Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[jackjones]

At the end of the day it is great that we can choose between the two, or even three ( if you include the Sachs -Ass) legal 250's in Thailand. Now we have a choice. It wasn't like this in the old days, let me tell you. I can remember the only thing you could ride was a ..... Anyway, if Yamaha introduce a new 250 four stroke, what then? Or maybe even Suzuki. As far as the two main contenders at the moment are concerned, I like both of them, but maybe I am an awkward old bugger.

[CBR250R]

Two out of three good reviews I thought (the shorter film of the three was weak and offered no opinion at all so not worthy of comment) so thanks for posting taichiplanet. 2 things stood out for me. In the first review the guy concluded that if he was buying for himself then he'd spend the extra and get theNinja - but if he was buying for his son or daughter he'd buy the CBR. Kind of sums up the differences for me.

The second review was a bit strange being that he was reviewing 2 bikes claiming to be sports bikes. He conceded that the Ninja was the faster and the more sporty of the two – to quote "the hp makes a huge difference" and then comparing it to the other two in the twisties "it's just pulling away". He then gave the victory to the CBR based on the Ninja having a carb (not an issue in Thailand), and the CBR being a superior commuter bike, user friendliness etc.

Given that that the article was titled "beginner bikeshootout" I can kind of understand the conclusion. If the article was "most fun 250" then I'm guessing he'd have gone for the Ninja. So the Ninja is the better sports bike and the CBR is the better commuter/beginner bike, who'd have thought it?

I was thinking seriously about purchasing the Ninja 250R here in Canada. However, I have been holding off - waiting until we finally get the fuel-injected iteration here. I've ridden it and I love how it handles, love how it looks, and love the parallel twin whine that it emits. However, I don't love the fuel economy. In most of the online magazine tests so far the CBR250R is obtaining up to 1.5 times (yes I wrote that correctly) better fuel economy - under constant flogging of both bikes. It may be true that the Ninja 250R is more performance oriented (and perhaps even more fun - when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R). However, it sounds like having fun on the Ninja 250R occurs to the detriment of acceptable fuel economy. SportRider magazine's recent comparison yielded an average fuel-economy of 70mpg for the CBR250R (and a dismal 46mpg for the Ninja 250R) after their requisite flogging. Rider magazine also tested the CBR250R against the Ninja 250R and after a "day-long dual" where they ran the bikes hard, the CBR250R yielded 65mpg, while the Ninja 250R yielded......50mpg....which prompted the magazine to comment "Economy and entertainment run neck-and-neck with the CBR". Economy and entertainment don't run neck and neck enough for me - at least with the carbed Ninja 250R - to make it a viable purchase. I am going with the CBR250R.

Mike

Edited April 25, 2011 by CBR250R

[skybluestu]

Two out of three good reviews I thought (the shorter film of the three was weak and offered no opinion at all so not worthy of comment) so thanks for posting taichiplanet. 2 things stood out for me. In the first review the guy concluded that if he was buying for himself then he'd spend the extra and get theNinja - but if he was buying for his son or daughter he'd buy the CBR. Kind of sums up the differences for me.

The second review was a bit strange being that he was reviewing 2 bikes claiming to be sports bikes. He conceded that the Ninja was the faster and the more sporty of the two – to quote "the hp makes a huge difference" and then comparing it to the other two in the twisties "it's just pulling away". He then gave the victory to the CBR based on the Ninja having a carb (not an issue in Thailand), and the CBR being a superior commuter bike, user friendliness etc.

Given that that the article was titled "beginner bikeshootout" I can kind of understand the conclusion. If the article was "most fun 250" then I'm guessing he'd have gone for the Ninja. So the Ninja is the better sports bike and the CBR is the better commuter/beginner bike, who'd have thought it?

