[T-88]

GPZ1100 said, ". . . makes me very angry thinking about the astonishing stupidity of the Honda software engineers."

You have FULL CONTROL of engine rpm up to redline in each gear in any Riding Mode (including ECO) in MT MODE.

Owner's Manual p.116, "If the MT MODE is selected, the transmission does not shift up automatically. Do not allow the engine revs go into the red zone." If you require a high speed pass, why not simply switch into MT MODE and take full control of the transmission's operation?

Owner's Manual p. 120, "ECON mode. . . . For models equipped with DCT, shifting characteristics ARE ORIENTED TO MAINTAIN LOW AND MIDDLE SPEEDS." So I'm not sure why you're critical that while in ECON mode (and Automatic) the transmission doesn't hold gears to redline. The transmission is programmed that way.

The Wing operated exactly as it was designed to; Honda told you that's how it operates, and if you don't like the software programming in Automatic, you can:
1. Take full control by switching to MANUAL mode (easiest), or
2. Leave it in AUTOMATIC, switch to Tour or Sport mode and let the program hold each gear longer.

Tim

 

[T-88]

On my bike, a 2018 I can downshift twice and immediately go to full throttle after the downshift and even if I maintain full throttle continuously it will upshift after about 8 seconds. Not ideal when in the middle of making a pass. If any automatic transmission car I have owned in the last 30yrs prematurely upshifted while I had it floored making a pass I would have immediately taken it to the transmission shop for repair. A sudden loss of power while making a pass is a great way to get yourself or others killed.

True. But every pilot is required to know the specific operational parameters of their aircraft AS STATED IN THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL.

Tim

 

[T-88]

Thanks ShanghaiDan for the excellent technical explanation.

I think the bottom line is:

1. DCT owners need to understand the transmission's automatic gearshift characteristics that are programmed into each of the Rain, Econ, Sport and Tour riding modes
2. If the operator is in Automatic and riding in a situation that requires engine performance characteristics that are outside the programmed parameters of the current Riding Mode, the operator then has 2 choices:
   1. Switch to a Riding Mode that provides the desired engine and gearshift characteristics, or
   2. Switch to Manual and take full control of engine performance

Tim

 

[T-88]

Oh no! That’s a whole nother can of worms. I don’t think Don can find what isn’t there but I wholeheartedly agree with you. If my 1800 could just match the hp per cubic inch of the V6 in my Chevy Impala we would be at 152hp. If someone would have told me 35yrs ago my plain Jain family sedan would put out considerably more hp per cubic inch than my motorcycle I would have said your crazy!

Just wondering why anybody would buy such an (apparently) underpowered POS. . .there are lots of 'reasonably' powered alternatives, the Yamaha FJR1300, Kawaski C14 Concours, BMW R1250RT and BMW K1600 series immediately come to mind. The aforementioned, I believe, all have vastly superior HP/litre outputs compared to Honda's underpowered, underdeveloped, POS 1833 cc flat-six engine. Apparently you fellas didn't do your due diligence before buying. . .

Tim

 

[T-88]

I would certainly not call the engine in the wing a POS. It is one of main defining features of the Wing. However, as the previous 1800 had a 17yr run Honda had a LOT of time to develop this version. IMO the 1st generation was a revelation at the time of it’s introduction in 01. It was clearly head and shoulders above the 1500 it replaced in every way. The new 1800 is only marginally superior to the original 1800 IMO. So on the one hand, being even slightly better than the excellent first gen 1800 means it’s a great engine. On the other hand, after 17 yrs of technological advancements a slight improvement over the first gen engine isn’t particularly impressive.

I apologize for the sarcasm.

True, more power would have been desirable. But technically, in the context of designing an engine for its intended purpose, the new 1833cc engine IS impressive, in that it's lighter than then 1832cc predecessor, more compact, and is more fuel efficient.

Given the 2018+ are lighter than the previous gen, and mated to the slick DCT 7-speed transmission (that shifts faster than a person can with MT), acceleration has been improved, perhaps (guessing) something akin to adding 10-15 (?) HP to the old 1832cc engine. And given that more horsepower serves to increase top speed and the 2018+ Wings are speed governed, there's really no real world utility to a few more horsepower. At least that's my convoluted logic.

So, with less weight, a faster shifting DCT trans, and reputedly a slicker cD, the new Wing clearly out accelerates the old Wing. Honda's integrated engineering approach, for better or worse, has 'compensated' for needing more horsepower.

Having said that, if the new Wing came with another 15 hp, I'd be waiting for the dealership doors to open so I could trade my '19 in.

