Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[thaicbr]

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

[BigBikeBKK]

I heard somewhere Kawasaki are doing a major "upgrade" to the Ninja 250

They're making the underseat storage bigger so it can hold more tampons.

That pathetically fugly exhaust on the CB"r" kinda looks like a big tampon, doesn't it?

[BigBikeBKK]

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

Yeah... I tend to nod off at 120

Speed keeps me awake and focused.

I think the technical term is "Hypervigilence"

I get sleepy just looking at the CB"r" 250

When I took one for a spin I found the boring little thumper about as "exciting" as a PCX

Edited June 21, 2011 by BigBikeBKK

[thaicbr]

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

Yeah... I tend to nod off at 120

Speed keeps me awake and focused.

I think the technical term is "Hypervigilence"

I get sleepy just looking at the CB"r" 250

When I took one for a spin I found the boring little thumper about as "exciting" as a PCX

Different strokes, my friend, different strokes. That's what makes the world an exciting place. I found the same thing about the CBR in the 1st couple kmh's but then it started growing on me. I have yet to do a long run (more than 40km) but one of these weekends i'm going to patters to hire one . just have to keep an eye on the weather.

PS: i agree about the exhaust..... fugly.

pps: If any one wants to rent a Cbr250 in the Cha Am area then the guest house/bike rental place on soi bus stop has one. middle of the block on the right coming from the beach.

Edited June 21, 2011 by thaicbr

[jackjones]

The ads of girls trying to sell their Ninjas were in the UK based MCN. I didn't realise the Americans had one as well. I will have to wait and see if the CBR appeals to UK girls as much as the little "ninjette". If not Honda may well have to change the name and get rid of that nasty macho " R " in the name and maybe call it a "C Babe" or something, so as to try and steal some of the female customers away from Kawasaki.

Edited June 21, 2011 by jackjones

[JonnyF]

The noob friendliness, lack of performance edge and great kpl figures might well attract the ladies to the CBR. They might not be so concerned with the superior handling, top end speed and peak hp that the Ninja offers and will probably feel safer and more at home on the Vanilla CBR - much like some of the posters on TV. It's a bit lighter too, so it might be less energetic for them to park, which is always nice.

The only problem will be the CBR's lack of style. But if the recession continues to bite in Europe and the US then it will probably find it's place in the market as a solid commuter.

[KRS1]

i'd like to see a comparison with the rear sprockets 2 teeth up or front 1 tooth down for both bikes, then see the results.

hey dave_boo, i know you see this, how about running the numbers you genius you.

Actually for some reason my subscription (if I had one) to this thread didn't notify me about these posts. I need to get me thumbdrive where I saved the comparo chart I did up and change those values. Did you want both 2 up in the rear and 1 down in the front? And if so why? Usually it's 1 front for 3 rear. Are you trying to increase the number of revs that each bike produces at a give RPM? I.E. decrease the gear range? Guessing it probably wouldn't be much difference than what's between them now, but it could decrease the actual time that the Ninja is in its peak HP range (when it's finally making more HP than the CBR)....

Damnit Dave hurry up.

[BigBikeBKK]

i'd like to see a comparison with the rear sprockets 2 teeth up or front 1 tooth down for both bikes, then see the results.

hey dave_boo, i know you see this, how about running the numbers you genius you.

Actually for some reason my subscription (if I had one) to this thread didn't notify me about these posts. I need to get me thumbdrive where I saved the comparo chart I did up and change those values. Did you want both 2 up in the rear and 1 down in the front? And if so why? Usually it's 1 front for 3 rear. Are you trying to increase the number of revs that each bike produces at a give RPM? I.E. decrease the gear range? Guessing it probably wouldn't be much difference than what's between them now, but it could decrease the actual time that the Ninja is in its peak HP range (when it's finally making more HP than the CBR)....

Damnit Dave hurry up.

You can figure it out yourself if you like: http://www.gearingcommander.com/

[hehehoho]

I heard somewhere Kawasaki are doing a major "upgrade" to the Ninja 250

They're making the underseat storage bigger so it can hold more tampons.

That pathetically fugly exhaust on the CB"r" kinda looks like a big tampon, doesn't it?

I think the missus has some serious problems if that's the case mate.

