Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[BigBikeBKK]

That's funny as hell- the guy in the pic above had dressed up his CB'r' in Kawasaki Ninja 250 SE stickers! Certainly looks a hell of a lot better than the fugly stocker!

[BigBikeBKK]

Well if people are going to post 'facts' and figures for models of either the CBR250 or Ninja 250 that aren't currently for sale in Thailand doesn't the CBR250 produce in the region of 45HP? And has done so for over 20 years.

Of course to do so is silly. As is comparing a model that has a different engine, different gearing, and isn't available for sale here.

But if that's what ye embarrassed Thai ninja owners need to do to make your bikes seem (deceivingly) better than they are, it's a bit sad. It's disappointing when people need to do such.

Thanks for posting a pic of a REAL Honda CBR 250 RR!

It's a stark reminder of what a shocking disappointment the new Honda CB'r' really is..

[hehehoho]

^^ Just as well they were kept off the ninja Tony, they'd have been scratched up due to dodgy handling.

Not competing against the Thai ninja of course, but the (more powerful?) US version.

http://www.cbr250.net/forum/cbr250-performance/1309-race-winner.html

After many late nights last week race prepping our new CBR, we took it to Motorsport Ranch in Cresson Tx, for its first race. Ryan Andrews won the E Superstock race (against 22 EX250s) by more than 5 seconds. Then we entered the CMRA 2 hour endurance race, and took the overall win by a full lap. We also set the fastest lap of the day by over 1.5 seconds. Thanks to Road and Track Suspension in san antonio tx for the suspension work, Kyle at M4 exhausts, and Dante @ Bazzaz for the late night tech support.

Edited August 30, 2011 by hehehoho

[JUDAS]

This is so much fun I'm off out for a quick ( or not so quick ) blast on my CBR ( Can't Bloody Race )

Edited August 30, 2011 by JUDAS

[JonnyF]

I'll try a third time. Do you know the difference between the FI and Carbed Ninja in terms of performance?

Sorry Jonny, only from the reviews I've read, the different gearing gives the non-Thai model better acceleration and the carb also gives it more HP.

To use those figures to compare to the CBR250R would be the same as to change the gearing, get your times and use those numbers. A wee bit misleading for those in Thailand interested in comparing the two models that are available here.

Interesting that Kawa in the US decided not to go for the FI model for 2012 like had been rumoured.

As you (should) know, playing around with the gearing is a trade-off - do you want better acceleration or better top end?

And yet the US Ninja has better acceleration and better top end than the CBR. Funny that - they must have some magical sprockets over there that increase both acceleration and top end at the same time. Unless it's all down to the magical stock carb of course that is just SO much better than the updated FI model .

Like I said, I think there is very little difference between the 2 models, if anything the auto adjusting (via lamda sensor) FI model we have in Thailand will have slightly crisper throttle response than the old model with a stock carb.

[BigBikeBKK]

^^ Just as well they were kept off the ninja Tony, they'd have been scratched up due to dodgy handling.

Not competing against the Thai ninja of course, but the (more powerful?) US version.

http://www.cbr250.ne...ace-winner.html

After many late nights last week race prepping our new CBR, we took it to Motorsport Ranch in Cresson Tx, for its first race. Ryan Andrews won the E Superstock race (against 22 EX250s) by more than 5 seconds. Then we entered the CMRA 2 hour endurance race, and took the overall win by a full lap. We also set the fastest lap of the day by over 1.5 seconds. Thanks to Road and Track Suspension in san antonio tx for the suspension work, Kyle at M4 exhausts, and Dante @ Bazzaz for the late night tech support.

Haven't read the article but how can they race SUPERSTOCK if they've modded the suspension, exhaust and fueling???

Or is this more BS like your vid of the CB'r' "racing" in Japan?

[thaicbr]

^^ Just as well they were kept off the ninja Tony, they'd have been scratched up due to dodgy handling.

Not competing against the Thai ninja of course, but the (more powerful?) US version.

http://www.cbr250.ne...ace-winner.html

After many late nights last week race prepping our new CBR, we took it to Motorsport Ranch in Cresson Tx, for its first race. Ryan Andrews won the E Superstock race (against 22 EX250s) by more than 5 seconds. Then we entered the CMRA 2 hour endurance race, and took the overall win by a full lap. We also set the fastest lap of the day by over 1.5 seconds. Thanks to Road and Track Suspension in san antonio tx for the suspension work, Kyle at M4 exhausts, and Dante @ Bazzaz for the late night tech support.

Haven't read the article but how can they race SUPERSTOCK if they've modded the suspension, exhaust and fueling???

Or is this more BS like your vid of the CB'r' "racing" in Japan?

actually all allowable under FIM rules for Superstock racing... see here..

http://www.fim-live...._SS_SST_Eng.pdf

pages 97 onwards.

And this is the US WERA Superstock rules (the actual race)

http://maps.wera.com/rulebook/?x=1098#ch9

Edited August 30, 2011 by thaicbr

[hehehoho]

Haven't read the article but how can they race SUPERSTOCK if they've modded the suspension, exhaust and fueling???

Exactly what I thought, presume that either there's some leeway given, or the modded bike was the one used for the 2 Hr Endurance race they won.

While reportedly setting the fastest lap.

Will probably have more details on it later.

Edited August 30, 2011 by hehehoho

[thaicbr]

according to both sets of rules FIM and WERA.... exhaust, fueling, suspension and tyres are all changeable/adjustable. Only thing is NO engine mods (other than head gasket)

Edited August 30, 2011 by thaicbr

[dave_boo]

I'll try a third time. Do you know the difference between the FI and Carbed Ninja in terms of performance?

Sorry Jonny, only from the reviews I've read, the different gearing gives the non-Thai model better acceleration and the carb also gives it more HP.

To use those figures to compare to the CBR250R would be the same as to change the gearing, get your times and use those numbers. A wee bit misleading for those in Thailand interested in comparing the two models that are available here.

Interesting that Kawa in the US decided not to go for the FI model for 2012 like had been rumoured.

As you (should) know, playing around with the gearing is a trade-off - do you want better acceleration or better top end?

And yet the US Ninja has better acceleration and better top end than the CBR. Funny that - they must have some magical sprockets over there that increase both acceleration and top end at the same time. Unless it's all down to the magical stock carb of course that is just SO much better than the updated FI model .

Like I said, I think there is very little difference between the 2 models, if anything the auto adjusting (via lamda sensor) FI model we have in Thailand will have slightly crisper throttle response than the old model with a stock carb.

