited riding" only dips down to 35.
Click to expand...

I remember now--it was the rumored VFR-1200T that was supposed to have it. An article mentioned all the patents Honda applied for and that was one of them along with a front "crush" zone.
 
Here you go, from Visor Down in June of 2010:

"THE NEW VFR1200T tourer will appear at shows later this year, and Visordown has the latest drawings of the VFR1200F-based technology-ladened machine.

As well as the semi-auto gearbox that's optional on the VFR1200F, the touring version will gain, in true Honda style, a huge number of world-first gizmos, marking it out as a range-topping technology showpiece.

These include a Goldwing-style airbag, as well as the first car-style crumple-zones ever seen on a motorcycle. A lightweight aluminium frame, not unlike the seat subframe on a conventional bike, extends forwards to the very front of the fairing, terminating in the distinctive 'chin' under the headlight.

As well as acting as a crumple-zone in head-on crashes, this frame is intended to stop the VFR from tilting forwards in an impact; keeping the bike level so rather than being thrown over the bars, the rider is catapulted forwards into an airbag that bursts from the top of the fuel tank.

The bike, which replaces the firms' ST1300 Pan European, was shelved earlier this year due to the effects of the worldwide recession.

The VFR-T's technology doesn't stop there. Honda has also developed a new version of the VFR1200F's V4 engine, specifically aimed at the touring version. Where the F uses Honda's “Unicam” cylinder head design, with a single camshaft for each bank operating four valves per cylinder, the T will have double overhead cams. But don't be fooled into thinking that makes the engine more conventional. The DOHC layout is needed so Honda can implement its patented cylinder cut-off technology, which allows the engine management to shut off individual cylinders when their power isn't needed. As soon as the cylinders are disabled, the VFR1200T's valve system de-activates the valves on those cylinders, so they remain closed, turning the cylinder into an air-spring which saps very little power.

The system is reckoned to be so efficient at cutting an engine's pumping losses – which normally make an engine inefficient at small throttle openings – that the overall fuel consumption can be as much as 30 percent lower. On the performance-oriented VFR1200F, such economy wasn't needed, but on the touring bike, the extra range it will offer is a valuable selling point, offsetting the additional cost and complexity of the system.

An electrically-adjustable windscreen will be standard, as will a centre stand. The push-button, dual-clutch gearbox is expected to be an expensive option, with the latest drawings clearly revealing a conventional clutch lever on the left hand bar of the bike in its basic form.

Originally expected to be launched alongside the VFR1200F at last October's Tokyo Motor Show, the VFR1200T now looks likely to appear at this September's Intermot show in Cologne.

Any takers?"
 
The thing that keeps me from buying a VFR is that it weighs more than my Ulysses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top