who owns a Honda CBR 600? I'm pretty much set on getting one as a first bike.

[madeuce]

LOL, googled "600cc supersport study" looking for some more in depth analysis and this thread was #5 on the list...

 

[JulesMaximus]

There is a lot you can take from it.

One of the things it confirms is that he was not riding safely. Regardless what bike that guy was on, he was going to get his. It might have been in a parking lot stunting on that 250r that he was suggested by you to get.

If he was riding safely there would have been no accident and it wasn't a little mistake. If you are bringing the front of your bike up when you hit 3rd you aren't accidentally giving it a little too much throttle.

I've had the front wheel come up on a Ducati Monster 1100 I was test riding about a year ago. I totally wasn't expecting it. I was able to handle it but it was an accident and not intentional. And this wasn't even a supersport, it is very sporting in nature but it isn't a sport bike.

If he was riding a less powerful bike he wouldn't have been going as fast and he wouldn't have wheelied and he wouldn't have crashed and he wouldn't have lost a limb...on that day.

Who knows if he would have on another day. Maybe he would have had a less disasterous first crash that would have taught him to respect the bike more.

 

[madeuce]

My 650r would bring the front end up sometimes. I think it has a bit to do with the sitting position on a non-ss bike making it easier for the front end to come up with less power.

You're probably right about him keeping his foot on that particular day, if he were on a slower bike. He's the rider that gives motorcycles a bad name, SS in particular.

 

[JulesMaximus]

My 650r would bring the front end up sometimes. I think it has a bit to do with the sitting position on a non-ss bike making it easier for the front end to come up with less power.

You're probably right about him keeping his foot on that particular day, if he were on a slower bike. He's the rider that gives motorcycles a bad name, SS in particular.

Well, the Monster 1100 is an L-Twin so it has a ton of torque and a very linear powerband. Which is what makes it such a fun bike to ride in the canyons and around town. 95hp @7,500rpms and 75.9lb-ft of torque at 6,000rpms on a bike that weighs 373lbs=FUN!!!

A 2010 ZX6R by comparison makes 107hp @ 14,100rpms and 42.9lb-ft of torque at 12,000rpms. BTW-My SV650 makes 47.2lb-ft of torque at 7,500rpms.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Even your misguided example of taking of coming around a 30MPH is flawed. I can get on my bike, a supersport and prove you wrong 7 days a week.

So you can go through a corner and make the novice mistake of giving it way too much throttle and still not low-side? Somebody notify the laws of physics!

More power means less tolerance of hamfisted throttle use. Just because it's good when a rider makes zero mistakes doesn't mean it's tolerant of mistakes when they are made.

The statistic still shows that other motorists are the greatest danger for a motorcycle.

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not starting on a supersport increases the total danger even further.

No-one is disputing the fact that other motorists are the greatest single cause of accidents. However, this is, as I said, irrelevant to the discussion of whether starting out on a supersport poses an increased risk in other areas.

Once again, if this was really about safety, and not your personal agenda you wouldn't recommend a motorcycle to anyone. The risk from going from a car to a bike increases 10 fold compared to even the wildest made up risks about going from a 250 to a 600 supersport.

Ahh, the "all or nothing" defense.

And you're wrong. Technically if it was about maximizing total safety, I'd recommend that everyone stay in a bubble all the time and never touch anything or leave their room at any time.

There are avoidable risks and there are unavoidable risks. Going from a 250R or a GS500 to a supersport adds additional risk beyond the inherent and unavoidable risks. Nothing you've posted contradicts this. The existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

It sure does contradict the DSOASS crowd. I understand that age is a separate variable. You and your buddies don't quite understand that yet. It looks like you started to on your "purely hypothetical." Most of the time it gets lumped right in with SS bikes. Combining age with SS bikes is the most common mistake I can see in the DSOASS crowds "you'll die on a 600" argument. If you look at them separately you can see that age is the big factor involved, not the fact someone is on an SS.

Again, the existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

Age is going to come out being a bigger factor 7 days a week. You aren't recommending anyone to wait until they are 30 to get a bike though. So you really can't be that concerned about safety, is it some personal agenda you have that makes you ignore it?

First, I've already explained the error of the "all or nothing" fallacy. Second, you are once again either failing to comprehend the statistics or intentionally misrepresenting them. When looking at the age statistic, one must also account for the experience statistic.

23. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years.

The combination of the two statistics indicates that the decreased accident rate for people over 30 is due to having experience not due to age. The implication is that simply waiting until one is 30 would have no effect upon accident rates because the statistic about experience would control.

