Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[hehehoho]

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

Have done. Many times already.

Feels great.

Thanks for asking.

[skybluestu]

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

Have done. Many times already.

Feels great.

Thanks for asking.

Aye, me too, did nearly 500km on Wednesday morning Chiang Rai-Lampang-Chiang Rai, very comfortable! Despite the CBR being a single haven't many reviewers said the mighty Ninja with its twin has worse vibration?! That can't be nice at 'high' speed

[KRS1]

When I rode the Ninja 250 I would have no trouble passing anyone or accelerating after 120kph, and would climb straight to 160kph without hesitation. (speedo) I often surprised myself by looking down at the speedo and only then realizing I was pushing 160 kph. I never tuck down because it looks gay on the road.

It's the ability of the rider to be able to extract the most power out of the bike as possible by using the sound of the engine and the inertial feel of the g's that are applied to you physically, that tells you when to shift.

Edited May 1, 2011 by KRS1

[dave_boo]

When I rode the Ninja 250 I would have no trouble passing anyone or accelerating after 120kph, and would climb straight to 160kph without hesitation. (speedo) I often surprised myself by looking down at the speedo and only then realizing I was pushing 160 kph. I never tuck down because it looks gay on the road.

It's the ability of the rider to be able to extract the most power out of the bike as possible by using the sound of the engine and the inertial feel of the g's that are applied to you physically, that tells you when to shift.

While the forum is assured of your astute skills and well honed reflexes it also detects the complete buffalo dung of your claims. Your 160 km/h claim is only 135 real speed. The question being bandied about was 140 plus. And there is no skill in pulling a throttle all the way back to the stop when you're going for top speed. If you want to change the subject to acceleration, fine, but you're still trying to take the application of one skillset and conflate it out into a non-skill related part of riding.

[CMX]

I agree that we should never conflate. No doubt; it defies logic.

But as I see it, the major problem we have the full length of this thread is subjectivity vs objectivity. Truth is, personal experience does not signify as evidence, except to that person. We've much evidence now to show that the bikes are in their performance overlapping in virtues. Among these virtues is speed, and they overlap there too as they accelerate from zero. The suggestion that greater speed means more safety is true sometimes, but there are limits to its applicability; that is, it does not necessarily happen frequently that we can use it, and anyway the usefulness of torque varies according to the various speeds at which one must accelerate between the two bikes. ABS brakes would be a major and certain improvement (except with a pro, perhaps); these bikes are quicker than each other according to the point of acceleration.

Basically, the better tip-top top speed is related to bragging rights, and getting there assumes a straight road. Has little or nothing to do with the skills of the dude steering, as Dave_ suggests above, except for weight of the rider.

I'd feel pitiful saying, "I can go faster on the flat and straight, full out, on my 250 bike than you can go on yours." So what? Suppose my bike is faster off the line or mid-range of rpm? Imagine that mine is significantly less expensive but will hold its value as a percent of investment. If one figures that a liter bike is unnecessary here, one can take the point; twisties are as fun and present as much a challenge to the rider whichever 250 he rides.

[taichiplanet]

Not to mention servicing costs; i'd imagine the twin cylinder of the Ninja will be a lot more expensive to maintain than the single CBR.

[hehehoho]

TBF, servicing cost in Thailand will be minimal either way.

Not like it's $150 just to have some guy look at it and twist a bolt.

Think we can all afford 80b an hour service and 100b oil filters.

Pretty much everyone will have a story about coming out of a Thai mechanics with a look of disbelief upon being charged 80b for something they thought would be 3000.

Edited May 1, 2011 by hehehoho

[JonnyF]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

Sorry I don't understand your point about tucking in, sitting up, lollercopters etc. but my point stands that top end speed on a small bike is relevant if you intend to tour. It stands to reason that a bike with higher hp which is achieved at the top end of the rpm range will have a faster top end speed (depending on gearing).

I suggest you have a look at the reviews of both bikes posted in the Youtube videos in this thread if you have any queries about the performance. These guys review bikes for a living, have ridden both bikes in various conditions and confirm that the Ninja is the sportier bike, saying it was just pulling away from the CBR in the mountains and in their opinion it was worth the extra money (although in defense of the Honda they pointed out that they'd buy the CBR for their children ).

