Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[snowflake]

one cannot compare a hayabusa with othe hyper touring bikes- it is in a class of its own. I doubt that a standard gsxr will hit a true 300- but let me assure you all, the wind preassure riding above 200kmph is hard...

Drive at 160 in your car and open the window- you put your hand out and feel the wind gripping it...

The new bikes are built so well considering aero dynamics you can almost not feel the wind...

At 220kmph on my mates honda vfr 800vtec you cant feel the wind, if you tuck in a bit...

Obviously to me is that the new CBR does not need the same fairing as the vfr- the aerodynamics are so different- built for different things...

The real CBR 1000 is built for high speeds- the 250 is built for all around usability- not high speeds...

I aree with Dave that crusing means you sit upright in the saddle...

Tony, when you start to tuck inn- you are past cruising- you are starting to have a bit more "interesting" riding- my favourite type...

I think that we all know that honda has over the last decade stopped trying to make the fastest bikes- their goal is to make the most userfriendly bikes- and make sure that they are reliable. Kawasaki had to do something, speed is a good way to get attention- think zx10r... Suzuki the same... Yamaha i think intended to copy the italiens and create beauty... Which they managed in somewhat manner regarding their R1...

So what if honda calls their little toy cbr.. For me that means they have built a great little bike that will most likely cover most peoples need for a long time, even experienced people...

Kawasaki built the ninja- but c'mon... Do we really think they have built a firework engine that will fly by everything? Dont think so, but by calling it a ninja, they let us know they have made a sporty bike...

Is the er6f really a ninja? In my eyes-no... For that they have another 600cc bike...

Forgot really the point of this post but please, make some sense out of this and coment...

[thaicbr]

Sorry, the gentleman you are referring to is Snowflake?

Sitting upright on a fast bike is very taxing. Go fast enough and it's downright dangerous.

I don't dare sit up on the Gixxer when pushing 300kph- I have no doubt the force of the wind would rip me right off the bike.

I had a bird hit me in the arm once while going "pretty fast". Despite wearing a good quality leather jacket, hitting that little bird at speed hurt like hell and left a bruise that didn't go away for weeks!

You are our ThaiVisa physicist- I'm sure you can explain better than I can how much force you have to push through going 140kph, 200kph, 300kph. Ever been hit by a golf ball? How fast do those travel?

There's a reason the Hayabusa looks so "fugly" but goes so fast- at higher speeds the aerodynamics are critically important.

Sure play to my ego.....

Yes I was referring to snowflake; he has been the one to express interest in cruising at 150 (the wrist comment was a shout out to Peaceblondie).

The formula to figure out the force (power) to move the same object at different speeds in regards to 'air resistance' (drag) is as follows:

P_d = ¹/₂pv³AC_d

P_d is the power required to overcome drag

v is velocity

p is the density of the air

A is the reference area

C_d is the coefficient of drag

The important part (without getting technical) is the v³ (velocity cubed). Basically as your velocity increases (you speed up), the power requirements do not scale linearly but rather exponentially. I.E. the variables in that previous formula will remain the same except for your speed; going from 30-60 does not mean a doubling of required power but rather an eight fold increase (2x2x2), Touching on the gentleman who wants to cruise at 150 as easily as at 130 you'd need 154% more power than it takes to cruise easily at 130 to do the same at 150.

However, unless I was misreading your post you are actually asking about how much force the additional speed adds. The same formula applies; it's 154% more. Going from 130 to 300 is a huge difference; some 1229% more.

If in fact you're asking how much force it is, I can't actually answer that except with some general assumptions. Sighard Hoerner states that the motorcycles drag area is between 0,51-0,57 m². That's the "A". Density of air is 0,00108 kg/s². That's the "p" A standing human gives something like 1,0 for "C_d" (coefficient of drag), but bicycles (sorry) are ~0,7.

Plugging it all in we get

P_d = 0,00108kg/s² * v³ * 0,51m² * 0.7

So going at 130 km/h you'd need something like 18.16 Joules to overcome the wind resistance. At 150 km/h you'll need 27.89 J.

Wow.... just WOW

I actually fell asleep half way through that.. Not because it wasnt fascinating it was..... but because it is a marvel how brilliant minds make things work with al those letters and jiggly patterns. Aint MATH great...........

[snowflake]

did not understand any of that really- but trust me... After years of being single- my wrists are strong as bin ladens beliefs...

I could and i am sure Tony will agre ride very relaxed for hours at those speeds with the correct bike... My zx12r would do 150 and i would feel nothing... Heck even at 200 you felt nothing, but i have to say that the vfr 800 was better at those speeds... Different bikes again...

[CMX]

Assuming the flat and level and visible:

One conclusion I might draw is that if I wish to go fast on a "cruiser" in an upright position for some inexplicable reason, I should plan on a more powerful engine, buffeting, and worse fuel mileage, (particularly if I use a big windscreen or present a formidable front).

Whereas if I want to wring the most out of a bike, say any 250, it should be semi-dinky and I should be semi-dinky (plus prepared to scrunch down in a quasi-fetal position).