For me (someone who's not a toothpick), I can actually hit a bit faster in 5th than I can in 6th. Find the right gearing and 6th would most likely stretch out a bit farther....wouldn't be much.

The extra horse or two that the average carb'd engine offers is the main factor. If you can correct my assertion that the 'magical' carb'd models offer more HP than the FI models (find a few dynos to support your position, you may have a point.

The FI models do offer the on-the-fly tuning that is important when transitioning from sea level (BKK) to the mountains (CMX) however...

Edited August 30, 2011 by dave_boo

[JonnyF]

I'll try a third time. Do you know the difference between the FI and Carbed Ninja in terms of performance?

Sorry Jonny, only from the reviews I've read, the different gearing gives the non-Thai model better acceleration and the carb also gives it more HP.

To use those figures to compare to the CBR250R would be the same as to change the gearing, get your times and use those numbers. A wee bit misleading for those in Thailand interested in comparing the two models that are available here.

Interesting that Kawa in the US decided not to go for the FI model for 2012 like had been rumoured.

As you (should) know, playing around with the gearing is a trade-off - do you want better acceleration or better top end?

And yet the US Ninja has better acceleration and better top end than the CBR. Funny that - they must have some magical sprockets over there that increase both acceleration and top end at the same time. Unless it's all down to the magical stock carb of course that is just SO much better than the updated FI model .

Like I said, I think there is very little difference between the 2 models, if anything the auto adjusting (via lamda sensor) FI model we have in Thailand will have slightly crisper throttle response than the old model with a stock carb.

For me (someone who's not a toothpick), I can actually hit a bit faster in 5th than I can in 6th. Find the right gearing and 6th would most likely stretch out a bit farther....wouldn't be much.

The extra horse or two that the average carb'd engine offers is the main factor. If you can correct my assertion that the 'magical' carb'd models offer more HP than the FI models (find a few dynos to support your position, you may have a point.

The FI models do offer the on-the-fly tuning that is important when transitioning from sea level (BKK) to the mountains (CMX) however...

I don't really have to support my posiiton - they're the same bike and unless I see evidence that there's a significant difference in power between the two in terms of performance then there's nothing to discuss. The gearing is different for sure but seeing as the US Ninja wins on acceleration and top end according to Motorcycle World then I have to assume that the gearing is not really a factor and leaves it up the the Ninja owner to decide if he wishes to improve on one or the other. The power is there either way.

Until someone proves that the stock carb on the old model is significantly better than the latest model FI which adjusts on the fly then I'll assume that more significant factors such as engine design (i.e. twin vs. single) are the reasons for the figures posted, rather than the stock carb on the old Ninja being some kind of Holy Grail to massive perfomance increases.

[hehehoho]

^^ Just as well they were kept off the ninja Tony, they'd have been scratched up due to dodgy handling.

Not competing against the Thai ninja of course, but the (more powerful?) US version.

http://www.cbr250.ne...ace-winner.html

After many late nights last week race prepping our new CBR, we took it to Motorsport Ranch in Cresson Tx, for its first race. Ryan Andrews won the E Superstock race (against 22 EX250s) by more than 5 seconds. Then we entered the CMRA 2 hour endurance race, and took the overall win by a full lap. We also set the fastest lap of the day by over 1.5 seconds. Thanks to Road and Track Suspension in san antonio tx for the suspension work, Kyle at M4 exhausts, and Dante @ Bazzaz for the late night tech support.

Haven't read the article but how can they race SUPERSTOCK if they've modded the suspension, exhaust and fueling???

Or is this more BS like your vid of the CB'r' "racing" in Japan?

actually all allowable under FIM rules for Superstock racing... see here..

http://www.fim-live...._SS_SST_Eng.pdf

pages 97 onwards.

And this is the US WERA Superstock rules (the actual race)

http://maps.wera.com/rulebook/?x=1098#ch9

CBR250R beating 22 ninjettes kinda clears up a few points when it comes to the track.

The racing body seems to have a monthly blog/mag with info etc, it wil be interesting to see what they have to say for this month's race meeting.

Edited August 30, 2011 by hehehoho

[dave_boo]

I don't really have to support my posiiton - they're the same bike and unless I see evidence that there's a significant difference in power between the two in terms of performance then there's nothing to discuss. The gearing is different for sure but seeing as the US Ninja wins on acceleration and top end according to Motorcycle World then I have to assume that the gearing is not really a factor and leaves it up the the Ninja owner to decide if he wishes to improve on one or the other. The power is there either way.

Until someone proves that the stock carb on the old model is significantly better than the latest model FI which adjusts on the fly then I'll assume that more significant factors such as engine design (i.e. twin vs. single) are the reasons for the figures posted, rather than the stock carb on the old Ninja being some kind of Holy Grail to massive perfomance increases.

You don't really have to support your position? And yet you require out of people who dissent from you?

I've done this several times, so please, for Buddha's sake, bookmark this post.

Here are a slew of dynos for the carb'd version:

Average of 25.7 HP.

Fuel Injected:

That's with a AreaP Full System that adds 20% to the carb'd model so I'd guess that actual is some 22 HP.

Average of 23.8 HP. Obviously a much smaller sample, but proves my point; it's a combination of gearing and the higher HP that allows the Ninja to stay as close as it does during drag races in US reviews...

Also funny that you'd stick with the one outlier review that is seriously biased to prove your point. EVERY other review has contradicted that one...makes one wonder why you would want to stick with it.

I have never stated that the Ninja was slower on the top end. However, we're talking about a max of 8 or so km/h. The only thing that the Ninja lubbers take issue with is that I have stated, and been supported by every review (save the before mentioned Ninjette masturbating one), that the CBR is quicker at *legal* speeds. I'm sorry if sticking the fingers in the ears and saying "naa-naa-naa-naa" is the only response you have to these facts...

[JonnyF]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

[KRS1]

People think the CBR is quicker because it makes power at lower revs, but fail to consider that the Ninja is a faster revving engine, and cannot translate that into a formula .

[visions]

People think the CBR is quicker because it makes power at lower revs, but fail to consider that the Ninja is a faster revving engine, and cannot translate that into a formula .

or maybe a few people think the Ninja is faster because of the screaming high rev engine noise making them "think" they are going faster ??

[hehehoho]

People think the CBR is quicker because it makes power at lower revs, but fail to consider that the Ninja is a faster revving engine, and cannot translate that into a formula .

or maybe a few people think the Ninja is faster because of the screaming high rev engine noise making them "think" they are going faster ??

Well there's 22 ninja riders who are left with no illusion as to which was faster around Motorsport Ranch in Cresson Tx when they were set up in race mode.

