First bike! FZ6 or CBR600F4i??

[Rumpole of the Bailey]

For me, Yamaha have developed their engines and frames to the extent they are the GP world champions.
This shows in my Fazer.
Honda are well known for their finish and reliability, they are good bikes.
The FZ6 has something different though. The only way you will find out why we all have an FZ6 and would probably buy another one is by joining this club!
Bailey

 

[007hamster]

My buddy has an FZ1, if I sit on that and get a feel for it, seating position-wise, is it close to the FZ6 in seating style?

I like the looks of the SV650s, just not the clip-ons. I don't like the looks of the naked SV650 personally.

 

[Red Wazp]

I have only sat on a FZ1 and it feels a bit more forward and a much less padded seat. I am sure you hear from some who have owned both with a better report.
You mentioned the FZ has around 25K miles. Are you aware it is due for a valve adjustment?(around 400 bucks) What other service has been done? New chain? Repack steering head bearings? Air filter?
Must this be done? Perhaps not, but this could cost you more down the road.Worth checking into no matter what bike you choose. The FZ is a great bike but all bikes do require service. Just wanted you to consider all that is needed.

Get the FZ

 

[Kilbane83]

I dunno who has it, but somone has an awesome sig that goes something like this.
"There are no beginner bikes, only beginner riders. The bike already knows what it's supposed to do" :thumbup:

If you're up in the air between a SV650 and the FZ i'd go for the FZ in a heartbeat. It's a better bike all around than the SV. Between the CBR and FZ.. well that's harder. The CBR is diffinatly more powerful all around and therefore has a much sharper learning curve. The FZ is much more user friendly as others have stated, but more than enough bike to get you in trouble too. I wouldn't spend $ on a 250cc honestly you'll be kicking yourself in less than a month. But I'm a big guy, and that's my opinion. :thumbup:

 

[Aleziel]

For me, Yamaha have developed their engines and frames to the extent they are the GP world champions.
This shows in my Fazer.
Honda are well known for their finish and reliability, they are good bikes.
The FZ6 has something different though. The only way you will find out why we all have an FZ6 and would probably buy another one is by joining this club!
Bailey

Honda has far more motoGP/500cc championships than yamaha, and if anything the CBR is one step from the racing bikes, whereas the FZ is twice removed as we arent comparing CBR's to YZF's

 

[lonesoldier84]

lol at Lonesoldier's comment... basically, if you buy the CBR (twin???), you're a dead man :rof: yeah ok....

to quote my "Rider Resume":

"Listen to me at your own risk."

lol.

but if I had started on a CBR I pretty much would have been as good as dead. So I stand by that.

Just wrapped up my second year on the FZ and no doubt in my mind the extra 15hp and lower-end power would have been enough to send me to the morgue at some point during those two years. Personally, (not to side-track the thread), I'm thinking about getting a V-Strom for road use and having the FZ for track use. The FZ is sporty to the point where it makes you do things you think you shouldnt have done but not until AFTER youve done them.

 

[Kriswithak]

I find this 'no beginner bike' thing really misleading. Sorry to insult all the people that keep pushing that line but you are flat out wrong.
Being a cool headed and smart rider might be a large part of the equation, but I started on a FZX250 and I could red line it from the minute I left the garage till the minute I got home, and it was fast enough to get into plenty of trouble (of the fun variety), but still restrained enough to make sure I didn't bite off more than I could chew (most of the time).
Its (from memory) about 32hp and can happily cruise at about 125-135km/h (on long trips), top speed of 140.
All of this being said, going from it to the FZ6 you suddenly understand just how big the gap is. The FZ6 can easily do 80 in first gear, it pulls hard past about 7k revs, and is demonic if your an aggressive rider higher in the revs.
It may be a pussycat from 1-7k revs, but past that point its a tiger, and as a learner its very easy to overestimate your skills and underestimate how much trouble the action your about to take will get you in.
On a 250 this isn't an issue because your just not getting that same kind of performance and power at the end of the day. Sure when you start it does seem amazing, particularly compared to a car, but its a huge step up moving to a FZ6.

Also to consider a 250 is smaller, generally lighter, lower to the ground, and something you can really throw around.
Here its a legal requirement to start on a 250 or the leaner legal 600's, but you ask basically anyone in the industry why thats the case and they will tell you because it leads to a safer learning experience and less deaths/injuries on the roads. I tend to beleive them because they are experienced, and its in their best interests for us to not see a huge amount of young deaths on motorcycles while learning, we really don't need that kind of public focus on the sport.
Also keep in mind anyone can go fast. Its stopping that hurts. Alot of skills on the motorcycle you can learn at low speed, and some are mastered at a snails pace (ie balance, clutch control, rear brake use) on a less powerful bike its easier to get the hang of these before moving up.

