Would you recommend a 600cc supersport to a noob?

[ervins]

Where is this study? I want to read it...But that is what I am saying...I go to work at 6:30am with painful traffic and doing my SAFE thing...Then next thing I know I see someone coming to my lane while she puts eye makeup on...Was that me? No, like I said, many external factors, which make riding dangerous and sometimes it is not you but is that external factor...Luckily, I slowed up and then passed her with a twist of the wrist. It is dangerous out there people...Do not rely on your bike for safety, rely on yourself to be aware of your surroundings...Nothing about CCs but more about just riding smart and safe.

Originally Posted by hordak

What are you talking about?
Statistically speaking 251-500 cc bikes get into over twice as many accidents the 750 cc and up group even tough there are only 3% more of 251-500 cc bikes on the road.
The highest rider risk occurs between 2 and 3 years of road experience.
And only 15% of accidents serious enough to be reported are caused by rider error.
So for every 15 squids going to fast around that hair pin curve on their super sport there is 85 "safe" riders on their 250's ,500,,etc getting creamed by the left turning soccer mom on the cell phone. Having a tire blowout , hitting that loose gravel or deer.
A Graduated licence will do nothing to stop the vast majority of accidents and would only force those who would drive recklessly on a 600 cc super sport to drive recklessly on a 250 or 500 cc instead.

[ervins]

Your last point is fabulous...When we ride and a friend comes with little than acceptable gear, we tell them...Do they listen...Not all the times but it is up to them...Someone one can be on a big bike or small bike...However, if they start becoming a jackarse on the road it becomes a danger for everyone...Stupidity does not discriminate.

Originally Posted by daemon

notable point!!!
as said before it is between the head and the hand.
a person who is reckless,careless,above the law and whatever else makes up the gene pool of riders will be their downfall.
i learned alot about my ability and inability in my first few years as a rider.

i have learned ALOT more from my co-riders since i moved to colorado.
they take the time to express how they feel my riding could improve.
i don't always listen to their advice.
WHY???? i'm not aiming to be a racer,just wanting to get from point "A" to point "B" with a smile on my face and the love of the sport.

isn't that all it is about anyway.

i could give a fark less about impressing someone with my "skills" as a rider.
i have seen many fall to my backside trying to chase me or not being in total control of their surroundings or circumstances.

since i have moved here i have been witness to 5 accidents of this kind from fellow riders.....and many more that i have come across to check on the rider or their condition.

were they misbehaving???
most likely.
were they beyond their abilty????
it's possible.
do i cut them out of future endeavors with my group???
no,but i do warn them of what has transpired in the past and that they should learn from it....

do they ever listen????

sometimes

[ervins]

Bennice was not slamming anyone really...I see both sides of the argument. Some people on a 600 are dangerous but my counter is that some on 250s are as well...So is it the bike or the rider...It is the rider. Yeah I am still a newb...I love it...I learn something new every day in my life...I learned that Alamo is the worst place to rent a car and that Enterprise is better I learned this yesterday...I am going to San Diego for a little vacation this weekend and Alamo said I need a clean driving record...I have an excessive speeding ticket on my truck (was it the trucks fault? No it was my fault btw). They said I could not rent a car...So I called Enterprise who I rented from in NY a month or so ago and told me that, that was crazy...I got a lower rate. Why I called Alamo first was dumb (See that was me being stupid). I will admit that gas on a 250 is phenomenal if what everyone says is true...I could live with that...How about an updated 500r?


[quote=Kevorkian;907296]

Originally Posted by bennice

The difference between folks like you and Ervins and the newbs that we're discussing is that you knew going into things what could potentially happen if you twisted the throttle mid-turn, and you had at least some idea about what your first machine was capable of.QUOTE]

What newbs are we discussing? Fireplug and Erv were newbs once too, and I as well, and I still am. Tho I am on a ZZR, I would like to think of that as an SS, pretty close lol.

Just need to feel out the person, find out who they are and let them choose. Give them the pros and cons. I realize this has already been stated, but I will bet $$ that this will flame up again.

I personally don't like hearing people coming on saying that starting on a 600cc or a SS is irresponsible and other things, you need to start on a 250. And anyone telling you that is crazy, or what have you.

Each rider chooses the bike, for the most part. Let's try to guide them based on their ability to take it safe. If we don't know it, let's ask, or get a feel for that peson before jumping to what is the best bike for that person.