No brainer for me. Form predicts function, not follows.

[dave_boo]

Wow.... just WOW

I actually fell asleep half way through that.. Not because it wasnt fascinating it was..... but because it is a marvel how brilliant minds make things work with al those letters and jiggly patterns. Aint MATH great...........

I tried to keep the 'important' stuff early in the post; there was a bit out of order and that's probably why you fell asleep...so solly.

And as easy as that is (for me), don't ask for anything artsy; that's the limit of my abilities. As such I often am jealous of people (like taichiplanet) who can go ahead and do artistic things; while I can appreciate it and such if there's not a technical problem I'm out of the loop...

[dave_boo]

Assuming the flat and level and visible:

One conclusion I might draw is that if I wish to go fast on a "cruiser" in an upright position for some inexplicable reason, I should plan on a more powerful engine, buffeting, and worse fuel mileage, (particularly if I use a big windscreen or present a formidable front).

Whereas if I want to wring the most out of a bike, say any 250, it should be semi-dinky and I should be semi-dinky (plus prepared to scrunch down in a quasi-fetal position).

No brainer for me. Form predicts function, not follows.

Yes.

Except that actually you can increase the power on the 1/4 litre also; however there's just not as much to work with (for a sane amount of money) as there is with the 1600+cc engines. Conversely on the cruisers you don't need a bigger engine if you get a real set of foot controls and bars and assume a position that doesn't look like you got a bad case of crotch rot you're trying to air dry...

[submaniac]

The formula to figure out the force (power) to move the same object at different speeds in regards to 'air resistance' (drag) is as follows:

P_d = ¹/₂pv³AC_d

P_d is the power required to overcome drag

v is velocity

p is the density of the air

A is the reference area

C_d is the coefficient of drag

The important part (without getting technical) is the v³ (velocity cubed). Basically as your velocity increases (you speed up), the power requirements do not scale linearly but rather exponentially. I.E. the variables in that previous formula will remain the same except for your speed; going from 30-60 does not mean a doubling of required power but rather an eight fold increase (2x2x2), Touching on the gentleman who wants to cruise at 150 as easily as at 130 you'd need 154% more power than it takes to cruise easily at 130 to do the same at 150.

However, unless I was misreading your post you are actually asking about how much force the additional speed adds. The same formula applies; it's 154% more. Going from 130 to 300 is a huge difference; some 1229% more.

If in fact you're asking how much force it is, I can't actually answer that except with some general assumptions. Sighard Hoerner states that the motorcycles drag area is between 0,51-0,57 m². That's the "A". Density of air is 0,00108 kg/s². That's the "p" A standing human gives something like 1,0 for "C_d" (coefficient of drag), but bicycles (sorry) are ~0,7.

Plugging it all in we get

P_d = 0,00108kg/s² * v³ * 0,51m² * 0.7

So going at 130 km/h you'd need something like 18.16 Joules to overcome the wind resistance. At 150 km/h you'll need 27.89 J.

Who wants to see my butt again?!?!? Yaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!!

[dave_boo]

The formula to figure out the force (power) to move the same object at different speeds in regards to 'air resistance' (drag) is as follows:

P_d = ¹/₂pv³AC_d

P_d is the power required to overcome drag

v is velocity

p is the density of the air

A is the reference area

C_d is the coefficient of drag

The important part (without getting technical) is the v³ (velocity cubed). Basically as your velocity increases (you speed up), the power requirements do not scale linearly but rather exponentially. I.E. the variables in that previous formula will remain the same except for your speed; going from 30-60 does not mean a doubling of required power but rather an eight fold increase (2x2x2), Touching on the gentleman who wants to cruise at 150 as easily as at 130 you'd need 154% more power than it takes to cruise easily at 130 to do the same at 150.

However, unless I was misreading your post you are actually asking about how much force the additional speed adds. The same formula applies; it's 154% more. Going from 130 to 300 is a huge difference; some 1229% more.

If in fact you're asking how much force it is, I can't actually answer that except with some general assumptions. Sighard Hoerner states that the motorcycles drag area is between 0,51-0,57 m². That's the "A". Density of air is 0,00108 kg/s². That's the "p" A standing human gives something like 1,0 for "C_d" (coefficient of drag), but bicycles (sorry) are ~0,7.

Plugging it all in we get

P_d = 0,00108kg/s² * v³ * 0,51m² * 0.7

So going at 130 km/h you'd need something like 18.16 Joules to overcome the wind resistance. At 150 km/h you'll need 27.89 J.

Who wants to see my butt again?!?!? Yaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!!

And yet another anally fixated poster....