Now to answer the original question - It depends on what you plan on doing, I chose the FZ6 because it had rave reviews about being the best all rounder in the 600 class (including the triple). As someone who commutes, has weekend rides, and uses my bike all the time, plus 500-900 km trips in a day several times a year it was more than ideal.
From price to performance and looks I just couldn't find its match.

 

[Senior]

My first bike is the FZ6-fazer and I only passed my test a year ago. I went from never having riden a motorbike to passing full test and owning it in 3 weeks. (But really I'm not that new to being on 2 wheels as I mountain bike race and do loads of miles on my road bike, so I had reasonably well developed road skills and bike balance and control).

What mentality do you have to riding ? On passing my test I was really pleased, but was fully aware that all I had done was pass a test, and that from now on was when I was really going to learn how to ride a motorcycle. A year on I'm still learning. In my opinion it's that view that leads me to that the FZ6 is OK for a first bike.

Loads of reviews the talk about the FZ6 being under powered (but compared to what????). There's plenty of power and in reality it's a bike of two halves. Most of the time I don't go above 6000rpm and actually in 6th gear that's about 75mph ish which is plenty, but drop it into 4th with revs above 8000 and twist the throttle OMG it COMES ALIVE . . . . . it's a bike that I've found that I have grown into as my experience and skills have improved, but at no time have I thought I wished I'd bought something smaller.

First of all I'd ruled out buying a smaller bike (say 400/500cc) as I didn't want in a years time to be having to change bikes, but knew for a first bike 600cc would be more than enough and anything bigger would be stupid money on insurance. Vstrom style bikes were way to high and I hated the sports bike feel of weight forward and as commented in an earlier post about "having to look up to look forward", so that really pointed me towards the "sport tourer" style of bike - Fazer, Bandit, Hornet, SV650 (not the S).

FACT: Honda CBR 600F is loads more on the insurance (I tried out of curiosity) that the FZ6 even at my age of 40 (with 23 years of car driving and none on a bike)

Half fairing is a good idea, especially when you drop it, you will drop it. I dropped my twice within a month, both whilst stationary, once on the patio and once on the road, but was glad I had the crash bobbins on !!! How tall are you? I bought mine from somebody that was 5'8" and they'd had it lowered 15mm (front and rear), I never bothered to put it back up to standard height and I'm 6 foot tall ! This means a lower centre of gravity and I can get both feet flat on the floor. It's staying lowered.

Anyway that's enough of my ramblings for now . . . . . Hope that there's something of use in there and bare in mind that it's just my opinion and what has worked for me . . .

:thumbup:

 

[Wavex]

to quote my "Rider Resume":

"Listen to me at your own risk."

lol.

but if I had started on a CBR I pretty much would have been as good as dead. So I stand by that.

Just wrapped up my second year on the FZ and no doubt in my mind the extra 15hp and lower-end power would have been enough to send me to the morgue at some point during those two years. Personally, (not to side-track the thread), I'm thinking about getting a V-Strom for road use and having the FZ for track use. The FZ is sporty to the point where it makes you do things you think you shouldnt have done but not until AFTER youve done them.

Sure it may be true for you, but that doesn't make it true for everyone. I for one think the FZ was more "dangerous" for my style of riding compared to the Buell for example... even though the Buell has 15 more HP than the FZ and twice the torque (huge down low)... how is that possible? Simple, to have fun on the FZ I had to wide it out at 9k+ rpms... making the ride quite hectic... yet, on the Buell I can have the exact same fun without having to wait for anything or wind the engine to non-street-friendly tach territory... I don't know if that makes any sense but it is true for me.

Also, the 600cc bikes of today put as much power to the ground as the liter bikes of 20 years ago, so making a relationship between engine displacement (which really doesn't mean much anyway), horse power, and accident/fatality rate doesn't mean much! In fact, if you look at the MAIDs study in Europe, or the HURT report in the US, there are NO link between engine displacement and fatality rate. Proportionally, there are more accidents on scooters than 600 race replicas (data for Europe)...

