Want a 600? Read This!

[CaptNemo]

There's no way that that civic ran that fast, it needs at least 50 horsepower worth of decals on it !!

There are also some of us older drag racers that were into racing when a Marvin Miller "Cheatah" Nitrous system was the only thing available and if you were caught with it, you would probably get lumped up pretty good...
I have a NHRA competion license for my drag car and went to Frank Hawley's school to get my licensing runs in for it. I've been down Gainesville in the 9.80's and a buck 40. Do you know how much of that translates to a street bike ? Exactly ZERO.
I've had numerous big block muscle cars, an '03 Ford Cobra that would would run mid 7's in the 1/8th, all of them severely traction limited, did that have ANYTHING to do with riding a bike ?

Absolutely NOT !

You live in Tampa, have you ever seen a curve that didn't connect directly to an Interstate Highway ?


.

[NeekTav]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Your second point, why not just also say it was possible that aliens came and zapped his front end with a no-steering juice ray? You could just come up with endless possibilities and further muddy a bad argument.

Until stats are not generized we could come up with many different senerios.
I've never said Lemosley01's example couldn't have happened in SOME of the cases. Are you saying mine is not possible in SOME of the cases.

The point is, and since you're missing it I will make it simple, since speed isn't the majority cause of accidents, there must be another reason. Since newer riders die more often, maybe that could be lack of understanding? Inability to control their bikes in a safe manner? or, for you, Hairy, ape-man like woodland creatures may have stuck a banana in their tailpipe?

I'm not sure why you keep focusing on the speed part but as I've said before new riders on a big bike do have certain risks and then there are some who add onto the risk and some that dont.


You yourself in a previous thread said this about stunters "Stunting, I could care less about them. They choose to do that, dress that way and act that way. They insert risk." Which I agree with and also is kinda my point.
So why is it so bad to not want to be in the same stat catagory as people who insert extra risk and become a statistic.Same could be said about drinkers.

The stats should say this many accidents were because of normal risk associated with experience(or lack there of) and cc's,and theses were the ones where extra risk were inserted such as high speed (or too high for conditions),drinking,stunting, etc.

Prove to me with facts that every crash that DID involve speed (37% did) would have still happened if speed wasn't involved. Because I say some may have been avoided if speed wasn't involved. My opinion but thats what the stats leave it open to,opinions.Which is what you are argueing your opinion. The numbers are correct but the reasons behind the cases are left for opinions.

I expect an arguement from the "I will add in aliens and apes to a motorcycle discussion" crowd. Actually no because I dont want to jack Iwakunidivers thread.

[lemosley01]

Originally Posted by NeekTav

Until stats are not generized we could come up with many different senerios.
I've never said Lemosley01's example couldn't have happened in SOME of the cases. Are you saying mine is not possible in SOME of the cases.



I'm not sure why you keep focusing on the speed part but as I've said before new riders on a big bike do have certain risks and then there are some who add onto the risk and some that dont.


You yourself in a previous thread said this about stunters "Stunting, I could care less about them. They choose to do that, dress that way and act that way. They insert risk." Which I agree with and also is kinda my point.
So why is it so bad to not want to be in the same stat catagory as people who insert extra risk and become a statistic.Same could be said about drinkers.

The stats should say this many accidents were because of normal risk associated with experience(or lack there of) and cc's,and theses were the ones where extra risk were inserted such as high speed (or too high for conditions),drinking,stunting, etc.

Prove to me with facts that every crash that DID involve speed (37% did) would have still happened if speed wasn't involved. Because I say some may have been avoided if speed wasn't involved. My opinion but thats what the stats leave it open to,opinions.Which is what you are argueing your opinion. The numbers are correct but the reasons behind the cases are left for opinions.

I expect an arguement from the "I will add in aliens and apes to a motorcycle discussion" crowd. Actually no because I dont want to jack Iwakunidivers thread.

Speed was brought up again because Ryan decided to try and use it.