Again, understanding the era in which the statistics were gathered helps us gain clarity. At that time, it was incredibly rare for a person to start riding at 30 or later; the phenomenon of the mid-life-crisis novice biker did not take off until the late 1980's. This strongly suggests that the reason younger persons have higher accident rates is largely the result of younger persons having less experience.

*sigh* Once again, it does contradict what the DSOASS crowd has been saying. The risk of starting out on a bike is far greater than the risk involved in the difference of a 250 and a 600 SS.

Yet again, the existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

If you don't like the data about bigger bikes don't use it, I don't think it's that relevant myself.

If you don't think it's relevant, why did you bring it up? You're the one who brought that data into the discussion, not me. Sounds like you've realised this information doesn't support your position and are attempting to rewrite the past by doing an about-face and disclaiming it.

Misrepresentation of data is what's happening every time we hear one of those "you'll die on a 600 SS" comments. Either that or it's just ignorance.

It's hyperbole. No-one actually thinks that someone will automatically die if they start on a supersport. What has been argued, and what you have offered absolutely nothing to contradict, is that starting out on a 600 represents measurably increased risk above and beyond starting out on a 250R or a GS500.

I'm not going to argue with you about "sharks and lightning."

Then you either (a) don't understand analogies or (b) you fully understand the analogy but know that you have no response and are therefore attempting to dismiss the analogy without addressing it.

You made an argument about cornering and I addressed it. If anyone lives in CO and wants to go for a ride, I can prove that a 600 SS is not that touchy in a 30MPH curve in 2nd gear.

Again, you're intentionally misunderstanding (or perhaps I'm giving you too much credit when I add the "intentionally"). The fact that a rider can manage it doesn't mean that a supersport isn't more sensitive to errors than an equivalent non-supersport.

The only way I'm going to be high enough in the RPMs to be as touchy as you think is by first trying to take the corner way too fast for safe riding on the street anyway.

Or to be in the wrong gear, which is one of the things that novices commonly do.

What else would you like me to address? When the DSOASS crowd talks about how dangerous a 600 is it's generally very vague with no real substance.

I'd like to see you offer any actual evidence to support your position and I'd like to see you accurately describe the position that I and others have presented and I'd like to see you demonstrate a basic ability to parse data in a logical manner.

If you look at the big picture, if a person on a 600, and a person on a 250 both follow:

Take the MSF
Wear your gear
Ride responsibly
Watch for other drivers.

They are probably going to be ok.

Assuming zero mistakes and zero giving in to temptation on the supersport. If we assume that the novice rider is going to make mistakes (as novice riders do), there's no question that the 250 is a much more forgiving bike.

The difference between the safety of the bikes is debatable and is going to be minor at best compared to the risk of moving from a car to a bike.

Again with the "all or nothing" fallacy. Minor is as may be, it still represents a risk that is completely and utterly avoidable.

ZV

 

[madeuce]

Well, the Monster 1100 is an L-Twin so it has a ton of torque and a very linear powerband. Which is what makes it such a fun bike to ride in the canyons and around town. 95hp @7,500rpms and 75.9lb-ft of torque at 6,000rpms on a bike that weighs 373lbs=FUN!!!

A 2010 ZX6R by comparison makes 107hp @ 14,100rpms and 42.9lb-ft of torque at 12,000rpms. BTW-My SV650 makes 47.2lb-ft of torque at 7,500rpms.

Yeah, torque on the twins is nuts.

I was looking at a white Ducati 848 before I got my ZX6R. I wish they were a little cheaper. Dead sexy, more torque, sound great. I just couldn't justify it for double the price of the Kawasaki.

Still not as much as torque as the big boys, but a noticable difference compared to the inline 4s

 

[JulesMaximus]

Yeah, torque on the twins is nuts.

I was looking at a white Ducati 848 before I got my ZX6R. I wish they were a little cheaper. Dead sexy, more torque, sound great. I just couldn't justify it for double the price of the Kawasaki.

Still not as much as torque as the big boys, but a noticable difference compared to the inline 4s

There's a place in downtown San Diego that rents the Ducati 848. I've been meaning to do that...one of these days. Or I could just go to a demo day and see if I can get a test ride on one.

I love the hooligan bikes like the Ducati Monster and the Triumph Speed/Street Triple.

 

[roguerower]

There's a place in downtown San Diego that rents the Ducati 848. I've been meaning to do that...one of these days. Or I could just go to a demo day and see if I can get a test ride on one.