[ervins]

Originally Posted by hordak

The ninja 250 (yes it is 248 cc) has 36 hp(or up to 40 depending on where you get your info) and would be too much bike for a beginner if we followed that system. I can only think of 2 bikes that would be weak enough for that requierment.The Honda Rebel 250 and the Kawasaki eliminator 125.
101-250 cc bikes account for 9% of bikes on the road yet are involved in 13% of accidents
751 and up account for 23 % of the bikes on the road and only account for 16% of accidents. So based on the number of bikes statistically speaking the 751 cc and up bikes are safer then 101-250 cc group.

These stats are taken from the Hurt report via Proficient Motorcycling by David L Hough.

Wow those stats are alarming...All I know is that according to a study I read, out of all 1000s, the Kawasaki 10R is involved in more accidents than any other 1000cc bike. Scary huh...That is why I respect my bike.

[ervins]

Originally Posted by likearock4x4

You can make stats say anything you want them to say if you twist them a little.

These stats don't have anything to do with experience level do they???

Oh but then that is what this discussion is about. Apparently, the 250 is a newb starter bike as said by some...Most inexperienced riders who come here seem to be steered to the 250 direction...Because it is safer, prevents deaths, and makes you a better rider (all conjecture as I said in another post). According to those stats (real or not) is that the 250 is not any better than starting on a 600...The key to the discussion is really not assigning a bike to a new rider, but more to inform them on the pros and cons regarding riding and to tell them to practice safety, smarts, and responsibility when riding.

That is why when someone says start on a 250 I cringe...I would rather want someone to be informative. No one told me to start on a 250...They told me to practice, be safe, gear up, be responsible and be smart.

Sometimes experience has nothing to do with crashing...Take the guys body who I saw on HWY 238 2 months ago...20+ year rider. A truc just ran him over. Simple as that.

[ervins]

One point that sticks out is that people in CA drive like maniacs...You have to be responsible and practice much care when riding out here...I do not see many small bikes on my commute...A 250 once in a blue moon. More 500s, 650s, 600s,etc... I want some of you 250 guys and gals to come on down and see how bad riding a small bike can be out here...I am not saying it can not be done, but it can be bad. Now out in an area with little traffic and no hills, a 250 can be an option...I just do not see it here.

Originally Posted by hordak

Your right. HP is more important then CC's. However I live in the US where legislators don't have that kind of sense. Here in the peoples republic of California they have banned certain firearms not because there more dangerous the average hunting rifle but because the look more dangerous. My Ninja 500 cost more to insure and is classified as a sports bike, because it has fairing's and R in the name even though it doesn't compare to most modern sports bikes that the insurance companies see as such a big risk. Because most insurance companies rate by CC's and style that is what the government would do.

I am well aware of the fact the hurt report is outdated. However most people still it support points about training a gear so the other info could be used as well.

I looked over the MAIDS report (don't have it open in front of me) and it seemed to me that most motorcycle accidents were cause perception error and rider error is still just a small cause of motorcycle accedents.Like someone mentioned earlier, Not paying attention and getting hit at 40 mph on a 250 rebel or a gsxr 600 is the same thing. Besides 33 hp might be great for people in Europe but for people who commute 20 miles to work on the freeway every day it might not be enough.

Why am I agents tiered licensing. Because I believe in a free market economy where a private parties purchase should be based his or her money and desire and not on some bureaucrats idea of a need.

Imagine if they did pass it. You go to renew your registration on a bike you have driven safely for a few years and the lady behind the counter says, Sorry sir but based on our studies most people in your experience group can't properly handle that much bike. So park it in the garage and come back in 2 years when WE think your ready.
Great idea eh komrade.

[Ninja_Wendy]

That data is oldy moldy and WAY off from current numbers. See the study (linked below) from 2001 which shows that is no longer the case. It's about page 13. But basically in 1999 Fatalities by Engine displacement are below. If you look at the report you will notice that the fatalities for 500cc and less has gone down consistently each year from 17% in 1990 to 6% in 1999.

