Honda takes aim at novice market with new CTX motorcycles

500lbs and $8,000 for a beginner bike?

Honda might have saved a few pounds and dollars going with a cvt instead of a trendy dual clutch. They've been selling great beginner level bikes and scooters in Asia for years, decades even. Ever ridden a Vario, or Blade, or Air Blade? Decent bikes, and far from 8 grand.

Electric motorbikes by Brammo and Zero are already beating these for power and weight, and even price.

Why would anyone want to buy this?

There aren't many other motorcycles that offer an automatic transmission.

The NC700X won some awards in 2012 but the combination of being 500 lbs and having a 32.7 inch seat deters some of the new riders that might have been interested in it for the transmission. The seat on the NC700X is also a little on the sporty (hard) side without much for the passenger to sit on. It does a few things right and a few wrong.

The lower seat in the CTX700N makes the weight a little more manageable for a new rider and it's still 100 lbs lighter than a Harley. The 60 MPG and 3.7 gal tank isn't great (222 miles per tank) but it's still more than a 600RR or a Sportster.

Every time gas prices climb there seems to be more demand for commuter motorcycles and there aren't that many to pick from.

The downside of the new 700's is they seem to omit the best feature from the original NC700, the storage compartment in the NC is large enough for a full face helmet: http://i.imgur.com/tsKzREg.jpg

The new CTX offers a smaller (glove box sized) storage compartment but keeps the same 3.7 gal fuel capacity. The NC kept fuel under the seat so I assume adding a more cushioned, lower seat required moving fuel back up to the standard tank location. That is kind of a tragedy.

"Only 36 KW" still translates to almost 160KW per ton. For a beginner it is plenty fast and offers something few motorbikes can deliver - real world fuel efficiency.

Being a rider for almost 3½ decades I advise all new and beginning riders to not get a bike because of fuel economy, it's only a side benefit. Make sure you will like this machine for a long time because your going to have to live with it and make sure it will suit your needs and not be unsafe or even become to boring for you quickly? It's AMAZING how much money you can end up throwing at a motorcycle? Fuel economy is almost an afterthought in my experience over the years? :-)

Bikes need streamlined bodies like cars have. Then comes supreme fuel economy, and high-speed cruising that isn't just the rider fight air. Anything else is a joke, this isn't the '70's and there's no excuse for this technology stagnation.

@mookins for most motorcycles people purchase fuel economy is an afterthought.

Part of the reason I assume is there is a huge difference in cost between a car that gets the job done and one that will do 10 second 1/4 mile times but with a motorcycle for $2k or $3k more than the price of entry you can buy one of the fastest street legal vehicles in the world.

When even absurdly fast machines like the BMW 1000 RR get 41 MPG the amount of money people spend on gas for a motorcycle isn't a major concern.

Generally the people reckless enough to get on a motorcycle in traffic with cagers are reckless enough to want something faster than they need (and/or loud enough to be heard).

Certainly there is a lot to be done with making more practical motorcycles but the lack of products is more reflective of a lack of consumer demand than it is lack of talent at the companies making products.

I welcome an influx of people looking for bikes like this because of high gas prices though because right now it feels like the industry either makes race bikes or cruisers and doesn't focus on that much else. There has been more focus on adventure bikes lately but > $15k, 600lb bikes with 36" seats seem pretty common in that segment.

It is a little worrisome that 600 super sports are probably still the most common bikes for beginners.

A few years ago I looked at bikes for transportation and the cost of a new bike was too much. If this was available then I think I would have picked it up. Right now it's more than I'd feel comfortable spending. Maybe there should be a model between moped and this? Note I've only ever rode a dirt bike and that was only one time so I don't know what the difference is between that and a full bike.

Having owned and ridden motorcycles since my first bike, a Harley XLCH in 1973, I can say the only reason to purchase one is for the enjoyment of riding. My current Honda CB750 gets 48mpg but I put on $250 worth of tires every 10,000 miles. The US needs the same high mileage diesel cars that sell in Europe and elsewhere.

Boring and Ugly.

Honda have no imagination, and a beginner should not be using a "automatic" for their first motorbike. No one should have an automatic motorbike, where's the fun in that, may as well get a scooter.

If they make a modernized v4 750cc magna, I'd buy it in an instant. There is nothing close or similar to it.

