600 RR v Fireblade

[Biker9090]

moanthebairns said:

Is PCP a contributing factor to this then? Own a new blade for 3/4 years for a few hundred a month then hand it back, the total figure can be what it wants to as long as the monthlies are affordable.

This.

[srob]

Skeptisk said:

Point I was trying to highlight is that the price of the 600 seems to have increased with inflation but the Fireblade is proportionately more expensive. I just checked and the original Fireblade cost £7400 in 1992, which equates to £15,500 in today’s money. So it it 50% more expensive.

Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.

It will be partially economy of scale but mainly the sheer cost of developing a bike now compared to then. A 1992 Fireblade wasn't even fuel injected, I don't think?

Add into that all the hoops anyone selling a vehicle now has to jump through relating to emissions, recycling and all the other stuff and you'd need to sell as many or way more to keep it anywhere near inline with inflation.

[GreaseNipple]

The cbr600rr and zx6r are confounding though. Yamaha is stopping selling the r1 because they don't want to spend the money making it euro5+, which interestingly according to the FEC podcast doesn't involve changing emissions but proving that it will be compliant 30000 miles (iirc) down the road. And then honda and Kawasaki are spending all that money to bring back a supposedly dead class and making them good value for money too.

I wonder what discounts are available on litre bikes too these days. I got my RSV4 for £15k 18 months ago when list was £18k+, new s1000rr are on auto trader with £1000 dealer contributions, maybe more off with some haggling too? The price of my RSV4 was definitely a big factor when I got it

[garypotter]

I went for an ealry 900 rrs fireblade and cheap as chips to insure as classed as a classic!! plenty of poke to scare me but each tot heir own

[Bob_Defly]

black-k1 said:

I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.

The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.

For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.

I generally agree on all points, but Neevesy made a really good point on his last video. The tyres, suspenion, gear ratios, and brakes on the Fireblade are all designed for hard track use. Therefore when used on the road they are more likely to be not up to temp, and not fully utilised at all, therefore they work like crap most of the time, and are actually really hard to get working as well as they would on a track. Which makes for crappy road handling. The 600 would be a bit better in this respect.

If you watch any of the new Fireblade reviews, they are doing 200kph+ in second gear most of the time, yes it's nice to know it's there, but I bet riding one on the road would be an exercise in frustration. Still want one though.

[8IKERDAVE]

I'm sorely tempted with the 600, it's a stunning looking thing. I need to test one as coming from a litre bike it might feel a bit wheezy but I do like to open the taps!

[wc98]

Mark_S1000RR_2010 said:

For me it’s an absolute no-brainer, 600 all the way. I’ve been absolutely smoked on track by 600 riders while I’ve been on my litre bike.

600’s around the £10k mark are a steal when compared to their big brothers. The vast majority of riders would be better off on a 600, myself included.

You're making the wrong comparison there, your ability vs someone else instead of the bikes in the situations you would use them. My fastest laps on track were on a 600 (ish), that same me on that same 600 wouldn't see which way i went on the road when i was on my 2009 fireblade. I know the speed matters left the forum header a while ago but lots of fast miles on the road are an order of magnitude easier on a thou than a 600.

You are doing 150 on the thou after two gear changes, 110 to 120 on the 600 and the extra grunt out of corners, where failing to maintain the slow in fast out mantra on the road will eventually get you minced, makes life much easier.

I didn't switch to the fireblade until late in the day compared to the lads i ran around with and it was a revelation on the road, made going on a run a much less frantic experience as well without revving out in every gear as i had been on the 600 and several 750's previous.

[Mark_S1000RR_2010]

wc98 said:

You're making the wrong comparison there, your ability vs someone else instead of the bikes in the situations you would use them. My fastest laps on track were on a 600 (ish), that same me on that same 600 wouldn't see which way i went on the road when i was on my 2009 fireblade. I know the speed matters left the forum header a while ago but lots of fast miles on the road are an order of magnitude easier on a thou than a 600.

You are doing 150 on the thou after two gear changes, 110 to 120 on the 600 and the extra grunt out of corners, where failing to maintain the slow in fast out mantra on the road will eventually get you minced, makes life much easier.

I didn't switch to the fireblade until late in the day compared to the lads i ran around with and it was a revelation on the road, made going on a run a much less frantic experience as well without revving out in every gear as i had been on the 600 and several 750's previous.

I wouldn’t argue with any of that.

[Caddyshack]

8IKERDAVE said:

I'm sorely tempted with the 600, it's a stunning looking thing. I need to test one as coming from a litre bike it might feel a bit wheezy but I do like to open the taps!

I find my 120hp GSXR600 a bit too fast for the road. If you rev it out in 3rd gear you are doing 133mph. Ok, it doesn’t have the torque so would feel wheezy compared to a 1000 but in my opinion you just ride it in a lower gear so you are at 9000 rpm most of the time with a 15k redline waiting.

I have a V2 Ducati Multistrada which has much more torque and easier to get moving but the 600 is a faster bike.

