Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Shiv wrote:

ZooTech wrote:

isnowbrd wrote:I think they are talking about sport bikes. They require much more skill to ride "to it's limit".

They are talking about the Ninja 250.

That made me laugh.


The only way you can ride a sportbike to its limit, most of the time, is on a track or a salt flat. Otherwise you're just wasting horsepower. At that point it's about looks and ego (which isn't a bad thing, really. I think the SV650s is dead sexy and I'll never use all its power, but I'm gonna own one some day).

I don't think riding a Ninja 250 to its limit would be that difficult. A race-replica bike, sure, but not moving up because they haven't mastered the Ninja 250....c'mon!

isnowbrd wrote:
Verm, what are you smoking??

Kawasaki considers their 250R, 500R, and 650R to all be "Sport" bikes. They are not standards. The class you are thinking about is "Super Sport" or race replica bikes.

Quote from Kawasaki about the 250R:
"This is a true sportbike..."

those bikes have the handlebars set high so you don't get the leaned forward riding position of a true sportbike.

sportbikes have low handlebars and footpegs are farther behind.

the only thing sportbike about those bikes is the fairings.

there are sportbikes that don't belong to the RR category. the SV "S" and katana models are sportbikes but they don't belong to the supersport(600cc RR) or superbike category(1000cc RR).

but the ninja250, 500, 650R, and GS500F are not.

The Crimson Rider® wrote:sportbikes have low handlebars and footpegs are farther behind.

the SV "S" and katana models are sportbikes

but the ninja250, 500, 650R, and GS500F are not.

The Katana and SV both have higher handlebars and comfortable footpeg position. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

And Suzuki considers the GS500F to be a "Sportbike". However, they say the SVs are all "Standards" or "Sportbikes". Check it out --> http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/Mo ... fault.aspx

I think you are really confused Verm.

The Crimson Rider® wrote:
those bikes have the handlebars set high so you don't get the leaned forward riding position of a true sportbike.

sportbikes have low handlebars and footpegs are farther behind.

the only thing sportbike about those bikes is the fairings.

there are sportbikes that don't belong to the RR category. the SV "S" and katana models are sportbikes but they don't belong to the supersport(600cc RR) or superbike category(1000cc RR).

but the ninja250, 500, 650R, and GS500F are not.

Seriously dude, you need to stop saying this crap. You are turning people away from good starter sport bikes.

YES THEY ARE SPORTBIKES. They have more comfortable/beginner friendly ergos like the YZF 600 (the cheaper version), the CBRF4I, the ZZR600, etc. Those are ALL sportbikes with ergos designed for street riding, not track riding.

There is more to the sportbike determination than just the "procreating" handlebars. All of those bikes are designed with a sporty nature in mind. You do not sit straight up on any of those bikes. It might be close, but unless you have goofy monkey arms, it is still more aggressive than a cruiser or a standard bike like a bandit. They rev high, have decent suspension setups, have fairings, and have good cornering clearance.

If I hear you tell beginners that these aren't sportbikes one more time... just because they aren't race replicas, I'm going to reach through the internet and punch you in the eye.

You have no idea what a "true" sportsbike is. You are a victim of marketing and media. Race replicas are not the only sport bikes... hell, most people consider them supersports, and don't even put them in the same class as normal sportbikes, like the ones mentioned above.

So please, just knock it off.

DivideOverflow wrote:
Race replicas are not the only sport bikes... hell, most people consider them supersports, and don't even put them in the same class as normal sportbikes, like the ones mentioned above.

So please, just knock it off.

i know, like i mentioned...

the SVS models are sportbikes

the YZF 600R is a sportbike.

the GT250R/GT650R are sportbikes

they're not RR bikes but they're sportbikes.

there are quite few sportbikes that don't belong to RR category, however... those sporty looking bikes like GS500F is not a true sportbike.

ZooTech wrote:

Dragonhawk wrote:Being safety-conscious means one is a party-pooper?

It's a curious character trait, that's all. I remember as a kid we always thought the "safety guy" was lame. How one then grows up to be that guy is interesting. I mean, what's the motivation to host that safety website of yours? I'm asking honestly, not setting you up.