[CMX]

Ready in math, perhaps your solid geometry is worthy of a brush-up. Imagine if you will a Harley driver, as pictured in many thousands of digital snapshots of Sturgis, South Dakota in the Black Hills, rolling around on his belly, as if it were a great ball bearing on the gas tank. It is no coincidence that we highway cruisers use saddlebags - tank bags and we don't get along (fit). Plus, sitting up, many of us have been able to actually see where we are going, the prairie, and then the prairie, and then some more prairie, and then, you'll never guess, more prairie yet

Moreover, sitting upright, our stomachs and fuel tanks combine to protect the crotch area from winds, even though ours other ball bearings (2) must be bigger, as sports bike people ride on theirs - which must hurt a lot, even if tiny enough to allow the position..

Different strokes

Edited January 14, 2011 by CMX

[dave_boo]

Ready in math, perhaps your solid geometry is worthy of a brush-up. Imagine if you will a Harley driver, as pictured in many thousands of digital snapshots of Sturgis, South Dakota in the Black Hills, rolling around on his belly, as if it were a great ball bearing on the gas tank. It is no coincidence that we highway cruisers use saddlebags - tank bags and we don't get along (fit). Plus, sitting up, many of us have been able to actually see where we are going, the prairie, and then the prairie, and then some more prairie, and then, you'll never guess, more prairie yet

Moreover, sitting upright, our stomachs and fuel tanks combine to protect the crotch area from winds, even though ours other ball bearings (2) must be bigger, as sports bike people ride on theirs - which must hurt a lot, even if tiny enough to allow the position..

Different strokes

The maximum velocity afforded by those thundering steeds no doubt allows an abundance of reviewing the local flora and fauna. "Hey Sue, look at that cow" "Yes Billy-Bob, we saw the same cow 2 minutes ago, you just forgot".

As far as the scrotal area is concerned; I was, apparently, overly charitable in the assessment of the endowment of those who ride cruisers. However, after reviewing photos taken in Sturgis, the paucity of eye candy would not preclude the shrinkage of such bodily bits and is therefore understandable. For those who's choice leans more toward the end of speed that does not permit the growth of a full set of facial hair when riding several hundred km, the added bonus of apparently enlarged (in cruiser's eyes any-ways) gonads provides an added bonus of not requiring as much padding on the seats.

:jap:

Edited January 14, 2011 by dave_boo

[BigBikeBKK]

Ready in math, perhaps your solid geometry is worthy of a brush-up. Imagine if you will a Harley driver, as pictured in many thousands of digital snapshots of Sturgis, South Dakota in the Black Hills, rolling around on his belly, as if it were a great ball bearing on the gas tank. It is no coincidence that we highway cruisers use saddlebags - tank bags and we don't get along (fit). Plus, sitting up, many of us have been able to actually see where we are going, the prairie, and then the prairie, and then some more prairie, and then, you'll never guess, more prairie yet

Moreover, sitting upright, our stomachs and fuel tanks combine to protect the crotch area from winds, even though ours other ball bearings (2) must be bigger, as sports bike people ride on theirs - which must hurt a lot, even if tiny enough to allow the position..

Different strokes

The maximum velocity afforded by those thundering steeds no doubt allows an abundance of reviewing the local flora and fauna. "Hey Sue, look at that cow" "Yes Billy-Bob, we saw the same cow 2 minutes ago, you just forgot".

As far as the scrotal area is concerned; I was, apparently, overly charitable in the assessment of the endowment of those who ride cruisers. However, after reviewing photos taken in Sturgis, the paucity of eye candy would not preclude the shrinkage of such bodily bits and is therefore understandable. For those who's choice leans more toward the end of speed that does not permit the growth of a full set of facial hair when riding several hundred km, the added bonus of apparently enlarged (in cruiser's eyes any-ways) gonads provides an added bonus of not requiring as much padding on the seats.

:jap:

I used to think you were all crazy, but now I can see your nuts!!!

[JonnyF]

This thread sounds like a load of guys trying to convince themselves they were right to settle for second best because it saved them a few quid

If you wanted bang for buck why not just buy the CBR150? Not much difference in performance from the CBR250 what I see/hear. The 150 looks better as well.

[dave_boo]

This thread sounds like a load of guys trying to convince themselves they were right to settle for second best because it saved them a few quid

If you wanted bang for buck why not just buy the CBR150? Not much difference in performance from the CBR250 what I see/hear. The 150 looks better as well.

After wondering how it's the second best I immediately seized upon the 'a few quid' which at today's exchange rate is a right around 1000 GBP; wonder who around here can have their butler flip over the cushions and get that out of the sofa?

And using reductio ad absurdum I propose that since there is not much difference in performance between a Chaly and a Wave 100, and there's not much difference between a Wave 100 a Wave 125, and there's not much difference between a Wave 125 and a Sonic, and there's not much difference between a Sonic and a CBR 150, there's no reason for you to have a CBR 150 when a Chaly will do!

[thaicbr]

"wonder who around here can have their butler flip over the cushions and get that out of the sofa?"

I for one can not as 'SHE' has already found any loose change and put it in 'HER' money pot

[KRS1]

Sorry, the gentleman you are referring to is Snowflake?

Sitting upright on a fast bike is very taxing. Go fast enough and it's downright dangerous.

I don't dare sit up on the Gixxer when pushing 300kph- I have no doubt the force of the wind would rip me right off the bike.

