Compare 3 "First Sport Bikes" (Under 600cc!)

Message

ninja79 · #11 Unread post by **ninja79** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:34 pm

sirRealist wrote: Thats a tough question to answer, being subjective and all, but my old car did 0-60 in under 6 seconds.. closer to 5 i think.

Dude, my old bike did 0-60 in 3.75s. Even ninja 250 can do it in 5.75s.

ninja79 · #12 Unread post by **ninja79** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:36 pm

The Crimson Rider® wrote: anyway... the easiesy way to recognize a sportbike is by their aggressive riding position. that's the most simple and obvious characteristic.

and plastic! don't forget plastic!

roscowgo · #13 Unread post by **roscowgo** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:03 am

Welcome. those 3 are awesome bikes. If i didn't have a cruiser bug atm, i'm 95% sure i would be truying to buy a gs500 come spring. Very light. And i can see that with just a couple of mods would be about perfect for how i like to ride.

*as to the very light thing, I'm comparing it to a 92 katana of all things. Kind of like saying....oh water isnt as radioactive as plutonium,

sirRealist · Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:39 am

Wow, thanks so much for all your help!

I'm not new to forum communities in general (I'm a computer tech), and I am glad to see that this one is no different. Honest, knowledgeable advice mixed with courtesy and respect.

I found this article that might be helpful for those who are trying to decide between the Kawasaki and Suzuki 500cc bikes:
http://www.rememberourpets.com/mcn/mode ... aro07a.pdf

Something that occurred to me though... I've been hearing a lot of advice boiling down to "Look, if you're new to cycling and don't know, start with something under 600... 250 or 500 will be just great." And don't get me wrong, you guys know, I don't, so I believe it. But why the big scare at 600? I've been reading WHY too big an engine is bad, but why is that at 600 and not 500? It just seems strange to say that 250 is very good for newbie, and 500 as well (twice as much), but then a "mere" 100cc more and you're in a newbie danger zone.

Now I've also been reading that displacement isn't really a good measurement of a (sport) bike's performance, due to the fact that they are so light. That for a good comparison you need power-to-weight ratio. And for that, you need to know horsepower. So maybe at 600cc and higher there is a dramatic increase in the HP of the bikes, so that the power-to-weight ratio takes a jump here? Or maybe something else, like torque?

It also seems strange that bike manufacturers seem to shy away from talking about the HP of their bikes on their website. Some sort of marketing ploy?

VermilionX · Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:45 am

sirRealist wrote: Now I've also been reading that displacement isn't really a good measurement of a (sport) bike's performance, due to the fact that they are so light. That for a good comparison you need power-to-weight ratio. And for that, you need to know horsepower. So maybe at 600cc and higher there is a dramatic increase in the HP of the bikes, so that the power-to-weight ratio takes a jump here? Or maybe something else, like torque?

It also seems strange that bike manufacturers seem to shy away from talking about the HP of their bikes on their website. Some sort of marketing ploy?

some sites release info on bike's hp ratings. they'll be bhp ratings though, also known as crank hp.

what counts more is wheel horsepower. since that's hp you get after the hp loss from the drivetrain.

but what really counts the most is power to weight ratio. sportbikes are the best in power to weight ratio.

here's website that has bhp ratings for a lot of bikes. http://www.motorbikes.be/en/

people here recommend around 50bhp or less for newbie bikes.

basically, the more powerful the bike is... the more unforgiving it will be to rider error. so it's not recommended to start on a very powerful bike.

sirRealist · Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:17 am

Okay, I got two new questions (and please, if anyone wants to add to the multitude of other questions I've asked, please do!):

1) I've been reading that if you're buying a used bike, try to get one that is 2-4 years old, as that is a plateau of value stability where you'll pay less than new, but you'll still have some time to use the bike and if you outgrow it, sell it for not much less than you bought it. Assuming this is correct (which it seems), I've narrowed my bike purchase down to 2005-2003 model Ninja 500. Should I choose one year over the other, or is it pretty much that these are the same except for possibly looks, so just get which ever of these I find the best deal on?

2) Since this bike is so popular, is it safe to assume that there are a ton of after market upgrades I could get for it, if say I outgrow its performance but don't want to part with it? Or with cheap bikes like this, is it better to just upgrade to a bigger bike when you outgrow instead of sinking more money into it?

Pongo · #17 Unread post by **Pongo** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:28 am

sirRealist wrote:It also seems strange that bike manufacturers seem to shy away from talking about the HP of their bikes on their website. Some sort of marketing ploy?

It's my understanding some lawsuits were launched, in the past, when claimed HP wasn't met. Don't want to get sued! Don't make the HP claim.

Lion_Lady · Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:29 am

There are probably lots of aftermarket bits for the Ninjas, but don't even worry about that right now. Anything you add as far as 'upgrades' do it must be because you want them, NOT because you imagine it will improve the resale value. And remember at some point it is counter productive to make some changes to a starter bike.

See it time and time again... folks asking $3K for "X" newb friendly bike because they added $1500 in 'extras.'

Just find yourself a decent motorcycle and learn to ride it well (take the MSF course of course), then instead of spending money on upgrades or improvements, start shopping for the next level motorcycle. If you buy used, unless you trash the starter bike, you should get back what you paid. How's THAT?

P

CNF2002 · #19 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:35 am

Aftermarket parts are not going to increase your value. In most cases they will decrease it. The vast majority of people are not going to want the same aftermarket parts you have on your bike, and the more you put on it the fewer interested people you are going to have! Unless you plan on keeping the bike for the life of the bike (or until its value becomes nill), skip the aftermarket upgrades.

Performance upgrades on a 250 are not going to add much horsepower. Just more things that can break.

Nalian · #20 Unread post by **Nalian** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:58 am

sirRealist wrote: Now I've also been reading that displacement isn't really a good measurement of a (sport) bike's performance, due to the fact that they are so light. That for a good comparison you need power-to-weight ratio. And for that, you need to know horsepower. So maybe at 600cc and higher there is a dramatic increase in the HP of the bikes, so that the power-to-weight ratio takes a jump here? Or maybe something else, like torque?

Yes - that's exactly it. If you look at a lot of the 600cc sportbikes, they put out a lot more horsepower than a lot of other, much larger bikes. I'm not sure why engine CC became such a big advertising point - but its not really all that useful of a statistic when choosing the right bike.