[Condi]

srob said:

It will be partially economy of scale but mainly the sheer cost of developing a bike now compared to then. A 1992 Fireblade wasn't even fuel injected, I don't think?

929 was the first FI model, either 2000 or 2001 the first registered models.

A newer Fireblade has a lot more tech and a lot more toys than the older ones did - electronically adjustable Ohlins suspension, Akropvoic titanium exhaust and Brembo brakes are standard, not to mention the ABS, TC, emissions control etc, non of which existed on the older bikes.

From memory a 2001 has Honda suspension, Nisin brakes, steel (maybe alloy) muffler, no ABS and no TC.

When you add up the cost of that and put it into your inflation calculator then a 50% increase over inflation doesn't seem unreasonable?

[wc98]

Condi said:

929 was the first FI model, either 2000 or 2001 the first registered models.

A newer Fireblade has a lot more tech and a lot more toys than the older ones did - electronically adjustable Ohlins suspension, Akropvoic titanium exhaust and Brembo brakes are standard, not to mention the ABS, TC, emissions control etc, non of which existed on the older bikes.

From memory a 2001 has Honda suspension, Nisin brakes, steel (maybe alloy) muffler, no ABS and no TC.

When you add up the cost of that and put it into your inflation calculator then a 50% increase over inflation doesn't seem unreasonable?

Getting the software right to run all the electronics correctly given the much smaller margin for error on a bike must have cost a pretty penny on it's own.

[Skeptisk]

Condi said:

srob said:

It will be partially economy of scale but mainly the sheer cost of developing a bike now compared to then. A 1992 Fireblade wasn't even fuel injected, I don't think?

929 was the first FI model, either 2000 or 2001 the first registered models.

A newer Fireblade has a lot more tech and a lot more toys than the older ones did - electronically adjustable Ohlins suspension, Akropvoic titanium exhaust and Brembo brakes are standard, not to mention the ABS, TC, emissions control etc, non of which existed on the older bikes.

From memory a 2001 has Honda suspension, Nisin brakes, steel (maybe alloy) muffler, no ABS and no TC.

When you add up the cost of that and put it into your inflation calculator then a 50% increase over inflation doesn't seem unreasonable?

I don’t think that you can compare a modern Fireblade and the original and say because the newer one is more advanced it should be relatively more expensive. Of course it has more tech as bikes have advanced over the past thirty years. Even the new 600 RR is technologically much better than the first Fireblade but much cheaper.

What matters more is relative to the other bikes at the time the first Fireblade was a leap forward and at least as far ahead as the current Fireblade is over more run of the mill sportsbikes.

[srob]

Skeptisk said:

Condi said:

srob said:

It will be partially economy of scale but mainly the sheer cost of developing a bike now compared to then. A 1992 Fireblade wasn't even fuel injected, I don't think?

929 was the first FI model, either 2000 or 2001 the first registered models.

A newer Fireblade has a lot more tech and a lot more toys than the older ones did - electronically adjustable Ohlins suspension, Akropvoic titanium exhaust and Brembo brakes are standard, not to mention the ABS, TC, emissions control etc, non of which existed on the older bikes.

From memory a 2001 has Honda suspension, Nisin brakes, steel (maybe alloy) muffler, no ABS and no TC.

When you add up the cost of that and put it into your inflation calculator then a 50% increase over inflation doesn't seem unreasonable?

I don’t think that you can compare a modern Fireblade and the original and say because the newer one is more advanced it should be relatively more expensive. Of course it has more tech as bikes have advanced over the past thirty years. Even the new 600 RR is technologically much better than the first Fireblade but much cheaper.

What matters more is relative to the other bikes at the time the first Fireblade was a leap forward and at least as far ahead as the current Fireblade is over more run of the mill sportsbikes.

Why not?

The new Fireblade is an all round newer bike than the 600. The materials are newer, the technology is more advanced, the aero will be better and the emissions will be cleaner.

The 600 is - from my understanding, much the same as the machine that's been developed since being launched in 2003. The development costs of that bike will have been paid off many years ago, so it's only the updates the 600 owes Honda.

The 1992 Fireblade was relatively cheaper to develop back then as there was less to develop and less to comply with. The original will also have been planned to sell into an emerging market in massive numbers compared to the new version which is coming into a dying/niche market, so it's an economy of scale too. Higher development costs, plus fewer planned sales is always going to make the modern machine more expensive.

[black-k1]

What's not yet been mentioned is the recovery of the development costs of the new technology and where those costs get allocated separate to where the technology gets implemented. The manufacturers tend to introduce the "latest and greatest" in technology on their flagship bikes, in this case, the Fireblade. The 600s will then pick up that technology some time later. I suspect that Honda look to recover the bulk of the development costs through the sales of the Fireblades rather than the sales of other models such as the 600s which is likely a big influence on the cost difference.

[Condi]

Skeptisk said:

I don’t think that you can compare a modern Fireblade and the original and say because the newer one is more advanced it should be relatively more expensive.