I had a bird hit me in the arm once while going "pretty fast". Despite wearing a good quality leather jacket, hitting that little bird at speed hurt like hell and left a bruise that didn't go away for weeks!

You are our ThaiVisa physicist- I'm sure you can explain better than I can how much force you have to push through going 140kph, 200kph, 300kph. Ever been hit by a golf ball? How fast do those travel?

There's a reason the Hayabusa looks so "fugly" but goes so fast- at higher speeds the aerodynamics are critically important.

Sure play to my ego.....

Yes I was referring to snowflake; he has been the one to express interest in cruising at 150 (the wrist comment was a shout out to Peaceblondie).

The formula to figure out the force (power) to move the same object at different speeds in regards to 'air resistance' (drag) is as follows:

P_d = ¹/₂pv³AC_d

P_d is the power required to overcome drag

v is velocity

p is the density of the air

A is the reference area

C_d is the coefficient of drag

The important part (without getting technical) is the v³ (velocity cubed). Basically as your velocity increases (you speed up), the power requirements do not scale linearly but rather exponentially. I.E. the variables in that previous formula will remain the same except for your speed; going from 30-60 does not mean a doubling of required power but rather an eight fold increase (2x2x2), Touching on the gentleman who wants to cruise at 150 as easily as at 130 you'd need 154% more power than it takes to cruise easily at 130 to do the same at 150.

However, unless I was misreading your post you are actually asking about how much force the additional speed adds. The same formula applies; it's 154% more. Going from 130 to 300 is a huge difference; some 1229% more.

If in fact you're asking how much force it is, I can't actually answer that except with some general assumptions. Sighard Hoerner states that the motorcycles drag area is between 0,51-0,57 m². That's the "A". Density of air is 0,00108 kg/s². That's the "p" A standing human gives something like 1,0 for "C_d" (coefficient of drag), but bicycles (sorry) are ~0,7.

Plugging it all in we get

P_d = 0,00108kg/s² * v³ * 0,51m² * 0.7

So going at 130 km/h you'd need something like 18.16 Joules to overcome the wind resistance. At 150 km/h you'll need 27.89 J.

Rule of thumb is 5hp to overcome wind resistance at 50mph.

Anyone rode a CBR 250 up Doi Suthep in Chiang Mai? That's my test plain and simple, CBR 150 requires repeated downshifting, Ninja 250 requires none. What about the CBR 250? Anyone ?

[skybluestu]

Sorry, the gentleman you are referring to is Snowflake?

Sitting upright on a fast bike is very taxing. Go fast enough and it's downright dangerous.

I don't dare sit up on the Gixxer when pushing 300kph- I have no doubt the force of the wind would rip me right off the bike.

I had a bird hit me in the arm once while going "pretty fast". Despite wearing a good quality leather jacket, hitting that little bird at speed hurt like hell and left a bruise that didn't go away for weeks!

You are our ThaiVisa physicist- I'm sure you can explain better than I can how much force you have to push through going 140kph, 200kph, 300kph. Ever been hit by a golf ball? How fast do those travel?

There's a reason the Hayabusa looks so "fugly" but goes so fast- at higher speeds the aerodynamics are critically important.

Sure play to my ego.....

Yes I was referring to snowflake; he has been the one to express interest in cruising at 150 (the wrist comment was a shout out to Peaceblondie).

The formula to figure out the force (power) to move the same object at different speeds in regards to 'air resistance' (drag) is as follows:

P_d = ¹/₂pv³AC_d

P_d is the power required to overcome drag

v is velocity

p is the density of the air

A is the reference area

C_d is the coefficient of drag

The important part (without getting technical) is the v³ (velocity cubed). Basically as your velocity increases (you speed up), the power requirements do not scale linearly but rather exponentially. I.E. the variables in that previous formula will remain the same except for your speed; going from 30-60 does not mean a doubling of required power but rather an eight fold increase (2x2x2), Touching on the gentleman who wants to cruise at 150 as easily as at 130 you'd need 154% more power than it takes to cruise easily at 130 to do the same at 150.

However, unless I was misreading your post you are actually asking about how much force the additional speed adds. The same formula applies; it's 154% more. Going from 130 to 300 is a huge difference; some 1229% more.

If in fact you're asking how much force it is, I can't actually answer that except with some general assumptions. Sighard Hoerner states that the motorcycles drag area is between 0,51-0,57 m². That's the "A". Density of air is 0,00108 kg/s². That's the "p" A standing human gives something like 1,0 for "C_d" (coefficient of drag), but bicycles (sorry) are ~0,7.

Plugging it all in we get

P_d = 0,00108kg/s² * v³ * 0,51m² * 0.7

So going at 130 km/h you'd need something like 18.16 Joules to overcome the wind resistance. At 150 km/h you'll need 27.89 J.

Rule of thumb is 5hp to overcome wind resistance at 50mph.

