Talk:Honda CB900F

misinformation on weight 3/26/2008
The "dry weight" figure is completely wrong & also a misquote. According current wording: 5 gallons of gasoline(30 lbs. by itself), 4.6 quarts of oil, 32 oz. of fork oil, about a gallon of coolant, a battery & some brake fluid all together weighs in at 30 pounds. This contradicts VERY, VERY BASIC math(simple addition).

This assertion is supported by Sportrider's own numbers of 455lbs. "dry" & 485lbs. "wet". The 30 lb. difference is the same weight as a full tank(5 gallons in this case) of gasoline. This is inconsistent with the concept of "dry weight" as currently quoted which requires ALL weight from fluids be removed.

Sportrider does not even claim to do true "dry weight" measurements but, a different measurement they refer to as "no fuel".

To quote Sportrider: "These charts contain fuel consumption data, measured rear-wheel horsepower and torque, and measured wet and dry (no fuel) weights."

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_weights_measurements/index.html

--Kendog29 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but we will specify that in the article so it's not to confuse a reader. Secondary sources are still more important. Roguegeek (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rougegeek... I checked out the revise. We've already confirmed from Sportrider's own admission that they NEVER, EVER measured the "dry weight" of the bike & therefor are NOT a source on the issue(secondary or otherwise). If you insist on the 455lb. number you need to remove the term "dry weight" all together. ESPECIALLY since it's linked to the definition of the term by which 455 pounds is very clearly the wrong number. It's better than the previous total misquote but, it certainly serves to "confuse the reader" as it is written now.

You still TOTALLY misquoted dry weight AGAIN in your edit revert in the specs chart on the page also. Your "secondary source" is totally invalid here as they to OPENLY admit to half-measures in their data collection of dry weight right a the top of the page containing the data. What Sportrider very loosely refer to as dry weight by their own admission is clearly something very different than the widely accepted definition for that term. The only valid source provided so far is the one I provided, which does NOT say 455 pounds. I reverted your chart edit.

3 TIMES you've edit reverted accurate data(from a reputable source where numbers basically add up) to inaccurate data(from a source that states that it is not actually doing the specific measurement you are quoting it as doing & numbers that clearly don't add up by >40%). We all make mistakes but, stubbornly edit reverting to a clear error repeatedly????

Some thoughts on the secondary source issue:

In all Wikipedia entries for specific models of motorcycle, "manufacturer" service manuals(a primary source) should be the #1 source for hard technical specifications. Why? Because there often are no secondary sources that actually checked the figures for themselves. About all secondary sources get their technical specification figures from the manufacturer as it's impractical to actually measure independently.

Consider this. Does Sportrider or any periodical really have enough extra manpower/money to disassemble engines & independently confirm an engine bore & stroke(displacement), cam profiles, or throttle body diameter, tolerances, etc.?? NO, they just quote the maker. Using dry weight as another example. Once fluids are added there's a lot of expense involved in getting them all completely out again which is why Sportrider NEVER did it. That Sportrider weight list is long. They'd have to drain fluids from every bike on the list then, clean & dry every internal part that was bathed in motor oil, coolant, grease & brake fluid. The only way to do that is tear most of each bike apart. Sportrider is surely NOT doing all that & they admit as much.

I'd go as far to say that about nobody is doing it. I'd bet that even independent service manuals(Haynes/Clymer) written by people who SOMETIMES took apart the bikes themselves use manufacturer specs & tolerance data heavily.

Bottom line:

The idea/rule of "secondary sources are still more important" does NOT hold up for the purpose of specific machine hard technical specifications. Up to date manufacturer technical service manuals(a primary source) are very highly accurate. They are not opinion oriented. Published, properly derived, independent measurements of the specific figures are costly & therefor often do not exist at all. Absence of secondary sources makes the manufacturer service manuals(primary sources) perfectly valid. The burden-of-proof rightfully belongs on the potential secondary sources in significantly contradicting manufacturer service manual hard specification figures. They only occasionally meet that burden.