I was thinking seriously about purchasing the Ninja 250R here in Canada. However, I have been holding off - waiting until we finally get the fuel-injected iteration here. I've ridden it and I love how it handles, love how it looks, and love the parallel twin whine that it emits. However, I don't love the fuel economy. In most of the online magazine tests so far the CBR250R is obtaining up to 1.5 times (yes I wrote that correctly) better fuel economy - under constant flogging of both bikes. It may be true that the Ninja 250R is more performance oriented (and perhaps even more fun - when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R). However, it sounds like having fun on the Ninja 250R occurs to the detriment of acceptable fuel economy. SportRider magazine's recent comparison yielded an average fuel-economy of 70mpg for the CBR250R (and a dismal 46mpg for the Ninja 250R) after their requisite flogging. Rider magazine also tested the CBR250R against the Ninja 250R and after a "day-long dual" where they ran the bikes hard, the CBR250R yielded 65mpg, while the Ninja 250R yielded......50mpg....which prompted the magazine to comment "Economy and entertainment run neck-and-neck with the CBR". Economy and entertainment don't run neck and neck enough for me - at least with the carbed Ninja 250R - to make it a viable purchase. I am going with the CBR250R.

Mike

Good points Mike and good choice too. The Ninja is pretending to be a sportsbike while the baby CBR isn't although it actually does a better job of impersonating one than the Kawa. When Honda released the CBR they described it more as a sports-tourer and with similar styling to the VFR that's what it is. But it was obviously going to be compared to the sportsbike-wannabe and those comparisons have been favourable with the CBR coming out tops on almost everything apart from a few kph top speed. Enjoy your new bike, I'm sure you will!

[JonnyF]

Two out of three good reviews I thought (the shorter film of the three was weak and offered no opinion at all so not worthy of comment) so thanks for posting taichiplanet. 2 things stood out for me. In the first review the guy concluded that if he was buying for himself then he'd spend the extra and get theNinja - but if he was buying for his son or daughter he'd buy the CBR. Kind of sums up the differences for me.

The second review was a bit strange being that he was reviewing 2 bikes claiming to be sports bikes. He conceded that the Ninja was the faster and the more sporty of the two – to quote "the hp makes a huge difference" and then comparing it to the other two in the twisties "it's just pulling away". He then gave the victory to the CBR based on the Ninja having a carb (not an issue in Thailand), and the CBR being a superior commuter bike, user friendliness etc.

Given that that the article was titled "beginner bikeshootout" I can kind of understand the conclusion. If the article was "most fun 250" then I'm guessing he'd have gone for the Ninja. So the Ninja is the better sports bike and the CBR is the better commuter/beginner bike, who'd have thought it?

I was thinking seriously about purchasing the Ninja 250R here in Canada. However, I have been holding off - waiting until we finally get the fuel-injected iteration here. I've ridden it and I love how it handles, love how it looks, and love the parallel twin whine that it emits. However, I don't love the fuel economy. In most of the online magazine tests so far the CBR250R is obtaining up to 1.5 times (yes I wrote that correctly) better fuel economy - under constant flogging of both bikes. It may be true that the Ninja 250R is more performance oriented (and perhaps even more fun - when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R). However, it sounds like having fun on the Ninja 250R occurs to the detriment of acceptable fuel economy. SportRider magazine's recent comparison yielded an average fuel-economy of 70mpg for the CBR250R (and a dismal 46mpg for the Ninja 250R) after their requisite flogging. Rider magazine also tested the CBR250R against the Ninja 250R and after a "day-long dual" where they ran the bikes hard, the CBR250R yielded 65mpg, while the Ninja 250R yielded......50mpg....which prompted the magazine to comment "Economy and entertainment run neck-and-neck with the CBR". Economy and entertainment don't run neck and neck enough for me - at least with the carbed Ninja 250R - to make it a viable purchase. I am going with the CBR250R.

Mike

Good points Mike and good choice too. The Ninja is pretending to be a sportsbike while the baby CBR isn't although it actually does a better job of impersonating one than the Kawa. When Honda released the CBR they described it more as a sports-tourer and with similar styling to the VFR that's what it is. But it was obviously going to be compared to the sportsbike-wannabe and those comparisons have been favourable with the CBR coming out tops on almost everything apart from a few kph top speed. Enjoy your new bike, I'm sure you will!

I'd have to disagree. The Ninja is a high revving twin, a sporty bike for riders who like to scream a bike and have fun - not calculate the kpl every time they fill up. The CBR on the other hand is a cheaper alternative, a commuter/learner bike with some fancy fairings - the motorbike equivalent of a Toyota Vios fitted with a massive spoiler and full body kit.

