• A few people have been scammed on the site, Only use paypal to pay for items for sale by other members. If they will not use paypal, its likely a scam NEVER SEND E-TRANSFERS OF ANY KIND.

Your thoughts on long-distance touring on the NC?

another option might be the cb500x. RideApart.com raves about the bike. I considered it before I got my NC. I wanted a lighter motorcycle with antilock and fuel injection that could take light offload. I went with the NC, but almost got the CB.

Nice looking bike. I wasn't aware of the CB500x. As yet another aside, my personal dream bike is the CB1100. One of my alltime favs that I owned was a bought-brand-new in 1980 CB750F SuperSport. Wish I still had that one.

Only thing with the 500X is that since it's a newer bike, it's going to be probably impossible to find one under $5k. Not a deal-breaker, but it IS a consideration. I'll look into it, though.
 
My point is...Someone uncomfortable in gravel on a Suzuki might just be as uncomfortable on a NC, maybe even more so since it is a bit taller. Actually, I think just about everyone is uncomfortable in gravel!
Height isn't the main issue.
The NCX has wider bars and a more stable steering geometry than sport bikes. The wheelbase is also pretty long so that helps as well.
Sport bikes can have a rake of 24.5 degrees or less. Even the more conservative VFR is 25.5.
The NCX is 27 degrees. That's closer to what you'll find on a motocross bike.
It's definitely more comfortable to ride on gravel with the NCX than a sport bike.
You still have wide short tires and another 200+ lbs more than an enduro though, so still not a dirt bike.
 
You'll find that the NC handles in a much smoother manner than the GSX. I've ridden small sport bikes like that and the steep fork rake and lack of torque tends to make the bike real twitchy as it doesn't take much input for them to turn quickly. I used to ride my friends Honda RC51 which was a rocket ship but terribly non-compliant around town with twitchy acceleration and steering and overpowered brakes that easily locked up the wheels. One time I locked up both the front and rear wheel at the same time with a light application of the brakes.! It was a bit like skiing and the bike is so light that I was OK bringing it to a stop. Also, you tend to put more weight on your hands and wrists on sport bikes which also affects turning. The NC takes more input to turn but it is super smooth with it's low center of gravity and low end torque. The NC's brakes are very low performance compared to the brakes on your wife's GSX or your FJR. I have the ABS brakes so I can just pound on them in any rapid braking situations and not worry about locking them up. I think that once your wife got used to the low end thumpiness (not really a word) I think she would really prefer the NCX over the GSX. As far as your switch from the FJR you still may like the NCX. I came from a BMW K1200 GT which is a competitor against the FJR. I'm 6'4" tall and am much more comfortable on long rides on the NCX than I was on the Beemer. I'm ok with less power and acceleration on the NCX as it forces me to be a safer rider overall. Good luck in your search.
 
I've had two NC700s and logged about 45,000 miles between them and I own a ST1300 with 160,xxx miles I put on it. In 2013, the first year I owned an NC, I toured 16 days on it and never took the ST1300 out of state that year. One trip was 8 days about 3500 miles. That was how much I liked touring on the NC.

I changed the NC700s seats & windshields and added handguards for wind protection and took off. At 70-80 mph I'm looking for gas at 160 -180 miles with a 30+ mile reserve. At 80+ it's 150 miles with a 20 mile reserve. The thing I find with a low powered bike like the NC is the mileage is greatly affected by headwinds and speed. When a strong headwind is against me the mileage drops significantly. Another factor is adding larger windshields and hand protection will affect mileage at least 5% over stock. Luggage adds to that.

I find the NC very comfortable for distance riding. I did not add risers on the first one but I did on the second one. I've ridden over a 1000 miles in a day several times on my NCs. The twin cylinder engine on the NC has just the right amount of low frequency vibration for me. At cruising speeds the mirrors are pin sharp and the grips & pegs don't buzz. They throb some at low rpms but it's a 270 degree crank twin and not a counterbalanced inline 4 or v4.
 