[dave_boo]

i'd like to see a comparison with the rear sprockets 2 teeth up or front 1 tooth down for both bikes, then see the results.

hey dave_boo, i know you see this, how about running the numbers you genius you.

Actually for some reason my subscription (if I had one) to this thread didn't notify me about these posts. I need to get me thumbdrive where I saved the comparo chart I did up and change those values. Did you want both 2 up in the rear and 1 down in the front? And if so why? Usually it's 1 front for 3 rear. Are you trying to increase the number of revs that each bike produces at a give RPM? I.E. decrease the gear range? Guessing it probably wouldn't be much difference than what's between them now, but it could decrease the actual time that the Ninja is in its peak HP range (when it's finally making more HP than the CBR)....

Damnit Dave hurry up.

**edit**

I realise that the dynos actually refer to PS and I use HP in my post, but if that bothers you just multiply by 0,986....

**/edit**

I am terribly sorry that I took so long. I've attached a spreadsheet for those who question (which is healthy!) my findings. It is simply a simulated 0-150 run with both bikes being allowed to go up to their rev limiters. Horsepower was multiplied by total gearing ratio to give a standard by which to compare the two bikes. I have some misgivings about having done it that way, but when I get a bit more time I will change the spreadsheet to reflect torque (I'll explain my reasoning at the end so that if anyone doesn't give a dam_n they can ignore it).

Firstly the back story. I grabbed the only known (to me at least) dynos available for the bikes actually sold in Thailand. I.e. the Dirtshop pair that Tony's tired of me posting. I cropped them away from each other and futzed around with Gimp's "Perspective" and "Curve Bend" until I got them straightened out 'good enough' for me. A grid was then placed over both dynos with the spacing being 1/5 of the dyno's squares. This way I could measure per HP and also every 200 RPM.

Taking those numbers I built up a set with 3000-12 400 RPM's HP at every 200 RPM. If there was a doubt that at that 200 RPM the HP did not meet the line it was rounded down for both bikes. As stated earlier I flattened the images out as well as possible, but there was still some guestimation going on to get the HP/RPM.

The next part was easy enough, 1-150 was auto completed to serve as the foundation of the comparison run. I started a new tab (which ended up being the first tab) and created some formulae that would give the gearing. The CBR's final drive (front/rear sprockets) was a bit of guess work on my part since I couldn't actually find the numbers on the web but rather just repeated references to "2.714".

A total gearing section along with a quick tyre size changing area, both to allow me to compute later and for y'all to put your numbers in, finished up that area.

The area was looking a bit bare so I created a quick chart for you to compare the bikes side by side at any gear and speed. It was based on an earlier spreadsheet I had whipped up and lost and found but not completely. That of course wouldn't be cool if I didn't limit one's ability to fudge numbers with crazy gearing so then I had to create some more formulae to ensure that did not happen.

Then it was back to the main sheet. Obviously if I was going to compare HP x gearing I was going to need to know what HP each bike was going to put out at each speed. So each speed got a formula to figure engine RPM...for both bikes. By then I was bleary eyed a swearing that if I ever met KSR1 I was going to hit him in the gonads with a stocking full of 10 baht coins.

Not being finished I had to create formulae, for both bikes AND each speed, that would reference the speed, figure out if first would do it, and if not second, etc. and THEN grab the RPM figure earlier, look it up in the before created chart (interesting side note; any RPM that would not round down to **000,**200,**400,**600, or **800 was rounded down to its nearest 100 and then had 100 subtracted from it so the spreadsheet could find a value in the chart) and multiply them together.

Having finally finished that the child's play of =if(i2>j2,"Honda CBR 250R","Kawasaki Ninja 250R") was a welcome respite. A bit of conditional formatting to ensure that the team's colours would be represented for ease of identification rounded things off.

Now that I have bored everybody, here's the results.

Up to 47 km/h stock with the measurements I can find, the CBR 250R beats the Ninja 250R. After that it's all over as the Ninja leaves a solid green streak for the rest of the run.

Going two teeth up in the rear means that the Ninja then starts putting out more power at 44 km/h but there's a blip at 60-61 km/h where the CBR is putting out more.

Going one tooth down in the front has the Ninja generating more power than the CBR from 43 km/h.

Going one tooth down in the front along with two up in the rear results in the Ninja starting to put out more power at 41 km/h and the Honda blip moving to 55-57 km/h.

