A little confused about it's handling

[OldWrench]

I have a question. My 83 is the first 1100 I have had, the 80 is still a project. Well a friend of mine rode my 83 and after a very short ride said it scared him because of the way it handles. It does seem to handle more like a sports bike, I attributed that to the fact that the guy I bought it off of put Metzeler tires on it. I’m use to it, but it does turn into a corner pretty darn quick and does have a bit of a tendency to wonder if you don’t stay on top of it.
So my question is this normal for the 1100 and if not could it be associated with the tires? Fork head is tight and bearing very smooth so I have checked that. I know that is not one of the recommended tires for this bike. So what do you guys think? :?

 

[slabghost]

Both my 1100s handle easily though the extra weight over my other bikes did take some getting used to. At speed it is very easy to forget it's a big tour bike. :yes:

 

[Omega Man]

My 1000(past) and my 1100 both handle very well, but your onto something with the tires. When I got my 1100 it had a Harley tire on the back and a common brand on the front. I put some Dunlop 404s on it and it was a whole new experience. That aside, does anyone else prefer the way the 1100 handles with a passenger? It's heaven on two wheels with the wife on the back.

~O~

 

[joedrum]

i thimk thats a good thing i like the fact that they handle nimble like or sportbike like ...... :mrgreen:

 

[mcgovern61]

My 1000(past) and my 1100 both handle very well, but your onto something with the tires. When I got my 1100 it had a Harley tire on the back and a common brand on the front. I put some Dunlop 404s on it and it was a whole new experience. That aside, does anyone else prefer the way the 1100 handles with a passenger? It's heaven on two wheels with the wife on the back.

~O~

The more weight on mine, the better it handles! (Until you stop and can't reach the ground flatfooted!) :smilie_happy:

Mine tracks very straight and I do not have any issue with it wanting to wander??

 

[detdrbuzzard]

i have seat time on a '78, '82, '84, and '93 wing and all handle good solo or two up

 

[AApple]

I'll have to answer your question with a question...
Does your friend have any seat time on a 'Wing?(1100, specifically)
I'm surprised at how nimble mine is for such a large, heavy bike. After I put on a new rear tire, it made a huge difference in how it handled...it felt a little more "twitchy" to me, but I finally realized that was due to me being used to riding it with a rear tire that was basically flat across the center of the tread, with no "roundness" as the new tire has. I have since gotten used to that, and like it even more, since it does help smooth the ride mo betta. :mrgreen:

 

[dan filipi]

I would ask your friend what it is in the handling that scared him.
These bikes, especially dressed, are heavy and take getting used to.
I think age plays a big part in it also. I'm sure in my 20's I could have whipped this bike around after
just a few hours riding but has taken me much longer.

 

[OldWrench]

Hey guys thanks for all the responses. As said I think he just wasn’t comfortable with the handling on it. Speaking of the swing arm, I had already checked it and it is fine. I’m comfortable with the bike, but she sure does handle more like a sport bike than a heavy touring bike. The slightest pressure on the bars in either direction and she is turning. The tires are like brand new, when they need to be replaced I think I will go with the Dunlop.

 

[AApple]

I think the reason they handle so differently from other large touring bikes is the lower CG of the boxer engine...that makes it easier to change directions than if you had the same amount of weight up higher, as in an inline four, or even a V-twin. I've seen arguments where some don't think that the major mass of the 'Wing engine is any lower than a V-Twin, but I just don't see how it couldn't be.
Frankly, I don't even care....I LIKE the way mine works! :mrgreen:

 

[toytender01]

:hi:I have ridden the 79 1000 for a number of years and now rhe 80 1100 they both handled great...when I first started on the 70 it turned so quick I wiyld drag the foot peg, had to get used to the quick response.... this bike when I first got it was naked I rode it to work for 5 years...later I got a veeter faring and just loved it all the more :clapping: :clapping: Mad a mistake when I sold it to a junkie (a relative of the wife)..Never sell to a relative!!!! :heat: especially a junkie....they set up all night taking it appart.... then blame you when it dosent work anymore....The 80 has been wonderful...full dress and goes like a stripped a _ _ ape.. I hope when the 82 comes togather it will be as much bike.. :clapping: Just need to find the time...right now my time is diverted withthe dodge van and installing new rebuilt heads... :head bang: :head bang: need to give the family car (F-350) back to the wife.... :good: :good: :heat: :lazy: :lazy: ..Bob

 

[OldWrench]

Regarding the lower CG, I agree it is probably a factor in the bikes handling. I don’t know how someone could say a V twin CG is even close. The opposed cylinder design has been around a long time. VW, and in aircraft Continental and Lycoming have both used it wit great success.
I have owned a variety of bikes, 39 Harley, taught me to cuss, BSA, and a Machless. Later on a 450, 750 Honda then an 850 Suzuki that I rode the heck out of. Anyway I got this 83 for a little bit of nothing and got it running and I just love the bike. Then one of my co-workers gave my the 80, it had been sitting in his field for I don’t know how many years but it was a mess. It is still a work in progress, but will finish it soon.

Speaking of time being diverted, oh how I understand that one, I'm married what do you expect.