--Kendog29 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the bottom line is that you need to find another secondary source that shows otherwise. Policy clearly states all article should live and breath from secondary sources, so your idea of technical articles being confirmed by a primary source is just flat out wrong. If a secondary source exists, it's a more valid source.


 * Power, torque, and weight... these are practically subjective and should always be backed up by a reliable secondary source, which I have done. Show a more reliable and updated secondary source, and the info can be changed. Until then, do not overwrite secondary source information with primary source information.


 * Also, you "confirming" with Sport Rider is considered original research and is not valid enough to change information here. Again, I think you need to read up on the policy a little bit more. I also encourage you to seek help from an admin or even use the helpme tag to request more help. I any case, I'm glad we are discussing here instead of having some useless edit war. Roguegeek (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Honda official dry weight 4/21/2009
The Honda official dry weight for the CB900F(919) is 194 kg (~428 lb) (Reference: Honda Australia, }.

--HornetGeoff (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornetboy (talk • contribs)

??Predecessor??
In the American market, the 1994 1995 CB1000(BIG ONE) is a very reasonable pick. The old CB900's were from several years previous(to about 1981 or 1983). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendog29 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I would throw it in there. Roguegeek (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Years of Production
Shouldn't 2008 be the final production year of make since Honda have replaced the bike with the CB1000?

222.155.161.128 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Elysium222.155.161.128 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved from the main page
I have been an avid Honda rider for three decades - when I think of a CB900F it is the models made from 1979 to about 1983....

See the link.

http://www.cb1100f.net/index.php

Tx Bill

I would have to agree with Bill on this, what is pictured here is not what I would consider a CB900F it is in fact a Hornet..CB900F's have air cooled DOHC carburated engines, and were made by the Honda Corp from 1979 for about 4 years. They were available in Europe before North America, with a fairing in Europe but not in North America. The North American version also had a different riding position, a 80MPH speedometer and different Carb jetting due to EPA regulations at the time.. You will see WAY more DOHC CB900F's on the road still today that you will ever see "Hornets" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.223.98 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime in to agree the previous two comments. I actually helped another user to create a page that accurately describes the real CB900F, but it looks like he never continued to publish that article. The Hornet/919 IS NOT the CB900F. Any person familiar with Honda lineage could verify this information.

Here is a link to the sandbox page for the CB900F. Does anyone know how to get this published and move the "CB900F" article to a new article for the Hornet/919? Jon1234567 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CB900F and Hornet
Hello. I see the original page was moved to a different article. This needs discussion before it is done. I've merged both generation bike information onto the same page. Yes, they are different bikes, but they are the same in name and use. Both should be represented on the same page. This is the same concept applied to so many different articles. We don't go making separate pages for each generation unless there is substantial information to support a stand-alone article. Anyway, wanted to start the discussion topic so all editors can chime in here. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the changes after discussion in the Wikipedia motorcycling group. These two motorcycles are not the same and do not have the same name.  The official name of the later bike is 'Hornet' or '919'.  It is not officially 'CB900F'.  As such, it seems justified to me that they get separate articles.  I acknowledge that is colloquially referred to as a 'CB900F' sometimes, which is why I think it is appropriate that both articles mention the other motorcycle.


 * If anything, the second generation of the CB900F is the CB1100F. If someone were to propose that the CB900F and the CB1100F should be in the same article, I would agree -- though you would then have to consider including the DOHC CB750F, the CB900C, and the CB1000C.  The CB900F is much more closely related to the CB1100F than it is to the Hornet/919. Likewise, the Hornet/919 is more closely related to the Hornet 600 and the CB1000 (Big 1) than it is to the original CB900F and CB900C. Jon1234567 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Honda UK calls it the CB600F. MCN calls it the same. Numerous Google searches cut anyway you want to identify that bike as being called several things depending on the market (ie. CB900F, CB900F Hornet, CB900 Hornet, 919, Hornet, etc...). As far as being related, I agree with you. Still, the two bikes aren't going to have much related to them when production of the two generations is almost 20 years apart. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that there are so many differences, what exactly would it take for two motorcycles to have substantial differentiating information? 17-year production gap?  No shared parts/design?  Different name?  Different family of motorcycles?