Anyone rode a CBR 250 up Doi Suthep in Chiang Mai? That's my test plain and simple, CBR 150 requires repeated downshifting, Ninja 250 requires none. What about the CBR 250? Anyone ?

I think I remember reading that nikster has but I could be wrong, I have been once before.

[JonnyF]

This thread sounds like a load of guys trying to convince themselves they were right to settle for second best because it saved them a few quid

If you wanted bang for buck why not just buy the CBR150? Not much difference in performance from the CBR250 what I see/hear. The 150 looks better as well.

After wondering how it's the second best I immediately seized upon the 'a few quid' which at today's exchange rate is a right around 1000 GBP; wonder who around here can have their butler flip over the cushions and get that out of the sofa?

And using reductio ad absurdum I propose that since there is not much difference in performance between a Chaly and a Wave 100, and there's not much difference between a Wave 100 a Wave 125, and there's not much difference between a Wave 125 and a Sonic, and there's not much difference between a Sonic and a CBR 150, there's no reason for you to have a CBR 150 when a Chaly will do!

Dave you know the same as I do the Ninja is the better bike. It's a twin, it has more hp, it's faster, it doesn't look like a Chinese copy of a real Honda. The only question is how much better.

The fact that some people might be more comfortable on a lower performance, lower revving machine means absolutely nothing. My g/f would be much more comfortable on a Wave than on a R1, so what? Some people prefer low cost and low performance, others pay more and get more. The quality of product remains the same. You prefer the Honda because it's a Honda, others prefer it because it's cheap. And yet the Ninja is still the better bike. Why not take off your Honda glasses for a minute or two and try to imagine what you'd be saying if Honda released a more powerful, better looking twin along the lines of the Ninja and in turn Kawasaki released a cheap looking single 2 years later. I guess you'd be singing the praises on Honda fit and finish, quality, specification, class leading technology etc. The ABS is an exception and Honda deserves credit for this option - but if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

And yes I would much prefer a Chaly to a CBR150. It has character and reminds me of the days when Honda were making bikes to put a smile on peoples faces. When I was racing motocross as a kid in the late 80's we all rode 2 stroke CR's and we used to say If you have haven't got a wing, you haven't got a prayer. Now? not so much. I don't hate Honda, I drive one to work every day. But their bikes in the last 5-6 years are a massive disappointment and this latest effort continues the trend (and maybe even takes it to a new level).

.

[snowflake]

you keep saying the the ninja is better- but what reasoning do you use?

If high speed- cbr cruise at 130...

ninja cruise at 130...

Single vs twin

one loo vs another look

for you the ninja might be the best bike, and maybe for me as well- since i like speed...BUT... Did honda make a great allrounder with good power, comfortable, reliable, and sold it cheaply? They did...

Apart from the whole twin vs single i can not really come with a solid reason for one bike being better... They are just different, different concepts...

Everything else is just personal opinions and taste- and ou can not tell me that i dont like the cbr looks... Many people will tell me the suzuki tu is nice, id dont think so, but who am i to dictate tastes...

Each for each own... Still waiting for a head to head...ninja vs cbr...

[bobbin]

Ninja is the better bike. The only question is how much better.

The fact that some people might be more comfortable on a lower performance, lower revving machine means absolutely nothing. if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

Oooohh, You are a sucker for punishment, aren't you Jonny?

It better be a lot better for the premium you paid. The only problem is that it isn't a lot better.

Feel free to subsidize Kawasaki Thailand.

Lower revving? What does that mean? Grunt comes from torque.

But I think I might order some new Ninja 250 graphics just to screw with your mind...(they're cool..)

[thaicbr]

"It better be a lot better for the premium you paid. The only problem is that it isn't a lot better."

Bobbin... Jonny did not pay a premium. When he bought his bike it WAS the cheapest (and only) 250 sports orientated bike in Thailand.

is the Ninja better than the Cbr.. who knows....I am STILL surprised that NO ONE has organised a shoot out.

Might do one at the end of the month with some rented ones in Pattaya..

Taichi are you up for it.

[billd766]

"wonder who around here can have their butler flip over the cushions and get that out of the sofa?"

I for one can not as 'SHE' has already found any loose change and put it in 'HER' money pot

Ah a minesweeper.

Not a problem for me as I already have my spot for begging planned.

Now about a work permit??

[JonnyF]

Ninja is the better bike. The only question is how much better.

The fact that some people might be more comfortable on a lower performance, lower revving machine means absolutely nothing. if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

Oooohh, You are a sucker for punishment, aren't you Jonny?

It better be a lot better for the premium you paid. The only problem is that it isn't a lot better.

Feel free to subsidize Kawasaki Thailand.

Lower revving? What does that mean? Grunt comes from torque.

But I think I might order some new Ninja 250 graphics just to screw with your mind...(they're cool..)

Keep up Boobin, I think we've moved on from the discussion about which is better value, the CBR is.

Now we're talking about which is the better bike. Do you have any reason why the CBR is the better bike? (try to ignore price now, I know you you'll find it tough but stick with it). If both were offered to you free of charge which would you choose? Try to be honest now.