[JonnyF]

Not to mention servicing costs; i'd imagine the twin cylinder of the Ninja will be a lot more expensive to maintain than the single CBR.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of imagination on this thread. Why would it cost more? Kawasaki parts and servicing costs are stupidly cheap and efficient - and unlike Honda dealers they don't increase the price if they suspect you can't buy elsewhere.

[CBR250R]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

MCN did a comparo recently that pitted the CBR250R against the Ninja250R. Has this been posted already?

These are the figures from the MCN comparo.

..................................Honda............Kawasaki

Top Speed..................94.2MPH.........97.4MPH

0-60 mph.................... 8.76sec...........10.18sec

Standing 1/4 mile........16.63sec...........16.93sec

4th 20-70....................14.68sec...........13.78sec

6th 30-80....................26.42sec...........27.79sec

Apparently they liked both bikes and generally conclude that if you want the sportier bike - go for the Ninja 250R - if you want the more practical bike - go for the CBR250R.

Mike

[KRS1]

When I rode the Ninja 250 I would have no trouble passing anyone or accelerating after 120kph, and would climb straight to 160kph without hesitation. (speedo) I often surprised myself by looking down at the speedo and only then realizing I was pushing 160 kph. I never tuck down because it looks gay on the road.

It's the ability of the rider to be able to extract the most power out of the bike as possible by using the sound of the engine and the inertial feel of the g's that are applied to you physically, that tells you when to shift.

While the forum is assured of your astute skills and well honed reflexes it also detects the complete buffalo dung of your claims. Your 160 km/h claim is only 135 real speed. The question being bandied about was 140 plus. And there is no skill in pulling a throttle all the way back to the stop when you're going for top speed. If you want to change the subject to acceleration, fine, but you're still trying to take the application of one skillset and conflate it out into a non-skill related part of riding.

If you think that acceleration or speed is 'just pulling the throttle all the way back to the stop'...

I as well as many seasoned riders , have just smelled your bullshit quite clearly.... and it has just become EXTREMELY clear that you are nothing but a numbers cruncher....WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RIDING SKILLS.

Try accelerating in too high of a gear and see what happens, you'd probably think the acceleration will be faster, and the time it takes to attain that top speed would be the same.

Edited May 1, 2011 by KRS1

[KRS1]

I'd feel pitiful saying, "I can go faster on the flat and straight, full out, on my 250 bike than you can go on yours." So what? Suppose my bike is faster off the line or mid-range of rpm? Imagine that mine is significantly less expensive but will hold its value as a percent of investment. If one figures that a liter bike is unnecessary here, one can take the point; twisties are as fun and present as much a challenge to the rider whichever 250 he rides.

no, no, no... The point is, an unskilled rider should not make conclusions about a bikes performance because the bike that is more lenient to their downfalls in riding skills will be the favored bike.

A skilled rider will be able to extract the most power from whatever they ride, and some riders no matter how long they've been riding just don't have this ability.

What is a race all about? Its about the rider, if we were all created equal in this aspect every race would end up in a tie, assuming all vehicles were identical and we all weighed the same.

[dave_boo]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

Sorry I don't understand your point about tucking in, sitting up, lollercopters etc. but my point stands that top end speed on a small bike is relevant if you intend to tour. It stands to reason that a bike with higher hp which is achieved at the top end of the rpm range will have a faster top end speed (depending on gearing).

I suggest you have a look at the reviews of both bikes posted in the Youtube videos in this thread if you have any queries about the performance. These guys review bikes for a living, have ridden both bikes in various conditions and confirm that the Ninja is the sportier bike, saying it was just pulling away from the CBR in the mountains and in their opinion it was worth the extra money (although in defense of the Honda they pointed out that they'd buy the CBR for their children ).

Is the Japanese bike magazine you're talking about here?

Ignoring adolescent comments, I believe that is a difference of 7,64 km/h (4,775 MPH actual and if we're to go with the 9% drift for the CBR a 6,74 indicated difference).  Furthermore I believe I have been contesting each and every Ninja fanboi's idiotic claims of ridiculously superior top speed.  I do not presume to know what goes through snowflake's mind; but if it's similar to what went through the vast majority of Ninja 250 owners' minds (aren't you and I pretty much the only two left on this forum that still have Ninjas from when they were first being sold) is it really surprising that he wants to move up?  It would provide a nice idea of reality if we revisit the issue when snowflake finally sells his bike, see how many CBR owners still have theirs at the time and then see how many Ninja owners had traded up in the same length of ownership.