 * I did see on one Honda site that the model designation for the Hornet/919 is indeed CB900F7 (I assume the tail number changes by year) -- which is more suggestive than I initially was aware. However, I have yet to see the bike offically called a 'CB900F' by Honda so I stand by my suggestion that the pages be separate.  I do not dispute referring to the Hornet/599 as a 'CB600F' -- namely because 'CB600F' does not overlap with a very distinct earlier model.


 * I think the most important thing is that people searching for information on the CB900F are not interested in information on the Hornet/919. Similarly, people looking for information on the newer bike are unlikely to be interested in the CB900F.  For comparison's sake, the CBR600 has 5 different pages (!), including one page for the CBR600F4 and another for the CBR600F4i.  Some say they prefer consolidation of articles, but I would caution that there is a wealth of information relating to the original 900 series that has little/nothing to do with the more recent Hornet/919. Jon1234567 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Colors
Copied from the article:


 * North American colors:
 * 2002 - Asphalt (Matte Pearl) Black
 * 2003 - Light Silver Metallic, Asphalt Black
 * 2004 - Light Silver Metallic, Matte Uranium (Green)
 * 2005 - Metallic Black
 * 2006 - Candy Red
 * 2007 - Candy Red


 * United Kingdom and European colors:
 * 2001 - Iron Nail Silver, Candy Tahitian Blue, Mute Black Metallic (from 2001 on)


 * Japanese colors:
 * 2001 - Red, Light Silver Metallic (from 2001 on)

We should leave this out for now, and put it back when it can be reliably sourced. I think somebody confused the December 2001 UK release date with the 2002 model year. They hyped the bike and showed it around in 2001, but it was a 2002 MY. Just like there were still MY 2007 CB900Fs for sale in 2008 even though it had been replaced. But these articles go by model year. --Dbratland (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TRAC -- 1982 or 1983?
Question on TRAC -- was this added in 1982? I used to own a 1982 model and am fairly confident it did not have the TRAC system. I was under the impression (in the US, anyway) that TRAC was only available on the 1983 CB1100F, not any of the 900s. Perhaps this was different in Europe? Jon1234567 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, unless they phased in the changes on some 1982 models or some countries. Myers -- a UK writer -- also says 1983.  The only source for 1982 is Brown.  I've updated it to reflect the disagreement.  I suppose if we can check another source that also says 1983, we can ignore Brown on this question and simply say 1983.  --Dbratland (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dual-Piston Calipers
I can state with certainty that dual-piston calipers were available in 1982 (in the US, at least). I believe they were also used in 1981. Jon1234567 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable Opinion Littering this Article
Good article, but seems to be written by a Honda enthusiast who's a bit over-enthusiastic. Many references are to an opinion which may have been influenced by Honda. You can reference an opinion to support anything, I can provide plenty of references "proving" the moon landings happened in the Arizona desert. QUALITY references needed.

I did over 50,000 km (30,000 miles) on a Bol D’Or (Rolladoor) in the early 1980's, an earlier model than the the black model in the leading photo, & the opinions & some facts presented in this article are quite different to my experience, & that of anyone else I know who owned one. I'll move down through the article adding my bit. Free free to howl.

The stroke was longer than the bore, article appears self-contradictory. My compression ratio was higher than stated here. Combustion chamber shape/valve angle/compression ratio worth commenting on too, it's what determined the interesting characteristics of this engine. Number of valves per cylinder (4) not mentioned, also important.

Exotic means it comes from overseas. Every Japanes bike is exotic if you don't live in Japan. What does the prefix "Ex" mean? Dictionary, please.

"perhaps one of the first Hondas ready to challenge European  motorcycles not just in engine output but in handling"

"blessed with a frame and suspension that showed the Japanese were catching up with the Europeans in chassis technology."

Pigs fly. Handling was laughable.

In Australia the frame had a well-deserved reputation for flexing, that removable (for maintenance) frame rail which behaved like a hinge was one of many problems, & the suspension was pansy-soft.

