Fair comparison: All 600s are equal?

Mercon5 · 03-25-2005, 12:36 PM

First time poster, semi-long time reader.

I see a whole bunch of "Good 600s to start on" and such, and I see the stickies and I've read them all... I was just curious about wether or not its a fair comparison to be comparing a new R6, GSXR600, or a Ninja 636 to an older Katana or a Yamaha FZR or YZF600r or a Kawasaki ZX6e.

I'm not searching for an argument, but I simply want to know if you feel the same way regarding the less sport-oriented 600s. I've been looking at 500s, but I've ran across a couple ZX6E's that I've really liked. The other bike that I've liked is the Triumph TT600. They felt very comfortable, which is kind of why they caught my attention. This is just sitting on these bikes, mind you... but I did get to ride the 600e in first gear in a parking lot. I have practically no experience... riding a small dirtbike a couple of times when I was significantly younger and a friend's F4i in first and second gears in a local parking lot once... that and I am signed up for the MSF.

I'm 5'9" 140lbs. I consider myself a safe and careful driver (but don't we all), and I've got zero tickets and accidents in my 3 years of licensed driving. (knock on wood!)

Do you think that even a ZX6e or TT600 or something of that nature would be too much to start on? If so why? It won't break my heart, FWIW I'm still looking at 500s. I just want honest opinions.

Thanks guys.

linuxbikr · 03-25-2005, 01:43 PM

Older 600s were the top-flight machines in their day. A ZX-6E is simply a rebadged older Ninja that was replaced by newer models. The TT600 is a top-flight 600 from Triumph although it lacks some of the perfomance of the newer 600s from the Big Four.

Remember, all these machines originally began their lives as expert level racing machines. That is their pedigree. Even the Katana uses the engine from the early GSX-R race bikes. Power has increased, weight has decreased and improving the power-to-weight ratios of bikes from year to year. But the qualities of the bikes haven't changed. The older bikes in the hands of the inexperienced are still sensitive, nimble and powerful machines. It is merely a matter of degree.

In my opinion, save for the Seca II, there is no good 600 to start on. The race pedigree of these bikes creates a narrow range of forgiveness that the new rider will have to correct mistakes in. Bikes like my FZR have a little give but not much. The R6 by comparison has almost none. The only difference from a new rider's point of view between the two is the FZR may give you another half-second of reaction time. And it probably won't be enough given the speed at which things can go wrong on even a "weak" sportbike like the FZR.

You either subscribe to the idea that smaller is better and the confidence and skills you develop on a more forgiving bike will make you a better rider in the long term or you don't. Smaller, less powerful machines will more readily absorb new rider mistakes that the bigger 600s (including mine) simply will not. I'm talking typical new rider mistakes like overbraking, too much throttle, chopping the throttle in a turn, shifting errors, slow turns, friction zone control and so on. Small bikes gives you valuable "oh crap" reaction time to correct your mistake before the bike really begins to get out of control. It may only be a second or two but there is huge difference in bike reaction between closing the throttle in a panic in a turn you may consider too hot (the wrong thing to do, by the way) on a EX250 or 500 versus even an old 600 like the FZR or CBR F2. The smaller bike will rock, stand up, bobble in protest and tell you "You shouldn't be doing this!". The 600 will merely flick upward in the blink of an eye. Unless you know what the bike is about to do, odds are you'll be off it before you realize you had even done something wrong.

600s are deceptive at low speeds. Inline fours are high strung and real gutless at low rpms. Plus the smoothness of the engine lulls you into a false sense of security ("Hey, this is easy!"). Once you begin to edge the power and speed upward, the whole personality of the bike changes. It can be absolutely terrifying to a new rider to be riding even an older sportbike in its powerband on the street at even moderate speeds where every action just seems to be amplified by the smallest touch and the bike justs seems to want to go and go and go when being held at a steady pace. Exhilirating as hell for an experienced rider but can drive a newbie into panic overload if the lack the finesse to manage the bike exactly the way they should be.

Experienced riders deliberately put the bike into it's "sweet spot" and enjoy the feeling of being perched on the tip of a missile. Every action is smooth, small, deliberate and controlled. They flow with the bike and manage it as an extension of their bodies. New and inexperienced riders are still developing those reflexes and that muscle memory that drives the actions of riding to the subconcious. Better to fumble along and develop those reflexes on a bike that will forgive you when they aren't quite right.

Just my opinion. Many disagree with me.

Squid Killer · 03-25-2005, 01:47 PM

My personal experience is that I had an FZR600 then YZF600 then R6. They are each very different bikes. I like them all for what they offer and used them for seperate purposes.

The FZR was little, light and fun to flick around but it didnt have adjustable forks so stock, it had its limits. I used the YZF for long rides (40,000 total miles) because of its comfort and smooth engine. Its really a small GT bike. My R6 is for thrashing at the track. No matter how hard I ride it, it can take more and gives me confidence because it is forgiving.

05gixxer600 · 03-25-2005, 01:53 PM

My first bike and im 17 is my 05 gsxr600...I have to ride with my dad for a while, but i am very comfortable on it. I also have tons of years of experience on dirt bikes and such, i think it is really up to how responsible you are and if you are willing to take the time to learn, especially if you dont have much experience, the speed and power kicks in at higher rpms...i think it is just like my old four wheeler power wise right now (i cant take it above 7500 rpm, breakin in)...

weeks21m · 03-25-2005, 04:30 PM

Great post linuxbikr.

Jackal79 · 03-26-2005, 01:36 AM

There is a huge difference between old 600s and new 600s. New 600s are faster, stock for stock, than 1000s from the late 80s, maybe even faster than 1000s from the mid 90's (yikes eh?).

linuxbikr, I belive whether a bike was designed for racing or not makes little difference. The ex500 which is so heavy recommended around here turned faster lap times than Hurricane from what I've heard. What about the SV 650? Tons of people race SVs. You could race an EX too. Obviously the engineers who designed these "tame starter bikes" thought to gear them towards racing.

Eyespy · 03-26-2005, 02:19 AM

Regarding the SV650 mentioned above, it has been my almost universal observation that it makes for a poor first street bike. The EX250 and EX500 Ninjas and the Suzuki GS500 make for ideal starter bikes in 99% of all cases.

Mercon5 · 03-26-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyespy

Regarding the SV650 mentioned above, it has been my almost universal observation that it makes for a poor first street bike.

That is the V-twin Bandit, right? Or am I thinking of something else?
I've heard many people reccomend it as a starter bike before, may I ask what's made you belive otherwise?

I'm looking at 500s and the only thing about 500s that really bothers me is the price... they cost as much or sometimes MORE than alot of the "tamer" (I guess... or heavier) 600s I mentioned in my post. For some reason I'm having a harder time finding older 500s from the mid-90s or so.

saq · 03-26-2005, 02:09 PM

Excellent post, linuxbikr.

Eyespy · 03-26-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercon5

That is the V-twin Bandit, right? Or am I thinking of something else?
I've heard many people reccomend it as a starter bike before, may I ask what's made you belive otherwise?

I'm looking at 500s and the only thing about 500s that really bothers me is the price... they cost as much or sometimes MORE than alot of the "tamer" (I guess... or heavier) 600s I mentioned in my post. For some reason I'm having a harder time finding older 500s from the mid-90s or so.

The SV650 is quite "torquey", quite a bit more than I'd recommend for new and inexperienced riders to contend with. Amongst the circle of racers and track junkies I cavort with, circumstances of friends and family members who purchased and started out on the SV650, on the premise that it makes for a suitable starter bike, who have gone down resulting in bike damage and bodily injuries, are not that uncommon.