I'd agree that neither are a true sportsbike but judging by the specs and the reviews the Ninja is closer to what it claims to be. Not only in terms of top speed but in terms of hp and handling in the twisties/on the track. If any bike is pretending to be something it's not then it's the low revving, fuel efficient thumper in fancy dress.

Both are good bikes, but built for different purposes and a different demographic. Just enjoy your bike for what it is rather than pretending it's something it's not

[jackjones]

But I thought the difference in top speed was only 8kph according to an exhaustive test by MCN and perhaps the Honda would have been able to make up the difference if it had been fitted with an aftermarket silencer like the Kawawsaki had. As far as I can see , all reviews have said the Honda goes and handles really well in the twisties and it is also faster up to 60mph as well as having more torque. Throw in a few hills as well, on a tight and twisty road and the Honda should fare very well indeed. Personally I like the sports tourer fairing on the CBR. It should do it's job and keep the rain, wind and the cold off and it also allows you to sit up a bit. It is also made up of different sections which must be a bonus if you ever drop it.

[hehehoho]

but built for different purposes and a different demographic.

Incorrect.

But whatever the embarrassed Kawa crowd need to tell themselves.

Didn't I read on here that t 1/3rd of N250 riders in the states are female? at least there's some room under the seat for their tampons.

Unless they're pregnant and happen to look like their bike head on. :D

Edited April 26, 2011 by hehehoho

[dave_boo]

I'd have to disagree. The Ninja is a high revving twin, a sporty bike for riders who like to scream a bike and have fun - not calculate the kpl every time they fill up. The CBR on the other hand is a cheaper alternative, a commuter/learner bike with some fancy fairings - the motorbike equivalent of a Toyota Vios fitted with a massive spoiler and full body kit.

I'd agree that neither are a true sportsbike but judging by the specs and the reviews the Ninja is closer to what it claims to be. Not only in terms of top speed but in terms of hp and handling in the twisties/on the track. If any bike is pretending to be something it's not then it's the low revving, fuel efficient thumper in fancy dress.

Both are good bikes, but built for different purposes and a different demographic. Just enjoy your bike for what it is rather than pretending it's something it's not

Why don't we consider what Kawasaki calls it rather than what would fit our preconceived notions. First they put it in the "Sports" category. It then went out of its way to extol the sports features:

2008 KAWASAKI NINJA® 250R SUPERSPORT OFFERS AUTHENTIC NINJA STYLE AND PERFORMANCE

Quick, Affordable, Fuel Efficient, Easy to Ride and Great Looking

One look at the new Ninja® 250R tells everyone that this bike is the genuine article. With a new full-fairing similar to the Ninja ZX™-6R and -10R supersport bikes, a single kicked-up muffler, UNI-TRAK® rear suspension, high-performance petal disc brakes and a dual seat, this is the most stylish performer in its category.

Compact size, exceptional personality and a low price tag highlight Kawasaki’s new Ninja 250R quarter-liter performer. Considering how much fun it is to ride and the fact that it’s the only 250cc sportbike sold in the U.S., it’s no wonder the Ninja 250R has been a strong seller for over a decade. Its successful blend of a rider-friendly engine, easy-to-operate chassis and supersport styling worthy of its Ninja moniker, this model was developed to offer real world performance to riders of all skill levels and goes to show that good things do come in small packages.

Seems like Kawasaki is attempting to conflate the styling of the baby NInja into a "Supersport" performer. It's apparently slower except for top speed compared to the CBR (so not really that quick). It costs at least 20K THB more than the similarily equipped CBR (so really not that affordable). We all know what the fuel economy is like (so really not all the fuel efficient). Easy to ride is a given for this class. Great looking is totally subjective.

So just exactly explain to us how the Ninja is not "pretending it's something it's not".

[thaidiver]

(when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R).

Mike

Great line, made me laugh hard. Glad I bought the tamer and less thirsty CBR!

[BigBikeBKK]

(when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R).

Mike

Last I heard the CB"R" puts out a pitiful 26Hp to the Ninjette's 33?

Both are noob-friendly bikes but the reviews are pretty unanimous in saying the CBR is even more noob friendly than the Ninjette.

The Honda thumper struggles at highway speeds but is easier to ride in town.

The Ninjette has been around for years, looks better, has proven reliability and tons of aftermarket support.