It's rather illuminating that those who wish to disparage the CBR rely on 'memory' and a single article that has been called on bias and questionable journalistic standards (exactly what professional credentials do they have--Cernicky is a decorated racer and has a much different conclusion) and ignored a plethora of other articles.  Even more silly is when those same detractors refuse to admit that 1/3 of Ninja sales go to WOMEN in the States (since you want to refer to a US publication why not use figures from there in regards to the Ninja also).

Do you have any idea why the CBR can out run the Ninja in nearly every speed range?  The superior torque and gearing (which you touched upon).  I stated some four months ago that this would be true.  Except for first the CBR is geared higher than the Ninja and is in the meat of its torque curve.

[KRS1]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

MCN did a comparo recently that pitted the CBR250R against the Ninja250R. Has this been posted already?

These are the figures from the MCN comparo.

..................................Honda............Kawasaki

Top Speed..................94.2MPH.........97.4MPH

0-60 mph.................... 8.76sec...........10.18sec

Standing 1/4 mile........16.63sec...........16.93sec

4th 20-70....................14.68sec...........13.78sec

6th 30-80....................26.42sec...........27.79sec

Apparently they liked both bikes and generally conclude that if you want the sportier bike - go for the Ninja 250R - if you want the more practical bike - go for the CBR250R.

Mike

I stopped trusting reviews back in 1994, after i figured out half of them were bogus and leaned towards whoever gave them more advertising revenue.

[KRS1]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

Sorry I don't understand your point about tucking in, sitting up, lollercopters etc. but my point stands that top end speed on a small bike is relevant if you intend to tour. It stands to reason that a bike with higher hp which is achieved at the top end of the rpm range will have a faster top end speed (depending on gearing).

I suggest you have a look at the reviews of both bikes posted in the Youtube videos in this thread if you have any queries about the performance. These guys review bikes for a living, have ridden both bikes in various conditions and confirm that the Ninja is the sportier bike, saying it was just pulling away from the CBR in the mountains and in their opinion it was worth the extra money (although in defense of the Honda they pointed out that they'd buy the CBR for their children ).

Is the Japanese bike magazine you're talking about here?

Ignoring adolescent comments, I believe that is a difference of 7,64 km/h (4,775 MPH actual and if we're to go with the 9% drift for the CBR a 6,74 indicated difference). Furthermore I believe I have been contesting each and every Ninja fanboi's idiotic claims of ridiculously superior top speed. I do not presume to know what goes through snowflake's mind; but if it's similar to what went through the vast majority of Ninja 250 owners' minds (aren't you and I pretty much the only two left on this forum that still have Ninjas from when they were first being sold) is it really surprising that he wants to move up? It would provide a nice idea of reality if we revisit the issue when snowflake finally sells his bike, see how many CBR owners still have theirs at the time and then see how many Ninja owners had traded up in the same length of ownership.

It's rather illuminating that those who wish to disparage the CBR rely on 'memory' and a single article that has been called on bias and questionable journalistic standards (exactly what professional credentials do they have--Cernicky is a decorated racer and has a much different conclusion) and ignored a plethora of other articles. Even more silly is when those same detractors refuse to admit that 1/3 of Ninja sales go to WOMEN in the States (since you want to refer to a US publication why not use figures from there in regards to the Ninja also).

Do you have any idea why the CBR can out run the Ninja in nearly every speed range? The superior torque and gearing (which you touched upon). I stated some four months ago that this would be true. Except for first the CBR is geared higher than the Ninja and is in the meat of its torque curve.

Maybe this will help refresh your memory.

Dave claims to be a noob on bikes who rides in higher gears to save petrol.

[dave_boo]

If you think that acceleration or speed is 'just pulling the throttle all the way back to the stop'...

I as well as many seasoned riders , have just smelled your bullshit quite clearly.... and it has just become EXTREMELY clear that you are nothing but a numbers cruncher....WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RIDING SKILLS.

Try accelerating in too high of a gear and see what happens, you'd probably think the acceleration will be faster, and the time it takes to attain that top speed would be the same.

For some reason I can picture you becoming incensed and pounding on your keyboard as you let loose with your profanity laced diatribe.