Tim

 

[T-88]

Gearing only is a lever; if you don't have the torque at a lower RPM you end up with worse mileage. So that lower HP, ultra wide and flat and high torque motor allows you to roll a taller final gear and gain additional mileage.

Going for high HP would sacrifice that.

The shift-cam (?) technology that BMW is using on the R1250 emgones MIGHT provide the same, ample low rpm torque at lower RPMs the current 1833cc engine posseses and allow the engine to breathe more and rev higher than it currently does, garnering that extra 25 HP. The only problem for Corporate Honda is that shift-cam would be "NIH", Not Invented Here, and therefore unaceptable technology. Just thinking aloud.

Tim

 

[T-88]

Very interesting.

It's my understanding that Honda's VVT technology is not desirable in the Wing because it requires additional space for mechanisms above the overhead camshaft. That would mean additional width to the Wing's engine; not a good thing.

I thought the advantage of BMW's shift-cam technology was there was just another set of lobes on the cam, therefore not requiring additional space above the cam.

With BMW's shift-cam, one set of lobes gives low rpm torque and better fuel efficiency, the second set of lobes employed at higher RPM allows (more lift and duration?) to produce more horsepower. So keep the revs low, good fuel economy and torque are preserved. Rev the engine higher to engage the second set of cam lobes and hp increases.

It seems like a worthwhile and fairly simple technology that provides the best of both worlds. At least that's my understanding.

Tim

 

[T-88]

Thanks for taking the time for providing the excellent, detailed explanation. I learned a lot.

I'm guessing what some folks are really wanting is a simple, lightweight, affordable powertrain along the lines of a turbodiesel electric hybrid (like some of the 24 hours of Lemans racers?)

Until then, I'm more than happy with power and fuel efficiency of my "underpowered" '19 DCT Tour.

(One amazing characteristic of the new 1833cc engine which we did not discuss in detail is it's remarkable fuel efficiency. Although you did reference your other Honda. My DCT has delivered better fuel economy over its lifetime than my much lighter '14 BMW R1200RT, and the Honda requires regular gas vs the BMW requiring premium. This kind of stuff makes one marvel at Honda's engineering prowess.)

Tim

 

[T-88]

Pretty sure some of those Mustangs have user programable driving modes as well. Maybe Honda could send some of their engineers over to Ford for some schooling in vehicle software and tips on how to break the laws of physics.

I think you make a good point.

17 years of technological advances have resulted in more power and no decrease in fuel economy, some (much?) of which MAY be attributed to transmission gear ratios (particularly 5th and 6th 'overdrive' gears) and final axle ratio. (I don't know; I'm speculating.)

Here is Honda's media release detailing the technical and design advances for the then new 2018 Gold Wing.

2018 Honda Gold Wing Tech Document Press Kit

For those interested, it gives the improvement in coefficient of drag, but relevant to this discussion, it states a 20-percent improvement in fuel efficency.

It seems to me, Honda engineers chose the package of compromises (and all engineering decisions are compromises of some kind) of 20-percent better fuel so they could use a smaller gas tank while retaining the same touring range of the old bike.

Instead of choosing 20-percent better fuel economy, if the engineers decided to go with 20-percent more horsepowe from 125 hp to 150 hp, they'd have to increase the fuel tamk size to maintain the same touring range (adding weight), likely have to beef up the engine to account for increased horsepower (adding weight), and likely have to strengthen the frame and chassis (adding weight.). So, the Gold Wing would have the 150 horsepower desired by some in a package likely similar in weight to the last gen.

Put yourself in the new Gold Wing design and marketing team's mindset. They'd be asking, what do potential Gold Wing buyers want? A 150 hp Gold Wing in a heavy-ish package? Or a new fuel-efficient engine in a lighter, nimbler package, that, although has similar power to its predecessor, outperforms the old model markedly due to significant weight loss, innovative suspension and DCT transmission? I think Honda exercised its engineering muscle by choosing the latter option.

Finally, most would agree that more horsepower is always nice to have. But how many 2018+ Wing owners are truly disatisfied with the power output of their bikes? I'm sure there are a few, but they'd be in the minority.

In the end, Honda could quite easily bumped the engine's power up to 150 hp, but the compromises they'd have to make wouldn't allow them to meet their other design objectives.

Tim
(Slow night, so I'm rambling.)

 

[T-88]

OK, my brain now officially hurts. I hope there won't be a test!

No worries. Just wait for the comic book version of this discussion.

Tim