The Ninjette has had a monopoly on the 250cc sport market for years. Competition is good but it will take more than the Honda CB"R" thumper in sport bike plastics to knock the Ninjette off its throne.

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that the Kwacker comes in the ONLY color proven to be OBVIOUSLY superior to any other...GREEN!

Let the Good Times ROLL!

[BigBikeBKK]

but built for different purposes and a different demographic.

Incorrect.

But whatever the embarrassed Kawa crowd need to tell themselves.

Didn't I read on here that t 1/3rd of N250 riders in the states are female? at least there's some room under the seat for their tampons.

Unless they're pregnant and happen to look like their bike head on. :D

Actually this thread is pretty clear proof that the bikes are aimed at different demographics.

[flying]

Some vids comparing; same old same old stuff! Sorry if they have been put up before.

This video states the obvious to riders who would know just by the spec sheets.

It is obvious if one was looking for the performance & spirited ride the Ninja is the run away in this small bike class.

Let me also say I LOVE Honda's always have. I have owned 600RR's, 900RR's & their variants & many dirt Honda's back when I was sponsored racing Honda's

Fit & finish of Honda has always been #1 in my book

Honda has clearly targeted this bike as an entry level single lung thumper with mild RR clothing. That is fine & they will do quite well....obviously

But for seasoned riders looking for a small performance bike the ninja would be it hands down between these two....period

It would be extremely cool to see Honda come out with a real CBR250RR because I know it would kill & I know Honda is capable of it. But as it is they chose this route as an entry bike & from a marketing standpoint I guess I can understand it.

Edited April 26, 2011 by flying

[CBR250R]

(when you rev it to the moon to extract all its 2 extra rear-wheel HP over the CBR250R).

Mike

Last I heard the CB"R" puts out a pitiful 26Hp to the Ninjette's 33?

The Honda thumper struggles at highway speeds but is easier to ride in town.

While Honda and Kawi advertise crankshaft hp figures of 26hp and 33hp respectively, if you examine the online reviews that measure rear-wheel hp from dyno testing, the Ninja 250R puts out on average about 2 rear-wheel hp more on the dyno compared to the CBR250R (e.g., 22 hp CBR250R vs. 24 hp Ninja 250R). Unless Honda is under-rating their crankshaft hp or Kawi is over-rating their crankshaft hp, the issue you inadvertently raise may be one of efficiency. These figures suggest the CBR250R is considerably more efficient at putting its power to the ground (with considerably less drivetrain power losses). Thanks for drawing my attention to that. And thanks for the more modern and efficient powertrain Honda!

Unless by "highway" you mean the German autobahn - I think your comment is misinformed. Average highway speeds that I am familiar with range from 60 mph to 70 mph. Perhaps the highways you ride on are different. Every review I've read suggests that the CBR250R can cruise at these speeds fine - with plenty in reserve for passing. If you are talking expressways where speeds can be higher I would have to wonder why anyone would ride on an expressway unless they absolutely had to. Secondary roads are just way more fun. Also, it would be hard to imagine that a bike that has a top speed of over 90 mph would "struggle" to cruise at 60 to 70 mph on the highway. At those speeds I bet the Ninja 250R is screaming away and gulping down fuel like its ambrosia anyway. No thanks.

And fuel economy IS something many find important in a small displacement bike. I like that Honda seems to have created the CBR250R with balance in mind. It does everything well. And if reviews are any indication - it is an incredibly fun bike to ride through the twisties. That's enough for me. More powerful bikes yield trade-offs in fuel-economy that I am not willing to give-up. When someone says "Why don't you just buy a 600RR"? I give them a litany of reasons that include superior fuel-economy. If I was considering the Ninja 250R right now - I wouldn't be able to provide the fuel-economy defense as it seems to be producing 250cc power with fuel economy closer to 600cc territory.

Mike

[KRS1]

I am struck in awe by your username.

You are a Ninja

[taichiplanet]

It will be interesting to see how much power can be freed up from the CBR250. Of course the fuel efficiency will be out the window, but then it may be a case of either keep it stock to have the fuel efficiency or remap to get better HP than the Ninja.

I like the styling of the Ninja better (but i am an old fashioned guy), but specs wise the CBR is the winner.