I love the hooligan bikes like the Ducati Monster and the Triumph Speed/Street Triple.

Counting down the days...

After reading through this post and being a new rider who chose to go with the "beginner" bike (GS500F) route, there are a few things that I've learned in 2 months:

1. My GS below 6k RPM is a bit of a dog. Doesn't accelerate quickly, not a whole lot of torque, and engine is pretty quiet. I go over 7k and the whole ball game changes, but I have to physically and mentally go over 7k RPM because the bike behaves very different. When taking twisties I have to keep the tach above 8k in order to get a smooth transition between curves and straightaways.

2. A tiny rear wheel is a large limiting factor when taking curves. I can't get the bike over as far as a SS can, therefore I have to take the curves slower.

3. I only have one rotor on my front wheel. If I gradually apply the brakes it takes a lot longer to slow down then if I had two rotors. Grabbing the brakes on my GS or on a GSXR would result in a high side crash, but I'm going over much faster/quickly on a GSXR than I am on a GS.

While some of the things madeuce is saying is correct (MSF, ATGATT), I strongly believe that the other guys are right in saying that a SS is a bad bike to start with because of how unforgiving it is when rider error plays a part in an accident.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

This is from the 'drifting on a motorcycle' thread':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlMbFlPzS24


That's a perfect example of an accident that would not have happened on a GS or Ninja 250/500.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Link some please.

It's unfortunate that your relying on a claim that's about 600cc and above and trying to distort that into information about 600cc. It's also less than a third of accidents, and in the UK...

Google the report.

While it is just under a third of accidents it equates to more than half the fatalities... it is also up from the 25% in the Hurt report.

 

[madeuce]

So you can go through a corner and make the novice mistake of giving it way too much throttle and still not low-side? Somebody notify the laws of physics!

Look at your original example. It's flawed and I showed how flawed it is.

More power means less tolerance of hamfisted throttle use. Just because it's good when a rider makes zero mistakes doesn't mean it's tolerant of mistakes when they are made.

So everyone ride a 250 because if you're bike has any more low end power, regardless of how little it's more dangerous and should not be done, by anyone even if the bike you are doing it on is made to handle corners better.

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not starting on a supersport increases the total danger even further.

It's very relevant, actually. You have a crew spreading FUD and greatly exaggerating the risk involved on a 600cc bike, while at the same time downplaying the risk involved on a 250cc bike.

No-one is disputing the fact that other motorists are the greatest single cause of accidents. However, this is, as I said, irrelevant to the discussion of whether starting out on a supersport poses an increased risk in other areas.

Openly disputing it, no I don't think anyone has. It's been more about side-stepping the issue in an attempt to exaggerate the risk involved on a 600cc bike, while at the same time downplaying the risk involved in a 250cc bike.

Ahh, the "all or nothing" defense.

And you're wrong. Technically if it was about maximizing total safety, I'd recommend that everyone stay in a bubble all the time and never touch anything or leave their room at any time.

There are avoidable risks and there are unavoidable risks. Going from a 250R or a GS500 to a supersport adds additional risk beyond the inherent and unavoidable risks. Nothing you've posted contradicts this. The existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

It's called risk management. You make risk management choices every day and never realize it. A 600cc bike can top 150mph, that in itself makes it a greater risk than a 250cc bike than can push 90mph down a big enough hill.

The difference between a 600cc bike and a 250cc bike is still a very minor risk compared to the difference between a car and that 250cc bike. If that risk is acceptable or not is going to vary on a case by case basis. Exaggerating the risk involved on a 600cc bike, while at the same time downplaying the risk involved in a 250cc bike is still not right.

Again, the existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

What do you gain by ignoring the major risk factors involved and choosing to get stuck on one very minor by comparion?

First, I've already explained the error of the "all or nothing" fallacy. Second, you are once again either failing to comprehend the statistics or intentionally misrepresenting them. When looking at the age statistic, one must also account for the experience statistic.

The combination of the two statistics indicates that the decreased accident rate for people over 30 is due to having experience not due to age. The implication is that simply waiting until one is 30 would have no effect upon accident rates because the statistic about experience would control.

Again, understanding the era in which the statistics were gathered helps us gain clarity. At that time, it was incredibly rare for a person to start riding at 30 or later; the phenomenon of the mid-life-crisis novice biker did not take off until the late 1980's. This strongly suggests that the reason younger persons have higher accident rates is largely the result of younger persons having less experience.