What about the fact that there were proportionally more motorcycle fatalities in 1980 compared to today? How is that possible when you know that bikes of 1980 had nowhere near the power they have today? Are riders getting better? Surely, they are not...
Maybe it's not the power that's the main factor but other factors like wearing your helmet, not drinking and riding, taking the MSF etc... if you look at the stats, if you just do these 3 things, it reduces your chances to be part of the sad statistic by 75%... and these 3 things have nothing to do with your bike, and everything to do with rider mentality.

Having said all that, I am not advocating that newbies start on the biggest/fastest bike they can afford... starting small makes a lot of sense for others reasons, like cost, insurance, learning curve (it is obviously easier to handle a smaller, lighter bike... but a faster learning curve doesn't mean less risks imo), I just think ppl exaggerate the "OMG if you start on a 600cc supersport you are a dead man" argument.... get what fits your style of riding and ergos, and be smart about the sport or else you'll run into troubles, whether on a 600 or 1000 or 250...

Just my personal opinion

 

[Jez]

There is a chart in the Hurt Report indicating a correlation between engine displacement and accident rates, but it's not clear cut by any means. I don't have a link unfortunately but it's reproduced in David Hough's book 'Proficient Motorcycling'.

Displacement - % of Accidents - Machines in use

1. 0-100cc - 9% - 8%

• 101-250cc - 13% - 9%

• 251-500cc - 37% - 26%

• 501-750cc - 25% - 34%

• 751+cc - 16% - 23%

So proportionately more accidents occur in the 250-500cc category. At least they did in the US in 1981.

With regard to an FZ6 as a first bike I think so much depends on the individual. It's better than some, but it is a lot of power for a new rider. It's my first bike, riding 6 months now, and I'm pretty careful with it. But I'm 36, with a well developed sense of self-preservation, have done the full UK test and advanced training. If someone was 21 and new to riding I'm not sure I'd recommend it.

But compared to the CBR I think it'd be a better bike for a new rider. More forgiving engine, easier geometry and quite docile at low revs.

 

[Wavex]

Talking about David Hough... I was in touch with him a couple of years ago about this very topic... check it out:

David L Hough had interviewed Mr Hurt (HURT report... I am sure you heard of it), and I had emailed them both at the time to talk about displacement, and whether or not they thought it was a major factor in crashes...

FYI: Mr. David L Hough is one of the most famous moto journalist in the US, and wrote books like Proficient Motorcycling. His work has appeared in numerous motorcycle publications, but he is best known for the monthly skills series “Proficient Motorcycling” in Motorcycle Consumer News, which has been honored by special awards from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.


My email to them:
======================================
----- Original Message -----
From: David ******
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1:08 PM
Subject: Motorcycle Stats info

Mr Hurt, Mr Smith, Mr. Hough, or to whom it may concern,

I was reading a very interesting article online (http://www.soundrider.com/archive/sa..._interview.htm) and was wondering if you had any data on whether or not the engine size of motorcycles was shown to have any direct impact on accidents (we know that the bigger the engine cc, the worse the injuries are, but are there proportionally more accidents on higher cc engines?).

There are many online "sports bike" forums in which motorcyclists debate about this topic... generally, it makes sense to advise a new rider to start as small as possible, i.e. 250cc, and gradually increase as they gain experience, but is there any data out there supporting that advise? Are there stats "proving" that it is better to start on a 250cc supersport vs a 600cc supersport?
The only report I could find on the topic was European and simply stated "it is not what you ride, but how you ride", or in other words that the engine cc had no direct impact on accident rates.

Since you clearly know what you are talking about (unlike most of these people in online forums!), it would be greatly appreciated if you could share your thoughts or data (if any).

Thank you in advance!

With my best regards,

David *******
Motorcycle enthusiast.

=======================================

Mr Hough's response:
=======================================
from DAVID L HOUGH <[email protected]>
to David ****** <david*****@gmail.com>
cc [email protected]
date Jul 23, 2007 2:23 PM
subject Re: Motorcycle Stats info

David,

Managing the risks of motorcycling is much more complicated than making distinctions in engine displacement. First, engine displacement is not a good indicator of potential motorcycle acceleration or speed. There are 600cc sport bikes that are extremely fast, and there are heavy 1200cc cruisers that are tuned for torque rather than horsepower. It could be that acceleration or top speed relates to crash frequency. Shortly after the release of powerful sport bikes, there have historically been surges in crash frequency--at least as reported anecdotally by dealerships and mechanics. Note that NHTSA now used the term "crash" as compared to "accident."