[snowflake]

All I can say is that I really really like the cbr... Not super fast but nice and comfortable...

I dont think you can go wrong on either bike...

I love the cbr for its user friendliness... I know it is not the fastest bike out there and I am a bit dissappointed for not being able to do 150 all the way from bangkok... I have to settle for 140... Wow... New bike in september...

[hachii]

the thing I don't like about kawa is the misleading HP claims of their bike..

they claimed "nin"jette produce 33hp at crank while actually it's only 29..

what's more amusing is when they advertise the 2011 zx-10r with 200+ hp which is supposely to be a BMW S1000RR killer, but then it is discovered that it's actually 20hp lower than that Beemer..

well, shame on you green bug..

(I'm not used to be biased before, I respect every bike manufacturer for they all have their own strength. And I shall remain the same unless provoked.)

Edited April 29, 2011 by hachii

[CMX]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne. This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above. Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht. Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing. Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne. ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

[KRS1]

Traveling at 140-150kph while the bike is struggling is very annoying, not to mention very tiring if the fairings arent doing their job to deflect wind around you...you'll get beaten up by the wind.

I havent ridden the CBR 250 yet, but i can vouch for how tiresome the old cbr 150 was above 130 kph, youd get beaten to death. I just hope the CBR 250 is more friendly in regards to moving the wind around the rider.

The Ninja 250 is a pleasure to ride at 160 kph. (speedo)

[fullcave]

Sorry but anything over 120 km and you can get a fine for speeding...

[KRS1]

..its only illegal if a cop sees you.

[skybluestu]

..its only illegal if a cop sees you.

And then he has to catch you

[JonnyF]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne. This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above. Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht. Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing. Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne. ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

It's quite simple. If a bike's top speed is 165 for example then it will be nicer to ride at 140-150.

If a bike's top speed is 140-150 then it is less pleasant at these speeds as you are constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider, plus it's more difficult to overtake cars doing 140 etc.

I've done quite a bit of long distance touring on my Ninja and when you get onto long open roads (BKK-Samui, BKK-Chiang Mai etc) the top speed suddenly becomes extremely relevant because you're sat in that range for hours and hours. Mine gets to 165-170 indicated (fully tucked in) but it sits at 140 (with quite a bit to spare) all day long which makes the long distances much more manageable.

Edited April 30, 2011 by JonnyF

[KRS1]

yep

[dave_boo]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne. This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above. Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht. Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing. Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne. ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

It's quite simple. If a bike's top speed is 165 for example then it will be nicer to ride at 140-150.

If a bike's top speed is 140-150 then it is less pleasant at these speeds as you are constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider, plus it's more difficult to overtake cars doing 140 etc.

I've done quite a bit of long distance touring on my Ninja and when you get onto long open roads (BKK-Samui, BKK-Chiang Mai etc) the top speed suddenly becomes extremely relevant because you're sat in that range for hours and hours. Mine gets to 165-170 indicated (fully tucked in) but it sits at 140 (with quite a bit to spare) all day long which makes the long distances much more manageable.

Assuming you have the same speedo drift mine does, that means that you're essentially reaching my top tucked in speed (154 km/h @ 8% drift means an indicated 167 km/h). For someone to claim that either bike have plenty to spare above 120 or so is quite ridiculous. Yes at least on the Ninja you can go 134 km/h (real--145 indicated on my bike) sitting upright with a small Thai on the pillion. But that's it. You will get no more out of the the Ninja; full stop. Crouching down and losing the pillion rider you'll get up to your quoted top speed (indicated), but how long can you stay rocking on your scrotum to maintain it?

I have not ridden the CBR 250R, but the only way the Ninja is going to pass another vehicle doing 140 is with a LOT of room. And that will be fully tucked in and with the throttle twisted as far as it will go.

I'm not sure of what to make of your claim "constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider". Are you saying that, as I understand it, the CBR at the same 140 the Ninja would be at, is more buzzy or whatever?

[KRS1]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne. This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above. Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht. Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing. Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne. ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

It's quite simple. If a bike's top speed is 165 for example then it will be nicer to ride at 140-150.

If a bike's top speed is 140-150 then it is less pleasant at these speeds as you are constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider, plus it's more difficult to overtake cars doing 140 etc.