And I don't know of anyone in the forum who is as self deprecating as I (actually stating it is not really being modest is it though?) in regards to riding skills.  However, as you so kindly pointed out I am extremely good with numbers and I have an ability to retain information that has served me well.  I won't get into a contest with you, but will let it be sufficient that I have probably a grand total of 3 months actually riding.  Other interests have occupied my time over the years; altOS, machinery work (am actually one of those guys who on a bet put together a broken down small block blindfolded and it started up first time), etc, etc.  Am I a bit angry towards myself that I haven't spent more time learning to ride properly?  Of course.  However it just hasn't been the time.  When my ducks are all lined up the plan is to remedy that.

That's neither here nor now, just wanted to get it off my chest that even though it seems the most vicious Honda CBR haters have no compunction against stooping down to such levels rather than act as rational and reasonable members of the forum it doesn't bother me.  I don't measure my self worth against what you may or may not think of me.  If you feel compelled to make a public spectacle of your vitriol and failure to debate in a reasonable manner by providing hard facts it says measures of your character.

I hate to make the assumption that on an international forum everyone has English as a first language.  However you seem to have a fairly good grasp of it evidenced by your comment regarding 'acceleration or speed'.  However that does not mean that I don't personally think you have the reading comprehension of a four year old with Down's syndrome--not that I would ever accuse you of that!  Let's look at the actual post that I was responding to and you're apparently spoiling for a fight by twisting.

CMX, on 2011-04-30 01:29:05, said:

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.

As I stated you seem to have a decent command of the language so perhaps you could point out to me exactly where there is any talk of acceleration?  I could be totally mis-understanding the term, but I believe it to mean 'the rate of change in the vector of an object'.  Perhaps you could elucidate it better and why it is applicable to the conversation that was ongoing?

I must also thank you.  While I can intelligently discuss (amongst those with slightly more than a modicum of intelligence) the acceleration vectors on a motorcycle (longitudinally, vertically, axially, horizontally, and heaven forbid rotationally), the effects (with mathematical equations to back it up) of the centre of gravity, coefficient of drag, coefficient of friction, et al, I had not to this point never understood torque multiplication.  Thank you for opening my n00b eyes and once again shukran gohindo.

no, no, no... The point is, an unskilled rider should not make conclusions about a bikes performance because the bike that is more lenient to their downfalls in riding skills will be the favored bike.

A skilled rider will be able to extract the most power from whatever they ride, and some riders no matter how long they've been riding just don't have this ability.

What is a race all about? Its about the rider, if we were all created equal in this aspect every race would end up in a tie, assuming all vehicles were identical and we all weighed the same.

I assume that this post was referencing me.  If not, apologies given since it seems that your recent posts have exhibited a penchant for attacking my lack of skills rather than addressing the overwhelming evidence posted by real winning racers rather than a 'motorcycle journalist'.

The problem that I have touched upon repeatedly in this thread, and has been repeated ad nausem, is that for at least 25 000 THB you get a bike that out performs the Ninja in most all categories (even the time at the track behind Seacon is essentially a wash---c'mon, if the front end was pogo-ing after you cranked up the rear's preload, reduce the rear's preload and that will unload the front!) and yet the apparent 'defenders' of the Ninja have no empirical data to back up their claims and wishful thinking..

[dave_boo]

Maybe this will help refresh your memory.

Dave claims to be a noob on bikes who rides in higher gears to save petrol.

So which is it?

Am I an unskilled rider or am I just claiming to be one? <---You've posted both things and they're mutually exclusive.

Am I a rider who understands that riding in higher gears saves petrol at the cost of acceleration or do I think that acceleration will be faster in too high of a gear? <---You've posted both things and they're mutually exclusive.

Keep posting it's entertaining to watch y'all dig holes looking to divert the subject from facts and towards your fantasies...

[CMX]

To determine useful conclusions, one should have an open mind as well as clear thinking abilities, be willing to compare evidence from all valid and available resources, and determine the outcome without personal preferences entering into the report as proofs. For example, if a rider had both bikes at hand and a dozen specific maneuvers to accomplish while being timed, that rider might enter evidence. "Feelings," even if based on experience, carry little weight, except from professionals - and they too might well allow personal preferences or financial advantages to influence them.

Casting doubts about other individuals convinces nobody of answers regarding a bike's performance. Saying that publications are all unreliable because they only favor the one which produces the most advertising revenues depends upon the publication. To dismiss them all is convenient when most of them don't agree with me, but I'm just trying to fool myself.

These bikes have overlapping advantages. Neither one belongs in a different category.

Glaring differences:

ABS and price - Advantage, Honda.

Top speed and twin "feeling" - Advantage 'Saki.