If we're just worrying about mileage, it's hard to beat a scooter. I ride a Yamaha scooter that is capable for all riding except interstate and average 85mpg. I'm not as fast as these bikes, but I'm sure I have as much (or more) fun as they do and I fill my 1.8 gallon tank less than once per week. As gas prices continue toward $4.00/gallon in my area, I think we'll be seeing more two wheel commuters.

Not real impressed with the article or some comments.

A "comparable" bike should do a sub 12.4 1/4 mile? There are few bikes at all that can do that. Apparently a comparable bike for this comparison is a 600cc+ crotch rocket. Maybe some Ducati or BMW touring bike with 50%+ more displacement and costing more than $15,000 could do this. And they ARE comparable, they cost at least $8,000 more, there's your comparison.

As far as the 60mpg x 3.17 touring range equation goes the author of the article "cheated" a little bit and failed to consider what he was specifically addressing. First, the mpg estimates are more like 65mpg for AVERAGE consumption. For touring purposes at legal speeds, it will be more. I know 1 person that bought the nc 700x. He told me he got ~55mpg during the break in when he was doing a lot of urban riding and changing engine speed a lot. He measured over 70mpg doing exclusively freeway riding from Ohio to Kansas, then decided to quit wasting his time doing any more calculating with mileage that good. I've ridden bikes since 1968 and have rarely encountered anybody who wants to ride over 2-1/2 hours non-stop. With the extra attention riding a bike requires, I suspect it is not smart to ride over 2 hours. I have a Bonneville and Sportster and may sell the Sportster to buy the CTX "beginner's" bike.

Why? I want a reliable, low-tuned water-cooled touring bike. Even though I'm a Harley guy, I don't want to struggle with a 700+# water buffalo. There's 2 kinds of guys who ride the very heavy touring bikes - guys who admit having dropped their bikes a couple of times a year and sometimes needed other people to help them pick it up...and liars.

I've been following what experienced motorcyclists have to say about these new entries from Honda, and it is almost comical, because many have these preconceptions of what "they" think a bike should be. These bikes aren't for you...They're for folks that have passed on motorcycles so far and for those who can physically no longer ride for the exact point of what these new motorcycles ain't. They're not chromed-out cruisers where one feels like he or she must wear leather to fit in, and they're not super sporty or fast but still plenty fast in regular traffic with a high range of usable power and torque. They are affordable, un-intimidating, reasonably transportating, and for the first time, I'm looking at motorcycles.

Anything slower than 5 seconds 0-60 is a bad thing....really...do they realize what they are saying. The average modern car is just under nine seconds and this is in a power-obsessed society where eleven seconds would fit the bill in nearly all traffic situations.

There are millions of American motorists out there who would be willing to try out power two wheels if only affordable, dependable, and practical products became available instead of OEMs catering to the most risky in our society. I shopped and bought a powered two wheeler last June. I needed something for a highway commute 55-65 mph along state highways that would be easy to maneuver, easy on the wallet, and easy to maintain. I ended up with a scooter (Piaggio BV350). The scooter is great but comes with a CVT and that's a bad thing with respect to maintenance. If Honda offered the CTX700 and the new 500s back then, I would now be on a Honda. These bikes are for the masses; not for those who have built this irrational biker culture that exists today.

I am 60 years old. Long time ago I used to restore and ride various models of bikes (NSU Quick 98, Adler MB 250, Honda C71 250, and my favorite fun bike: a Yamaha 750XS - I toured all over Europe). Now I am contemplating to return to biking. The Honda CTX700N seems to be the adequate bike - after 25 years of abstinence on a two-wheeler.

My compliments to the designers and marketing people of Honda: At this particular stage of my life - this design satisfies my needs (at least on paper) – it provides (almost) enough power, plenty of comfort and reliability I am looking for. It should ease my re-entry in the world of motorcycling – I think.

However, I would like to suggest few alternative options to the marketing department. In order to boost confidence for us “older” guys - standard on this particular model should be:

1. 10%-15% more horsepower,

2. Larger rear wheel,

3. Belt instead of chain drive,

4. A second brake disk in front,

5. Larger fuel tank / 5-6 gallons.

Available / optional accessories:

1. Larger rear-seat for my Honey!

2. Heating for both seats.