Do you prefer the lower speed? The lower hp? A single over a twin? The cheap looking fit and finish? The lack of a consistently priced dealer network? Which of these appeals to you the most?

PS Lower revving means the max RPM is lower (lower means "not as high", RPM stands for revolutions per minute). If you need more clarification let me know - always happy to help .

[CMX]

JonnyF,

"The ABS is an exception and Honda deserves credit for this option - but if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig."

You know, in this expression, you may have overstated your case. I can't accept that the CBR250 is a pig, compared to the Ninjette, or that ABS is just related to outer clothing. I'm guessing that you meant that something added doesn't change the essence of the central object.

But there too, I think it wrong. As you suggest, Honda deserves credit. More: They are here brilliant in anticipating a safety move that will doubtless save lives (and put them in first place for producing it on little bikes, if the European Community mandates them.) Plus, design and engineering are breakthrough stuff. ABS is significant and for many, not just beginners, should make us think the Honda the better bike. A deal-maker, if you like, more important in itself than having a twin or higher rpm.

Also, I can't understand your assurance that the CBR have inferior fit and finish.

So saying, let me say that I prefer twins in principle and despise Honda for what dealers are allowed to ask for the bikes up north here in CM. Our local prices for the PCX and the Airblade have also skied. Despise the despicable, sez I.

[bobbin]

Ninja is the better bike. The only question is how much better.

The fact that some people might be more comfortable on a lower performance, lower revving machine means absolutely nothing. if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

Oooohh, You are a sucker for punishment, aren't you Jonny?

It better be a lot better for the premium you paid. The only problem is that it isn't a lot better.

Feel free to subsidize Kawasaki Thailand.

Lower revving? What does that mean? Grunt comes from torque.

But I think I might order some new Ninja 250 graphics just to screw with your mind...(they're cool..)

Keep up Boobin, I think we've moved on from the discussion about which is better value, the CBR is.

Now we're talking about which is the better bike. Do you have any reason why the CBR is the better bike? (try to ignore price now, I know you you'll find it tough but stick with it). If both were offered to you free of charge which would you choose? Try to be honest now.

Do you prefer the lower speed? The lower hp? A single over a twin? The cheap looking fit and finish? The lack of a consistently priced dealer network? Which of these appeals to you the most?

PS Lower revving means the max RPM is lower (lower means "not as high", RPM stands for revolutions per minute). If you need more clarification let me know - always happy to help .

I didn't trim the quotes because it works so much better as a narrative...

The name is bobbin, Jonny. No capital, double "b" not double "o". You know, one of those things used to wind up thread(s)..... Or, in reference to my smokin' hot avatar, a technique used to avoid a punch... Take your pick...

Sorry, it's just not possible to avoid price. Price is the foundation of our Capitalist system. But if some generous person (preferably a runner-up for Miss Thailand, whose Dad just happens to own a golf course) were to offer me whichever one I wanted, it would be a tough choice.

First, I want to ride both bikes. No bias, but simple. One or the other. City and highway, with city weighted higher because that is where I do most of my riding. 75/25.

Single or twin? Having ridden the old model for 8 years now, I'm not going to be prejudiced against singles, am I? If the engine is smooth and tractable, I'm happy. Not too important to me then.

Lower red-line? Geez, we get spoiled so easy. Honda's 10,500rpm (thanks for that) isn't exactly waterwheel speed, is it? So no biggie for me.

Cheap fit and finish? Most motorcycle fans aren't lining up with you on that one. One of Honda's strong points.

Now, if the Kawasaki were to be say 10kph (6mph) faster on the top-end, does that make it the winner? A performance differential of approximately 7%? I don't think so, do you? And I won't go into the price differential..

ABS. Honda's got it. Kawasaki doesn't. Honda would like to keep me alive to buy another bike. Kawasaki is prepared to let me take my chances.

So back to the question. If free, it's possible I would choose the Kawasaki. But I haven't ridden the Ninja 250. and only ridden the CBR250 for less than 5 minutes in a parking lot. So that would be step one.

But I highly doubt I'll be getting a free motorcycle anytime soon, so we are back to price. If I pay more than I need to for comparable products/services, then I am not a smart consumer. I'm just a slave to the system.

So, if I am paying for it, it's Honda. And it will always be Honda. Unless or until Kawasaki is selling an ABS-equipped bike for the same price. Then we'll see....

[loserlazer]

Ninja is the better bike. The only question is how much better.

The fact that some people might be more comfortable on a lower performance, lower revving machine means absolutely nothing. if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

Oooohh, You are a sucker for punishment, aren't you Jonny?

It better be a lot better for the premium you paid. The only problem is that it isn't a lot better.

Feel free to subsidize Kawasaki Thailand.

Lower revving? What does that mean? Grunt comes from torque.

But I think I might order some new Ninja 250 graphics just to screw with your mind...(they're cool..)

Keep up Boobin, I think we've moved on from the discussion about which is better value, the CBR is.