I had the FJR fantastic bike smooth fast trouble free 99,000 miles. Took me to Alaska twice that's a 10,000 mile trip for me. Had the Gold Wing wonderful bike took me to New Foundland and Labrador. I loved the Gold Wing rode it like an FJR the weight got me one day lucky to be alive. Got the NC so I would slow down and stay closer to home. It's not smooth not quiet as the last bikes but does everything adequately. That being said it's been to Alaska twice from Illinois, took me to Prudhoe Bay Deadhorse Alaska just fine. Finally made it to the Northwest Territories on the NC. The NC slowed me down I don't worry about any rocket ship speed speeding tickets anymore. I put the Madstad windshield on, highway pegs and leave the front of the seat loose above bracket and put a folded up towel under it to adjust height to whatever I like. The NC does it all just fine.20140724_121030.jpg
 
I don't think the laws of physics fully support that statement. The torque is proportional, but not the acceleration. When you increase the torque at the rear wheel by way of a gearing change, you also decrease the RPM of the wheel. Thus, (assuming you stay in the same power band of the engine) the power delivered to the rear wheel is the same. Increasing the acceleration would require more power, but the power is limited by the engine's output.
Hate to continue thehigh jack, but I will anyway...

power is exactly proportional to torque at a given RPM. P = 2 * pi * N * T / 33000 (I remember this thing from college at least). N is rpm

Force at the ground is exactly proportional to torque (torque / radius).

Acceleration is in F = m * a. Force and acceleration are directly proportional.

Sprocket changes are exactly the same as putting a 4.10 rear end or 10" wheels on a muscle car.
 
Nice looking bike. I wasn't aware of the CB500x. As yet another aside, my personal dream bike is the CB1100. One of my alltime favs that I owned was a bought-brand-new in 1980 CB750F SuperSport. Wish I still had that one.

Only thing with the 500X is that since it's a newer bike, it's going to be probably impossible to find one under $5k. Not a deal-breaker, but it IS a consideration. I'll look into it, though.
Here is one in Illinois:
2014 Honda CB 500X, Litchfield IL - - Cycletrader.com

Here is one in Wisconsin (you can fly and ride for under $5000 total):
2014 Honda CB 500X, Big Bend WI - - Cycletrader.com

Here is one closer to you in Ga...
2014 Honda CB500X, Buford GA - - Cycletrader.com
 
Last edited:
Hate to continue thehigh jack, but I will anyway...

power is exactly proportional to torque at a given RPM. P = 2 * pi * N * T / 33000 (I remember this thing from college at least). N is rpm

Force at the ground is exactly proportional to torque (torque / radius).

Acceleration is in F = m * a. Force and acceleration are directly proportional.

Sprocket changes are exactly the same as putting a 4.10 rear end or 10" wheels on a muscle car.

That's what I tried to tell you. If you increased the rear wheel torque by way of a final drive gearing change, you also decreased the wheel RPM. Therefore there is no free power. In your formula, if you measure torque at the rear wheel, you also measure RPM at the rear wheel. That will get you your rear wheel horsepower, which is never going to be higher than crankshaft horsepower, and certainly can't be increased by a simple sprocket change.

If the new gearing keeps the engine in the power band better because the old gearing was poorly chosen, then yes, the vehicle accelerates better because the engine is producing more power. I made that qualification in my post as well.
 
Last edited:
That's what I tried to tell you. If you increased the rear wheel torque by way of a final drive gearing change, you also decreased the wheel RPM. Therefore there is no free power. In your formula, if you measure torque at the rear wheel, you also measure RPM at the rear wheel. That will get you your rear wheel horsepower, which is never going to be higher than crankshaft horsepower, and certainly can't be increased by a simple sprocket change.

If the new gearing keeps the engine in the power band better because the old gearing was poorly chosen, then yes, the vehicle accelerates better because the engine is producing more power. I made that qualification in my post as well.

No. It is torque that makes acceleration. The torque at the wheel will be higher at all engine speeds. The "power band" is irrelevant becasue you will use the same sift points regardless of gearing. More torque = faster acceleration. Power is a derived number (original brake horsepower is from the force produced by a brake on the output shaft). This is the nature of gearing, and why you accelerate faster in 1st gear than in second, even while the engine produces the same power.

This is not the same as changing gearing for track use, which has many more factors. But every hot rodder will tell you that a 4.10 (higher gearing, slower wheel speed) rear end will give you faster quarter mile times, at the expense of high revs on the highway.
 
When you increase the torque at the rear wheel by way of a gearing change, you also decrease the RPM of the wheel. Thus, (assuming you stay in the same power band of the engine) the power delivered to the rear wheel is the same. Increasing the acceleration would require more power, but the power is limited by the engine's output.

