RE: Honda CBR500R

[KTF]

I would rather get the CB500X which seems to be the same mechanicals but 'enduro' styling.

[Hooli]

KTF said:

I would rather get the CB500X which seems to be the same mechanicals but 'enduro' styling.

Looks a hell of a lot better aye

[podman]

VidalBaboon said:

3DP said:

40kg heavier than a supersports 600 with under half the power. Uninspiring parallel twin engines and budget suspension/brakes.

Commuters in posh frocks. Nothing more and nothing less.

Personally I'd rather get my experience with the new licensing laws on an honest naked budget bike that fits the criteria knowing it won't be expensive if I drop it. Performance will be the same.

This.

What was stopping them from making bikes like the CBR400RR ,VFR400s & ZX400Rs in the 90s? With the exception of ABS and FI, this isn't much further ahead from a 20 year old GPZ500.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 19:12

Cost for one...just because they have smaller pistons, doesnt mean they cost any less to produce, a VFR400 had the same list price as a CBR1000 in 1991..

Every few weeks someone has a moan on here about how bad bikes are on MPG, then we have a whinge when a learner/commuter bike doesnt make enough power, as for the 2 strokes, the world has changed ..we cant have it both ways.

Looks a decent enough learner machine to me, I dare say it'll have a good build quality, cheap insurance & good MPG.

[Fire99]

KTF said:

I would rather get the CB500X which seems to be the same mechanicals but 'enduro' styling.

Works a lot better as an enduro!!

[moanthebairns]

Hooli said:

KTF said:

I would rather get the CB500X which seems to be the same mechanicals but 'enduro' styling.

Looks a hell of a lot better aye

I'd sooner pic the ninja 250 to be honest if I was 21 again and not allowed a big bike yet.

similar top end speeds, less power but lighter, cheaper and miles better looking

[VidalBaboon]

podman said:

VidalBaboon said:

3DP said:

40kg heavier than a supersports 600 with under half the power. Uninspiring parallel twin engines and budget suspension/brakes.

Commuters in posh frocks. Nothing more and nothing less.

Personally I'd rather get my experience with the new licensing laws on an honest naked budget bike that fits the criteria knowing it won't be expensive if I drop it. Performance will be the same.

This.

What was stopping them from making bikes like the CBR400RR ,VFR400s & ZX400Rs in the 90s? With the exception of ABS and FI, this isn't much further ahead from a 20 year old GPZ500.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 19:12

Cost for one...just because they have smaller pistons, doesnt mean they cost any less to produce, a VFR400 had the same list price as a CBR1000 in 1991..

Every few weeks someone has a moan on here about how bad bikes are on MPG, then we have a whinge when a learner/commuter bike doesnt make enough power, as for the 2 strokes, the world has changed ..we cant have it both ways.

Looks a decent enough learner machine to me, I dare say it'll have a good build quality, cheap insurance & good MPG.

And yet they sold quite a few.

I don't know any young lads (target market?) that are worried about MPG- next door neighbour's lad is paying over £2k insurance for a 15 year old 328i. VFM doesn't appear on their radar or dictionary! More interested in steam rolling the local clacker.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 21:16

[13aines]

VidalBaboon said:

And yet they sold quite a few.

I don't know any young lads (target market?) that are worried about MPG- next door neighbour's lad is paying over £2k insurance for a 15 year old 328i. VFM doesn't appear on their radar or dictionary! More interested in steam rolling the local clacker.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 21:16

I like to see myself as pretty sensible with my money. The bikes and car have been very well thought through and justified however, we're only young once.

Like my dad, I want to be able to tell a son of mine one day tales of larking around on fast bikes, and cars if I ever bother. That amongst other things my dad did/said/owned made me a petrolhead, and defined who I am today. I have lived and breathed anything with an engine since a nipper, and live and breath, much to the annoyance of my missus at times, bikes now. I'm studying motorsport engineering, and will be an engineer (ironically, also like my dad) ultimately, but if I could chose now, it would be in the motorsport world.

Unfortunately the classic mini sits in the garage, and I didn't get on the road in my own vehicle until 19 when I got my first bike. And I've not done a lot of larking around with anyone else and formed many memories on it yet - on the to do list to meet some of you chaps this summer, and ensure my best mate nails his tests!