I've done quite a bit of long distance touring on my Ninja and when you get onto long open roads (BKK-Samui, BKK-Chiang Mai etc) the top speed suddenly becomes extremely relevant because you're sat in that range for hours and hours. Mine gets to 165-170 indicated (fully tucked in) but it sits at 140 (with quite a bit to spare) all day long which makes the long distances much more manageable.

I here ya man.

[JonnyF]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne. This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above. Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht. Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing. Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne. ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

It's quite simple. If a bike's top speed is 165 for example then it will be nicer to ride at 140-150.

If a bike's top speed is 140-150 then it is less pleasant at these speeds as you are constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider, plus it's more difficult to overtake cars doing 140 etc.

I've done quite a bit of long distance touring on my Ninja and when you get onto long open roads (BKK-Samui, BKK-Chiang Mai etc) the top speed suddenly becomes extremely relevant because you're sat in that range for hours and hours. Mine gets to 165-170 indicated (fully tucked in) but it sits at 140 (with quite a bit to spare) all day long which makes the long distances much more manageable.

Assuming you have the same speedo drift mine does, that means that you're essentially reaching my top tucked in speed (154 km/h @ 8% drift means an indicated 167 km/h). For someone to claim that either bike have plenty to spare above 120 or so is quite ridiculous. Yes at least on the Ninja you can go 134 km/h (real--145 indicated on my bike) sitting upright with a small Thai on the pillion. But that's it. You will get no more out of the the Ninja; full stop. Crouching down and losing the pillion rider you'll get up to your quoted top speed (indicated), but how long can you stay rocking on your scrotum to maintain it?

I have not ridden the CBR 250R, but the only way the Ninja is going to pass another vehicle doing 140 is with a LOT of room. And that will be fully tucked in and with the throttle twisted as far as it will go.

I'm not sure of what to make of your claim "constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider". Are you saying that, as I understand it, the CBR at the same 140 the Ninja would be at, is more buzzy or whatever?

You've pretty much answered your own question. If the Ninja is 15kph faster as reports suggest then at 134 km/h real (154 indicated) you'll be sat bolt upright on the Ninja enjoying the view. Seeing as that is pretty much the limit of the CBR then you'll be tucked in "rocking on your scrotum" to maintain that speed. Which is more tiring? Whichever way you play with the numbers, the bike with the highest top end is going to be better for long fast stretches of road, whether you're overtaking at 140 (real) or cruising a few kph below that.

People harp on about how much easier the CBR is to ride, I would argue that around town that is maybe the case (depending on your riding style and preferences), but at real speeds of around 140 (real) on the highway it won't be a particularly relaxing experience on the CBR - SnowFlake recently reported that he loved the bike on his long trip but he'd have liked to be able to go above 140, not sure if that was on the GPS or the gauge, I assume the gauge.

I just find it odd that one minute it's a sports tourer, the next minute the top speed isn't important. Anyone who has toured long distance will know top end speed is important for the reasons stated above.

[hehehoho]

My CBR feels great at 150kph (indicated) on long stretches with nothing tucked in, for 100s of KMs.

Perhaps it's broken.

Think that's pretty much spot on 9000rpm. On the lil' porky, sorry ninjette, that same indicated speed is 12000rpm.

Don't many ninjette riders change the gearing to lower the RPM at cruising speed?

Edited April 30, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

My CBR feels great at 150kph (indicated) on long stretches with nothing tucked in, for 100s of KMs.

Perhaps it's broken.

Think that's pretty much spot on 9000rpm. On the lil' porky, sorry ninjette, that same indicated speed is 12000rpm.

Don't many ninjette riders change the gearing to lower the RPM at cruising speed?

No need since the tough as nails Ninjette can cruise for hours with the throttle pinned. Try that with the fragile CB"R" 250 and tell me what happens

[dave_boo]

My CBR feels great at 150kph (indicated) on long stretches with nothing tucked in, for 100s of KMs.  

Perhaps it's broken.

Think that's pretty much spot on 9000rpm. On the lil' porky, sorry ninjette, that same indicated speed is 12000rpm.

Don't many ninjette riders change the gearing to lower the RPM at cruising speed?

