[enuenu]

I am deciding on which bike to get for a 40 minute commute each way through mostly open road with light to moderate and occasionally heavy traffic. I am 40 years old and haven't ridden for many years but did when younger and can handle a powerful bike. I know my limits and when to use power.

Some may say it is stupid, but I am considering a Fireblade. They look good to me for the following reasons;
* I appreciate Honda's engineering standards.
* They are LIGHT – a big deal to me
* They have power
* They have crisp handling

The other bikes under consideration are the Suzuki SV650S ABS (Honda don't seem to have a direct competitor to this bike) or a used VTR1000.

The thing is I know I won't be riding a Fireblade to its full potential on the road. I have no intention of doing so. However I will like to play from 0–> 70 mph. I think that from 0 to 70 mph (and a little beyond) a Fireblade would be real nice. It’s in this speed zone in which I want to have MAXIMUM fun.

I guess that a Fireblade would have a "power band" type power delivery. But how savage would it be? Are we talking RG500 territory? OK, I know it won't be that savage, but how savage? Many say to me “Get a bike like a VTR1000 or the SV650S, they are a better match as they would have more midrange power.” I’m not sure about this however.

My 2 basic questions are;
“Even though a Fireblade delivers its real power in a jolt at the top end of the rev range, would it still have more midrange power and torque and roll on acceleration from medium revs than say a VTR100 or SV650S?”

“CBR600RR or CBR1000RR? Would the 1000 be better because it would be more tractable and have a more of a midrange power and torque response than the 600?” Again, it’s not the hyper speed top end power I am interested in. It’s the light weight, crisp handling and fun factor at between 50 and 70 mph.

[jazzy]

Firstly to the site there's a lot of ozzies on here you'll be well at home
A Firblade will give you everything you need and then some. But you need to think about exactly what is the best for YOU. You know your commuting distance and speeds you will be travelling at...is that all?????
If thats all you'll be using the bike for its a lot of money to pay out
If you intend to get full use out of the bike during 'off-time' from work then its a definate yes!!!!! Sorry couldn't be more decisive. Happy hunting

[enuenu]

Thanks. The main issue I guess how abrupt is the power delivery? Would it have better midrange pull than a big twin AND better top end? I should source some power and torque curves for the bikes I am considering I guess. Or realistically do you have ride really hard to get fun times out of the bike? As for the money, I would go for a used model.

[jazzy]

Originally Posted by enuenu

Thanks. The main issue I guess how abrupt is the power delivery? Would it have better midrange pull than a big twin AND better top end? I should source some power and torque curves for the bikes I am considering I guess. Or realistically do you have ride really hard to get fun times out of the bike? As for the money, I would go for a used model.

Sussing out some facts and stats on torque is a good way to go. Never beat the grunt out of a big twin.
The power takes quite some time to get used to.....the blades nowadays even second hand are amazingly powerfull, quick twist and you're gone...quickly.
Do you know of anyone that has a Blade around the year you're looking for??? Or even in a shop, and have a test ride??

[bladeracer]

The Blade doesn't have a powerband.
You can happily ride it from anywhere above 4000rpm all day long.
Sportbike Dyno Charts - Sportbike Review - Sport Rider
The Blade has double the power of the SV650 and makes more torque just above idle than the SV peaks at :-)
You have SV650-power at less than halfway up the Blade tacho.
The power and torque curves are very similar between the Blade and VTR1000 except that when the VTR stops the Blade keeps going for another 2000rpm. The big difference between them is their weight and handling and both are noticably different.
V motors certainly do not have more "grunt" or midrange than inline equivalents.
You don't have to ride any litre-class bike hard to have fun. You're much more likely to get frustrated at never being able to use anywhere near its full potential - even on a track for most riders.

[spina220]

A 600 would probably be good too. The 600s today have come a long way, and yes still super fast.

[shakey1378]

i would get a 600 f4i if solely for commuting. any of the new race rep 600's are just as fast as most mid 90's 900-1000cc sportbikes. if my memory serves me well a gsxr1100 in the mid 90's most magazines posted 1/4 mile times in the mid 10's and now the fastest 600cc bikes are in that territory, pretty sick if you ask me!

i have to agree with bladeracer, only downside to riding an bike like a 929/954 or 1000rr is that it is so damn fast its frustrating that you cant use it...

makes you miss shifting sometimes.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

The power and torque curves are very similar between the Blade and VTR1000 except that when the VTR stops the Blade keeps going for another 2000rpm.