We should also look at factors other than the total number of fatalities, when attempting to determine what's happening. I look at the fatality rate, in deaths per 100K registrations. A different way to look at the rate is fatalities per miles traveled, but I am suspicious of estimates for motorcycle miles traveled. When looking at the fatality rate, it appears that the rate has leveled off since 2003, while US motorcycle registrations have continued to increase. That's an indication that riders who bought bikes in say, 2000 - 2002 have gotten a little smarter, and reduced their crash exposure. The same thing happened during the huge motorcycle surge in 1979 - 1981. What's more, if you compare the fatality rate of 1978 to that in 2005, the 2005 rate is roughly a third lower.

Statistically, I am not aware of any studies that show absolutely that larger engines (measured in displacement) are a factor in crash frequency. NHTSA has noted an increase in the frequency of large displacement bikes involved in fatal crashes, and an increase in the age of riders involved in fatal crashes. However, I believe this is a result of the sizes of motorcycles being purchased, the number of motorcycles in the traffic mix, and the average age of motorcyclists. Unlike automobiles, motorcycles have surges of popularity, and there has been a surge in sales over the past several years, coincident with the increase in fatalities. Also, over the past couple of decades, motorcycles have gotten bigger and heavier, with stock engines now up to 2400cc. With more motorcycles being purchased and more big-displacement engines in the mix, I think it's realistic to expect an increase in big bikes being involved more in crashes--and therefore fatal crashes. I don't believe that increases in displacement, weight, horsepower, etc. are the root causes of the increase in fatalities per year.

A second consideration is the knowledge and skill level of motorcyclists. A skilled rider on a quick or large bike doesn't necessarily jack up the risks, while an unskilled rider on a heavyweight cruiser may have greater than average risks. Since around 1980 when rider training began to be incorporated into state motorcycle safety programs, crashes and fatalities were decreasing. Around 1999 the Motorcycle Safety Foundation redesigned it's beginning rider training, to reduce training to the "minimum required standards." Some of us use the term "dumbed down" to describe this change, although others argue that the change was to help more riders pass the test and get licensed. It may be a coincidence, but we may note that the current novice rider course (Basic RiderCourse or BRC) has not stemmed the increase in fatalities. So, it might seem reasonable to expect a new rider to get some saddle time on a smaller machine before graduating to a more powerful motorcycle. However, the current system is for the novice to learn on a bike up to 500cc. That means that after a brief two day class, a course graduate can obtain an unlimited license and is free to purchase a 2400cc cruiser or a 1400cc sport bike. I know many instructors who are very concerned that new riders with only 2 days under their belts are assumed to be skillful enough to handle a fast, powerful motorcycle. And there are few opportunities for riders to obtain more advanced training that's applicable to riding in traffic.

We might also note that a great many motorcyclists do not exhibit much concern for the risks. That is, a rider who wears good riding gear demonstrates an awareness of the considerable risks. A rider who does not wear riding gear demonstrates a disregard for the risks. On the coasts, it's more common to find a majority of riders wearing gear. In the midwest and south, it's more common for the majority of riders to be not wearing gear at all. Not wearing a helmet is not my big concern--it's that not wearing even minimal gear is an indication the rider is either unaware of the risks, or understands the risks and is willing to ride without protection. A bee in the eye or a stone in the forehead at 75 mph can easily distract a rider from the task at hand, creating a situation ripe for "losing control."

A third consideration is alcohol. It's common for those who die in motorcycle crashes to have alcohol in the blood. Roughly half of all motorcycle fatalities involve alcohol use by the motorcycle operator. Part of the "biker" lifestyle is to socialize at bars or lounges where drinking is encouraged. However, since alcohol reduces inhibitions and judgment, it should be no surprise when a rider who is under the influence crashes on the way home from the tavern. Let's note that alcohol abuse by motorcyclists is on the increase, while other motorists are gradually reducing alcohol abuse. Because even very good crash padding can only attenuate injuries within a limited range, good riding gear cannot help prevent fatalities resulting from high speed DUI crashes.

We might suspect that an untrained, inexperienced, intoxicated rider with little concern for the risks is much more likely to die in a fatal motorcycle crash--regardless of helmet use or engine displacement.

David L Hough
=====================================

Independently of what we all think in here, this is a great write up....

 

[nextfriday]

Biggest concern regarding wiping yourself out is rider confidence and the brains to control the bike. If you have those two aced, you're one step closer to keeping yourself safe in any hairy situation you will encounter. Your brain should tell you which one you should be riding for now.