Out of morbid curiosity I then swapped the tyres to the same size as I have on my bike (Pirelli's Supercorsa in 150/70) and popped on the 15 tooth front sprocket on the Ninja that seems to be popular. That ended up with the Ninja having more power between 53 and 67 and a short CBR burst between 68 and 76.

A quick note, anything in yellow you can change. I think this leaves enough information available for one to make valid opinions based on what they would like to see. I also allowed viewing of the formula so that you can check to make sure I didn't fudge anything or perhaps correct something I may have got wrong.

CBR vs Ninja Speed.xls

STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T CARE WHAT I THINK ABOUT THIS COMPARISON OR YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOUR HEAD HURT.

Sorry for the all caps but I want this section to be able to be clipped from the other if someone wishes to respond to the first part.

I believe I made a mistake pandering to the masses. By the masses I am talking about those who want to solely look at HP. When broken down into moments, which I do in the spreadsheet by referring to km/h, you lose the dimension of time which is an important part of the derived figure that horsepower represents. All true motorheads know that HP=(Torque x RPM)/5252. I.E. all engines will produce just as much HP at 5252 RPM as they produce torque at the same RPM. Change any part of that formula and the number changes. By taking slices of time I changed that formula. To explain, imagine that both bikes are in 4th and are at 122 km/h (that way the Ninja can not shift down; it would be at greater than 12500 RPM--coincidentally both bikes would also be slightly above 10 000 RPM). If both bikes took 1/4 of a second to accelerate from 122 to 123, than the actual number of power pulses that each bike put out would be nearly 42. Whichever bike has the greatest torque at 10 000 RPM would have the most power in this situation. Granted we know that in this idealised situation the Ninja is going to have more torque since the CBR starts wheezing for air well before then. But what happens when the starting point is moved down 2 km/h and the Ninja can be in third, but at a much lower torque rating while the CBR still has to be in 4th but at a lower RPM and thus a higher torque rating?

Another thing that bothers me using HP and multiplying it by the gear ratio is the fact that gearing is a torque multiplier. It takes input and slows it down to increase the amount of force applied. Notice the slowing down part. However I need to sleep on this thought and see if it holds up.

In the meantime, allow me some time to figure out how to best get the torque out of those graphs and modify my spreadsheet to reflect what I actually think is going on.

Edited June 22, 2011 by dave_boo

[taichiplanet]

Dave, just before my puny brain exploded, i was wondering whether you meant you had fitted Pirelli Supercorsa 150/60 to the Ninja, rather than 150/70? Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of your maths which i am sure is impeccable!

Edited June 23, 2011 by taichiplanet

[skybluestu]

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

Yeah... I tend to nod off at 120

Speed keeps me awake and focused.

I think the technical term is "Hypervigilence"

I get sleepy just looking at the CB"r" 250

When I took one for a spin I found the boring little thumper about as "exciting" as a PCX

If anyone doubted your sole purpose in life was as a wind-up merchant this should change their mind, you are now comparing the CBR 250R to a PCX???!!!

I wonder who it was that said this on the first page of the Versys thread 'Personally, for riding in Thailand I think more torque down low and less top end is a good compromise!'

Edited June 23, 2011 by skybluestu

[dave_boo]

Dave, just before my puny brain exploded, i was wondering whether you meant you had fitted Pirelli Supercorsa 150/60 to the Ninja, rather than 150/70? Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of your maths which i am sure is impeccable!

Ooops; those tyres are 150/60. It will throw off that one comparison. I was tired!

[BigBikeBKK]

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

Yeah... I tend to nod off at 120

Speed keeps me awake and focused.

I think the technical term is "Hypervigilence"

I get sleepy just looking at the CB"r" 250

When I took one for a spin I found the boring little thumper about as "exciting" as a PCX

If anyone doubted your sole purpose in life was as a wind-up merchant this should change their mind, you are now comparing the CBR 250R to a PCX???!!!

I wonder who it was that said this on the first page of the Versys thread 'Personally, for riding in Thailand I think more torque down low and less top end is a good compromise!'

But it is a compromise... while the additional torque is nice, if I had to find a fault with the Versys it would be the lack of top end compared to the Ninja 650R / ER6f and ER6n...

Ride On!

Tony

[fullcave]

someones got to invent an air-con suit....