I should add also, if you get a dyno chart with a time line, you should see that although the shape of the power and torque curves are the same the inline engine gets there faster than the V motor.

[enuenu]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

The Blade has double the power of the SV650 and
makes more torque just above idle than the SV peaks at :-)

You have SV650-power at less than halfway up the Blade tacho.

The power and torque curves are very similar between the Blade and VTR1000 except that when the VTR stops the Blade keeps going for another 2000rpm. The big difference between them is their weight and handling and both are noticably different.

V motors certainly do not have more "grunt" or midrange than inline equivalents.

These comments indicate that you have absolutely read my mind. People talk about the midrange grunt of the twins, but I suspected that talk was purely in comparison to their lack of top end power. Seems I was right. So with a Fireblade I am not actually sacrificing performance in any zone of the rev range when compared to the twin cylinder sports bikes. In fact the Fireblade may even have more midrange power than these bikes. The bonus is that the Fireblade is lighter and handles better. Then I have that incredible top end power that I can choose to use only on very special and appropriate occasions.

Originally Posted by shakey1378

i have to agree with bladeracer, only downside to riding an bike like a 929/954 or 1000rr is that it is so damn fast its frustrating that you cant use it...

The thing is to get that great midrange performance, low weight and great handling you have to get a bike that has the awesome top end power. I am quite happy not to use it (much). I'm too old for that.

The only reason I would go for the 1000 over the 600 is that the power delivery may be smoother, allowing for better roll on acceleration from lower revs without changing down, making it more tractable for those rides when you want to cruise a little. In other words more midrange power. Does this make sense? I will check out the weight difference.

[jhonda41]

if 0-70(sometimes 85) is truly your alleged fun range... you could get a kawasaki 250 and have a fricken blast. A 500-600cc bike should be more than adequate.

Be honest with yourself when choosing a bike for your (alleged) needs and your next bike will present itself to you.

[muddysteel]

The only other consideration are the ergos. How tall are you? I am 6ft (1.8m) and using the Blade for "commuting" is a bit cramped. I used to have a 62 mile one-way commute; that was shortened to 22 mile one-way. So your proposed commute range is right in the middle.. 22 miles is fine.. The 62 miler was a pain towards the end of the week..

If you want a nice sport/touring type of bike, the VFR lands smack in the sweet spot! Not as goosey as the Blade (or VTR) it still handles extremely well, with plenty of ergos.. I wouldn't think twice about doing a 600 mile run on it - my Blade is another story (200 miles and I'm about done for the day).

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by enuenu

The only reason I would go for the 1000 over the 600 is that the power delivery may be smoother, allowing for better roll on acceleration from lower revs without changing down, making it more tractable for those rides when you want to cruise a little. In other words more midrange power. Does this make sense? I will check out the weight difference.

There is no significant weight difference between modern 600's and 1000's.
And around some racetracks 600's are actually faster 1000's because you don't have to be as judicious with the throttle.
Modern 600's really don't make good power until around 8000-10000rpm so you have to play tunes on the gearbox but that's half the fun of riding :-)
Even 250's now are good for close to 200kph.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by muddysteel

the VFR lands smack in the sweet spot! Not as goosey as the Blade (or VTR) it still handles extremely well, with plenty of ergos.

Say what?
The VFR handles extremely well?
The ones I've ridden handle _tolerably_ well (for a big heavy slow pig) but never extremely well :-)

[enuenu]

The VFR carries a lot more weight than the Fireblade, that's signifcant to me. Basically, I tend to think a Fireblade can be ridden on shortish blasts within reasonable speeds.

Originally Posted by jhonda41

if 0-70(sometimes 85) is truly your alleged fun range... you could get a kawasaki 250 and have a fricken blast. A 500-600cc bike should be more than adequate. Be honest with yourself when choosing a bike for your (alleged) needs and your next bike will present itself to you.

With respect a 250 is not going to operate within the speed limits with the same authority as a Fireblade. It won't go from 0-80mph as fast and it will have to be thrashed. I seem to occasionally run into the preconception that if you get a fast bike it means you want to do 150mph all over the place. It is the fact that it does the 0-80mph zone so much better (particularly in hilly terrain) that is attractive. A 500cc - 600cc would be adequate, thus my interest in the 600 Fireblade. Then I just thought that without much extra weight the 1000 would have more midrange stump pulling power for a less frantic ride within the 0 - 80mph zone.