Neektav - the MAIDs report very clearly indicates that new riders crash more often (no surprise). It also clearly indicates that 600-900 cc bikes are over-represented in crash statistics than other bikes. In Europe, people do not start on 600s (the laws do not generally allow it), so most 600-900 cc bikes are being crashed by experienced riders. If experienced riders are having difficulty with these bikes, would a new rider with no skill at all have the same, more, or less risk of crashing the same bike? You are inserting risk simply by riding one of them as an experienced rider, and inserting more as a new rider - such that trying to learn on a 600 may be the equivalent of speeding at 30+ everywhere while learning on a 250.

600 race replicas are not good learner's bikes. End of story. Ignoring crash statistics and looking at it sheerly from the point of what is 'easiest' to handle, a smaller displacement, less powerful, lighter bike is a much better learning platform. This has been proven time and again. If starting small didn't work, there would be no need for smaller displacement race classes - everyone would be racing in Superbike and that would be the only class.

Before I bought my F2 I tooled around a bit on a friends 250 cruiser. The bike was easy to handle and confidence inspiring - it was light, it had a low CG so it didn't want to fall over like a sportbike, comfortable riding position, and it didn't have aggressive brakes or a throttle that would make you pay if you slipped. Mind you I only had perhaps two hours of seat time on it, so, when I bought the F2 I was still a beginner. The F2 was the total opposite - much more power, heavy and top heavy, aggressive brakes. It was a handful for a new rider and I dropped it a couple of times. The 900RR of the time (1994) was by far worse and most certainly was not a beginner's bike. The current 600s are equivalent to a 900RR of 1994 - actually they are beyond the 900RR in capabilities.

Given that information, does it strike you that a 600 is really a good learning platform?

People can learn on any bike, but you are stacking the odds against yourself the larger you go. You are certainly slowing your learning curve down. That F2 didn't allow me to become a good rider as quickly as I could have been had I start on a Ninja 250 or Ninja 500.

[jk750]

Great thread! Keeping it civil will encourage new riders and lurkers to stick around and learn more.

[NeekTav]

Originally Posted by lemosley01

Speed was brought up again because Ryan decided to try and use it..

Me and FB discussed this in another thread thats why I asked why FB brought it up.

the MAIDs report very clearly indicates that new riders crash more often (no surprise). It also clearly indicates that 600-900 cc bikes are over-represented in crash statistics than other bikes. In Europe, people do not start on 600s (the laws do not generally allow it), so most 600-900 cc bikes are being crashed by experienced riders. If experienced riders are having difficulty with these bikes, would a new rider with no skill at all have the same, more, or less risk of crashing the same bike? You are inserting risk simply by riding one of them as an experienced rider, and inserting more as a new rider - such that trying to learn on a 600 may be the equivalent of speeding at 30+ everywhere while learning on a 250.

^^^ To answer the question I would need to know if you mean the new rider and experienced rider have the same demeanor(for lack of a better word)on a bike.If they do then of course the new rider probably has more risk.

If you take an experienced rider and add drinking and stunting and high speeds etc and take a new rider that dont insert those risks,I feel the new rider is safer.
thats my whole problem with the way stats are. You can assume they are having problems with the bike. Which I would agree could be a possibilty but I would assume in some of the cases they had a problem trying to push their bike past their OWN skill level. Some dont push their skill level too much.

Am I wrong in assuming that?

Given that information, does it strike you that a 600 is really a good learning platform?

People can learn on any bike, but you are stacking the odds against yourself the larger you go. You are certainly slowing your learning curve down. That F2 didn't allow me to become a good rider as quickly as I could have been had I start on a Ninja 250 or Ninja 500.

I never said a 600 was the best,fastest or easiest learning platform. You say people can learn on any bike and I give you credit for that because some get sick of people saying its not possible. My whole issue is stats being to generalized and needing to be broken down more to give the actual reason why accidents happen,Not whats a better learning platform.