Now we're talking about which is the better bike. Do you have any reason why the CBR is the better bike? (try to ignore price now, I know you you'll find it tough but stick with it). If both were offered to you free of charge which would you choose? Try to be honest now.

Do you prefer the lower speed? The lower hp? A single over a twin? The cheap looking fit and finish? The lack of a consistently priced dealer network? Which of these appeals to you the most?

PS Lower revving means the max RPM is lower (lower means "not as high", RPM stands for revolutions per minute). If you need more clarification let me know - always happy to help .

No need to be bobbin, honest or genius to answer that.

If someone - c'mon man, an angel!!! - will buy me what i choose between ninja 250 and honda cbr 250- of course i choose the ninja, sell it right away, buy a cbr 250 with the money and keep 40 - 50 k for modifications

Edited January 16, 2011 by loserlazer

[wjmark]

...

Maybe I am missing something, but this argument (a uselessly ugly argument, btw), seems to focus on whether or not the Ninja is infinitely superior because it has a few more hp, and whether or not the CBR is a piece of crap because Honda had the gall to name it "CBR" and not "BBNR" (Beginner's Bike Not Racing).

The ugliness also seems to be about whether anyone buying a new CBR250 is an asshol_e or not...

No it isn't the old CBR250 18,000rpm 4-cyl 40hp screamer. It is what it is - slower than the Ninja, but with a wider lower power curve.

But maybe I missed it, but nobody sees to talk about handling? Isn't that also important in a motorcycle?

JonnyF keeps using the word "better" when he seems to mean "faster". Not exactly the same thing.

Which handles better? The pro-racing, incredibly ultra-fast, over-priced, speed-demon rocket, 133hp Ninja250 or the crappy, cheap, slow, beginners, 6hp CBR250?

Being a novice, and moving from an old CBR150, I can't imagine anything in the world handling better than my new CBR250 (non-ABS). In three rides I put over a thousand km in the mountains all in the Mae Sa Valley and up Doi Suthep, and am absolutely in love.

I wanted a stronger CBR150 with bigger tires, and that is what my CBR250 is to me - faster, more secure, and handles like a dream (not a Dream).

So which handles better? Ninja or CBR. I am asking both about "racing'" handling, and "real world" handling.

So for those 'pros' who know so much about bikes (and belittle the new Honda for what it isn't), why not tell us if one is a better handler than the other. And how about telling us novices "how and why" one is a better handler than the other. It's all a great learning curve for me!

ps - And if you want to make fun of my name because your Ninja is faster, shame on you! Really!

pps - and to KRS1, "yes" the new CBR250, with its lower-end torque, pulls through a lot of curves with minimal down-shifting (compared to the regular double down-shifts of the old 150). That is part of why I love it!

Edited January 16, 2011 by wjmark

[CMX]

WJMARK

Excellent objective perspective in evaluating what has gone before, IMHO. Perspective is all.

I hope that those who respond to your handling question have had a good deal of experience with both bikes - which seems unlikely. Otherwise, it will just be a survey of limited experiences (one bike but not the other) wishing to advance their preferences over best information.

Yours, on the other hand, is a useful comparison to old CBR150, since you know both.

Edited January 17, 2011 by CMX

[BigBikeBKK]

...

Maybe I am missing something, but this argument (a uselessly ugly argument, btw), seems to focus on whether or not the Ninja is infinitely superior because it has a few more hp, and whether or not the CBR is a piece of crap because Honda had the gall to name it "CBR" and not "BBNR" (Beginner's Bike Not Racing).

The ugliness also seems to be about whether anyone buying a new CBR250 is an asshol_e or not...

No it isn't the old CBR250 18,000rpm 4-cyl 40hp screamer. It is what it is - slower than the Ninja, but with a wider lower power curve.

But maybe I missed it, but nobody sees to talk about handling? Isn't that also important in a motorcycle?

JonnyF keeps using the word "better" when he seems to mean "faster". Not exactly the same thing.

Which handles better? The pro-racing, incredibly ultra-fast, over-priced, speed-demon rocket, 133hp Ninja250 or the crappy, cheap, slow, beginners, 6hp CBR250?

Being a novice, and moving from an old CBR150, I can't imagine anything in the world handling better than my new CBR250 (non-ABS). In three rides I put over a thousand km in the mountains all in the Mae Sa Valley and up Doi Suthep, and am absolutely in love.

I wanted a stronger CBR150 with bigger tires, and that is what my CBR250 is to me - faster, more secure, and handles like a dream (not a Dream).

So which handles better? Ninja or CBR. I am asking both about "racing'" handling, and "real world" handling.

So for those 'pros' who know so much about bikes (and belittle the new Honda for what it isn't), why not tell us if one is a better handler than the other. And how about telling us novices "how and why" one is a better handler than the other. It's all a great learning curve for me!

ps - And if you want to make fun of my name because your Ninja is faster, shame on you! Really!

pps - and to KRS1, "yes" the new CBR250, with its lower-end torque, pulls through a lot of curves with minimal down-shifting (compared to the regular double down-shifts of the old 150). That is part of why I love it!