[bladeracer]

What I particularly love about 250's is that you can regularly nail the throttle wide open without getting yourself into too much trouble.
The 30+ km per litre is nice as well :-)

[enuenu]

All good and valid points and it's great to hear all the varying opinions. I am a long way from making up my mind and test rides will be the deal sealer.

I was considering a high performance 2 stroke 250 or 350 until I realized they don't make them anymore (I have been out of the loop for quite a while).

Then I thought that I really wanted some midrange grunt so looked to bigger capacities for this, not their top end performance.

In a nutshell I want a light bike that will;
* handle like its on rails
* have ample power to blast off from the lights like a banshee
* have the power to eat big hills and to blast out of dangerous situations
* Do all the above without having its neck wrung all the time and therefore wear out requiring a heap of maintenance

As I said, I am early in the decision making process. I'm 5'9".

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by enuenu

I was considering a high performance 2 stroke 250 or 350 until I realized they don't make them anymore (I have been out of the loop for quite a while).

Unfortunately the last RGV was '98 and the Aprillia dragged on for another couple of years. Sadly missed by many.
If you haven't ruled out 250's definately ride the new GPX250R before deciding. I've heard good reports of the 650 that superceded the ZZR600 as well but can't recall the name.
Where abouts are you?

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by enuenu

In a nutshell I want a light bike that will;
* handle like its on rails
* have ample power to blast off from the lights like a banshee
* have the power to eat big hills and to blast out of dangerous situations
* Do all the above without having its neck wrung all the time and therefore wear out requiring a heap of maintenance

Off the top of my head you need to ride the Hayabusa.
Suzuki handling is the best there is.
Pulls like a train from idle even in top gear and it's still the fastest production bike you can buy.
Maintenance wise though you'll spend big on rear tyres.
And if you plan to keep it you can fit new rings in an afternoon without having to pull the engine out.
Another advantage is that the original Busa ('99-'07) uses a lot of SRAD (GSXR600/750, RF900, TL1000) parts (forks, wheels, brakes, discs, controls, and more) so spares and aftermarket parts are no problem.

[enuenu]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

Off the top of my head you need to ride the Hayabusa. Pulls like a train from idle even in top gear.

This sounds good, nice tractable power with smooth even delivery that I can squeeze on and off from low revs is very attractive. The only thing on my checklist it doesn't satisfy is weight, I had in mind a sub 200kg bike. Again, it will all come down to test rides though and this is a bike I hadn't really considered. Thanks. What preferances would prompt a buyer to buy a Hyabusa over a GSXR1000 and visa versa?

I'm in NSW a couple of hours north of Sydney.

[bladeracer]

It is heavy by my standards as well as I'm used to well under 200kg bikes but the weight is quite low so it doesn't feel as heavy as it might. I reckon it's possible to pivot turn it on the kickstand (I turn all my road bikes this way) but I really wouldn't recommend making a habit of it. I've only ever owned one bike heavier than 195kg dry ('88 and '90 GSXR750's) and that was the CB1100F Bol'Dor 23 years ago which was 234kg from memory. My mate sold his Busa last year. He put a TiForce full titanium system on it which saved 14kg from memory (the TiForce system was 4.7kg but I can't recall the weight of the stock twin-can system). Just replacing the exhaust system brings it back into the 200kg ballpark.

Never been to Sydney but I've been to the Snowy's and Canberra.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by enuenu

What preferances would prompt a buyer to buy a Hyabusa over a GSXR1000 and visa versa?

Weight would be the big one I think.
The GSXR1000 is 50kg(!) lighter than the Busa.
Ergonomics would be the other one.
The Busa is a touring bike, the GSXR1000 is a true Superbike.
They have similar output (around 160hp at the wheel) so you can see the 1300cc engine is tuned down (around 125hp/litre) and is nowhere near as stressed as the 1000cc engine (around 160hp/litre).
My mate's Busa with the TiForce (without a PC3) went 182hp on Dynotime's dyno (which put my 929 at 135hp).


I just noticed that graph was done by Wayne Patterson rather than Dynotime so I don't know how it compares to my 929 after all as I've never used their dyno. Have asked around and their dyno results seem to run about 5% higher than Dynotime's on the same bike.

[enuenu]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

Weight would be the big one I think.
The GSXR1000 is 50kg(!) lighter than the Busa.

That's what I admit to not really understanding. A Busa that weighed the same or a little more than a GSXR1000 would be great I would think. Why don't they make the Busa lighter? Basically a more comfortable GSXR with a broader power spread. Would dropping 30 or 40kg make it a less able tourer? Is it made heavier deliberately to make it more stable, more resistant to wind gusts etc and easier to ride longer distances? Maybe the weight is due to extra components it needs and they can't get any more kg off it?