Either can be useful in Thailand, but both are put forward as starter bikes in the West, and one buys them on the way upward to a mid-sized 650 of some sort. Neither is a Big Deal.

[KRS1]

dave, Learn how to shift at the right time.

How can someone with only 3 months of riding time as you stated, claim to be such an expert in everything you ride?

IMO point of view, there's nothing to debate, because you simply don't know how to ride properly.

I'm laughing and there's a lot of others out here laughing at your idiocracy, under the guise of being a math expert of course.

Edited May 1, 2011 by KRS1

[skybluestu]

dave, Learn how to shift at the right time.

How can someone with only 3 months of riding time as you stated, claim to be such an expert in everything you ride?

IMO point of view, there's nothing to debate, because you simply don't know how to ride properly.

I'm laughing and there's a lot of others out here laughing at your idiocracy, under the guise of being a math expert of course.

Mr Boo, there may be 1-2 laughing but there are many more who aren't! Everything you have said has made sense (apart from the really big words and complicated maths), has been backed up with facts and you haven't had to lower yourself by making personal, derogatory comments about people. I take my hat off to you squire.

Found this little snippet of a race in Indonesia between CBR's and Ninja's but my unexperienced & untrained eye can't tell which is which.

http://www.youtube.com/user/triatmono#p/a/u/2/A5c7tz3UO5I

[taichiplanet]

Not to mention servicing costs; i'd imagine the twin cylinder of the Ninja will be a lot more expensive to maintain than the single CBR.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of imagination on this thread. Why would it cost more? Kawasaki parts and servicing costs are stupidly cheap and efficient - and unlike Honda dealers they don't increase the price if they suspect you can't buy elsewhere.

My apologies, as you own a Ninja you obviously know the cost of servicing it. I had read that the valve clearance on the Ninja needs checking every 12,000 kms, which the CBR doesn't need. As you mentioned in a country like Thailand cost of labour is negligible, so this may make it a mute point. I have owned a couple of Hondas and never found that the price of parts or servicing have been increased. It is only the 'initial' cost of getting the bike that APe Honda seem to try and rip you off!

A nice DIY on Ninja valve clearance: http://www.kawiforums.com/ninja-250r/125217-diy-checking-valve-lash-08-250r-pictures.html

Edited May 2, 2011 by taichiplanet

[bobbin]

Dave...

Let the hysterical ideologues whine. It's amusing to see them twist and turn. Not so amusing to see them stoop to personal attacks rather than the issues.

The only thing they can hang their hat on, at the moment, is the fact that many Honda dealers in Thailand are taking advantage of the undeniable demand for the CBR 250R to add a premium to Honda's MSRP. Time will sort this issue. Didn't Sumet Cycle say above that he is getting more CBRs these days?

[eezergood]

The only way to settle this - everyone get naked Roman Greco wrestling till last man standing maybe thats just me????????

[JonnyF]

Not to mention servicing costs; i'd imagine the twin cylinder of the Ninja will be a lot more expensive to maintain than the single CBR.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of imagination on this thread. Why would it cost more? Kawasaki parts and servicing costs are stupidly cheap and efficient - and unlike Honda dealers they don't increase the price if they suspect you can't buy elsewhere.

My apologies, as you own a Ninja you obviously know the cost of servicing it. I had read that the valve clearance on the Ninja needs checking every 12,000 kms, which the CBR doesn't need. As you mentioned in a country like Thailand cost of labour is negligible, so this may make it a mute point. I have owned a couple of Hondas and never found that the price of parts or servicing have been increased. It is only the 'initial' cost of getting the bike that APe Honda seem to try and rip you off!

A nice DIY on Ninja valve clearance: http://www.kawiforum...r-pictures.html

No worries, not sure when they need checking as I let Kawasaki handle all that stuff and as you say, if it takes a couple of hours to check the valves then that's probably going to cost me 300 baht maximum so not really an issue.

I am not sure I could ever trust a company that had previously ripped me off 20k over rrp to buy the bike in the first place. Maybe they'd sell me spares at rrp when I needed them, or maybe they'd jack the price up if no-one else had them - but I wouldn't find out because I prefer not to deal with these type of companies as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[taichiplanet]

The trouble is there is not much choice. In Pattaya it is a bit weird as Mityon owns all the bike shops in the area. So with Kawasaki Mityon abide by the rules that HQ tell them and stick to the price list but with the CBR ABS they are charging 20k over the RRP, as APe Honda has obviously not set any limits.

