Monday 8th April 2013

Honda CBR500R

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

---

Like it or not the world of motorcycling is changing. As PH2 pointed out in the recent review of Honda’s 2013 CBR600RR, the supersport class is in a tail spin. Insurance, recession, the sheer cost of a new 600, all these factors have put a large dent into the sales of supersport bikes. The simple fact is that when times are tough it is hard to justify spending nearly £10,000 on a 600, and the young riders who used to snap them up are few and far between. However this doesn’t mean young riders are shying away from two wheels and as such we are seeing the emergence of a new class of bike – the A2 licence friendly machine.

Honda has responded to the new licence laws

What’s an A2 bike?
With a maximum of 35Kw/47.6hp these bikes are aimed at riders of between 19 and around 26 years of age – the old target audience of supersport bikes. Cheap to insure and also run, A2 bikes are now developing into far more than just dull commuter hacks and this class is genuinely exciting to watch as it grows. And leading the charge is Honda with its new range of parallel twins.

PH2 got a very brief road ride on the CBR500R and if you were restricted to an A2 licence you would be pretty chuffed to have one in your garage. With a £4,950 (including ABS) price tag the Honda is great value, but far more important that that it looks amazing and rides brilliantly. The bike we tested had the same white/blue/red colour scheme as its CBR brothers the Fireblade and CBR600RR and at a quick glance you wouldn’t have picked the 500 out as a low-powered budget machine in the line up. It really does look superb and although there are obviously cost-saving areas, they don’t scream out. The dash is digital, a fuel gauge is included, ABS is standard, the right way up forks have a smart back finish and the quality of paint seems pretty high. All in all it’s a damn fine looking machine, and one that is surprisingly accomplished to ride.

Mini 'blade looks, big bike feel

Here to stay or a flash in the pan?
Often bikes aimed at newer riders can feel a bit like oversized toys. The old style CBR125R was just so small and low it felt horrific to ride, however while the CBR500R is very narrow, a feature that gives it the feeling of a low seat height as your legs are less spread and therefore you can reach the ground easier, it has a genuine big bike feel. Blatting around on the CBR I didn’t feel like I was riding a ‘new rider’ bike, it felt like I was instead enjoying a sensibly powered motorcycle with good handling and a lovely character.

The parallel twin engine is packed full of charm. It has a surprisingly pleasant exhaust note that while certainly slightly wet-farty as standard isn’t as awful as some – stick a race can and on and I reckon it would be absolutely mega. The power delivery is what you would expect from such a machine, slightly muted so as not to scare but get it wound up and the CBR can motor. On some open back roads I managed to get a bit enthusiastic on the Honda and while the suspension wasn’t overly happy, the engine and handling was certainly good enough to put a huge grin on my face. It may be a ‘new rider’ bike but that parallel twin has some potential for silliness– well  it had better, this year one will be attempting to haul John McGuinness around the TT course…

An aftermarket can should make it sound better

What’s next?
While it’s upsetting to see supersport sales slipping it’s  genuinely exciting to see what will appear next in the A2 category. I have nothing against well priced, good fun machines that tempt new riders onto two wheels. Sure I wish supersport bikes were still £6K, but they aren’t and if these A2-friendly machines are the future then it’s not all bad news.

 

 

---

HONDA CBR500R
Engine: 471cc parallel twin
Power: 46hp@8,500rpm
Torque: 31lb ft@7,000rpm
Top speed: 110mph (est)
Weight: 194kg (dry)
MPG: 76mpg (claimed)
Price: £4,950

[Fire99]

It looks like a bike for a Librarian. (no offence to librarians of course)

[3DP]

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.

[podman]

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.

I guess thats what a sporty looking 1 litre "hot" hatch is trying to emulate thou Pete, not all bad.

Id still rather have the bike thou.

[VidalBaboon]

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

[Craiglamuffin]

From my (new rider's) perspective it's what I want to see... I want a bike now that looks big and has fairings, cos that's what I want to ride eventually.

Think I understand the experienced riders' points of view, but then again I don't think Honda were expecting them to convert?

[VidalBaboon]

Where are the race reps in this market? The only ones I can see doing anything remotely interesting are Aprilia & KTM.

I'm pretty sure the bikes I lusted after when I was younder were:

The 400s listed above, KR1-S, RGV250, RS250, NSRs etc... All pretty much race reps. If you wanted a GPZ500 or GS500 over those or a Crosser you were a bender, plain and simple!

That hideous thing above will only appeal to beardies trying to save cash on a commute!