 

[lonesoldier84]

Sure it may be true for you, but that doesn't make it true for everyone. I for one think the FZ was more "dangerous" for my style of riding compared to the Buell for example... even though the Buell has 15 more HP than the FZ and twice the torque (huge down low)... how is that possible? Simple, to have fun on the FZ I had to wide it out at 9k+ rpms... making the ride quite hectic... yet, on the Buell I can have the exact same fun without having to wait for anything or wind the engine to non-street-friendly tach territory... I don't know if that makes any sense but it is true for me.

Also, the 600cc bikes of today put as much power to the ground as the liter bikes of 20 years ago, so making a relationship between engine displacement (which really doesn't mean much anyway), horse power, and accident/fatality rate doesn't mean much! In fact, if you look at the MAIDs study in Europe, or the HURT report in the US, there are NO link between engine displacement and fatality rate. Proportionally, there are more accidents on scooters than 600 race replicas (data for Europe)...

What about the fact that there were proportionally more motorcycle fatalities in 1980 compared to today? How is that possible when you know that bikes of 1980 had nowhere near the power they have today? Are riders getting better? Surely, they are not...
Maybe it's not the power that's the main factor but other factors like wearing your helmet, not drinking and riding, taking the MSF etc... if you look at the stats, if you just do these 3 things, it reduces your chances to be part of the sad statistic by 75%... and these 3 things have nothing to do with your bike, and everything to do with rider mentality.

Having said all that, I am not advocating that newbies start on the biggest/fastest bike they can afford... starting small makes a lot of sense for others reasons, like cost, insurance, learning curve (it is obviously easier to handle a smaller, lighter bike... but a faster learning curve doesn't mean less risks imo), I just think ppl exaggerate the "OMG if you start on a 600cc supersport you are a dead man" argument.... get what fits your style of riding and ergos, and be smart about the sport or else you'll run into troubles, whether on a 600 or 1000 or 250...

Just my personal opinion

maybe bikes are more forgiving nowadays with better brakes/handling etc than the 80's. that could account for it.

but if you take someone riding to 95% of his ability on a 600cc machine with 95hp then swap the bike with something with 115hp....all of a sudden the same rider riding at 95% of his ability is going to be kicked off the bike when his twitchy throttle control awaken more horses under him than the situation calls for.

said another way:

if you ride a 400cc bike like an idiot. you're dead. if you ride a 1000cc supersport like an idiot. you're dead. .......

.....

but if you don't have much experience putting you on a more powerful bike will result in more moments which make you say "woop" as you lurch forward from a combination of poor throttle-clutch control. put a noob out on the streets on a wet day with a 115hp machine....and he will need to ride at 40% of his comfort level to be safe. or put him out on a dry day and he will still need to stay at 40% of his comfort level if theres gravel, oilslicks, sewers to watch out for.

and ALL of what I say is based off an initial assumption that the rider will be trying to RIDE and not just putt about. I mean pushing himself to learn to corner better/faster/smoother. im not advocating treating the roads like a racetrack but there is lots you can do on the public roads without being truly wreckless.

so, noob pushing his abilities with a twitchy-right-hand and too-abrupt-on-the-clutch left hand on a 115hp 600cc supersport machine will end up with the noob crashing.

IF the noob is smart and sensible at ALL times and understands his abilities at ALL times and how different scenarios/environmental factors/situations impact his limits, then that noob will probably be ok even if starts off on a litrebike. my cousin for example, started out on an R1 and worked his way up kneedragger over a period of a 3-4 years.

but the problem that I had personally was adrenaline. i ALWAYS had good intentions over the past couple of years.....but one way or another every few days I would find myself thinking to myself "wow I should NOT have done that."

 

[Wavex]

but if you take someone riding to 95% of his ability on a 600cc machine with 95hp then swap the bike with something with 115hp....all of a sudden the same rider riding at 95% of his ability is going to be kicked off the bike when his twitchy throttle control awaken more horses under him than the situation calls for.

what the hell are you talking about??? 95HP = safe and 115 HP = kicked off the bike if the rider is @ 95% ability (??) but only after swapping bike from 95HP to 115HP? hmmm ok!!!