Personally i reckon both bikes are great. I am leaning towards the CBR due to the ABS and better low/mid torque as most of my driving will be around town. Though if i do buy a CBR it certainly won't be from Mityon, i'd rather go to Chonburi city or Sattahip and buy from a dealer that is fair with the price.

And eezergood, i prefer Mongolian wrestling with a little mud or jelly thrown in.

Edited May 2, 2011 by taichiplanet

[JonnyF]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

Sorry I don't understand your point about tucking in, sitting up, lollercopters etc. but my point stands that top end speed on a small bike is relevant if you intend to tour. It stands to reason that a bike with higher hp which is achieved at the top end of the rpm range will have a faster top end speed (depending on gearing).

I suggest you have a look at the reviews of both bikes posted in the Youtube videos in this thread if you have any queries about the performance. These guys review bikes for a living, have ridden both bikes in various conditions and confirm that the Ninja is the sportier bike, saying it was just pulling away from the CBR in the mountains and in their opinion it was worth the extra money (although in defense of the Honda they pointed out that they'd buy the CBR for their children ).

Is the Japanese bike magazine you're talking about here?

Ignoring adolescent comments, I believe that is a difference of 7,64 km/h (4,775 MPH actual and if we're to go with the 9% drift for the CBR a 6,74 indicated difference). Furthermore I believe I have been contesting each and every Ninja fanboi's idiotic claims of ridiculously superior top speed. I do not presume to know what goes through snowflake's mind; but if it's similar to what went through the vast majority of Ninja 250 owners' minds (aren't you and I pretty much the only two left on this forum that still have Ninjas from when they were first being sold) is it really surprising that he wants to move up? It would provide a nice idea of reality if we revisit the issue when snowflake finally sells his bike, see how many CBR owners still have theirs at the time and then see how many Ninja owners had traded up in the same length of ownership.

It's rather illuminating that those who wish to disparage the CBR rely on 'memory' and a single article that has been called on bias and questionable journalistic standards (exactly what professional credentials do they have--Cernicky is a decorated racer and has a much different conclusion) and ignored a plethora of other articles. Even more silly is when those same detractors refuse to admit that 1/3 of Ninja sales go to WOMEN in the States (since you want to refer to a US publication why not use figures from there in regards to the Ninja also).

Do you have any idea why the CBR can out run the Ninja in nearly every speed range? The superior torque and gearing (which you touched upon). I stated some four months ago that this would be true. Except for first the CBR is geared higher than the Ninja and is in the meat of its torque curve.

Adolescent comments? No need to start name calling Dave as I've refrained from doing so and I'd appreciate it if you did as well. I was just paraphrasing the reviewers comments so maybe your disdain should aimed at the reviewer.

Yes that was the article I was referring to and I thought it was 8mph not 8kph, my apologies. If you asked me if I'd like the extra 8kph or not then my answer would still be yes and since cruising at 130-140 is sat right in the meat of the Ninja's powerband then I believe it will be a more capable highway bike for cruising and overtaking. I'm sure you will disagree.

I believe the validity of the times you previously quoted in the test by (MCN?) have been queried nearly everywhere, by all accounts it was a borrowed second hand Ninja vs. a brand new CBR so who knows what had been done to it. As I said the guys in the YouTube review and the videos taken at a track in Thailand showed the Ninja to be the faster bike in most circumstances.

Anyway, this is getting a little bit silly now so let's agree to disagree. I have to say that I was really excited when I heard about the CBR250R being released as I remember the previous inline 4. If they'd have released what I was expecting then I'd have dropped the Ninja like a hot potato as I believe brand loyalty is pretty foolish and I buy my bikes based on the spec not the name on the tank. As it was I was genuinely disappointed by the looks and the spec of the bike when it was released. My defense of the Ninja is not based on the fact I own one, as I would have happily switched without a second thought if the Honda caught my imagination. I genuinely believe it to be the better bike and if I were buying a 250 again I would buy another Ninja even with the extra choices available to me.

So when are you buying the CBR?

Edited May 2, 2011 by JonnyF

[KRS1]

dave, Learn how to shift at the right time.

How can someone with only 3 months of riding time as you stated, claim to be such an expert in everything you ride?

IMO point of view, there's nothing to debate, because you simply don't know how to ride properly.