You're the one who's having a hard time comprehending the data. Younger riders got in more wrecks. Less experienced riders got in more wrecks. Each of the two stands on it's own. Are younger riders usually more experienced? I'm sure they are, but it does nothing to negate well collected data that breaks them each down separately.

Taking the separate conclusions from the report, and trying to mix them together without having the actual data collected is a fool's errand.

Yet again, the existence of other risk factors does not negate fact that the choice of beginner bike can comprise additional risks as well.

Yet again, what do you gain by ignoring the major risk factors involved and choosing to get stuck on one very minor by comparion?

If you don't think it's relevant, why did you bring it up? You're the one who brought that data into the discussion, not me. Sounds like you've realised this information doesn't support your position and are attempting to rewrite the past by doing an about-face and disclaiming it.

Go back, read the original post with the link and try again.

It's hyperbole. No-one actually thinks that someone will automatically die if they start on a supersport. What has been argued, and what you have offered absolutely nothing to contradict, is that starting out on a 600 represents measurably increased risk above and beyond starting out on a 250R or a GS500.

You must have missed all the posts about how if you start on a 600cc bike you are a goner. Those type of posts are why I started posting on the subject in the first place.

You have a crew spreading FUD and greatly exaggerating the risk involved on a 600cc bike, while at the same time downplaying the risk involved on a 250cc bike.

Do you think this actually does a service to new riders?

Then you either (a) don't understand analogies or (b) you fully understand the analogy but know that you have no response and are therefore attempting to dismiss the analogy without addressing it.

People use analogies when they have a weak argument or are having trouble grasping the situation. That's why all of the car analogies have been so fail.

Again, you're intentionally misunderstanding (or perhaps I'm giving you too much credit when I add the "intentionally"). The fact that a rider can manage it doesn't mean that a supersport isn't more sensitive to errors than an equivalent non-supersport.

Sensitive to some errors. Trying to make it into a blanket statement is where you are mistaken.

I can prove to you that my 600 SS is less sensitive to errantly downshifting too far and less sensitive to excess throttle at low RPMs than many non-SS bikes.

Or to be in the wrong gear, which is one of the things that novices commonly do.

Which gear would that be, 3rd? In first I would be hard pressed to accidentally give it enough throttle around a 30MPH curve unless I am going in way too fast for public roads anyway.

Maybe on a 250 you might have a little more of a problem because the gearing is different.

I'd like to see you offer any actual evidence to support your position and I'd like to see you accurately describe the position that I and others have presented and I'd like to see you demonstrate a basic ability to parse data in a logical manner.

Actual evidence? Now you're just being funny. Get on a 600cc supersport with stock gearing. Take a 30MPH curve reasonably in first and second gear. Repeat as many times as you need.

Now, if you are ready, take that same 600cc SS with the slipper clutch, go 90MPH, then downshift to 1st. Repeat as many times as you need. (Don't try a ninja 250 for comparison for safety reasons.)

Still, the only non-biased data and even some of the biased data is showing that the major causes of injury are:

1. Inexperience
2. Rider age
3. Improper gear
4. Other drivers in 4 wheeled vehicles

Assuming zero mistakes and zero giving in to temptation on the supersport. If we assume that the novice rider is going to make mistakes (as novice riders do), there's no question that the 250 is a much more forgiving bike.

Again with the "all or nothing" fallacy. Minor is as may be, it still represents a risk that is completely and utterly avoidable.

ZV

The all or nothing fallacy begins with the crowd shooting off about how if you get a 600cc bike you are going to wreck and hurt yourself, or at the least you will be extremely more likely to hurt yourself.

You have a crew spreading FUD and greatly exaggerating the risk involved on a 600cc bike, while at the same time downplaying the risk involved on a 250cc bike.

Do you think this actually does a service to new riders?

If you have to rely on scare tactics and FUD, how good is your argument really?

It still holds true that if you look at the big picture, if a person on a 600, and a person on a 250 both:

Take the MSF
Wear your gear
Ride responsibly
Watch for other drivers.

They will probably be ok.

 

[madeuce]

This is from the 'drifting on a motorcycle' thread':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlMbFlPzS24


That's a perfect example of an accident that would not have happened on a GS or Ninja 250/500.

BS, it could happen on either of the two bikes.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

There's a place in downtown San Diego that rents the Ducati 848. I've been meaning to do that...one of these days. Or I could just go to a demo day and see if I can get a test ride on one.

I love the hooligan bikes like the Ducati Monster and the Triumph Speed/Street Triple.