At least they had a nice view.

Or some of them did, as the closest of the 22 ninjas finished over 5 seconds behind the great CBR250R.

[JonnyF]

People think the CBR is quicker because it makes power at lower revs, but fail to consider that the Ninja is a faster revving engine, and cannot translate that into a formula .

Or they're scared of wringing the neck of a bike, either due to rider inexperience, lack of balls or lack of faith in the quality of the bike.

Mind you, if I'd just had my CBR serviced by APe Honda and they drained the oil using any other bolt than the sump bolt (as reported recently in the CBR thread) - I'd probably be a bit nervous taking it over 7k rpm as well

I can see the adverts now. For Sale: Honda CBR250R, extremely low kms, never butchered serviced by Ape Honda, never dropped. Reason for sale: I've learnt how to change gear already.

PS Dave I mean gear as in "transmission", not as in "Joe Rocket jacket"

[dave_boo]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

I admitted that my sample size for FI bikes was extremely limited; however can you find more for stock FI bikes? If admitting it makes the presentation misleading, them I'm a liar!

I included the link to the forum; the guy tells how many HP that the dyno recorded. The +20% increase comes directly from the Area-P dyno which was the very first picture I posted--that's your pipe's manufacturer's numbers from their dyno--call them fibbers; if YOUR assertion that the FI system is better at accomodating changes is true, than it should have at least as good of an increase, right? Well, probably not unless you have a Powercommander because it would still be trying to run in emissions compliant mode....which I hadn't taken into account--sorry.

As far as the outlier on the FI; if you want to ask "How many of the carb'd bikes had aftermarket exhausts" how do you know that Dirtshop model didn't have an exhaust. In fact I'm going to say it did and you have to prove it didn't! Sound familiar?

Doesn't change the fact that all the links were very clear as to whether or not the bikes had aftermarket exhausts on them. While I realise that some have to grasp at straws to butress their argument, isn't it a bit silly to even postulate that?

As far as Tony's "multiple reviews" is concerned, there was a single review that gave it outright to the Ninja (the motorcycle-usa) that he counted all the reviewer's choice and added them to the original article to come up with "4" plus he than selectively quotes an article (leaving out that it was a wash between the two bikes) and finally uses one that simply looks at claimed power without the CBR even having be released. I, on the other hand, provided many more links (using mostly FI Ninjas!) countering his single review.

[hehehoho]

The Kawa boys are embarrassed and clutching at straws.

[JonnyF]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

I admitted that my sample size for FI bikes was extremely limited; however can you find more for stock FI bikes? If admitting it makes the presentation misleading, them I'm a liar!

I included the link to the forum; the guy tells how many HP that the dyno recorded. The +20% increase comes directly from the Area-P dyno which was the very first picture I posted--that's your pipe's manufacturer's numbers from their dyno--call them fibbers; if YOUR assertion that the FI system is better at accomodating changes is true, than it should have at least as good of an increase, right? Well, probably not unless you have a Powercommander because it would still be trying to run in emissions compliant mode....which I hadn't taken into account--sorry.

As far as the outlier on the FI; if you want to ask "How many of the carb'd bikes had aftermarket exhausts" how do you know that Dirtshop model didn't have an exhaust. In fact I'm going to say it did and you have to prove it didn't! Sound familiar?

Doesn't change the fact that all the links were very clear as to whether or not the bikes had aftermarket exhausts on them. While I realise that some have to grasp at straws to butress their argument, isn't it a bit silly to even postulate that?

As far as Tony's "multiple reviews" is concerned, there was a single review that gave it outright to the Ninja (the motorcycle-usa) that he counted all the reviewer's choice and added them to the original article to come up with "4" plus he than selectively quotes an article (leaving out that it was a wash between the two bikes) and finally uses one that simply looks at claimed power without the CBR even having be released. I, on the other hand, provided many more links (using mostly FI Ninjas!) countering his single review.

OK, you seem to confirm that I read it right so I'm still convinced that the FI model makes about 26 and the older US model with a stock carb also makes about (wait for it…) 26.

By the way I have no problem with the small sample but using your estimate of 20% gain at the rear wheel (due to an exhaust system that I actually ride with every day and I can promise you it doesn't increase rear wheel hp by 20% - wish it did, you'd need hehehoho's 6000 baht rainbow exhaust to make those type of "scary" gains) to bring the hp average of the FI Ninja down is pretty misleading. Are you saying that if you removed the aftermarket system from the FI Ninja with the Area P then it would have been 4hp down on the other FI Ninja? Making only 22hp. Why would you think this?

And you ask why I assume the 26hp FI Ninja was stock. All the reviews quote around 26hp stock at the rear wheel, as does the Dyno quoted on here so many times. They all say 32ish at the crank at 26 at the wheel. I've never seen a quote anywhere near 22hp for the FI Ninja (which is what your second bike would have to make to bring the average down from 26 to 24).

Up until this point you seemed to accept that the FI Ninja made 26 at the rear wheel because you could fall back on the CBR's torque. Now you know that the US model makes the same hp as the Thai Ninja, and also waxed the CBR in the review then suddenly you are disputing the hp figure of the Thai Ninja that you've never questioned before. And you're disputing it based on your guess of the increase in hp provided by an aftermarket system on a carbed Ninja. And you're a maths guy? That's BS and I suspect you know it.

Based on the dyno's (discounting your 'self adjusted' figure) and just about every review I've read both Ninjas make about 26hp and the only difference is gearing, but as I said the Carbed Ninja wins on acceleration and top end vs. the CBR so changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants.

Edited August 31, 2011 by JonnyF

[dave_boo]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

I admitted that my sample size for FI bikes was extremely limited; however can you find more for stock FI bikes? If admitting it makes the presentation misleading, them I'm a liar!

I included the link to the forum; the guy tells how many HP that the dyno recorded. The +20% increase comes directly from the Area-P dyno which was the very first picture I posted--that's your pipe's manufacturer's numbers from their dyno--call them fibbers; if YOUR assertion that the FI system is better at accomodating changes is true, than it should have at least as good of an increase, right? Well, probably not unless you have a Powercommander because it would still be trying to run in emissions compliant mode....which I hadn't taken into account--sorry.

As far as the outlier on the FI; if you want to ask "How many of the carb'd bikes had aftermarket exhausts" how do you know that Dirtshop model didn't have an exhaust. In fact I'm going to say it did and you have to prove it didn't! Sound familiar?

Doesn't change the fact that all the links were very clear as to whether or not the bikes had aftermarket exhausts on them. While I realise that some have to grasp at straws to butress their argument, isn't it a bit silly to even postulate that?