I'm laughing and there's a lot of others out here laughing at your idiocracy, under the guise of being a math expert of course.

Mr Boo, there may be 1-2 laughing but there are many more who aren't! Everything you have said has made sense (apart from the really big words and complicated maths), has been backed up with facts and you haven't had to lower yourself by making personal, derogatory comments about people. I take my hat off to you squire.

Found this little snippet of a race in Indonesia between CBR's and Ninja's but my unexperienced & untrained eye can't tell which is which.

http://www.youtube.c...u/2/A5c7tz3UO5I

Actually i was minding my own business and was the one that got attacked. :jap:

[KRS1]

Dave...

Let the hysterical ideologues whine. It's amusing to see them twist and turn. Not so amusing to see them stoop to personal attacks rather than the issues.

The only thing they can hang their hat on, at the moment, is the fact that many Honda dealers in Thailand are taking advantage of the undeniable demand for the CBR 250R to add a premium to Honda's MSRP. Time will sort this issue. Didn't Sumet Cycle say above that he is getting more CBRs these days?

The only issue here is that dave does not know how to extract the most power from ANY bike.

and as a result is making misleading conclusions, appointing himself as the authority on bikes - and all this with a grand total of 3 months riding experience in the wrong gear.

Is this a personal attack ? or is it something that has to be brought to light ? Will dave ever figure out that its ok to downshift and up it 2k rpm, then gas it and go? Obviously not, because the Ninja doesn't require being in top gear to do 120kph (speedo) then accelerating to 160kph (speedo) shifting along the way, and at an adequately nippy pace.

If he knew how to ride he would know this.

Edited May 2, 2011 by KRS1

[bobbin]

Dave...

Let the hysterical ideologues whine. It's amusing to see them twist and turn. Not so amusing to see them stoop to personal attacks rather than the issues.

The only thing they can hang their hat on, at the moment, is the fact that many Honda dealers in Thailand are taking advantage of the undeniable demand for the CBR 250R to add a premium to Honda's MSRP. Time will sort this issue. Didn't Sumet Cycle say above that he is getting more CBRs these days?

The only issue here is that dave does not know how to extract the most power from ANY bike.

and as a result is making misleading conclusions, appointing himself as the authority on bikes - and all this with a grand total of 3 months riding experience in the wrong gear.

Is this a personal attack ? or is it something that has to be brought to light ? Will dave ever figure out that its ok to downshift and up it 2k rpm, then gas it and go? Obviously not, because the Ninja doesn't require being in top gear to do 120kph (speedo) then accelerating to 160kph (speedo) shifting along the way, and at an adequately nippy pace.

If he knew how to ride he would know this.

Well, I like to use FF4 but due to an add-on interfering, I can't use emoticons or bold type or underlines etc. I would have put a smiley after my first statement otherwise.

A certain man in Bangkok was the first to diss Dave on the forum due to an incident during a shared ride. I didn't like that at the time and still don't. He hung an albatross around Dave's neck for something that could have happened to any rider. He overcooked it going into a curve. "The man in Bangkok" has continued to bring this back to the forum, including pictures. Dave has handled it with pretty good grace. More than I would have for sure. So it isn't good to see you buying into the misinformation that Dave doesn't ride well. I'm pretty sure he is a conscientious safety-minded rider though new to the "sport".

IIRC, your issue with Dave stems from a statement he made that he normally rides in a higher gear, ie more sedately. Not ripping through the gears. I'm pretty sure he knows how and when to down-shift.

When the current price-gouging by Thai Honda dealers ends, we will be back where we started. The Honda is/will be significantly less expensive than the Kawasaki. They have very comparable performance. Why pay more for 5mph(8kph) at the top end? What percentage of your riding do you do full-out? on a highway, not a track. This is the issue. Dave is very good with the numbers. Numbers are facts. Somebody's feelings about something aren't facts. That's why we have the word "subjective".

If you come back alive from a ride, ipso facto you know how to ride. Insert smiley here.

[JonnyF]

I would agree that someone with 3 months riding experience would be far better suited to a CBR with ABS that the Ninja 250R. That's not some snide dig either, it's just my honest opinion.

The Ninja really is quite a quick bike if you keep it in the 9-10k rpm range. It's quick enough to bite you if you don't know what you're doing. For the guys that started off riding Waves and Autos when they first moved to Thailand and now want something bigger/cooler - the CBR is a good choice especially due to the low price here and ABS option.