848EVO

Do it... MCN say it's one of the best bikes ever. I will look and see if I still have the article.

 

[madeuce]

There's a place in downtown San Diego that rents the Ducati 848. I've been meaning to do that...one of these days. Or I could just go to a demo day and see if I can get a test ride on one.

I love the hooligan bikes like the Ducati Monster and the Triumph Speed/Street Triple.

I might think about renting one out the next time I go down there, but then I would probably come back home and drop $15,000 on a new one...

 

[JulesMaximus]

I might think about renting one out the next time I go down there, but then I would probably come back home and drop $15,000 on a new one...

http://rentaducati.com/english/San-DiegoCA.aspx

 

[madeuce]

Counting down the days...

After reading through this post and being a new rider who chose to go with the "beginner" bike (GS500F) route, there are a few things that I've learned in 2 months:

1. My GS below 6k RPM is a bit of a dog. Doesn't accelerate quickly, not a whole lot of torque, and engine is pretty quiet. I go over 7k and the whole ball game changes, but I have to physically and mentally go over 7k RPM because the bike behaves very different. When taking twisties I have to keep the tach above 8k in order to get a smooth transition between curves and straightaways.

2. A tiny rear wheel is a large limiting factor when taking curves. I can't get the bike over as far as a SS can, therefore I have to take the curves slower.

3. I only have one rotor on my front wheel. If I gradually apply the brakes it takes a lot longer to slow down then if I had two rotors. Grabbing the brakes on my GS or on a GSXR would result in a high side crash, but I'm going over much faster/quickly on a GSXR than I am on a GS.

While some of the things madeuce is saying is correct (MSF, ATGATT), I strongly believe that the other guys are right in saying that a SS is a bad bike to start with because of how unforgiving it is when rider error plays a part in an accident.

An argument like that someone can actually appreciate. I went the beginner route with a 650r instead of a 500, but I doubt they are that different of animals.

Much better than the typical

OP, I support you and your wonderful gift of organ donation. :thumbsup:

or worse.

 

[madeuce]

http://rentaducati.com/english/San-DiegoCA.aspx

$199 a day for a white 848. I guess it's not bad for a bike that screams dirty, dirty sex.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Rambling ignorance which proves you don't have any grasp of logic or statistics.

I'm done. You're either too stupid to understand or, more likely, too stuck on proving that you're e-penis is so big that you're the exception to advice that has reigned for decades and is advocated by people like Nicky Hayden and Valentino Rossi.

ZV

 

[Greenman]

I'm done. You're either too stupid to understand or, more likely, too stuck on proving that you're e-penis is so big that you're the exception to advice that has reigned for decades and is advocated by people like Nicky Hayden and Valentino Rossi.

ZV

I was kind of surprised you took it this far. The guy's a squid, and as the saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

 

[madeuce]

I was kind of surprised you took it this far. The guy's a squid, and as the saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

Great contribution as always from you. Credit to your breed. You don't know much but hell you can spell stupid if you use spell check.

 

[Zebo]

nm

 

[madeuce]

Did you ever say how you wrecked Zebo? I can't see it anywhere if you wouldn't mind sharing some info.

I took your advice and joined the Marines, after 9 years, bad knees, bad shoulder, broken ankle, broken bone in each foot and getting shot at, mortared, and rocketed I'm still going to have to say my 600 is a bit safer

 

[Zebo]

Yeah some bitch in a mini van turned in front of me in two lane HWY. 101. I few over handlebars breaking both femurs and other bones she was just fine. Her mom was in shock tho.

I did not have a helmet and should have been DOA parametric said at those speeds. It was estimated I was going 65 and her 30 when making turn in front of me. In other words I hit a virtual brink wall of 80 MPH using inelastic collision equation.

 

[madeuce]

Ouch. Hard to imagine getting up from something like that.

http://www.sportbikez.net/picture/37512/2006_suzuki_gsxr_600

I had a minivan cut me off the other day. Was a two lane highway and they pulled out in front of me. I was watching them and half expecting it. What I wasn't expecting was for them to freak out, slow down and start pulling over on the right hand side of the road. I hit the brakes and went to the right to avoid them and I thought they were going to push me over the railing down the side of the hill.

 

[Zebo]

I saw it too. I don't know for sure if it's mind playing tricks and it's been 18 years but I remember thinking this car is going to turn in front of me. Makes no difference at those speeds though. I slammed into her van and ricocheted and ended up 30 ft backwards from incident. Thats how I lost skin on back and hands. flailing along pavement protecting head..