Given the fact that we all know there are risks involved in a new rider on a 600 do you think some new riders are safer and dont insert more risk by not riding like a jackass? (high speed, stunting (unsafe places) and drinking etc.)

[lemosley01]

Originally Posted by NeekTav

^^^ To answer the question I would need to know if you mean the new rider and experienced rider have the same demeanor(for lack of a better word)on a bike.If they do then of course the new rider probably has more risk.

That is the only way the comparison would be valid. I didn't think it would be required to state identical factors. It's like comparing drag times of a bike - the riders have to be equivalent or the comparison is not valid.

If you take an experienced rider and add drinking and stunting and high speeds etc and take a new rider that dont insert those risks,I feel the new rider is safer.

But the new rider is NOT safer than someone who acts in the same way. If you take a new rider and insert stunting, drinking, and high speeds, he will not be 'as safe' as an experienced rider with those same factors.

thats my whole problem with the way stats are. You can assume they are having problems with the bike. Which I would agree could be a possibilty but I would assume in some of the cases they had a problem trying to push their bike past their OWN skill level. Some dont push their skill level too much.

Am I wrong in assuming that?

Yes - you are. An experienced rider, by definition, knows how to control the bike. A new rider does not - they are a new rider and are learning. The MAIDS report statistics are available online.

Generalization with statistics works. If it didn't, then statistics would vary wildly from sample to sample. Instead they are generally steady or either increase or decline very gradually, which indicates commonalities about the sample that are true.

Is a new rider that doesn't take risks safer than a new rider who doesn't. I would tend to say yes, but the danger is because they don't know how to control the bike and are learning - when learning you will make mistakes

There is a 'baseline' safety below which no new rider can fall and that limit, according to the stats, is highest in the first 6(?) months. As you gain experience the baseline goes down. You can increase it by doing stupid things, but it cannot go lower than 'x'. By hopping onto a 600ss, the equivalent of a CBR900RR which is most definitely not a beginner's bike, you are inserting additional risk - like I said, the risk may very well be high enough that you are as much at risk as an experienced rider who drinks and rides (this is just an example, not a concrete fact)

[MAD_CAT]

Here one to add:

I will never go down.

Answer: Yes you will.

[NeekTav]

Originally Posted by lemosley01

That is the only way the comparison would be valid. I didn't think it would be required to state identical factors. It's like comparing drag times of a bike - the riders have to be equivalent or the comparison is not valid.

Thats what I'm getting at with the stats. The stats include all kinds of riders who insert many different kinds of risks and some that dont insert any (except the baseline risks of being new on a 600).Why should every rider be compared to the stats that include riders that are not their equivalent.

But the new rider is NOT safer than someone who acts in the same way. If you take a new rider and insert stunting, drinking, and high speeds, he will not be 'as safe' as an experienced rider with those same factors.

No, I was trying to say the new rider doesn't insert stunting, drinking, and high speeds.

Generalization with statistics works. If it didn't, then statistics would vary wildly from sample to sample. Instead they are generally steady or either increase or decline very gradually, which indicates commonalities about the sample that are true.

It works in a general way. The commonalities are only age and cc's and years riding so thats why they dont vary.They IMO need to include types of riders or at least break it down by cause of accident.

There is a 'baseline' safety below which no new rider can fall and that limit, according to the stats, is highest in the first 6(?) months. As you gain experience the baseline goes down. You can increase it by doing stupid things, but it cannot go lower than 'x'. By hopping onto a 600ss, the equivalent of a CBR900RR which is most definitely not a beginner's bike, you are inserting additional risk - like I said, the risk may very well be high enough that you are as much at risk as an experienced rider who drinks and rides (this is just an example, not a concrete fact)

I agree with everything here except the last line.With that said I dont like when the stats are brought up because some of us do what we can to keep our risk at "x".We dont like to be catagorized with the people that "do stupid things".