[motoxyogi]

The one thing that pisses me off about the new licencing laws is a little section at the end of the A2 description, which needlessly imo, states that an A2 bike must have a minimum engine size of 395cc to be eligible to use for the test.
This has 2 repercussions. 1) Manufacturers have no incentive to build tiny little multi's like the 400's (which would end up being too powerful for the A2 but too small for the A) or.... 2)my CBR250R (no not that one, the 1988 one with the 18,000rpm redline) which now falls neatly between the cracks, just powerful enough but too small and the power to weight is slightly too large for the A2. Now no learner in their right mind would buy it , oh well time to figure out how to resto-mod it or track it.

Not that theres anything wrong with thumpers and twins like the CBR500 but they are generally pretty dull, though the KTM 390 looks like a right giggle.

[Mr2Mike]

3DP said:

40kg heavier than a supersports 600 with under half the power

Is there really a road going 600 supersports bike that weighs only 154kg?

[moanthebairns]

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

I did wonder this, I thought there would be a sudden influx of 400's due to the changes but nothing.

Take a look at the prices of 400's in the classifieds you will get a shock. 3-4k for a decent 15 year old one! I was hoping to get one as fling away fun but fk me you just cant do it for under £1500.

Would seem to me the market is screaming for some.

[Hooli]

VidalBaboon said:

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.

The Power to Weight rule mentioned in the article I expect. They'd have to downtune any proper sports 400 so far it'd be like a R1 with a restrictor kit on!

47.6bhp is less than my 1977 Triumph is rated at, why go exotic with the engine when a under developed lump badly built by grumpy brummies could produce more than the limit 36 years ago & was based on a design from the 30s? Besides, some of us prefer the exhaust note & character of a parallel twin to a IL4.

I expect that bike would be a good laugh on twisty roads if your not trying to keep up with proper sports bikes. All you need is brakes & suspension as poor as an old Triumph & it's got the power to feel properly ragged when you wind it up. No point in speccing it like a 600 super sports, it'd be as dull as ditch water because you'd never be able to use the chassis to anything near it's extent.

Edited by Hooli on Monday 8th April 19:32

[Codswallop]

Looks good for what it is. I reckon the target age market will lap these up (just look at all the race-rep 125s that all the learners lust after).

[VidalBaboon]

Hooli said:

VidalBaboon said:

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.

The Power to Weight rule mentioned in the article I expect. They'd have to downtune any proper sports 400 so far it'd be like a R1 with a restrictor kit on!

47.6bhp is less than my 1977 Triumph is rated at, why go exotic with the engine when a under developed lump badly built by grumpy brummies could produce more than the limit 36 years ago & was based on a design from the 30s? Besides, some of us prefer the exhaust note & character of a parallel twin to a IL4.

I expect that bike would be a good laugh on twisty roads if your not trying to keep up with proper sports bikes. All you need is brakes & suspension as poor as an old Triumph & it's got the power to feel properly ragged when you wind it up. No point in speccing it like a 600 super sports, it'd be as dull as ditch water because you'd never be able to use the chassis to anything near it's extent.

Edited by Hooli on Monday 8th April 19:32

Keep the engine, I don't mind what it uses, but why couldn't they get it down to 150-160kgs? Or a token effort to appeal to younger riders. They could do it 20 years ago with the 400s, with decent (for the time) suspension and brakes. That's just been cobbled together from the parts bin. Poor effort IMHO.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 19:40

[Fire99]

Codswallop said:

Looks good for what it is. I reckon the target age market will lap these up (just look at all the race-rep 125s that all the learners lust after).

Yeah bit this raises a good point. I don't think this bike looks 'race-rep' at all. It looks flippin sensible and I don't see the appeal to the 'yoof'

[Spanna]

VidalBaboon said:

Hooli said:

VidalBaboon said:

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.

The Power to Weight rule mentioned in the article I expect. They'd have to downtune any proper sports 400 so far it'd be like a R1 with a restrictor kit on!

47.6bhp is less than my 1977 Triumph is rated at, why go exotic with the engine when a under developed lump badly built by grumpy brummies could produce more than the limit 36 years ago & was based on a design from the 30s? Besides, some of us prefer the exhaust note & character of a parallel twin to a IL4.

I expect that bike would be a good laugh on twisty roads if your not trying to keep up with proper sports bikes. All you need is brakes & suspension as poor as an old Triumph & it's got the power to feel properly ragged when you wind it up. No point in speccing it like a 600 super sports, it'd be as dull as ditch water because you'd never be able to use the chassis to anything near it's extent.