Have you ever ridden a 600 supersport? did it kick you off the bike? My Gixxer 6 starts pulling hard at 8k rpms through 16k rpms... below 7-8k it's not much more different than the FZ...
Also, do you know what HP is? throwing HP numbers out like that means nothing... check this out: http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html

Also, 115HP doesn't mean the bike is automatically more twitchy or more dangerous than a 95HP bike... there are 115HP bikes that are WAY more mellow and comfy than your 95HP bike... again, lots of variable to take into account, not just displacement and HP.

if you ride a 400cc bike like an idiot. you're dead. if you ride a 1000cc supersport like an idiot. you're dead. .......

That's right You got it now, it's the rider more than the bike!! :rockon:

but if you don't have much experience putting you on a more powerful bike will result in more moments which make you say "woop" as you lurch forward from a combination of poor throttle-clutch control. put a noob out on the streets on a wet day with a 115hp machine....and he will need to ride at 40% of his comfort level to be safe. or put him out on a dry day and he will still need to stay at 40% of his comfort level if theres gravel, oilslicks, sewers to watch out for.

so, noob pushing his abilities with a twitchy-right-hand and too-abrupt-on-the-clutch left hand on a 115hp 600cc supersport machine will end up with the noob crashing.

115HP and up only, everything under 115HP is super safe

IF the noob is smart and sensible at ALL times and understands his abilities at ALL times and how different scenarios/environmental factors/situations impact his limits, then that noob will probably be ok even if starts off on a litrebike.

You got it again, it's the rider, not so much the bike!!! So when a newb asks you about his first bike, don't spend the whole day talking about displacement or HP, and how he is going to die if he gets a 115HP+ machine etc... (he will most likely buy whatever he damn wants anyway), but instead tell him that to survive in this sport, he needs to be smart and responsible and understand what he is getting into (training, no drugs/alcohol, proper gear etc etc) and look for good ergos and buy what will fit his riding (not what fits his ego)...

but the problem that I had personally was adrenaline. i ALWAYS had good intentions over the past couple of years.....but one way or another every few days I would find myself thinking to myself "wow I should NOT have done that."

Do you think it is possible that if you had an R1 instead of an FZ6, you would have had LESS "oops" moments?

 

[lonesoldier84]

what the hell are you talking about??? 95HP = safe and 115 HP = kicked off the bike if the rider is @ 95% ability (??) but only after swapping bike from 95HP to 115HP? hmmm ok!!!

Have you ever ridden a 600 supersport? did it kick you off the bike? My Gixxer 6 starts pulling hard at 8k rpms through 16k rpms... below 7-8k it's not much more different than the FZ...
Also, do you know what HP is? throwing HP numbers out like that means nothing... check this out: http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html

Also, 115HP doesn't mean the bike is automatically more twitchy or more dangerous than a 95HP bike... there are 115HP bikes that are WAY more mellow and comfy than your 95HP bike... again, lots of variable to take into account, not just displacement and HP.



That's right You got it now, it's the rider more than the bike!! :rockon:






115HP and up only, everything under 115HP is super safe





You got it again, it's the rider, not so much the bike!!! So when a newb asks you about his first bike, don't spend the whole day talking about displacement or HP, and how he is going to die if he gets a 115HP+ machine etc... (he will most likely buy whatever he damn wants anyway), but instead tell him that to survive in this sport, he needs to be smart and responsible and understand what he is getting into (training, no drugs/alcohol, proper gear etc etc) and look for good ergos and buy what will fit his riding (not what fits his ego)...




Do you think it is possible that if you had an R1 instead of an FZ6, you would have had LESS "oops" moments?

lol, I think it's because MY bike is the most powerful bike a person can have before they just become insane danger-monkeys.

I am sensible therefore anyone crazier than me is TOO crazy.

hope that clarifies things.

when a newb asks you about his first bike, don't spend the whole day talking about displacement or HP, and how he is going to die if he gets a 115HP+ machine etc... (he will most likely buy whatever he damn wants anyway), but instead tell him that to survive in this sport, he needs to be smart and responsible and understand what he is getting into (training, no drugs/alcohol, proper gear etc etc) and look for good ergos and buy what will fit his riding (not what fits his ego)...

but that doesnt help me sound like a know-it-all now does it?

lol, still, I can see logic leaves me no recourse here. I concede to your points.

P.S. Il read that letter when I get a chance. Looks like a good read.

 

[jtarkany]

FZ6, R1, CBR600, Toyota Prius, Pistol, rifle, chainsaw, on and on and on, they are all dangerous or deadly to the user that doesn't respect them.