[Little Joe]

The bottom line is:

A. NEW RIDERS WILL MAKE MISTAKES (I'm a new ridier and I have and will)
B. 600's have a MUCH lower margin of error than a 250 or 500

A+B=New riders are at greater risk on a 600 becuase the bike will not tolerate the mistakes they WILL make like a 250/500 will.

Can a newbie learn on a 600? I'm sure one can, but it's far easier and safer to learn on a 250!

How is it that years of proven success, advice from many experienced riders, and the example of a lot of racers doesen't kake you stop and think that it might have a little credence?

BTW, the drinking/stunting/speeding issue is irrelevant in the discussion of whether or not a new rider can effectively learn on a 600ss. The argument of this thread is that all factors being the same a smaller bike is a better learning platform, and a larger bike is more likely to prove the downfall of a new rider with it's requirement of precision.

-Joe-

[lemosley01]

I agree with everything here except the last line.With that said I dont like when the stats are brought up because some of us do what we can to keep our risk at "x".We dont like to be catagorized with the people that "do stupid things".

You may not agree with it, but it is true. New riders crash baseline is higher than an experienced riders, and the 'crash baseline' for all riders is highest or near highest in the 600-900cc bikes (in the MAIDS report). So, you increase risk as a new rider starting on a 600-900cc motorcycle.

An important point is that Italy, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, which is where MAIDS comes from, don't have a big problem with DUI and stunting - that makes it a relatively 'clean sample', IMO.

[NeekTav]

Originally Posted by lemosley01

You may not agree with it, but it is true. New riders crash baseline is higher than an experienced riders, and the 'crash baseline' for all riders is highest or near highest in the 600-900cc bikes (in the MAIDS report). So, you increase risk as a new rider starting on a 600-900cc motorcycle.

like I said, the risk may very well be high enough that you are as much at risk as an experienced rider who drinks and rides (this is just an example, not a concrete fact)

Thats what I disagreed with.

Again I understand new riders on a 600 - 900 cc have a basline risk of x and cant go below that.I have the problem when everyone brings up the stats to argue their point because the stats include people that aren't my equivalant.They include the people who insert risk(drinking stunting and high speed).The stats dont show my risk unless they are stats of riders who ARE my equivalant.

[Freshgrease]

I couldn't agree more with this thread and this is comming from a 2week old rider with less than 20 miles of experience. My dad (rode a Suzuki 600 cruiser of some sort for 6 years in college) suggested that I get a Ninja 500 atleast if not a 650R. That was before MSF. I had told him (after drooling and researching everything there was to know about the ninja 250) that I wanted nothing more as my starter bike.

You were right about the dealer. He said that I'd be bored in 3 months. That may be so, but right now it is a blast and after popping the clutch a few times I am glad I didnt get more power. Its not a pretty sight to see a 300lbs guy get the wind knocked outta him, but otherwise I might have been *splat*.

I laugh at the squids that go out and buy the biggest bike they can afford. I try to ride safe and learn right, but I can't say that about alot of the flipflop wearing jackasses on the F4i's and the GXR's that I see try to out run the cops on a university campus and crash trying to make a 90 degree curve going 60 trying to avoid the directional-deadend ahead.

[toyotafj40s]

1ooo only way!

[Lewd Ferrigno]

Ok, Neek, then answer this question.

Since we are all special (not), how can we trend human behavior? You do know this is done successfully, right?

Stats are generalized because humans can be. What you are doing is trying to personalize something that isn't personal. This is just another way of claiming you're different or special. Claiming this doesn't apply to you.

Again, and for the 50 billionth time, stats do not need to be individualized because humans aren't individuals in their behaviors. They do the same stuff, are subject to the same mistakes, wants, needs, actions and other behaviors.

These are numbers. If you wanted to personalize it to find out who is the highest risk group, go ahead and do the trending yourself. The problem you'll find is that, no matter which way you slice it, you'll still fit into a very high risk category.

You're not special because you're human. Welcome to the club.

[Sier]

Ok.. Just bought a 06 600RR o/////////// uhulllllll



















j/k.. lol.. don't even have my permit