As far as Tony's "multiple reviews" is concerned, there was a single review that gave it outright to the Ninja (the motorcycle-usa) that he counted all the reviewer's choice and added them to the original article to come up with "4" plus he than selectively quotes an article (leaving out that it was a wash between the two bikes) and finally uses one that simply looks at claimed power without the CBR even having be released. I, on the other hand, provided many more links (using mostly FI Ninjas!) countering his single review.

OK, you seem to confirm that I read it right so I'm still convinced that the FI model makes about 26 and the older US model with a stock carb also makes about (wait for it…) 26.

By the way I have no problem with the small sample but using your estimate of 20% gain at the rear wheel (due to an exhaust system that I actually ride with every day and I can promise you it doesn't increase rear wheel hp by 20% - wish it did, you'd need hehehoho's 6000 baht rainbow exhaust to make those type of "scary" gains) to bring the hp average of the FI Ninja down is pretty misleading. Are you saying that if you removed the aftermarket system from the FI Ninja with the Area P then it would have been 4hp down on the other FI Ninja? Making only 22hp. Why would you think this?

And you ask why I assume the 26hp FI Ninja was stock. All the reviews quote around 26hp stock at the rear wheel, as does the Dyno quoted on here so many times. They all say 32ish at the crank at 26 at the wheel. I've never seen a quote anywhere near 22hp for the FI Ninja (which is what your second bike would have to make to bring the average down from 26 to 24).

Up until this point you seemed to accept that the FI Ninja made 26 at the rear wheel because you could fall back on the CBR's torque. Now you know that the US model makes the same hp as the Thai Ninja, and also waxed the CBR in the review then suddenly you are disputing the hp figure of the Thai Ninja that you've never questioned before. And you're disputing it based on your guess of the increase in hp provided by an aftermarket system on a carbed Ninja. And you're a maths guy? That's BS and I suspect you know it.

Based on the dyno's (discounting your 'self adjusted' figure) and just about every review I've read – both Ninjas make about 26hp and the only difference is gearing, but as I said the Carbed Ninja wins on acceleration and top end vs. the CBR so changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants.

You want to talk numbers?

Statistically, there are means, medians, and modes. Mean is the one that most lay people are familiar with. Basically add everything up and divide by the total number. This is also called average and what I used so that people were not confused. However if there are extremely high or low samples it will throw off the mean that someone is looking for. Medians are the 'middle' number from the sample that is a better representation of what people think of 'average' since the extremely high or low samples do not affect it as much. Finally there's modes. These are the most frequently occuring samples that are used with categories. In this case, since we're talking about bikes that are assembled on various days of the week of various components by various people I would actually look at the median or even simply discard the outliers and figure the median of the remaining samples. This is impossible for the fuel injected model as there are not enough sample points.

If we're to take off (my admitted possible) over-estimation (based on the manufacturer's dyno) and use your estimation instead, that Euro Ninja still only had 24,5 hp. I've told you why it's down compared to the other FI Ninja; the Dirtshop had an exhaust on! Prove it didn't! In regards to the 32 at the crank and 26 at the rear wheel; that's a nearly 19% power loss...

All the carb'd bike reviews quote mid 25 with no modifications. All FI dynos I have seen, which have been bikes with modifications, report 26(ish). Have you seen an actual dyno from a review of a FI bike?

While it would be nice to be ominenscent, I'm not. I did not (and to be honest, still do not) have enough data points for the FI to say "This is the FI's HP". However every indication is that it is down compared to the carb'd bike and since the carb'd bike still loses out to the CBR at lower speeds and in handling, why would an otherwise (except isn't it even a bit heavier due to the FI equipment and apparently requires a 300 USD piece of kit to tune the bike to the same level using similar exhaust?) similiar bike all of a sudden best the CBR? I don't know why you'd think that receiving new information, or returning to old points on contemplation would be BS. Could I actually say that your claim of the FI system makes less of a percentage of increase is BS because you previously claimed that the FI system was more efficient?

And repeat after me " 'WAXED THE CBR' IN ONLY ONE REVIEW THAT IS NINJA BIASED AND TOTALLY CONTRADICTS EVERY OTHER REVIEW (NOT GUESSTIMATE USING ONLY THE MANUFACTURER'S RATINGS) OUT THERE". You do that and perhaps I wouldn't be presenting these inconvienent (for y'all) facts so often. As far as your proposal to allow the sprocket change, why not just throw everything out? Y'all complained that the MCN review was a loaned modified bike; now you want the FI bike considered with carb'd gearing. A bit fickle ain't it? Why not consider a CBR with an aftermarket exhaust, tuning and a sprocket change? You than get a bike that's the same price and probably outperforming the Ninja...but I was talking about stock bikes.

[dave_boo]

As a side note, an interesting result from an obviously broken in CBR (versus the dirtshop one that still had plastic on the seat) that has it at 23 baseline and 24,4 with a 2Brothers exhaust. Doesn't look like the CBR is that down on power at all. Some one HP from what most all non-contested dynos have the stock Ninja at. Much nicer torque also!

[visions]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

I admitted that my sample size for FI bikes was extremely limited; however can you find more for stock FI bikes? If admitting it makes the presentation misleading, them I'm a liar!

I included the link to the forum; the guy tells how many HP that the dyno recorded. The +20% increase comes directly from the Area-P dyno which was the very first picture I posted--that's your pipe's manufacturer's numbers from their dyno--call them fibbers; if YOUR assertion that the FI system is better at accomodating changes is true, than it should have at least as good of an increase, right? Well, probably not unless you have a Powercommander because it would still be trying to run in emissions compliant mode....which I hadn't taken into account--sorry.

As far as the outlier on the FI; if you want to ask "How many of the carb'd bikes had aftermarket exhausts" how do you know that Dirtshop model didn't have an exhaust. In fact I'm going to say it did and you have to prove it didn't! Sound familiar?

Doesn't change the fact that all the links were very clear as to whether or not the bikes had aftermarket exhausts on them. While I realise that some have to grasp at straws to butress their argument, isn't it a bit silly to even postulate that?

As far as Tony's "multiple reviews" is concerned, there was a single review that gave it outright to the Ninja (the motorcycle-usa) that he counted all the reviewer's choice and added them to the original article to come up with "4" plus he than selectively quotes an article (leaving out that it was a wash between the two bikes) and finally uses one that simply looks at claimed power without the CBR even having be released. I, on the other hand, provided many more links (using mostly FI Ninjas!) countering his single review.