My knowledge on the effects of weight is obviously limited. I just would have thought lighter is better, but I guess there is a limit to this.

[bladeracer]

I long wondered the same thing :-)
I can only put it down to cost. Rather than make the entire bike from scratch with lightweight parts they used the existing stock of SRAD parts which aren't particularly lightweight. On the other hand, the following year they redesigned the 750 from the ground up and introduced the 1000, significantly lighter than the SRAD 750, which puts the theory of cost to rest. Maybe Suzuki had planned to keep the SRAD series going longer but the 1000cc Superbike rules (and phasing out of the TL series) forced them to design a new bike anyway so they decided to filter all the stockpiled SRAD parts and tooling into the Busa.
The fairings, tail and front guard are enormous and they are what give it the 300kph+ top speed, and that speed was the _primary_ design goal of the bike. Weight never entered the equation. The twin-can exhaust system is immensely heavy which I never understood but I've heard several hypothesis including aerodynamic stability and that having two smaller clouds of exhaust gas offers less aero drag than one huge one - I really don't know though.
The new Busa has 15hp more and weighs the same but I don't believe it's any faster than the old one.
Certainly, fitting late GSXR750/1000 forks, wheels, swingarm and shock along with a lightweight exhaust system could do wonders for the bike.

[enuenu]

The weight differences are even more than I thought. A Hyabusa (260kg curb) weighs 88kg more than a GXS-R1000 (172kg curb). A ZX-14 (215 kg dry) weighs 36kg more than a ZX-10R (179 kg dry).

The Hyabusa weighing 45kg more than the ZX-14 is also surprising. The Busa is a real tank it seems. Suzuki quotes curb mass and Kawasaki the dry weight, maybe this accounts for some of the difference but in any case it is still a big difference.

[bladeracer]

That GSXR figure is way wrong.
My guess is it's without fuel.

Actually, the Busa weight seems way over the top as well.
215kg dry + fuel, oil, coolant and battery is not 45kg.

Where did you get the figures?

[bladeracer]

Suzuki Cycles - Product Lines - Cycles - Products - Hayabusa - 2009 - GSX1300R

Suzuki Cycles - Product Lines - Cycles - Products - Hayabusa - 2007 - GSX1300R

Suzuki Cycles - Product Lines - Cycles - Products - GSX-R1000 - 2009 - GSXR1000

[enuenu]

I got the figures from the Suzuki Australia and Kawasaki Australia Websites. Just click on the underlined links in my last post. I think the specs you found are from the USA Website. There seems to be some differences. 260kg seemed a bit out there. The USA Website is probably correct I think.

Then I found this. It seems around 215kg dry is probably correct. I can't see 45kg in the fluids and fuel being right. Maybe Suzuki Aust made a mistake on their Website.

They don't include battery weight? That's not right.

[rdroket]

I have two harley Vtwins(Roadking,fatboy)which I like putting around on and are confertable to ride long distances, but my 08 1000 fireblade is a blast to ride.Its super light and dosnt bog down at lo rpms and flat out screems with more power than I need but its a kick to twist the throtal once and a while.It probably comes down to weather you want to cruse or Jump on it and push it into some turns a little fast.

[jhonda41]

Originally Posted by enuenu

With respect a 250 is not going to operate within the speed limits with the same authority as a Fireblade. It won't go from 0-80mph as fast and it will have to be thrashed. I seem to occasionally run into the preconception that if you get a fast bike it means you want to do 150mph all over the place. It is the fact that it does the 0-80mph zone so much better (particularly in hilly terrain) that is attractive. A 500cc - 600cc would be adequate, thus my interest in the 600 Fireblade. Then I just thought that without much extra weight the 1000 would have more midrange stump pulling power for a less frantic ride within the 0 - 80mph zone.

I currently commute with a 650cc thumper, which basically has about the same acceleration and top speed as a Ninja 250. I thought I would miss the smoothness and power of my blade but honestly, I hardly notice it. I just adjust my riding for whatever bike I am on. I can still get out of dangerous situations with a quick downshift and wack of the throttle.

About the only thing I cant do is outrun the young punks in their modded sports cars when I want to completely get out of annoying situations. But thats not a life or death situation so I just deal with it. (I can get away from most cars, just not the really fast ones)

-jh

[enuenu]

Thanks. Spot on what I am getting at. What 650 do you have?