You don't think? So where is the money for the Ohlins suspension, Brembo brakes, titanium exhaust, traction control, ABS, digital screen, etc supposed to come from, if not from the sale price? The suspension and brakes alone are probably a few grand over and above the Honda own suspension and Nisin brakes of the older models, and then the number of parts required for the ABS, TC etc is far greater than what was there on the original bike which didn't have those features.

There is an idea in economics about inflation in that it's very hard to measure because things are improving all the time. If you take the cheapest car you can buy today vs the cheapest car 20 years ago, the modern car has aircon, electric windows and much better safety features, all of which are not measured in a simple inflation calculator.

[moanthebairns]

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/bike-details/20240113...

£4500 grand off a brand new one, and a few others I've seen offering £2000-£3500 off. Guessing they aren't selling as they thought. At that price it has got me thinking about trading my blade in against one and sticking my Mrs on only fans.....

[Skeptisk]

Condi said:

Skeptisk said:

I don’t think that you can compare a modern Fireblade and the original and say because the newer one is more advanced it should be relatively more expensive.

You don't think? So where is the money for the Ohlins suspension, Brembo brakes, titanium exhaust, traction control, ABS, digital screen, etc supposed to come from, if not from the sale price? The suspension and brakes alone are probably a few grand over and above the Honda own suspension and Nisin brakes of the older models, and then the number of parts required for the ABS, TC etc is far greater than what was there on the original bike which didn't have those features.

There is an idea in economics about inflation in that it's very hard to measure because things are improving all the time. If you take the cheapest car you can buy today vs the cheapest car 20 years ago, the modern car has aircon, electric windows and much better safety features, all of which are not measured in a simple inflation calculator.

But that isn’t how things work in a capitalist economy (in general). Products get better over time but they also get cheaper. If you take a Ford Focus and original Ford Escort the former is so much better in every way (as a car to use and be relied upon) yet it costs pretty much the same when adjusted for inflation.

The same should apply to bikes - and does generally. The CBR 600 RR has the latest technology but costs the same once adjusted for inflation as my first ZX6R in 1997.

[Triaguar]

moanthebairns said:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/bike-details/20240113...

£4500 grand off a brand new one, and a few others I've seen offering £2000-£3500 off. Guessing they aren't selling as they thought. At that price it has got me thinking about trading my blade in against one and sticking my Mrs on only fans.....

I don't think they are, because they couldn't sell me one and I am their biggest fan boy. I test rode one a couple of times and just couldn't gel with it, not very scientific I know, but it made the S1000rr an obvious choice.

[srob]

Skeptisk said:

Condi said:

Skeptisk said:

I don’t think that you can compare a modern Fireblade and the original and say because the newer one is more advanced it should be relatively more expensive.

You don't think? So where is the money for the Ohlins suspension, Brembo brakes, titanium exhaust, traction control, ABS, digital screen, etc supposed to come from, if not from the sale price? The suspension and brakes alone are probably a few grand over and above the Honda own suspension and Nisin brakes of the older models, and then the number of parts required for the ABS, TC etc is far greater than what was there on the original bike which didn't have those features.

There is an idea in economics about inflation in that it's very hard to measure because things are improving all the time. If you take the cheapest car you can buy today vs the cheapest car 20 years ago, the modern car has aircon, electric windows and much better safety features, all of which are not measured in a simple inflation calculator.

But that isn’t how things work in a capitalist economy (in general). Products get better over time but they also get cheaper. If you take a Ford Focus and original Ford Escort the former is so much better in every way (as a car to use and be relied upon) yet it costs pretty much the same when adjusted for inflation.

The same should apply to bikes - and does generally. The CBR 600 RR has the latest technology but costs the same once adjusted for inflation as my first ZX6R in 1997.

What do you want the answer to be?

For reference:

2003 CBR600RR had 115bhp and weighed 163kg (dry) source MCN
2024 CBR600RR has 119bhp and weighs 193kg (wet, I can't find a dry weight) source Honda

2003 CBR900RR had 149bhp abnd weighed 168kg (dry) source MCN
2024 CBR1000RR-R SP has 214.6bhp (160kW) and weighs 203kg (Wet, can't find dry weight) source Honda

You're not comparing apples with apples! Just looking at those limited snippets one machine hasn't really moved on in 20 years, the other one has. And that development isn't free!

[Condi]

Skeptisk said:

But that isn’t how things work in a capitalist economy (in general). Products get better over time but they also get cheaper.

They don't get cheaper, they get more expensive, which is what inflation measures. Some products get cheaper, due to economies of scale and improvements in manufacturing, but really you're talking about tech, or maybe drugs, or whatever. The raw materials don't generally get cheaper.

My point is that "inflation" which covers a basic basket of goods doesn't have any way to measure the Ohlins suspension, the Brembo brakes, the titanium exhaust, the TC, the ABS which are on the 2024 bike which were not on the 1997 bike. You're not getting the same product as you were in 1997, you're getting a much better product. Not only that, Honda are selling far fewer of them so the development and manufacturing costs are spread over a smaller number of bikes.