That being said, here are my thoughts on the FZ6: http://www.600riders.com/forum/fz6-general-discussion/16980-buy-fz6.html

 

[dean owens]

wavex,
you're a smart man and you have clearly thought this issue out. also, i'm pretty sure you have more experience riding then i do... as well as probably riding more bikes then i have ridden. i have only been riding for 3 years. i rode a blast in the riders edge course, road a gl650i for the first two years and now the fz6. because the gl650i was older and often had issues i only have about 10k miles under me.

having said that, i somewhat disagree with you. i say somewhat because there are always idiots out there. and yes, people can do dumb things on more beginner friendly bikes. people have died riding bicycles but i don't see anyone arguing that riding a pedal bike carries the same risk as throwing your leg over a busa.

you yourself said...

... I am not advocating that newbies start on the biggest/fastest bike they can afford... starting small makes a lot of sense for others reasons, like cost, insurance, learning curve (it is obviously easier to handle a smaller, lighter bike... but a faster learning curve doesn't mean less risks imo)...

you might not be advocating it but by arguing so strongly that the rider matters more then the bike you really are. by your advice it doesn't matter what the bike or power as long as you get some training, don't drink and wear the proper gear. i personally think that is pretty reckless advice. when you are learning anything knew you are going to make mistakes. and those mistakes become exaggerated when there is more power. i have read posts on here where things like that have happened. things i don't believe would have happened if someone had started out on a more beginner friendly bike.

Talking about David Hough... I was in touch with him a couple of years ago about this very topic... check it out:
=======================================

Mr Hough's response:
=======================================
David,

Managing the risks of motorcycling is much more complicated than making distinctions in engine displacement. First, engine displacement is not a good indicator of potential motorcycle acceleration or speed. There are 600cc sport bikes that are extremely fast, and there are heavy 1200cc cruisers that are tuned for torque rather than horsepower. ...

i think this too is a little skewed. yes, it's not just displacement. obviously there are larger engines that don't produce as much power. most people who say that a 600cc inline 4 isn't a good starter suggest a 650cc - 900cc cruiser.

when i try to help someone pick a first bike it's not just displacement. i'm more worried about hp, weight and center of gravity. the gl650i had 40 some hp and i think it had plenty of power and torque for me starting out. but it was a horrible starter bike. it was way too top heavy and weighed over 650 lbs with all it's fluids. this lead me to have very little confidence in my ability to do simple things like u-turns. no matter how much i practiced it always felt like the bike was going to fall over. i believe my growth as a rider suffered by starting off on a motorcycle that wasn't a good starter friendly bike.

now i have the fz6 and i'm having to learn some of those slow maneuver things i should already know. being lighter it is much easier to learn some of those things. but the power has been enough to put me in some scary situations. and that's from a mature rider, with two kids, who doesn't drink, wears all the gear and has had training.

in my limited experience i will not recommend a 600cc inline four to someone just starting out. there are too many better options out there. and the key is that it will be a first bike. since we all know that no one sticks with their first bike why not point someone to something that will help them learn better and faster?

i'm sure i haven't changed your mind. just felt like i should post. and if you got to the end of this book get yourself a cookie. you've earned it.

 

[Aleziel]

this is getting silly, as someone who has totaled 2 CBR's heres my 2cents.

the cbr is stronger from the low end of the RPM's but some people are acting as if we are comparing a bicycle with a Hayabusa. they are both (fz-cbr) dangerous machines if left to untrained hands. one issue with the cbr is that it has a faster throttle response that "begs" you to ride it hard, whereas the FZ doesnt have anywhere near that "kick"

regarding the 20 HP difference. i would definitely disregard it,the cbr is 105HP + 10 HP (supposedly) with its ram air system fully engaged. not to mention that the peak power comes at the appropriate gear and rpms..

as i said before. choose the bike regarding to the practicalities of its use. not the supposed danger of death from.

i swiched to the FZ from my CBR's because:

*less kick= less chance of going trigger happy with the throttle
*Has ABS
*less plastics to worry about on a fall (and yes i have dropped 2-3 times and it still looks like new.
* has a great turning angle and i can filter in traffic better
*it has a better gas mileage (supposedly)

but for each of us the reasons are different. gas prices in US are the half of EU, and insurance premiums is something lots of people are mentioning, so you must see whats more important to you

 

[Wavex]

wavex,
you're a smart man and you have clearly thought this issue out. also, i'm pretty sure you have more experience riding then i do... as well as probably riding more bikes then i have ridden. i have only been riding for 3 years. i rode a blast in the riders edge course, road a gl650i for the first two years and now the fz6. because the gl650i was older and often had issues i only have about 10k miles under me.

