try searching cbr 600, let me know what you find, eh?
I find
this, and
this, and
this, and also
this. I even find
this thread, by the same author, without a mention of it being a first bike, which seems to indicate that this thread is more trolling than actual request for information.
Secondly, Implying I'm a newb to the internet for not knowing about your temperment... um ok?
As I said, it's hardly uncommon for someone to get annoyed responses when they post a question that's already been answered ad infinitum. Happens all the time on all sorts of forums. It's nothing unique to my own temperament.
I would like to ask you a question. What is your experience with riding a Sooooper Sport bike that makes riding one as difficult ass you are implying? Sure, if you get one above 8k they get a little silly but if one doesn't possess the self control and maturity to not abuse the power so be it.
Never said they were difficult. Said they were unforgiving. Those are two very different things.
To use my 951 as an example, the car is incredibly easy to drive fast...up to about 9/10ths. Because of that, it's very easy to get lulled by the car and get a little sloppy. When that happens and you enter a corner too hot, you've got to manage how you correct. If you take the novice route and abruptly lift throttle, you'll end up in a situation where there back end of the car is overtaking the front and you're headed for the armco. And god help you if the turbo spools when you don't intend for it to do so. At low speeds, the car's easy to drive, but it's simultaneously very unforgiving of driver error.
A supersport is similar. The same things that make them good on a track can get you into trouble easily. The easy "flickable" handling makes them more squirrely over groved pavement and grating (bad for a novice). The peaky engine that seems "tame" at low RPM has power that comes on all at once rather than gradually, so a novice with a death-grip on the throttle (common novice rider behaviour) can easily end up in the fat part of the powerband completely accidentally if he hits a pothole or reacts poorly to an unexpected event. The great brakes that can bring them down from speed so nicely also mean that when a novice incorrectly grabs a huge handful of front brake in a panic scenario he's more likely to lock it up because he's not expecting that much reserve braking power.
It's got nothing to do with a rider lacking self-control or riding like an idiot. It has to do with the bike having very little tolerance for rider error.
to me a 600 seems well enough to learn on provided the rider has the maturity and self control to handle the bike and himself. If somebody is generally a nervous wreck on the road and or a menace to society they are gonna be Goodyear food no matter what. First bike recommedations should be handed out on a case by case basis decided upon what the riders needs and his overall poise.
And I've outlined several times why this view is flat wrong. Novice errors are not the product of being, "generally a nervous wreck", nor are they the product of being, "a menace to society." Novice errors are the product of being a novice. Even the best novice is going to make mistakes and a 600cc supersport simply does not provide anywhere close to the same margin for error that a GS500 or a 250R does.
You have a very long tirade here, but you never once addressed the substantive part of my post:
A GS500 or a 250R has worlds more room for mistakes than a 600cc supersport. An honest mistake (not riding like an asshat, just a normal, novice mistake) is more likely to get him into trouble on a 600cc supersport than it is on a GS500 or a 250R.
A bad rider may indeed be a bad rider regardless of what he's riding, but a good rider will develop his skills faster if he starts on a GS500 or a 250R. Pilots don't start out in an F-16 and novice riders shouldn't start out on a 600cc supersport.
The truth of that quote doesn't change just because someone thinks they'll be "responsible" with a 600cc supersport.
ZV