No need since the tough as nails Ninjette can cruise for hours with the throttle pinned. Try that with the fragile^{[citation needed]}CB"R" 250 and tell me what happens

[dave_boo]

I am mystified by the continued assertion that a higher top speed means that a bike is better and deserves a throne.  This supposition has been challenged (if not refuted) dozens of times above.  Certainly if I am a speed freak, I'm not going to get a Ninjette in any case, but rather something like a 650, for Thailand.

Least of all does top speed alone mean bang for the baht.  Most bikers spend by far the greater part of their time traveling, not racing.  Top speed does not equate to a royal wedding, let alone a throne.  ABS might, however, as it is of a superior quality as a virtue, like wisdom rather than impulse.

It's quite simple. If a bike's top speed is 165 for example then it will be nicer to ride at 140-150.

If a bike's top speed is 140-150 then it is less pleasant at these speeds as you are constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider, plus it's more difficult to overtake cars doing 140 etc.

I've done quite a bit of long distance touring on my Ninja and when you get onto long open roads (BKK-Samui, BKK-Chiang Mai etc) the top speed suddenly becomes extremely relevant because you're sat in that range for hours and hours. Mine gets to 165-170 indicated (fully tucked in) but it sits at 140 (with quite a bit to spare) all day long which makes the long distances much more manageable.

Assuming you have the same speedo drift mine does, that means that you're essentially reaching my top tucked in speed (154 km/h @ 8% drift means an indicated 167 km/h).  For someone to claim that either bike have plenty to spare above 120 or so is quite ridiculous.  Yes at least on the Ninja you can go 134 km/h (real--145 indicated on my bike) sitting upright with a small Thai on the pillion.  But that's it.  You will get no more out of the the Ninja; full stop.  Crouching down and losing the pillion rider you'll get up to your quoted top speed (indicated), but how long can you stay rocking on your scrotum to maintain it?

I have not ridden the CBR 250R, but the only way the Ninja is going to pass another vehicle doing 140 is with a LOT of room.  And that will be fully tucked in and with the throttle twisted as far as it will go.

I'm not sure of what to make of your claim "constantly at the bike's limits which is more tiring as a rider".  Are you saying that, as I understand it, the CBR at the same 140 the Ninja would be at, is more buzzy or whatever?

You've pretty much answered your own question. If the Ninja is 15kph faster as reports suggest then at 134 km/h real  (154 indicated) you'll be sat bolt upright on the Ninja enjoying the view. Seeing as that is pretty much the limit of the CBR then you'll be tucked in "rocking on your scrotum" to maintain that speed. Which is more tiring? Whichever way you play with the numbers, the bike with the highest top end is going to be better for long fast stretches of road, whether you're overtaking at 140 (real) or cruising a few kph below that.

People harp on about how much easier the CBR is to ride, I would argue that around town that is maybe the case (depending on your riding style and preferences), but at real speeds of around 140 (real) on the highway it won't be a particularly relaxing experience on the CBR - SnowFlake recently reported that he loved the bike on his long trip but he'd have liked to be able to go above 140, not sure if that was on the GPS or the gauge, I assume the gauge.

I just find it odd that one minute it's a sports tourer, the next minute the top speed isn't important. Anyone who has toured long distance will know top end speed is important for the reasons stated above.

What reports suggest a +15 km/h Ninja advantage?  AFAIK there has been a single GPS run on a CBR and reported the drift (9% IIRC) unlike the mountain of evidence that points to a fairly consistent +8% reading on the Ninja.

Are you suggesting that the overtaking from going from upright down to a tucked in (and then maintaining the tucked in to make sure you don't slow down in front of what you just overtook will be a quick affair on the Ninja?  Cause I see lollercopters flying overhead if that's what I'm understanding you correctly.

According to the MCN review (which reviewed the same Ninja sold in LOS rather than the more powerful US version), the Ninja is 3 mph (4,8 km/h) faster top speed than the CBR.  Please provide actual links as to where your assertion that the Ninja is 15 km/h faster.

Let's get snowflakes actual quotes:

Cruising nicely at 135

The bike is packed with about 160kg (how much is the Ninja usually loaded with compared to snowflakes assumed-he had a backpack?-upright position?)

Add in the fact that snowflake does have a GPS and it's looking like you don't need any help poking holes in your own argument.