New Rebel Rider
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Honda VT600 Shadows & CMX250 Rebels (various years for each)
Joined
·
11,953 Posts
Awesome, last of the Rebels!
(Not everyone here counts the new models wink wink nudge nudge)
(Not everyone here counts the new models wink wink nudge nudge)
Joined
·
33,035 Posts
Welcome to the forum!
Honda VT600 Shadows & CMX250 Rebels (various years for each)
Joined
·
11,953 Posts
See, that's the thing Honda missed: for those of us that have been around for a bit, when someone says "Honda Rebel" we think of the one that has been around for over thirty years, not a CB or CBR 300/500. Just like when someone says "Shadow" I think of the various cruiser models produced under that name badge since 1983, not a CB or CBR. Why they didn't just stick to the CB & CBR heritage and instead plagiarize the model with a completely different bike's name plate is beyond me...it's like taking a Camaro and changing a few cosmetic bits to call it a Chevette.
Joined
·
257 Posts
Didn't Honda get the old engine from a Nighthawk? So why was it okay to take that engine from another bike, but when they do in now, it is terrible, and a travesty? It seems that this is in keeping with the Rebel history. Build a lightweight cruiser and stick a twin engine from the lineup? So much butthurt!
Joined
·
33,035 Posts
I think the issue for most folks is the name, not the engine. Motorcycle manufacturers have used similar or detuned engines in their sport bikes and cruisers. But they don't call the cruisers by their sport bike names or vice versa.
Honda designed completely different engines and frames and named the result Rebels. They don't have much in common with their predecessors except the name.
I would suggest that this issue has been discussed sufficiently. Honda isn't going to bring the classic Rebel back no matter how passionately the topic is argued here. Everyone has made their point. I'd hate to see it become a never ending "Which Oil is Best" topic.
Honda designed completely different engines and frames and named the result Rebels. They don't have much in common with their predecessors except the name.
I would suggest that this issue has been discussed sufficiently. Honda isn't going to bring the classic Rebel back no matter how passionately the topic is argued here. Everyone has made their point. I'd hate to see it become a never ending "Which Oil is Best" topic.
Joined
·
257 Posts
I agree. However, I feel that bashing the updated model in no way invites our new model riding brethren into the fold. That is why I continue to defend the new Rebel. We need new blood to keep the hobby viable. I seriously feel that a Rebel 300/500 section should be opened up on the forum. This is the "Honda Rebel Forum", not the "CMX250/450" forum. I want to learn about them. And perhaps someday get one, either as a younger siblings to my girl, or as an upgrade!
*Steps down off soapbox.
*Steps down off soapbox.
Joined
·
33,035 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not sure Administration would go along with opening a new section since the parent company that owns this forum has started a separate forum for the "new" rebels.
Honda VT600 Shadows & CMX250 Rebels (various years for each)
Joined
·
11,953 Posts
No, as I've explained before in other threads relating the issue, the CMX250 engine hailed from the predecessor CM250 which hailed from the CM185 & 200 TwinStar. It was the exact same design evolving with each incarnation (and technically the engine remained the same when it went from CM250 to CMX250, rather the styling evolved away from the disco-cruiser era instead).
They didn't. The CB250 Nighthawk debuted in 1991, several years after the Gen-1 Rebel was nixed. The predecessor nameless CB250 motors were considerably different in design. This could be a parallel issue, however it's not uncommon to resurrect a motor in another line, the single year production 1988 Shadow's engine resurfaced in the 1989-98 PC-800. The major difference being the Rebel eventually returned to the line-up while the 800 Shadow did not.
None of which, by the way, happened with the 300 & 500 models.
Because instead of evolving the design they took an engine from a completely different line with a completely different design (CB) and called it something it wasn't (CM). Like I said, they took a Camaro and called it a Chevette. Had they just called it something else, anything else other than what it ISN'T, and there would be no issue. For those that fail to see this logic I can pose a parallel question: why didn't they call it a Magna?
