Total Motorcycle Community Forums

For me the different of naked and full dress bike is, You pay less on naked bike if you happen to drop the bike.

I think that most nakeds are essentially sport bikes with the fairings hacked off.

I thought that was all a naked bike was?

Was under the impression that you could easily go from naked to covered and back by simply removing and putting the fairing back on to suit your needs.

As an old time bike geezer, I come from a time when there was no useful reason for putting a plastic covering over a perfectly good bike. if you wanted wind protection, you bought either a plexiglass windshield, or a big honkin' Vetter Windjammer. I prefer the plexi windshields myself, although I did own an old KZ that came with a Windjammer.

I have heard some claims about aerodynamics, but on the whole, I'd consider most faired bikes aerodynamically impaired. Though there are a few exceptions, most of the plastic doesn't improve the drag coefficient.
The plastic gives varying wind protection. From decent to almost none. It's primarily there to make the bike look good. It's fine if you like it, but for me, it's just a lot more potential for expensive repair. The one gripe I have with faired bikes is that real wind protection fairings should be sized and customized to the rider. "One size fits all" doesn't really work in that respect.

I guess I would have to fall in the "naked" camp.

See the yellow one at the top? It's never had anything remotely resembling a fairing on it. Most nakeds are designed that way. However, they are designed from the bits and pieces of faired bikes. And often look like a basic faired bike. For example Kawasaki's KZ750, or Suzuki's SV650.

Some of the nakeds are detuned from what you would think is their fully faired counterparts. Like the differance between a 599 and a CBR600RR is about 16 hp and 2 more ft-lb of torque. But i get the impression (based on weight (RR is 40 lbs lighter) wheelbase and the whole "RR" badge on the CBR's model name) that the fully faired CBR600RR is a mite faster in almost every sense. Buuut as for which ones a better commuter, it wouldn't suprise me if the "detuned" 599cc motor in the 599 has a flatter HP and TQ curve that gets up to power quicker than the CBR600RR. Just, good luck catching the CBR after 7k rpm on a 599. Me, personally, I'd want the 599 over the CBR. Easier ergos, better for dealing with traffic, and better looking. Oh yeah, it's $1,500 cheaper new. Though, admitidly, my favorite Honda is the fully faired RC51.

flynrider wrote:As an old time bike geezer, I come from a time when there was no useful reason for putting a plastic covering over a perfectly good bike. if you wanted wind protection, you bought either a plexiglass windshield, or a big honkin' Vetter Windjammer. I prefer the plexi windshields myself, although I did own an old KZ that came with a Windjammer.

I have heard some claims about aerodynamics, but on the whole, I'd consider most faired bikes aerodynamically impaired. Though there are a few exceptions, most of the plastic doesn't improve the drag coefficient.
The plastic gives varying wind protection. From decent to almost none. It's primarily there to make the bike look good. It's fine if you like it, but for me, it's just a lot more potential for expensive repair. The one gripe I have with faired bikes is that real wind protection fairings should be sized and customized to the rider. "One size fits all" doesn't really work in that respect.

I guess I would have to fall in the "naked" camp.

Some of you guys should try a bike with fairings before you jump to conclusions. Even though mine has a "one size fits all" fairing as someone mentioned, the plastic and fairing do make a much more bearable wind flow than what you receive on a standard, no screen, no fairing bike.
I've ridden all kinds of bikes except for bikes with large windscreens. I find mine to be the most easily manageable bike I've ridden.

The fairings do play a large part at higher speeds too, it is very noticable on a hayabusa.

Kevin

GeoffXR200R wrote:Some of the nakeds are detuned from what you would think is their fully faired counterparts. Like the differance between a 599 and a CBR600RR is about 16 hp and 2 more ft-lb of torque. But i get the impression (based on weight (RR is 40 lbs lighter) wheelbase and the whole "RR" badge on the CBR's model name) that the fully faired CBR600RR is a mite faster in almost every sense. Buuut as for which ones a better commuter, it wouldn't suprise me if the "detuned" 599cc motor in the 599 has a flatter HP and TQ curve that gets up to power quicker than the CBR600RR. Just, good luck catching the CBR after 7k rpm on a 599. Me, personally, I'd want the 599 over the CBR. Easier ergos, better for dealing with traffic, and better looking. Oh yeah, it's $1,500 cheaper new. Though, admitidly, my favorite Honda is the fully faired RC51.

You're almost exactly right in all respects. The biggest difference however is the shortened wheelbase better availibility of HP in the lower revs for the Honda 599. Over in the UK where they are called Hornets (where it's been around forever) they used to be raced vs CBR's. The Hornets would typically come out of the corners faster because of the better turning radius and more HP down low. But on the straight aways the greater HP and higher revving engines just took off.

The Honda 599 uses the 93 Honda CBR model engine. That has smaller carbs fitted and a retuned ignition sequence to move more of the HP down into the lower rev range. They also went with a mono backbone frame with the engine as a stressed member, as opposed to the classic 'Y' style split of the supersports, in which the engine just rests inside.

Subsequently the Hornet Cup was introduced similar to the SV one over here. Which helped increase the bikes popularity.

So REALLY, it's all about what kind of riding you want to do. Really really fast straight lines and slower corners, or REALLY fast straight lines and faster corners.

Mintbread wrote:

Relsek wrote: The fairings do play a large part at higher speeds too, it is very noticable on a hayabusa.

Kevin

They would want to be a lot more aerodynamic just to make up for their god-awful looks.

Yeah, isn't life great, I like one thing, you like another and we both get just what we want. It would sure be boring to see everybody riding the same bike.

Relsek wrote:

Mintbread wrote:

Relsek wrote: The fairings do play a large part at higher speeds too, it is very noticable on a hayabusa.

Kevin

They would want to be a lot more aerodynamic just to make up for their god-awful looks.

Yeah, isn't life great, I like one thing, you like another and we both get just what we want. It would sure be boring to see everybody riding the same bike.

Better then everyone driving a car...

sapaul wrote:



The fairinged bike is better for long distance and touring, the naked is a better urban bike.

Lets not forget the new half-faired r1200s



***EDITED***
Found an even better pic on a dodgy website called totalmotorcycle.com
Apologies for the size of the pic... actually blame mike - he made it available