' I "cruised" all over Thailand on my little Ninjette chasing my friends on bigger faster bikes and the only way to do it was to tuck in and keep the throttle pinned... "

Tony.. I've seen your cruising... and it wasn't at 120kmh.. But i do take your point about the 33hp rule.. One thing to note is that ALOT of riders are actually downgrading to smaller bikes with improved fuel economy. over at ninjette.org a guy has actually got a ninja and a cbr. His write ups are interesting.

Yeah... I tend to nod off at 120

Speed keeps me awake and focused.

I think the technical term is "Hypervigilence"

I get sleepy just looking at the CB"r" 250

When I took one for a spin I found the boring little thumper about as "exciting" as a PCX

If anyone doubted your sole purpose in life was as a wind-up merchant this should change their mind, you are now comparing the CBR 250R to a PCX???!!!

I wonder who it was that said this on the first page of the Versys thread 'Personally, for riding in Thailand I think more torque down low and less top end is a good compromise!'

But it is a compromise... while the additional torque is nice, if I had to find a fault with the Versys it would be the lack of top end compared to the Ninja 650R / ER6f and ER6n...

Ride On!

Tony

[KRS1]

i'd like to see a comparison with the rear sprockets 2 teeth up or front 1 tooth down for both bikes, then see the results.

hey dave_boo, i know you see this, how about running the numbers you genius you.

Actually for some reason my subscription (if I had one) to this thread didn't notify me about these posts. I need to get me thumbdrive where I saved the comparo chart I did up and change those values. Did you want both 2 up in the rear and 1 down in the front? And if so why? Usually it's 1 front for 3 rear. Are you trying to increase the number of revs that each bike produces at a give RPM? I.E. decrease the gear range? Guessing it probably wouldn't be much difference than what's between them now, but it could decrease the actual time that the Ninja is in its peak HP range (when it's finally making more HP than the CBR)....

Damnit Dave hurry up.

**edit**

I realise that the dynos actually refer to PS and I use HP in my post, but if that bothers you just multiply by 0,986....

**/edit**

I am terribly sorry that I took so long. I've attached a spreadsheet for those who question (which is healthy!) my findings. It is simply a simulated 0-150 run with both bikes being allowed to go up to their rev limiters. Horsepower was multiplied by total gearing ratio to give a standard by which to compare the two bikes. I have some misgivings about having done it that way, but when I get a bit more time I will change the spreadsheet to reflect torque (I'll explain my reasoning at the end so that if anyone doesn't give a dam_n they can ignore it).

Firstly the back story. I grabbed the only known (to me at least) dynos available for the bikes actually sold in Thailand. I.e. the Dirtshop pair that Tony's tired of me posting. I cropped them away from each other and futzed around with Gimp's "Perspective" and "Curve Bend" until I got them straightened out 'good enough' for me. A grid was then placed over both dynos with the spacing being 1/5 of the dyno's squares. This way I could measure per HP and also every 200 RPM.

Taking those numbers I built up a set with 3000-12 400 RPM's HP at every 200 RPM. If there was a doubt that at that 200 RPM the HP did not meet the line it was rounded down for both bikes. As stated earlier I flattened the images out as well as possible, but there was still some guestimation going on to get the HP/RPM.

The next part was easy enough, 1-150 was auto completed to serve as the foundation of the comparison run. I started a new tab (which ended up being the first tab) and created some formulae that would give the gearing. The CBR's final drive (front/rear sprockets) was a bit of guess work on my part since I couldn't actually find the numbers on the web but rather just repeated references to "2.714".

A total gearing section along with a quick tyre size changing area, both to allow me to compute later and for y'all to put your numbers in, finished up that area.

The area was looking a bit bare so I created a quick chart for you to compare the bikes side by side at any gear and speed. It was based on an earlier spreadsheet I had whipped up and lost and found but not completely. That of course wouldn't be cool if I didn't limit one's ability to fudge numbers with crazy gearing so then I had to create some more formulae to ensure that did not happen.

Then it was back to the main sheet. Obviously if I was going to compare HP x gearing I was going to need to know what HP each bike was going to put out at each speed. So each speed got a formula to figure engine RPM...for both bikes. By then I was bleary eyed a swearing that if I ever met KSR1 I was going to hit him in the gonads with a stocking full of 10 baht coins.