OK, you seem to confirm that I read it right so I'm still convinced that the FI model makes about 26 and the older US model with a stock carb also makes about (wait for it…) 26.

By the way I have no problem with the small sample but using your estimate of 20% gain at the rear wheel (due to an exhaust system that I actually ride with every day and I can promise you it doesn't increase rear wheel hp by 20% - wish it did, you'd need hehehoho's 6000 baht rainbow exhaust to make those type of "scary" gains) to bring the hp average of the FI Ninja down is pretty misleading. Are you saying that if you removed the aftermarket system from the FI Ninja with the Area P then it would have been 4hp down on the other FI Ninja? Making only 22hp. Why would you think this?

And you ask why I assume the 26hp FI Ninja was stock. All the reviews quote around 26hp stock at the rear wheel, as does the Dyno quoted on here so many times. They all say 32ish at the crank at 26 at the wheel. I've never seen a quote anywhere near 22hp for the FI Ninja (which is what your second bike would have to make to bring the average down from 26 to 24).

Up until this point you seemed to accept that the FI Ninja made 26 at the rear wheel because you could fall back on the CBR's torque. Now you know that the US model makes the same hp as the Thai Ninja, and also waxed the CBR in the review then suddenly you are disputing the hp figure of the Thai Ninja that you've never questioned before. And you're disputing it based on your guess of the increase in hp provided by an aftermarket system on a carbed Ninja. And you're a maths guy? That's BS and I suspect you know it.

Based on the dyno's (discounting your 'self adjusted' figure) and just about every review I've read – both Ninjas make about 26hp and the only difference is gearing, but as I said the Carbed Ninja wins on acceleration and top end vs. the CBR so changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants.

You want to talk numbers?

Statistically, there are means, medians, and modes. Mean is the one that most lay people are familiar with. Basically add everything up and divide by the total number. This is also called average and what I used so that people were not confused. However if there are extremely high or low samples it will throw off the mean that someone is looking for. Medians are the 'middle' number from the sample that is a better representation of what people think of 'average' since the extremely high or low samples do not affect it as much. Finally there's modes. These are the most frequently occuring samples that are used with categories. In this case, since we're talking about bikes that are assembled on various days of the week of various components by various people I would actually look at the median or even simply discard the outliers and figure the median of the remaining samples. This is impossible for the fuel injected model as there are not enough sample points.

If we're to take off (my admitted possible) over-estimation (based on the manufacturer's dyno) and use your estimation instead, that Euro Ninja still only had 24,5 hp. I've told you why it's down compared to the other FI Ninja; the Dirtshop had an exhaust on! Prove it didn't! In regards to the 32 at the crank and 26 at the rear wheel; that's a nearly 19% power loss...

All the carb'd bike reviews quote mid 25 with no modifications. All FI dynos I have seen, which have been bikes with modifications, report 26(ish). Have you seen an actual dyno from a review of a FI bike?

While it would be nice to be ominenscent, I'm not. I did not (and to be honest, still do not) have enough data points for the FI to say "This is the FI's HP". However every indication is that it is down compared to the carb'd bike and since the carb'd bike still loses out to the CBR at lower speeds and in handling, why would an otherwise (except isn't it even a bit heavier due to the FI equipment and apparently requires a 300 USD piece of kit to tune the bike to the same level using similar exhaust?) similiar bike all of a sudden best the CBR? I don't know why you'd think that receiving new information, or returning to old points on contemplation would be BS. Could I actually say that your claim of the FI system makes less of a percentage of increase is BS because you previously claimed that the FI system was more efficient?

And repeat after me " 'WAXED THE CBR' IN ONLY ONE REVIEW THAT IS NINJA BIASED AND TOTALLY CONTRADICTS EVERY OTHER REVIEW (NOT GUESSTIMATE USING ONLY THE MANUFACTURER'S RATINGS) OUT THERE". You do that and perhaps I wouldn't be presenting these inconvienent (for y'all) facts so often. As far as your proposal to allow the sprocket change, why not just throw everything out? Y'all complained that the MCN review was a loaned modified bike; now you want the FI bike considered with carb'd gearing. A bit fickle ain't it? Why not consider a CBR with an aftermarket exhaust, tuning and a sprocket change? You than get a bike that's the same price and probably outperforming the Ninja...but I was talking about stock bikes.

Great to see well informed factual information.... as opposed to seat of the pants "Mine is better than yours" opinions

[JonnyF]

You calculations are a bit confusing (misleading?) Dave, especially as the last sheet is so blurred I cannot even read it. But from what I can make out it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the fairly standard figure that is normally quoted for the FI Ninja is 26ish which also ties in with the dyno for the FI version that I can read and has been posted here mutliple times here of 26.03.

But then it looks like you're taking a guestimate of 20% (for an exhaust system) off the blurred sheet figure (whatever that figure is) to bring the average hp for the FI Ninja from 26.03 (sample of 1) down to 23.8 in your calculation. You then conclude that the carbed version has more power based entirely on this guestimate of a 20% power gain (which must be removed or it's not fair!) due to the exhaust on the bike on the blurred sheet. So in effect you've used your guess of 20% to change the average for the FI version from 26.03 to 23.8? Or did I misread the post?

As you know I've got a full Area P system on my Ninja and there's no way it added 20% to the rear wheel hp. Maybe 10%. And are you sure that none of the carbed Ninjas had aftermarket exhausts? Doesn't seem to matter anyway since it looks like the carbed version averages 25.7 and the only dyno of a stock FI version that doesn't rely on your 'pie in the sky' 20% loss figure makes 26hp (the standard figure quoted for the FI Ninja). Which indicates that there is minimal difference (if any) between the stock carb and the FI.

Also, I thought Tony posted multiple reviews that gave it to the Ninja a couple of pages back when you asked the same question? I'm not sure why you think MotorCycle World is the only review that gave it to the Ninja.

I admitted that my sample size for FI bikes was extremely limited; however can you find more for stock FI bikes? If admitting it makes the presentation misleading, them I'm a liar!

I included the link to the forum; the guy tells how many HP that the dyno recorded. The +20% increase comes directly from the Area-P dyno which was the very first picture I posted--that's your pipe's manufacturer's numbers from their dyno--call them fibbers; if YOUR assertion that the FI system is better at accomodating changes is true, than it should have at least as good of an increase, right? Well, probably not unless you have a Powercommander because it would still be trying to run in emissions compliant mode....which I hadn't taken into account--sorry.

As far as the outlier on the FI; if you want to ask "How many of the carb'd bikes had aftermarket exhausts" how do you know that Dirtshop model didn't have an exhaust. In fact I'm going to say it did and you have to prove it didn't! Sound familiar?