Edited by Hooli on Monday 8th April 19:32

Keep the engine, I don't mind what it uses, but why couldn't they get it down to 150-160kgs? Or a token effort to appeal to younger riders. They could do it 20 years ago with the 400s, with decent (for the time) suspension and brakes. That's just been cobbled together from the parts bin. Poor effort IMHO.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 19:40

The power to weight ratio might be too high for an A2 licence, I think the Duke 390 has too high kw/kg for the A2.

[motoxyogi]

VidalBaboon said:

Keep the engine, I don't mind what it uses, but why couldn't they get it down to 150-160kgs? Or a token effort to appeal to younger riders. They could do it 20 years ago with the 400s, with decent (for the time) suspension and brakes. That's just been cobbled together from the parts bin. Poor effort IMHO.

Again the power to weight ratio, limited to 0.2 kw/kg. If the bike were to weigh 160 kg the engine would have to make less than 43hp and I'm guessing the more "powerful" engine would generally sell better

And the Duke 390 actually has a 375cc so it's technically too small to do the test on

Edited by motoxyogi on Monday 8th April 20:04

Edited by motoxyogi on Monday 8th April 20:06

[VidalBaboon]

Spanna said:

VidalBaboon said:

Hooli said:

VidalBaboon said:

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.

The Power to Weight rule mentioned in the article I expect. They'd have to downtune any proper sports 400 so far it'd be like a R1 with a restrictor kit on!

47.6bhp is less than my 1977 Triumph is rated at, why go exotic with the engine when a under developed lump badly built by grumpy brummies could produce more than the limit 36 years ago & was based on a design from the 30s? Besides, some of us prefer the exhaust note & character of a parallel twin to a IL4.

I expect that bike would be a good laugh on twisty roads if your not trying to keep up with proper sports bikes. All you need is brakes & suspension as poor as an old Triumph & it's got the power to feel properly ragged when you wind it up. No point in speccing it like a 600 super sports, it'd be as dull as ditch water because you'd never be able to use the chassis to anything near it's extent.

Edited by Hooli on Monday 8th April 19:32

Keep the engine, I don't mind what it uses, but why couldn't they get it down to 150-160kgs? Or a token effort to appeal to younger riders. They could do it 20 years ago with the 400s, with decent (for the time) suspension and brakes. That's just been cobbled together from the parts bin. Poor effort IMHO.

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 19:40

The power to weight ratio might be too high for an A2 licence, I think the Duke 390 has too high kw/kg for the A2.

0.2kw/kg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means a 160kg bike could have 32kw of power? So they could loose circa 20kgs off that thing above?

Edited by VidalBaboon on Monday 8th April 20:04

[3DP]

Mr2Mike said:

3DP said:

40kg heavier than a supersports 600 with under half the power

Is there really a road going 600 supersports bike that weighs only 154kg?

They've quoted the dry weight. My non-ABS 09 600RR is 155kg dry according to the handbook and it's not the lightest 600 anymore - I believe the GSXR600 has a lighter dry weight now. Even my 1998 ZX6R was only 176kg dry and I believe the first R6 was just under 170kg dry. Only the last few years that manufacturers have started quoting more realistic wet weights.

I struggle to see how they've made it so heavy?? It's under 10kg lighter than 90s 750s and they are brutes. Extra weight is the last thing inexperienced new riders need.

Edited by 3DP on Monday 8th April 20:09

[motoxyogi]

Oopps..Apperently the KTM is eligible and according to them right on the limit
http://www.ktm.com/at/news-events/news/racing/deta...

[13aines]

Just 98bhp/litre and lardy too.

My 1991 ZXR400 produces 160bhp/litre and weighs apparently 160kg dry.

Wish the big four would make some awesome little bikes again.

Then again, that said, wasn't built with any licence requirements in mind so I suppose I've missed the point!

Edited by 13aines on Monday 8th April 20:16

[Hooli]

3DP said:

Mr2Mike said:

3DP said:

40kg heavier than a supersports 600 with under half the power

Is there really a road going 600 supersports bike that weighs only 154kg?

They've quoted the dry weight. My non-ABS 09 600RR is 155kg dry according to the handbook and it's not the lightest 600 anymore - I believe the GSXR600 has a lighter dry weight now. Even my 1998 ZX6R was only 176kg dry and I believe the first R6 was just under 170kg dry. Only the last few years that manufacturers have started quoting more realistic wet weights.

I struggle to see how they've made it so heavy?? It's under 10kg lighter than 90s 750s and they are brutes. Extra weight is the last thing inexperienced new riders need.

As I'm sure you know, I'm not up on sports bikes. Don't they all have ali frames etc? I expect this is steel to be cheaper & take more abuse which makes more sense for a new rider I'd have thought.