Actually that would have made some sense, after all the Magna was always a street/cruiser that derived from a sport bike.
Okay, the actual parallel questions behind the logic: Why didn't they call it a Shadow? Why didn't they call it a Hawk or Super Hawk? Why didn't they call it a Cub? Why didn't they call it a Dream? Why didn't they call it an Ascot? Why didn't they call it a Gold Wing?
I could go on all day but if I have to explain it any further...(you all know how that old Harley saw goes, right?
)Please show me where I or anyone else bashed the updated model.
If anything I was bashing the Honda Motor Company.
New blood was never a problem in the three decades that the 250 was available or the two decades that Rebel forums were on the web.
As mentioned the web owners opened a separate board.
Which actually makes sense if you think about it: since the 300 & 500 have absolutely NOTHING shared with the 250 (or 450) people here have nothing to offer on the matter. I'm not sure why some folks can't see just how different this "same thing" really is.
I've shared that very sentiment numerous times.
With several caveats, but I have repeatedly expressed the interest nonetheless.
Joined
·
33,035 Posts
I think the point has been made-----------------------repeatedly.
Joined
·
257 Posts
Hmm. The nighthawk entry on Wikipedia says it was first produceded in 1982.
Joined
·
5,185 Posts
Was that the 650 nighthawk with inline 4 cylinder engine in 1982? I don't think the 250 twin was produced until later - like what Shadow Shack said.
Honda VT600 Shadows & CMX250 Rebels (various years for each)
Joined
·
11,953 Posts
Yep, the 650 Nighthawk is what debuted in the early 80's.
Wikipedia is only as accurate as the mouth breathers that write the articles and furthermore as accurate as each page's "wiki-nerd" that monitors the page. Yes, that's right...every wikipedia page has a self-appointed "expert" that makes sure their page is "factually correct". Sometimes the nerd checks in every five minute, other pages have a nerd that checks it once a year if not longer.
This is one of many reasons why I rarely source it.
Here's another: I can go "edit" any page and say anything I want, as far fetched as I can possibly go, and if the page's nerd doesn't catch it for a few days you can read some total hogwash during that time. Case in point, the wikipedia CB250 Nighthawk page stating it debuted in 1982. Pure BS. Do a google search beyond wikipedia and you'll see the truth.
Here's a page that is far more factually correct: https://www.motorera.com/honda/
More specifically, the CB250 Nighthawk entry (not to be confused with the nameless CB250 that preceded it): https://www.motorera.com/honda/h0250/nighthaw.htm
Wikipedia is only as accurate as the mouth breathers that write the articles and furthermore as accurate as each page's "wiki-nerd" that monitors the page. Yes, that's right...every wikipedia page has a self-appointed "expert" that makes sure their page is "factually correct". Sometimes the nerd checks in every five minute, other pages have a nerd that checks it once a year if not longer.
This is one of many reasons why I rarely source it.
Here's another: I can go "edit" any page and say anything I want, as far fetched as I can possibly go, and if the page's nerd doesn't catch it for a few days you can read some total hogwash during that time. Case in point, the wikipedia CB250 Nighthawk page stating it debuted in 1982. Pure BS. Do a google search beyond wikipedia and you'll see the truth.
Here's a page that is far more factually correct: https://www.motorera.com/honda/
More specifically, the CB250 Nighthawk entry (not to be confused with the nameless CB250 that preceded it): https://www.motorera.com/honda/h0250/nighthaw.htm
Joined
·
5,185 Posts
Joined
·
33,035 Posts
You didn't. It was already going - and it's time to let it die.
Joined
·
257 Posts
Yeah I am aware of wiki limitations. Also of my own limitations (want to fix the wiki entry, but lack knowledge and motivation). I knew my post would stir it all up (AGAIN!) and I apologise. I'll try to stay quiet, but this hasn't been my strength in the past...
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