Doesn't change the fact that all the links were very clear as to whether or not the bikes had aftermarket exhausts on them. While I realise that some have to grasp at straws to butress their argument, isn't it a bit silly to even postulate that?

As far as Tony's "multiple reviews" is concerned, there was a single review that gave it outright to the Ninja (the motorcycle-usa) that he counted all the reviewer's choice and added them to the original article to come up with "4" plus he than selectively quotes an article (leaving out that it was a wash between the two bikes) and finally uses one that simply looks at claimed power without the CBR even having be released. I, on the other hand, provided many more links (using mostly FI Ninjas!) countering his single review.

OK, you seem to confirm that I read it right so I'm still convinced that the FI model makes about 26 and the older US model with a stock carb also makes about (wait for it…) 26.

By the way I have no problem with the small sample but using your estimate of 20% gain at the rear wheel (due to an exhaust system that I actually ride with every day and I can promise you it doesn't increase rear wheel hp by 20% - wish it did, you'd need hehehoho's 6000 baht rainbow exhaust to make those type of "scary" gains) to bring the hp average of the FI Ninja down is pretty misleading. Are you saying that if you removed the aftermarket system from the FI Ninja with the Area P then it would have been 4hp down on the other FI Ninja? Making only 22hp. Why would you think this?

And you ask why I assume the 26hp FI Ninja was stock. All the reviews quote around 26hp stock at the rear wheel, as does the Dyno quoted on here so many times. They all say 32ish at the crank at 26 at the wheel. I've never seen a quote anywhere near 22hp for the FI Ninja (which is what your second bike would have to make to bring the average down from 26 to 24).

Up until this point you seemed to accept that the FI Ninja made 26 at the rear wheel because you could fall back on the CBR's torque. Now you know that the US model makes the same hp as the Thai Ninja, and also waxed the CBR in the review then suddenly you are disputing the hp figure of the Thai Ninja that you've never questioned before. And you're disputing it based on your guess of the increase in hp provided by an aftermarket system on a carbed Ninja. And you're a maths guy? That's BS and I suspect you know it.

Based on the dyno's (discounting your 'self adjusted' figure) and just about every review I've read – both Ninjas make about 26hp and the only difference is gearing, but as I said the Carbed Ninja wins on acceleration and top end vs. the CBR so changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants.

You want to talk numbers?

Statistically, there are means, medians, and modes. Mean is the one that most lay people are familiar with. Basically add everything up and divide by the total number. This is also called average and what I used so that people were not confused. However if there are extremely high or low samples it will throw off the mean that someone is looking for. Medians are the 'middle' number from the sample that is a better representation of what people think of 'average' since the extremely high or low samples do not affect it as much. Finally there's modes. These are the most frequently occuring samples that are used with categories. In this case, since we're talking about bikes that are assembled on various days of the week of various components by various people I would actually look at the median or even simply discard the outliers and figure the median of the remaining samples. This is impossible for the fuel injected model as there are not enough sample points.

If we're to take off (my admitted possible) over-estimation (based on the manufacturer's dyno) and use your estimation instead, that Euro Ninja still only had 24,5 hp. I've told you why it's down compared to the other FI Ninja; the Dirtshop had an exhaust on! Prove it didn't! In regards to the 32 at the crank and 26 at the rear wheel; that's a nearly 19% power loss...

All the carb'd bike reviews quote mid 25 with no modifications. All FI dynos I have seen, which have been bikes with modifications, report 26(ish). Have you seen an actual dyno from a review of a FI bike?

While it would be nice to be ominenscent, I'm not. I did not (and to be honest, still do not) have enough data points for the FI to say "This is the FI's HP". However every indication is that it is down compared to the carb'd bike and since the carb'd bike still loses out to the CBR at lower speeds and in handling, why would an otherwise (except isn't it even a bit heavier due to the FI equipment and apparently requires a 300 USD piece of kit to tune the bike to the same level using similar exhaust?) similiar bike all of a sudden best the CBR? I don't know why you'd think that receiving new information, or returning to old points on contemplation would be BS. Could I actually say that your claim of the FI system makes less of a percentage of increase is BS because you previously claimed that the FI system was more efficient?

And repeat after me " 'WAXED THE CBR' IN ONLY ONE REVIEW THAT IS NINJA BIASED AND TOTALLY CONTRADICTS EVERY OTHER REVIEW (NOT GUESSTIMATE USING ONLY THE MANUFACTURER'S RATINGS) OUT THERE". You do that and perhaps I wouldn't be presenting these inconvienent (for y'all) facts so often. As far as your proposal to allow the sprocket change, why not just throw everything out? Y'all complained that the MCN review was a loaned modified bike; now you want the FI bike considered with carb'd gearing. A bit fickle ain't it? Why not consider a CBR with an aftermarket exhaust, tuning and a sprocket change? You than get a bike that's the same price and probably outperforming the Ninja...but I was talking about stock bikes.

Dave, no need for a lecture on means, medians and modes – I learnt that stuff at school when I was 11 or 12 same as most kids. But thanks for the refresher course .

All quotes I’ve seen for the FI Ninja agree at around 26. So does the dyno that you yourself posted. Why would I assume this bike is modded when the figures tie in exactly with all the previous quoted figures by every publication I've read? Unless you know something they don't it would be reasonable to assume that bike is stock IMO.

For the blurred dyno figures which I can’t read, you say removing a 10% gain the second FI Ninja gets 24.5. For the sake of the discussion I’ll assume this is correct even though it seems on the low side – with the other FI Ninja at 26 this would make the average of the 2 bikes 25.25ish. Within ¼ hp of the carb model. But why not use the 6% gain that the CBR achieved with an aftermarket exhaust? What would the average of the 2 FI Ninjas be then? Around mid 25 same as the carbed model.

And where did I say I wanted to use an FI bike with carb gearing? I just said that if the FI/carb power is the same then a rider could change the gearing to increase acceleration or top speed depending on his preference. Extra power opens up these options

Since you kept claiming that the US model was more powerful, my original question was whether you had evidence that the carbed model was more powerful than the FI model. I was curious (although I wasn't expecting quite such a long discussion about it but no worries). Anyway, based on the dyno’s I have to say, no you don’t – since the carb model averages 25.xx and the FI model also averages 25.xx (assuming the removal of a 6-10% gain, I’ll just ignore your original 20% estimate as that’s ridiculous).

[KRS1]

What year was the Ninja 250 on the dirtshop dyno?

Comparing a new CBR 250, with an older Ninja 250 wouldn't exactly be a good comparison.