Not being finished I had to create formulae, for both bikes AND each speed, that would reference the speed, figure out if first would do it, and if not second, etc. and THEN grab the RPM figure earlier, look it up in the before created chart (interesting side note; any RPM that would not round down to **000,**200,**400,**600, or **800 was rounded down to its nearest 100 and then had 100 subtracted from it so the spreadsheet could find a value in the chart) and multiply them together.

Having finally finished that the child's play of =if(i2>j2,"Honda CBR 250R","Kawasaki Ninja 250R") was a welcome respite. A bit of conditional formatting to ensure that the team's colours would be represented for ease of identification rounded things off.

Now that I have bored everybody, here's the results.

Up to 47 km/h stock with the measurements I can find, the CBR 250R beats the Ninja 250R. After that it's all over as the Ninja leaves a solid green streak for the rest of the run.

Going two teeth up in the rear means that the Ninja then starts putting out more power at 44 km/h but there's a blip at 60-61 km/h where the CBR is putting out more.

Going one tooth down in the front has the Ninja generating more power than the CBR from 43 km/h.

Going one tooth down in the front along with two up in the rear results in the Ninja starting to put out more power at 41 km/h and the Honda blip moving to 55-57 km/h.

Out of morbid curiosity I then swapped the tyres to the same size as I have on my bike (Pirelli's Supercorsa in 150/70) and popped on the 15 tooth front sprocket on the Ninja that seems to be popular. That ended up with the Ninja having more power between 53 and 67 and a short CBR burst between 68 and 76.

A quick note, anything in yellow you can change. I think this leaves enough information available for one to make valid opinions based on what they would like to see. I also allowed viewing of the formula so that you can check to make sure I didn't fudge anything or perhaps correct something I may have got wrong.

CBR vs Ninja Speed.xls

STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T CARE WHAT I THINK ABOUT THIS COMPARISON OR YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOUR HEAD HURT.

Sorry for the all caps but I want this section to be able to be clipped from the other if someone wishes to respond to the first part.

I believe I made a mistake pandering to the masses. By the masses I am talking about those who want to solely look at HP. When broken down into moments, which I do in the spreadsheet by referring to km/h, you lose the dimension of time which is an important part of the derived figure that horsepower represents. All true motorheads know that HP=(Torque x RPM)/5252. I.E. all engines will produce just as much HP at 5252 RPM as they produce torque at the same RPM. Change any part of that formula and the number changes. By taking slices of time I changed that formula. To explain, imagine that both bikes are in 4th and are at 122 km/h (that way the Ninja can not shift down; it would be at greater than 12500 RPM--coincidentally both bikes would also be slightly above 10 000 RPM). If both bikes took 1/4 of a second to accelerate from 122 to 123, than the actual number of power pulses that each bike put out would be nearly 42. Whichever bike has the greatest torque at 10 000 RPM would have the most power in this situation. Granted we know that in this idealised situation the Ninja is going to have more torque since the CBR starts wheezing for air well before then. But what happens when the starting point is moved down 2 km/h and the Ninja can be in third, but at a much lower torque rating while the CBR still has to be in 4th but at a lower RPM and thus a higher torque rating?

Another thing that bothers me using HP and multiplying it by the gear ratio is the fact that gearing is a torque multiplier. It takes input and slows it down to increase the amount of force applied. Notice the slowing down part. However I need to sleep on this thought and see if it holds up.

In the meantime, allow me some time to figure out how to best get the torque out of those graphs and modify my spreadsheet to reflect what I actually think is going on.

Hope your brain hasn't melted, the numbers indicate what i suspected, the ninjas performance would exceed the cbr so quickly at 43kph thats something like a measely 25 MPH ( a human can run 20MPH). It 'd be interesting to see what you come up with for torque comparison, since the cbr is a torque bike. Top speed in your analysis would be good to know also.

anyway thanks for that im sure there are people that will find it useful.

[Gary A]

Back through the years, one of my favorite bikes was a Honda XL, I think it was an XL model, single cylinder 500 cc on/off road. The torque was outstanding. My friends mostly rode 250 cc two stroke Honda Elsinores. The Elsinore was a really fast little bike as long as they kept the small engine wound up. None of us could have been called highly skilled off road riders. Hill climbing was the big thing. I could usually make it to the top while they were mostly stalled out because they just couldn't keep the two stroke wound up. Going through streams and mud was where the 500 cc torque was really great. I could mostly just idle through. They got wet and muddy a LOT more than I did.