That's a valid question.

"Perceptions" are equally interesting.

You regard my learning page as a "safety website" but it was never intended to be. My intention was to make it an educational resource for the most efficient way to learn to ride.

My perception is that I created a step-by-step learning page.

Your perception is that I created a safety page.

Yes, there are "safety oriented" tips on there. My motivation for including those was simple. I believe there are 2 types of riders out there. There are the stubborn, macho, juvenile, squidly riders who just want big fast bikes and don't really care what advice anyone else gives them. There are the mature, responsible, well-intentioned riders who want to be careful and prudent as they start motorcycling.

My site was obviously intended for the second group. I know full-well that the first type of person couldn't care less about any advice or input on "beginner friendly" bikes.

Naturally, human beings can't simply be lumped to those 2 categories. There is also a lot of "grey area" among the attitudes of new riders. My site was also intended to present information with a logical, common-sense approach. That way, riders who are "on the fence" might be swayed to start on motorcycles that are a little more manageable than their 100+HP dreambike.

Dragonhawk wrote:

ZooTech wrote:

Dragonhawk wrote:Being safety-conscious means one is a party-pooper?

It's a curious character trait, that's all. I remember as a kid we always thought the "safety guy" was lame. How one then grows up to be that guy is interesting. I mean, what's the motivation to host that safety website of yours? I'm asking honestly, not setting you up.

That's a valid question.

"Perceptions" are equally interesting.

You regard my learning page as a "safety website" but it was never intended to be. My intention was to make it an educational resource for the most efficient way to learn to ride.

My perception is that I created a step-by-step learning page.

Your perception is that I created a safety page.

Yes, there are "safety oriented" tips on there. My motivation for including those was simple. I believe there are 2 types of riders out there. There are the stubborn, macho, juvenile, squidly riders who just want big fast bikes and don't really care what advice anyone else gives them. There are the mature, responsible, well-intentioned riders who want to be careful and prudent as they start motorcycling.

My site was obviously intended for the second group. I know full-well that the first type of person couldn't care less about any advice or input on "beginner friendly" bikes.

Naturally, human beings can't simply be lumped to those 2 categories. There is also a lot of "grey area" among the attitudes of new riders. My site was also intended to present information with a logical, common-sense approach. That way, riders who are "on the fence" might be swayed to start on motorcycles that are a little more manageable than their 100+HP dreambike.

Fair enough, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I suppose if somebody is gonna do it, it may as well be you. I just don't have it in me to bother. My Jung-Myers-Briggs personality type states that I despise instruction, which I do, and prefer to learn everything on my own, which I also do.

The Crimson Rider® wrote: there are quite few sportbikes that don't belong to RR category, however... those sporty looking bikes like GS500F is not a true sportbike.

How exactly are you defining sportsbike, then?

The Crimson Rider® wrote:

DivideOverflow wrote:
Race replicas are not the only sport bikes... hell, most people consider them supersports, and don't even put them in the same class as normal sportbikes, like the ones mentioned above.

So please, just knock it off.

... those sporty looking bikes like GS500F is not a true sportbike.

Yes they are. Why then do all the magazines call them sportbikes? The manufacturers? Everyone on this forum EXCEPT you? Do you really think that you know better than everyone else?

They have ENTIRE RACING LEAGUES dedicated to the GS500 and similar bikes... same with the ninja 250. So they have competitive track racing yet they still don't qualify as sport bikes to you?

You have a very warped view on the subject.

To verm, it's the seating position, placement of the pegs, and other minute things that make the difference between a standard and a sport bike.

Which leads me to this:

I don't think riding a Ninja 250 to its limit would be that difficult. A race-replica bike, sure, but not moving up because they haven't mastered the Ninja 250....c'mon!

No doubt that riding a 250 to its limit wouldn't be too difficult. But when I said sportsbike, I, like verm, wasn't including the EX/GS's.

The SV650's and EX650 and all the 600cc+, non-cruiser, bikes were included as sportsbikes.


But I have a hard time thinking of the GS/EX 250/500s as sports bikes. Not because of their seating position, or handle bar location, or peg location. Just a personal..hmm...taste, I guess.