Up to 500: Total # 73, Percentage: 6%
501-1,000: Total# 455, Percentage: 40%
1,001-1,500: Total # 372, Percentage: 33%
1,500 and up: Total # 12, Percentage: 1%
Unknown CCs: Total# 228, Percentage:20%
Total 1140 Fatalities

That report has all sorts of great statistics for 1990-1999. The publication is distributed by the U.S. Department fo Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcyc...ty/809-360.pdf

[ervins]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Wendy

That data is oldy moldy and WAY off from current numbers. See the study (linked below) from 2001 which shows that is no longer the case. It's about page 13. But basically in 1999 Fatalities by Engine displacement are below. If you look at the report you will notice that the fatalities for 500cc and less has gone down consistently each year from 17% in 1990 to 6% in 1999.

Up to 500: Total # 73, Percentage: 6%
501-1,000: Total# 455, Percentage: 40%
1,001-1,500: Total # 372, Percentage: 33%
1,500 and up: Total # 12, Percentage: 1%
Unknown CCs: Total# 228, Percentage:20%
Total 1140 Fatalities

That report has all sorts of great statistics for 1990-1999. The publication is distributed by the U.S. Department fo Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcyc...ty/809-360.pdf

Seems like the cruiser guys and big CCs bikers are to blame hahaha. But you can spin this big...Most people might not even report the damage on the small bikes due to insurance...The bigger bikes are higher ticket items so I can see why they would report it. Anyone have recent stats?

[seadood228]

After reading the last couple of pages, there is a part of me that is starting to agree with Ervins point of view, at least in California.

Compared to Colorado, the pace is much more brisk when traffic allows. Not that a 250 is slow, but I could see a few "sandwhich" scenario's being played out on a 250..

Then again, I've never ridden a two-fiddy.

[PaulRex]

Hey guys.. first of i have TWO DAYS of riding experience (never got over 40mph).. so im lurking around here reading alot and trying to learn what i can before the next season starts..

but in response to the above post:

But I was watching some of wilsonryders69's videos on LV, and he was talking about how he made some "noob mistakes" on his Ninja 250R by riding through town in the taller gears keeping the rpms down, and how that was a bad idea with that bike because it doesnt make any power down there.

So I guess its important for 250 riders to stay close to the powerband when riding and use the right gear so you have some chance of getting your bike out of harms way. Thats what I picked up from it, and will try and remember next time I ride.



Paul

[Ninja_Wendy]

Originally Posted by ervins

Seems like the cruiser guys and big CCs bikers are to blame hahaha. But you can spin this big...Most people might not even report the damage on the small bikes due to insurance...The bigger bikes are higher ticket items so I can see why they would report it. Anyone have recent stats?

It's not damage it's FATALITIES. I think all of those would pretty much get reported.

[JimmyD]

Originally Posted by hordak

Your right. HP is more important then CC's. However I live in the US where legislators don't have that kind of sense. Here in the peoples republic of California they have banned certain firearms not because there more dangerous the average hunting rifle but because the look more dangerous. My Ninja 500 cost more to insure and is classified as a sports bike, because it has fairing's and R in the name even though it doesn't compare to most modern sports bikes that the insurance companies see as such a big risk. Because most insurance companies rate by CC's and style that is what the government would do.

That's a problem with the insurance company though. In certain province/states (manufacturer supplied) HP is used to calculate your insurance premiums, at least in part. In others, paint color can be used to determine cost. Of course, the only way insurance companies would be consistant is if (GASP!) the government became involved, and we don't want that.

I am well aware of the fact the hurt report is outdated. However most people still it support points about training a gear so the other info could be used as well.

I looked over the MAIDS report (don't have it open in front of me) and it seemed to me that most motorcycle accidents were cause perception error and rider error is still just a small cause of motorcycle accedents.

The only problem I have with people quoting the Hurt report for any reason is that specific statistics, like you've pointed out, no longer apply to the industry. For that matter, they didn't apply to the industry in 1985, let alone today. The ideas are the same (having to do with helmets, gear, types of collisions) but not things like bikes on the road, average age of riders, things like that.

The MAIDS report as well as the COST report still state that (I forget the exact number) somewhere around 75% of accidents are from cars turning in the way of motorcycles in traffic, and far less are because of single rider accidents.

For some reason this doesn't sound right to me because IIRC I read that most accidents are single vehicle (aka the bike). Maybe that's within the first 6 months of ownership, I dunno.

Like someone mentioned earlier, Not paying attention and getting hit at 40 mph on a 250 rebel or a gsxr 600 is the same thing. Besides 33 hp might be great for people in Europe but for people who commute 20 miles to work on the freeway every day it might not be enough.