Edited by 13aines on Monday 8th April 23:12

[FestivAli]

Ahem:



Here in Aus we can ride good-looking, torquey 500CC parallel twins from day one. Perfect commuter bike and fun enough in the hills. I will be pointing my brother in the direction of this Honda when he finally gets around to getting his L's I think it looks cracking too. The above is my second GS500F, as the ninja 300, KTM Duke 200 and CBR250 felt too physically small for me (6ft 1, 100 kilos) after the previous one, erm:

[srob]

Designing a bike with a power to weight limit must be a pretty thankless task, really.

You can make it light but then have to wind the power down which makes it a more frantic ride, or wind the wick up on the power and add weight and make it bulky. Lose/lose, as far as I can see!

[_g_]

[quote]Think the new licence restrictions rule out a 'proper' fast bike? Honda's got the answer...

[/quote]

As other's have said... the answer is "Yes... a 'proper' fast bike is ruled out". Some fancy fairings do not make a fast bike.
They do sell bikes rather well.

After riding one friend's 4 stroke 125 around for a bit, I rode another friend's NSR125R.
Much more fun bike.
Wouldn't be less suitable for friend 1 who is a lot more nervous with her riding - but I'd certainly prefer to be on the NSR. Fancy fairings do not, it turns out, actually make it faster .

[Richyboy]

What does this mean then, no development in the 600 class as people go from 500 to 1000?

[srob]

Richyboy said:

What does this mean then, no development in the 600 class as people go from 500 to 1000?

That's a good point, actually.

[Pothole]

srob said:

Richyboy said:

What does this mean then, no development in the 600 class as people go from 500 to 1000?

That's a good point, actually.

I guess the market will decide. Why will people necessarily make that jump? This 500 to a sports 600 is a perfectly logical jump to me. (I can't really comment from personal experience as my jump was 125 2t single to 1000 IL4, but still...)

[srob]

Pothole said:

I guess the market will decide. Why will people necessarily make that jump? This 500 to a sports 600 is a perfectly logical jump to me. (I can't really comment from personal experience as my jump was 125 2t single to 1000 IL4, but still...)

And to me, but reading on here the progression seems to be 600 ---> 1000.

So if people are hanging around on a 'middleweight' for a couple of years they may not want that extra (possibly seen as 'small'!) step via the 600?!

[13aines]

That is a good point, but 'SMALL STEP' as you put it puts it well.

I hope people don't jump from a yawntastic 500 to a litre bike, but can see it happening, despite the HUGE step from something like this to a CBR600RR...

Talking 230bhp per ton, to over 570bhp per ton stepping from this to a 600RR. 'Even' the CBR600F4i has about 530bhp/per ton.

The step from this to a less animal 600cc sports bike is huge, let alone a supersport 600, or a litre bike. I hope it won't affect the development in the supersport 600 class, but I can see it happening already really, someone who has ridden one of these for two years thinking they are king dick and skipping the 600 class, despite the huge jump.

[Pothole]

I can't help but feel gleeful at the prosepctive glut of pre-owned litre bikes which will be flooding the market in a few years time when those who have made the big step and scared themselves/got points step down to a 'middleweight'! (perhaps)

[srob]

Personally I loved my progression through the cc categories, and feel people miss out if they jump straight on a big bike.

I went 50cc, 125, 400, 250 (2-stroke!), 400 then 636. I think I'd have missed a lot of fun by skipping the littler bikes

Edited by srob on Wednesday 10th April 12:46

[Yazza54]

Pothole said:

I can't help but feel gleeful at the prosepctive glut of pre-owned litre bikes which will be flooding the market in a few years time when those who have made the big step and scared themselves/got points step down to a 'middleweight'! (perhaps)

[Yazza54]

srob said:

Personally I loved my progression through the cc categories, and feel people miss out if they jump straight on a big bike.

I went 50cc, 125, 400, 250 (2-stroke!), 400 then 636. I think I'd have missed a lot of fun by skipping the littler bikes

Edited by srob on Wednesday 10th April 12:46

But those bikes were not designed as you say to have a desired power to weight. That's the killer here, shame really.

[srob]

Yazza54 said:

srob said:

Personally I loved my progression through the cc categories, and feel people miss out if they jump straight on a big bike.

I went 50cc, 125, 400, 250 (2-stroke!), 400 then 636. I think I'd have missed a lot of fun by skipping the littler bikes

Edited by srob on Wednesday 10th April 12:46

But those bikes were not designed as you say to have a desired power to weight. That's the killer here, shame really.

Well one of them was restricted (an RVF400), still enjoyed it though.