Groundclearance was excellent, when the stands were modified & tucked away more, but above 140 km (85 mph) the bike reacted poorly to bumps/wallows in corners, rear shocks hopeless, front forks dangerously soft & the bike stood up alarmingly when braking into corners. Air preload was useless for handling but quite good for blowing fork seals even if you didn't over-pressure.

The Rolladoor has only one front disc brake, & that disc brake has 2 rotors.

Quite unusually for a relatively long stroke the engine had no midrange,

totally gutless below 7,000 rpm

lit up like a rocket at around 7,500 rpm ran reliably to 10,500 rpm (1,000 rpm past the redline) & at 11,000 rpm the valves would tangle catastrophically with each other or the piston. See valve angle. See Ducati re desmodromic.

Various solutions to invrease the upper limit, such as heavier valvesprings & double valvesprings were tried, but met with limited success.

If the valvesprings in your machine aren't in new condition (off-spec or incorrect assembly or lost tension due to heat, age, etc) the upper limit will be lower.

Broken conrods mentioned lower down in the article probably occurred when an upward moving piston met a downward moving valve, or hit two valves that had already tangled. Valves can float at high rpm. Ever wondered why Ducati use desmodromic heads? Mercedes racers used them too.

Many people suspected the "it dropped out of gear" stories floating around at the time were actually from sloppy gearchanges or maladjusted gear linkages. Nobody I knew had this problen.

Approx 6,000 rpm at approx 100 km (60 mph) on standard gearing was revving ridiculously high. Lots of smaller rear sprockets were sold.

The bars were actually clipons excellent, very high quality design & manufacture, huge amount of adjustment & if reversed upside down so they dropped down, gave same position as sporting clipons. Left in the standard position you'd be instantly blown off the bike at 130 mph (210 km), no perhaps about it.

New red-lit instruments (different to old-style ones pictured in article) were generally considered excellent, a few people didn't like them though.

Many people thought the paint & finish was better than BMW. Models without the ghastly unpainted pressed & rivetted aluminium wheels looked very smart.

Seat was renowned as an instrument of torture, worst of any bike I've owned,1,000 km (600 miles) in a day was almost unbearable.

PLUSSES: Excellent finish Excellent groundclearance Excellent power when you got up it.

MINUSES: Awful handling the only people who said it handled OK were previous 750 Honda owners journos subject to advertiser pressure & Honda. Gutless below 7,000 rpm. Awful handling. Drank like a fish if you were up it. Awful handling. Horrible seat. Awful handling.

"the ultimate statement of the old air-cooled technology Honda had done so much to create,"

Over the top nonsense. The Rolladoor was quickly made obsolete by the GSX 1100 Suzuki.

I believe air-cooled motorcycles existed 100 years before Honda came along. A 1930's Brough pulled 130 mph, same top speed as the Honda. Desmodromic heads, anyone?

I enjoyed my Rolladoor but my next bike was a GSX 1100 Suzuki. It thrashed the Honda in every aspect except finish & groundclearance (I kept wearing holes in alternator covers).

Honda really blitzed the media with Honda propaganda, which was dutifully repeated by the motorcycling media where Honda spent lots of advertising dollars when the Bol d'Or was released, & it seems to be still floating around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.253.24 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Error
First Generation

Design

< The CB900F's engine has a 901 cc (55.0 cu in) four-cylinder DOHC engine with square bore/stroke dimensions of 62 mm (2.4 in).[10] >

This is clearly incorrect and is not in agreement with the infobox (64.5 x 69)

86.141.61.177 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes things like this get out of sync when different editors were looking at different model years. If you can find a reliable source, by all means cite it and fix the error. - Bri (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I put that in back in 2010, citing Rod Kerr offline. I think it was supposed to say the CB750 differed from the 900 because it (the 750!) was 62x62 mm. I can re-check it later. Good catch. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Fixed now. Thanks, 86.141.61.177. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda CB900F. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113132331/http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/exhibits/superbikes/CB750/CB750.asp to http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/exhibits/superbikes/CB750/CB750.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)