Germany has HP restrictions on new riders and they're also home to the autobahn. If an 18 year old german with a restricted bike can do it, I'm pretty sure they can do it on our side of the pond. An EX500 is only putting out 50hp and they're capable of 130mph. Regardless of where you live, you still aren't allowed to speed?

According to Beat the queues on two wheels — Parking for Bikes British commuters have the highest commute times in Europe, with a quarter of commuters on the road /rails for over 2 hours a day. Surely we're not that spoiled as North Americans that we can't drive 20 miles on a restricted bike?

Imagine if they did pass it. You go to renew your registration on a bike you have driven safely for a few years and the lady behind the counter says, Sorry sir but based on our studies most people in your experience group can't properly handle that much bike.

I don't think you understand how tiered licensing works. It goes something like this. New rider at 16 takes his motorcycling exam and road test. He is given an A1 license, which limits him to 125cc or 11KW (about 15 hp). He rides this until he's 18, and then he is given another road test. He then has an A2 license which limits him to anything under 35KW (around 47HP) with no CC requirement. This means you can ride any bike as long as you buy a restrictor kit to keep the bike at 47 hp.

You MUST have your A2 for 2-3 years before you can get your unrestricted A license, allowing you to ride whatever you like.

This has no effect on anyone who already has a license, nor should it. Some licensing systems only apply to younger riders anyway. If you're over 24 there's no restrictions placed on you.

Why am I agents tiered licensing. Because I believe in a free market economy where a private parties purchase should be based his or her money and desire and not on some bureaucrats idea of a need.

It's still a free market. Japan has a three stage licensing system, seperate licenses for <125, <400, and a third with no restrictions. You know what? Japan has a far larger amount of models available as far as motorcycles go, because they have to cater to these different licenses. Just like California still has a large and healthy selection of vehicles even though they're (I think) the only state that has extra emissions equipment.

It's also not like you are being forced into buying any model or brand. I'm not an expert but most models can be restricted to the 47hp standard. As far as the 125cc bikes are concerned, there are tons on the used market.

Great idea eh komrade.

Neit. Canada's had things like helmet laws for decades and we're hardly what you would call a communist paradise. Germany has horsepower restrictions on new riders and they've got one of the world's best economies. I'm pretty sure they're a democratic, capitalistic society.

Gotta apologize for my last post though. I was a jackass but I'd been drinking! It's a good debate so far and I understand that I'm not going to change your mind, nor are you going to change mine, unless you really hit me with something good!

[Ninja_Wendy]

Well I found some more data, it continues to be consistent percentagewise.

From a report from 2004:

· Mean age of Motorcyclist killed is increasing
· Mean engine size of motorcycle involved in a fatal crash is increasing

From:http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...FatsUpdate.pdf

From a report from 2003 (data is 2001):

Motorcyclist FATALITIES by Engine size
2001
Up to 500: Total # 227, Percentage: 7%
501-1,000: Total# 1,395, Percentage: 44%
1,001-1,500: Total # 1,177, Percentage: 37%
1,500 and up: Total # 48, Percentage: 2%
Unknown CCs: Total# 334, Percentage:10%
Total 3,181 Fatalities

From: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...03/809-548.pdf

[JimmyD]

Originally Posted by ervins

The thing is that we are talking about the bike. Gear is another story and the horror of how one dies in a crash is another story as well. Full gear and I walked away from a 100mph crash and worked the following day.

a 250 and a 600 can go over 100mph easily...If both crashed at that speed, what happens to engine size? Forget crashing now, which would stop quicker? (Various ways to do it and effective ways are rider controlled.) Ok lets talk comfort...I can not do the upright well...Should I get the 250? Or the guy who wants the better gas mileage? Should he get a 600? It can go back and forth forever...I will tell them hey, I loved my 600...Once I got rid of the stock exhaust, the gas went to crappola...Now 250 riders claim 60mpg...Now if that is your impetus to get a 250, then knock yourself out...No way any 600 can compete with that. Two up and you are a heavy guy? No small bike is going to do that in a highway in the Bay Area...A 600 though if you are stupid can really rain on your parade...So can a 250. The situation will be dictated by the rider...Get a stupid 250 guy and a stupid 600 guy and they are just situations waiting to happen. Heck even I get silly on my bike...It is so easy to twist it and it is going 100mph...Snap it and you can get your arms jerked straight and even off if you are not ready. Perils in every ride...I want a dirtbike. I want a small one because darnit they are too tall.