Valve tolerances and piston rings wouldn't be as tight as a newer bike, especially one ridden hard as indicated by an aftermarket exhaust.

[dave_boo]

Dave, no need for a lecture on means, medians and modes – I learnt that stuff at school when I was 11 or 12 same as most kids. But thanks for the refresher course .

All quotes I've seen for the FI Ninja agree at around 26. So does the dyno that you yourself posted. Why would I assume this bike is modded when the figures tie in exactly with all the previous quoted figures by every publication I've read? Unless you know something they don't it would be reasonable to assume that bike is stock IMO.

For the blurred dyno figures which I can't read, you say removing a 10% gain the second FI Ninja gets 24.5. For the sake of the discussion I'll assume this is correct even though it seems on the low side – with the other FI Ninja at 26 this would make the average of the 2 bikes 25.25ish. Within ¼ hp of the carb model. But why not use the 6% gain that the CBR achieved with an aftermarket exhaust? What would the average of the 2 FI Ninjas be then? Around mid 25 same as the carbed model.

And where did I say I wanted to use an FI bike with carb gearing? I just said that if the FI/carb power is the same then a rider could change the gearing to increase acceleration or top speed depending on his preference. Extra power opens up these options

Since you kept claiming that the US model was more powerful, my original question was whether you had evidence that the carbed model was more powerful than the FI model. I was curious (although I wasn't expecting quite such a long discussion about it but no worries). Anyway, based on the dyno's I have to say, no you don't – since the carb model averages 25.xx and the FI model also averages 25.xx (assuming the removal of a 6-10% gain, I'll just ignore your original 20% estimate as that's ridiculous).

All dynos of modified FI bikes you mean? And by all quotes do you mean here on TV? Or do you have another source? Because if there's no dyno how can you be sure of the verity of the quotes? And your claims that those quotes match what you've read in publications gives pause when you have in the past stated that the FI has more power and is more efficient at metering the fuel (paraphrase) than the carb'd model. So which is it now? Is the FI more efficient/powerful or is it the same-same? I'm not assuming anything, which is apparently a difficult concept for the Ninja lovers to adopt. They would love to assume that the dynos are from stock bikes even though the evidence is right there to destroy that myth. They would love to assume that the FI model is more efficient and powerful than the carb'd model even after dynos show it isn't. They would love for the overwhelming reviews that give it to the CBR to be ignored and one single review added to the 3 parts of the review along with a review that ended in a wash be counted to butress their claims.

As far as your math goes; sure if you convienently ignore the fact that both FI bikes were outfitted with an exhaust than yes, you could say that the average is 25,25 HP. I, once again perhaps, incorrectly assumed that based on your claim the FI system was teh better, used the manufacturer's rated increase. To try and use an increase from another bike, on a wholly different pipe, is just plain ridiculous. Even you have admitted that the CBR is choked off on top; why would you be so eager to use those numbers unless you knew it was a way to bolster your case?

This is your quote about changing gearing "changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants". You used the words 'only make it more dominant'. And yet every review, with the exception of your favourite motorcycle-usa review, has the same result that I've been saying; the CBR beats the Ninja at legal speeds and loses out on top end. You can go back to at least December and find me saying that; perhaps earlier. Your wish to conflate bringing the Ninja closer to the CBR at legal speeds and the truth is quite disingenious.

I'm still amazed that the CBR detractors went from "The Ninja destroys it" to "The reviews have the Ninja ahead" to the "Majority of reviews have the Ninja ahead" to "Screw it we'll lie and say that there's 5 reviews (which is once again most reviews) that put the Ninja ahead based on this one Ninja biased reveiew. The whole of the CBR's detractors argument reminds me of the following quote:

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

So rather than going back and forth with me constantly destroying illusions presented as fact, why is this question so skirted (I had even bolded it and you ignored it in your replies); namely if all, save one reveiw, have the CBR as the pick why doubt the host of reviews and zoom in on that one as if it is the facts? Or, and apologies, if by your own admission the FI Ninja is down on power over the carb'd bike (and you'll notice if you look for dynos that I ignored the outliers for the carb'd bike which had some putting out 27'ish stock) and geared higher would it be able to outperform the CBR if you're looking at both stock when the reviews linked to earlier have the carb'd Ninja only able to outperform the CBR at supra-legal speeds.

[KRS1]

Results taken from 1st - 3rd pages of Google search term CBR 250 vs Ninja 250. Some reviews with ambiguous conclusions were left out.

Motorcycle USA

By virtue of a 3-1 decision among testers, we have to give the Kawasaki the nod as shootout winner; surprising considering how much older the basic technology is.

Zig Wheels

Our pick out of the two then is the old-hand Kawasaki which still excels at everything one would expect from a quarter-litre sportsbike. The legend of the Ninja lives on.

Ridermagazine

If canyon riding is your priority, buy the Ninja. Kawasaki's twin-cylinder mill puts more power to the pavement, and is rock steady in the faster turns. We expected the power advantage; the handling superiority was a surprise. Both motorcycles have 37mm forks, 17-inch rims and wear the same IRC tires, plus the Honda has more stability-inducing trail in its steering geometry. Still, the Ninja exudes confidence in the corners, and the faster, the better. The Honda performs well, but doesn't reach the Ninja's level of higher speed cornering.

The lowered geared Honda leapt ahead on each run, keeping a wheel in front through the first three gears before the Ninja motored past. Roll-ons came next. Opening the throttles from 60 mph in both fifth and six gears, we got the same results as the drags: the Honda lurched forward until the Kawi found its powerband and pulled ahead. The Ninja's punch comes above 9,000 rpm, about 70 mph in sixth. The Honda is pulling 7,400 rpm at that speed and is still making power, but not enough to stay with the Kawasaki.

KRS1 - One measely wheel length?

Blogs Independent

"No Doubt what i'd spend my money on, the Kawasaki Ninja 250r is the champion." (5 minutes 10 seconds into video clip)

Autocar India

Although both machines handle and brake suitably for the sportsbikes they are, the CBR pips the Ninja to the post with its lighter manners and superb, futuristic state-of-the-art brakes.

Cycleworld

Well, kudos to Kawasaki; the Ninja is a great, frolicsome little motorcycle with cool styling and a fierce (for a 250) Twin. It's a great way to get started in motorcycling and remains an excellent way to get around. But our editorial hat is off to Honda.

Indian Drives

Kawasaki Ninja is highly priced while Honda CBR250R is for the mid segment sports buyers.