No need for it to be an "ugly argument". I personally prefer a spirited debate over name calling and insults.

Ok, we all know that a stock Ninja 250R is more powerful than a stock Honda CBR 250 so no need to waste time arguing or debating that point.

Now the question is, which one handles better?

I think the CBR 250 is too new to make any conclusive judgment on its handling. I haven't ridden one yet so can't make any personal observations on the CBRs handling.

They had a Honda CBR 250 race at Thailand Circuit some weeks ago-

The lap times were not terribly impressive, but then again, it's a brand new bike, seems they were forced to run on the stock IRC tires and no doubt with more mods and better tires lap times will improve.

The new CBR 250 looks pretty nice in track fairings-

The Ninjette has been tried and tested, modded and improved on streets and tracks all over the world and enjoyed a major re-design in 2008 so it's got quite a head start over the new CBR.

I think it's fairly safe to say that Honda did not design their new CBR 250 to win races.

Then again, it's rather clear that it's not being marketed to would-be racers. If Honda wanted the new CBR 250 to be competitive on the track they should have at least engineered it to match the Hp of the Ninjette.

I'm sure we'll see a head to head comparison of the two bikes soon and I also hope I'll be able to take a CBR 250 for a spin at a track one of these days to see how it handles.

Ride On!

Tony

Edited January 17, 2011 by BigBikeBKK

[snowflake]

wjmark,

Finally someone that came with some good points on which bike is better...

I think that once enough people have changed their tires from the IRC to something better (Kwakers also changed their tires) people will find that their CBR's are getting much better.

I feel that for what it is, the handling of the CBR is very good, in town it is extremely easy to ride, few gearshifts and loads (for what it is) torque from the start makes it easy to weave in and out of lanes/traffic. It also have the power in any gear to forgive that optimistic overtake that you really should not have tried to.

On the highway, sure it lacks in weight, just like every small bike does, but for that, you do need a bigger bike/sports tourer. BUT, the ability of cruising at 130kmph is there, and it will do so brilliantly and with the correct rider in the twisties, keep up with much bigger bikes.

The seat is what still amazes me the most, after 3-4 hours in the saddle, my bum is still fresh as a daisy and willing to ride more/further.

All in all, that CBR is impressive in every way- looks might not be the best (very individual) but for the whole twin vs single, give me a break... Sure one might be better, faster, sound nicer, but will that make it a better bike?

Fast bikes magazine had an article along time ago, they were testing commuters on a "longer journey"... They had a few bikes as they always do, the honda was never the fastest, most comfortable, prettiest, or cheapest, but all the people agreed that if you were 400 miles from home, the honda was the bike they would want.

Honda is known to make reliable easy riding bikes, and that in my humble opinion is more important than 10 kmph extra... (and I do LOVE speed!)

All in all, the whole which bike is better is so individual, what is perfect for someone, is a pain in the arse for someone.

Some people like the Vespa, I think they are dirt fugly, some people do not like the Hayabusa, I love them-

Each for his/hers own, just try to get the best you can afford with the specs you like!

Said that, I did buy the bike untested, I had hoped that it could cruise at 150kmph (which would have made it the last bike I would ever have) but it cant, not with me on top anyway. Sure I can reach 150, but that is pushing it hard and you do work more on the bike, 130 is very comfortable.

I will because of that speed factor change this bike this year, to something that is a bit faster, Vesyrus (SP) here I come!!!

But to all my friends I do say, this bike is more than enough for you, it has the power and comfortability you look for.

So, anyone with a Ninja (they are out playing on their bikes while the CBR crew is inside typing, go figure), please let us know the handling and comfortability of your ride...

Dave, you have a Ninja, yes? Care to let us know?

Is this really apples and oranges?

[nikster]

Then again, it's rather clear that it's not being marketed to would-be racers. If Honda wanted the new CBR 250 to be competitive on the track they should would have at least engineered it to match the Hp of the Ninjette.

...

Here, corrected that for you... I am pretty sure Honda could have made the same bike as the Ninja 250 had they wanted to. Why they didn't we we can only speculate - I think they wanted to make an easy-going bike for beginners (seems obvious from the marketing) - so low rev torque was more important than high rev power. They didn't aim to rule the race track, they aimed to rule the roads. If the Ninja 250R was bought mostly by beginners, how many of them took their bike to the track, or rode it hard at all? There were also rumors about a single cylinder 250 MotoGP class.

I bet the CBR 250R still has some potential with tuning and the right tires - how big a potential, we'll just have to wait and see. I am sure some people will have modded-out race versions a few months down the road.

Having ridden the CBR250 up doi suthep I can already say handling is awesome, and low end torque makes it an absolute joy for what I care about most, hitting the twisties. Loved the easy gear changes too, a pretty big difference from the much less refined CLUNK of the ER-6n / Versys. It's a really nice, well-handling, high tech little bike, just as you'd expect from Honda. The only real surprise is the low price in Thailand.