Exactly right. So, what happens when we 'shorten' gearing, is that at any given speed, the engine is turning faster. In most of the rpm range, that means the engine is also making more power, even if it's making the same (or even less) torque. The transmission's job is to nearly-freely exchange torque for speed. So, the larger amount of power being produced by the engine remains the one and only thing that increases acceleration. Power is the _rate_ at which work is accomplished.

I 'toured' on my NCX for ~60 days last summer. I rode out to the coast, up the coast to a temporary work location, and then toured around all weekend each weekend. It was great! I do not find the NCX as comfortable as my other Honda (a Ridgeline pickup), but it is adequate in essentially all respects. Cold weather riding would not be as pleasant as on a fully-faired motorcycle.

For reference, I have every Honda option available in the American market for this bike, excepting the back pad for the trunk/top case, which only finally arrived here a couple(?) years ago. I also have a custom-shaped Corbin seat, Rox Risers, and some cheap brush guards/hand guards from Cycle Gear that I put on for the frigid southern Arizona winters. :p
 
Last edited:
Also, thanks to all of your responses, what I am focusing on now is possibly a CB500X for the spousal unit, and maybe........maybe......... an NC for me. I vacillate daily about replacing the FJR. And no, we can't really afford to keep 3 or 4 bikes in the barn. If I can get the FJR to where my back and shoulders aren't aching on long rides, I'd absolutely keep it. But having ridden a V-Strom for a good distance, it sure seems like the more upright posture of these types of bikes are better suited to me. Will update you all as we make decisions, but I'm likely going to sit it out this winter and decide in the spring.
 
No. It is torque that makes acceleration. The torque at the wheel will be higher at all engine speeds. The "power band" is irrelevant becasue you will use the same sift points regardless of gearing. More torque = faster acceleration. Power is a derived number (original brake horsepower is from the force produced by a brake on the output shaft). This is the nature of gearing, and why you accelerate faster in 1st gear than in second, even while the engine produces the same power.

This is not the same as changing gearing for track use, which has many more factors. But every hot rodder will tell you that a 4.10 (higher gearing, slower wheel speed) rear end will give you faster quarter mile times, at the expense of high revs on the highway.

Based on all that theory then, I think I'll really lower the gearing on my 4hp, 49cc Ruckus to produce gobs of rear wheel torque and proportionally increased acceleration. I should be able to gear it down enough to get more rear wheel torque than a stock NC700. I'll have to hold on tight!
 
Last edited:
I can do about 1000 a day on mine I have the Honda touring shield rox risers highway pegs and the stock seat I'm 5'9 165 lbs For the seat I just perform the free seat mod and put my gel pad on along with bike shorts and I'm good all day. On the highway I average about 55-70 mpg depending on speed. I have done some monster days in the saddle with my NC I love it. For me I have no issues with vibration to be honest the NC is one of the smoothest motorcycles I have ever owned. The highway pegs are a must to get the legs stretched out. I also found as others have mentioned that while they may have more capacity my NC burns less over the same distance as others in all situations. It's a fantastic bike to tour on Imo. The suspension on the NC is terrible but there are some good options out there to make it much better and not to expensive either
 
Last edited:
I can do about 1000 a day on mine...... It's a fantastic bike to tour on Imo.
You guys really gotta stop it. You're making me think more and more and more about trading the FJR for an NC!
(Anyone want a good deal on a beautiful FJR?) ;)
 

Attachments

  • 10249073_10152341363518874_624071219_n.jpg
    10249073_10152341363518874_624071219_n.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 402
i started in dfw thursday morning. so far covered about 1100 miles.

my other bike is a 2010 gold wing. i actually enjoy the nc more due to the riding position.

639bc6c1a03c2a170be7767a94781ca1.png
 
carry extra gas! i made it from south of little big horn today, to broadus montana, average 75-80, headwind. last 15 miles i went 55mph

9bb17783be9402ad34f99de61944946f.jpg


3a601dda7b0e16bf799ea43d5179345f.jpg
 
i started in dfw thursday morning. so far covered about 1100 miles.

my other bike is a 2010 gold wing. i actually enjoy the nc more due to the riding position.
Great trip! A shame you weren't on the "Western Slope" of Colorado where I'm located, near the Black Canyon, Ouray, Telluride and the Million Dollar Highway. If you've never ridden this area, it is a MUST! And if you do, contact me via this forum and I'd love to meet up and ride with you. And thanks for the feedback on the NC as a long-distance tourer, as well.
 
Back
Top