having said that, i somewhat disagree with you. i say somewhat because there are always idiots out there. and yes, people can do dumb things on more beginner friendly bikes. people have died riding bicycles but i don't see anyone arguing that riding a pedal bike carries the same risk as throwing your leg over a busa.

you yourself said...

you might not be advocating it but by arguing so strongly that the rider matters more then the bike you really are. by your advice it doesn't matter what the bike or power as long as you get some training, don't drink and wear the proper gear. i personally think that is pretty reckless advice. when you are learning anything knew you are going to make mistakes. and those mistakes become exaggerated when there is more power. i have read posts on here where things like that have happened. things i don't believe would have happened if someone had started out on a more beginner friendly bike.



i think this too is a little skewed. yes, it's not just displacement. obviously there are larger engines that don't produce as much power. most people who say that a 600cc inline 4 isn't a good starter suggest a 650cc - 900cc cruiser.

when i try to help someone pick a first bike it's not just displacement. i'm more worried about hp, weight and center of gravity. the gl650i had 40 some hp and i think it had plenty of power and torque for me starting out. but it was a horrible starter bike. it was way too top heavy and weighed over 650 lbs with all it's fluids. this lead me to have very little confidence in my ability to do simple things like u-turns. no matter how much i practiced it always felt like the bike was going to fall over. i believe my growth as a rider suffered by starting off on a motorcycle that wasn't a good starter friendly bike.

now i have the fz6 and i'm having to learn some of those slow maneuver things i should already know. being lighter it is much easier to learn some of those things. but the power has been enough to put me in some scary situations. and that's from a mature rider, with two kids, who doesn't drink, wears all the gear and has had training.

in my limited experience i will not recommend a 600cc inline four to someone just starting out. there are too many better options out there. and the key is that it will be a first bike. since we all know that no one sticks with their first bike why not point someone to something that will help them learn better and faster?

i'm sure i haven't changed your mind. just felt like i should post. and if you got to the end of this book get yourself a cookie. you've earned it.

I am sorry if you think my advice is reckless, but I would never advise anyone to buy a 600cc race replica as a first bike (if I wrote that someone it was a mistake), unless the dude is planning to do most of his riding on the track... I also agree with most everything you state, so I am not sure where we disagree.

I am merely challenging some of the statements made in this thread that basically said: if you get the CBR you're a dead man... I personally don't believe that the bike is as big a factor in accident/fatality rate as people think it is.... again:
- stats show that there are no more accidents/fatalities in the supersport category (the fastest, sharpest, most twitchy sensitive race machines out there) compared to other categories... as a matter of fact, it's in the SLOW, HEAVY, LOW HP, cruisers that the fatality rate is increasing the fastest...). That tells me that higher HP doesn't automatically mean higher risk of death.

- if faster bikes yield more accidents/fatalities, and bikes have been getting MUCH faster during the past 20 years (they're probably twice as fast today as 20 years ago), how can the fatality/accident rate be lower today than in 1990?

- With your logic, there should be a very clear trend which should show that proportionally, a 600cc supersport will yield less accidents/deaths than a 1000cc supersport right? and similarly, a 1400cc supersport (Busa, ZX14...) would mean instant death to anyone trying to ride it. Numbers do NOT show any such trend.

- Stats do show trends: ppl who crash/die do so on all kinds of bikes... but the very clear trends are that the majority of these ppl did not wear a helmet, and/or had alcohol in their blood, and/or had NEVER taken a rider class in their life. What does this tell you?

So again, while starting on a brand new Busa is not very smart, it doesn't mean the dude will die any faster than you on your FZ6... it's stupid because he will drop it (like we all dropped our first bike) and it will cost him a bundle... it's stupid because starting on a pig of a bike like that is definitely not the best way to learn how to ride (even though some ppl don't care to be Rossi, they just want to cruise to Starbucks on their Busa Sunday morning, and a Busa is a perfect first bike for that purpose lol), it's stupid because of insurance costs, it stupid for LOTs of reasons no questions about it... I just don't think that starting on a Busa makes you automatically more prone to dying than if you had started on a ZX6 or FZ6 simply because the Busa has more HP... That is all.

 

[C-bus Biker]

I am glad that I started on a 250. It helped me. It may not help others. I think you're neither wise nor an idiot if you choose to start out bigger.