It's all about torque for me.

[KRS1]

I had a friend that got stuck in the ditch with an XL 250, had to tow him out with my puny RM 80 going uphill, rooster tail everywhere !

[hehehoho]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive, let's hope they were all done at 9000rpm+ without a pillion.

Edited July 7, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive.

Bah, I sold mine after only 5 or 6 months for 199k. I had a buyer the day after I listed it

Did it ever occur to you that some people just want a quick sale and aren't so concerned about pinching pennies?

[BigBikeBKK]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive, let's hope they were all done at 9000rpm+ without a pillion.

That is a dam_n good price- I'm rather tempted to grab it since we all know that a 2 year old Ninjette will still smoke a brand new CB"r" Thumper and you can wring its neck and not worry about it breaking the way these fragile Hondas do.

BTW, get your transmission sorted yet?

[hehehoho]

BTW, get your transmission sorted yet?

No need to.

Good to see people starting to realize the truer value of the porkie-for-posers. At least he won't have to suffer the embarrassment anymore.

[snorkelador]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive.

Bah, I sold mine after only 5 or 6 months for 199k. I had a buyer the day after I listed it

Did it ever occur to you that some people just want a quick sale and aren't so concerned about pinching pennies?

What did you do to the bike, that enabled you to sell a half year old Kawa 250 Pseudo-Ninja it for 199k? Lots and lots of Honda CBR stickers?

[JonnyF]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive, let's hope they were all done at 9000rpm+ without a pillion.

Expensive? Have you ever owned a new car? You'll lose that in 10 minutes.

I'll lose more money on my Ninja than you will on your CBR for sure. Same as my neighbour will lose more on his BMW than I will on my Honda Civic. I think I'm going to knock on his door and ask him if the percentage difference in depreciation over a 2 year period is equal to the % difference in performance. If it isn't, I'm going to tell him how I've pwned him , I reckon he'll be devastated

[hehehoho]

Does he have to keep his BMW at 9000rpm to stop it bogging too?

[dave_boo]

The overpriced ninja's sure do lose their value quickly.

A 2yr old with 4700km on it going for 90k on bahtsold. Losing pretty much 60,000b in 2 years. Each of those 4700km sure were expensive, let's hope they were all done at 9000rpm+ without a pillion.

Expensive? Have you ever owned a new car? You'll lose that in 10 minutes.

I'll lose more money on my Ninja than you will on your CBR for sure. Same as my neighbour will lose more on his BMW than I will on my Honda Civic. I think I'm going to knock on his door and ask him if the percentage difference in depreciation over a 2 year period is equal to the % difference in performance. If it isn't, I'm going to tell him how I've pwned him , I reckon he'll be devastated

I guess before I crack "Of course you will, it's a Honda" we should look at facts.

2011 Honda Civic AT base price: 794 000

2009 Honda Civic AT found price:670 000

2011 BMW 318i base price: 2 249 000

2009 BMW 318i found price:1 750 000

Not sure if the BMW base price is for the auto but both of the prices I found for the used models are the lowest on one2car. Even if we ignore the premium from reduced output in Japan, the Honda retains 84% of its value compared to the 76% retained by the Beemer. Seems both engines put out ~140 bhp. Going through the intraweb a 0-100 run is about 10% faster in the BMW...and I'm sure that the extra poon the BMW helps the owner get more than makes up the difference in depreciation .

[CMX]

Certainly as a percent, the depreciation does not seem wrong, given the mentioned benefits.

Yet if one thinks in absolute terms, obviously, the Honda owner paid far less (leaving the rest to invest<let's not go there) and saved to spend all but 375,000 baht less in depreciation over the two year period. You can do some fun things with 374,000 baht, such as purchasing two so called Ninja 250's or three so-called CBR 250's. Kind of depends how many you'll total on the track.

Edited July 7, 2011 by CMX

[hehehoho]

Does the BMW look like a porky pregnant woman on little skinny toy roller-blades though?

Edited July 8, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

A real CBR 250RR:

A wannabe CB'r' 250

Any questions?

[hehehoho]

Any questions?

If you strap a house fan onto the back of porkie would it help give it some extra torque?