Yeah, we are talking about bikes, and your argument was, both bikes are equally as safe because they will both go down if the rider makes them.

So I was drawing a parallel to the helmet question, using your argument. It doesn't make sense, does it?

You're safer with a helmet on than you are with one off. Just like I think a new rider is safer on a 250 than a 600 because there isn't the same amount of power to abuse (on purpose or by accident).

Erv, I can see why you keep your mouth shut on these threads now. This has been going on for like 2 weeks

[JimmyD]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Wendy

Well I found some more data, it continues to be consistent percentagewise.

From a report from 2004:

· Mean age of Motorcyclist killed is increasing
· Mean engine size of motorcycle involved in a fatal crash is increasing

From:http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...FatsUpdate.pdf

From a report from 2003 (data is 2001):

Motorcyclist FATALITIES by Engine size
2001
Up to 500: Total # 227, Percentage: 7%
501-1,000: Total# 1,395, Percentage: 44%
1,001-1,500: Total # 1,177, Percentage: 37%
1,500 and up: Total # 48, Percentage: 2%
Unknown CCs: Total# 334, Percentage:10%
Total 3,181 Fatalities

From: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...03/809-548.pdf

That should tell you something because both the Hurt report and the MAIDS report say that the vast majority of accidents occur at under 50 mph. People are dying in those big bikes and it's NOT because they're going ridiculously fast, either.

[Ninja_Wendy]

Originally Posted by JimmyD

The MAIDS report as well as the COST report still state that (I forget the exact number) somewhere around 75% of accidents are from cars turning in the way of motorcycles in traffic, and far less are because of single rider accidents.

In 2000, 45% were single vehicle, in 2001, 46% were single vehicle


Most of the increase in fatalities occurred in the under 40-age group reversing a trend from 1997.

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the fatalities in the 1,001-1,500 cc engine size were riders in the 40 and over age group.

The change to a higher proportion of fatalities on rural roads compared to urban roads continued.

The mean age of the riders killed and the mean engine size of motorcycles involved in fatal crashes continued to rise, indicating the involvement of older riders on larger motorcycles in fatal crashes.

Alcohol involvement and speeding continue to be major contributing factors in fatal motorcycle crashes.

A few more:

Speeding: 39%
Not Wearing a Helmet: 46%
Had been drinking: 36%

[NCDave]

I like to drink, ride without my helmet, and speed. that makes me in the 121st percentile!

[Ninja_Wendy]

Ok here is the last one I promise.

If you are interested in the most recent statistics, I just found U.S. Department of Transportation
Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities. I'm sure the entire report will prove an interesting read if you are interested. It is from October 2007, about as recent as you will get.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...40-report2.pdf

Now you can all make informed statements

[Ninja_Wendy]

Originally Posted by NCDave

I like to drink, ride without my helmet, and speed. that makes me in the 121st percentile!

As a responsible citizen, I am going to have to come to your house confiscate your 650 from you

[likearock4x4]

OK, I gotta ask...

Is anyone being convinced to change their minds by any of this conversation???

Do the statistics help to make anyones points??

I tend to doubt it. I can see both sides of it.

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that a SUPERSPORT is NEVER the bike to learn on!!! I'm not saying that a 250 is... that would be ludicrous, I can see a 500 or a 650, but nothing more powerful. There's just too much chance for the new rider to freak out at the sudden rush of power in the event that the twist more than they planned on--especially when learning to corner or weave. Of course the rider's size, build, maturity, age, experience, training, and many other things have to be considered when making a recommendation. AND, as others here have said... the new rider is going to buy what he wants... I'd say that as the experienced rider, it is your responsibility to at least try your DARNDEST to make him/her WANT to buy the proper bike. (Just remember that if he were to get hurt badly or killed because he made a mistake on a bike that he was steered to by you, you'd have to live with your consciense for that.) One additional thing to consider when deciding what bike to recommend: If the bike is too small or too large physically for them, they will be uncomfortable, and will be distracted by this discomfort. This takes away some of their attention from what they should be concentrating on (the road and what's on it) and diverts it to the area of discomfort. (I can say this it true first hand... I went through that situation.)

I'd say my position is somewhere between the two sides being argued here.