Motorcycle Dot Com

Ultimately, we gave it second place because around town the Ninja 250 is a handful to keep in the powerband

(CBR 250) Really, the only glaring one is that its paltry 22 horses are barely enough to keep up with traffic.

BS Motoring

The Ninja offers a different feel than the singles we're used to and is still the fastest 250.

the CBR250R is exactly what the Ninja couldn't be – the right bike at the right price at the right time.

Edited September 1, 2011 by KRS1

[JonnyF]

Dave, no need for a lecture on means, medians and modes – I learnt that stuff at school when I was 11 or 12 same as most kids. But thanks for the refresher course .

All quotes I've seen for the FI Ninja agree at around 26. So does the dyno that you yourself posted. Why would I assume this bike is modded when the figures tie in exactly with all the previous quoted figures by every publication I've read? Unless you know something they don't it would be reasonable to assume that bike is stock IMO.

For the blurred dyno figures which I can't read, you say removing a 10% gain the second FI Ninja gets 24.5. For the sake of the discussion I'll assume this is correct even though it seems on the low side – with the other FI Ninja at 26 this would make the average of the 2 bikes 25.25ish. Within ¼ hp of the carb model. But why not use the 6% gain that the CBR achieved with an aftermarket exhaust? What would the average of the 2 FI Ninjas be then? Around mid 25 same as the carbed model.

And where did I say I wanted to use an FI bike with carb gearing? I just said that if the FI/carb power is the same then a rider could change the gearing to increase acceleration or top speed depending on his preference. Extra power opens up these options

Since you kept claiming that the US model was more powerful, my original question was whether you had evidence that the carbed model was more powerful than the FI model. I was curious (although I wasn't expecting quite such a long discussion about it but no worries). Anyway, based on the dyno's I have to say, no you don't – since the carb model averages 25.xx and the FI model also averages 25.xx (assuming the removal of a 6-10% gain, I'll just ignore your original 20% estimate as that's ridiculous).

All dynos of modified FI bikes you mean? And by all quotes do you mean here on TV? Or do you have another source? Because if there's no dyno how can you be sure of the verity of the quotes? And your claims that those quotes match what you've read in publications gives pause when you have in the past stated that the FI has more power and is more efficient at metering the fuel (paraphrase) than the carb'd model. So which is it now? Is the FI more efficient/powerful or is it the same-same? I'm not assuming anything, which is apparently a difficult concept for the Ninja lovers to adopt. They would love to assume that the dynos are from stock bikes even though the evidence is right there to destroy that myth. They would love to assume that the FI model is more efficient and powerful than the carb'd model even after dynos show it isn't. They would love for the overwhelming reviews that give it to the CBR to be ignored and one single review added to the 3 parts of the review along with a review that ended in a wash be counted to butress their claims.

As far as your math goes; sure if you convienently ignore the fact that both FI bikes were outfitted with an exhaust than yes, you could say that the average is 25,25 HP. I, once again perhaps, incorrectly assumed that based on your claim the FI system was teh better, used the manufacturer's rated increase. To try and use an increase from another bike, on a wholly different pipe, is just plain ridiculous. Even you have admitted that the CBR is choked off on top; why would you be so eager to use those numbers unless you knew it was a way to bolster your case?

This is your quote about changing gearing "changing the gearing on either Ninja will only make it more dominant in one area and less dominant in another area depending on what the rider wants". You used the words 'only make it more dominant'. And yet every review, with the exception of your favourite motorcycle-usa review, has the same result that I've been saying; the CBR beats the Ninja at legal speeds and loses out on top end. You can go back to at least December and find me saying that; perhaps earlier. Your wish to conflate bringing the Ninja closer to the CBR at legal speeds and the truth is quite disingenious.

I'm still amazed that the CBR detractors went from "The Ninja destroys it" to "The reviews have the Ninja ahead" to the "Majority of reviews have the Ninja ahead" to "Screw it we'll lie and say that there's 5 reviews (which is once again most reviews) that put the Ninja ahead based on this one Ninja biased reveiew. The whole of the CBR's detractors argument reminds me of the following quote:

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

So rather than going back and forth with me constantly destroying illusions presented as fact, why is this question so skirted (I had even bolded it and you ignored it in your replies); namely if all, save one reveiw, have the CBR as the pick why doubt the host of reviews and zoom in on that one as if it is the facts? Or, and apologies, if by your own admission the FI Ninja is down on power over the carb'd bike (and you'll notice if you look for dynos that I ignored the outliers for the carb'd bike which had some putting out 27'ish stock) and geared higher would it be able to outperform the CBR if you're looking at both stock when the reviews linked to earlier have the carb'd Ninja only able to outperform the CBR at supra-legal speeds.

OK, this is getting a bit silly now, so to bring some sanity back to the thread allow me quote my original question from 2 pages back.

"I've not seen the comparison between the carbed Ninja and the FI Ninja. I'm guessing that with a stock carb the difference would be minimal if there was any difference at all. Of course there would be more room for improvement playing around with a carb, but stock carb vs. stock FI? I certainly don't think the difference would be enough to make the Ninja as slow as the CBR".

After much pedanticism and conjecture (and to cut a long story short), the only figures we have are average rear wheel hp in the 25’s for both Ninjas. The remaining fluff is conjecture about whether the 2 bikes (FI and carbed) have aftermarket pipes, how old they are, gearing etc. and if so, how much gain these variables provide.

We got there in the end but next time it might be simpler to google it .

Next time I read “the more powerful US Ninja” I’ll consider it the author’s opinion as opposed to fact. Thanks for your help Dave :jap:

[dave_boo]

OK, this is getting a bit silly now, so to bring some sanity back to the thread allow me quote my original question from 2 pages back.

"I've not seen the comparison between the carbed Ninja and the FI Ninja. I'm guessing that with a stock carb the difference would be minimal if there was any difference at all. Of course there would be more room for improvement playing around with a carb, but stock carb vs. stock FI? I certainly don't think the difference would be enough to make the Ninja as slow as the CBR".

After much pedanticism and conjecture (and to cut a long story short), the only figures we have are average rear wheel hp in the 25's for both Ninjas. The remaining fluff is conjecture about whether the 2 bikes (FI and carbed) have aftermarket pipes, how old they are, gearing etc. and if so, how much gain these variables provide.

We got there in the end but next time it might be simpler to google it .

Next time I read "the more powerful US Ninja" I'll consider it the author's opinion as opposed to fact. Thanks for your help Dave :jap:

Ummh, you're welcome for providing links and dynos for upgraded FI models that nearly average the same as stock carb'd models? If in your consideration facts staring you in the face are opinions, than I'm glad to have been of service...