CBR600RR whilst SV in for service, should I change?

Originally Posted by SV'dd

I think your right, it worked! Believe me I sort of wish they hadn't because I would have still been happy on the SV.

ride something worse than the sv and you'll be glad to get it back

Personally I would choose a CBR600F over the RR - much better for real roads and real riders. The later ally framed fuel injection ones (from 2001 onwards) should give you all the thrills you need without being too scary fast.

However I am biased as I have an F although mine is the last of the card'd versions.

Having said that if you really want the RR go for it - remember you can go as fast or slow as you want using the throttle.

I'm on an RR5 from an SV after a 15 year break from biking.
If you want one, there's no reason not to - they're not even that uncomfortable for the first 160miles or so

[KnightRider]

Originally Posted by steveg

I did a track day on a CBR600RR lovely bike on the track , for the road if you do a lot of mileage would go for std CBR600F, if you are on a tight budget the steel framed CBR's are a great bike (almost bought one instead of the sv), I'm in your neck of the woods ( Bromsgrove) , where are you thinking of buying the CBR from ?

Cheers Steve

I ride from Maidenhead to East London every day (40 miles each way) and found the ride to be more comfortable than the SV. I am however a short **** at 5ft4 so the tight riding position fitted me like a dream.

One interesting point, everyone recommended the SV to me cause it had a low seat height. The CBR 600RR has a lower seat heat than the SV and I could get both feet touching the floor with no mods. Going back the SV is quite scary as I am tip toes with only one leg down!

Why do people say that the RR shouldn't be for new riders? They must base this purely on the fact that it's a fast bike.. The rider is the factor that determines the speed, not the bike, I can honestly say that in the 6 months i've been a biker that i've never been caught out by my bikes speed. If I find i'm going too fast then I slow down! If the rider cannot control the speed then they shouldn't be on a motorbike on the first place.

The RR gives confidence as it's so planted on the road when riding, I would say it's a better bike for newbies than an SV. I should know as I'm a newbie and i've had both (RR3 tho, not RR7).

doesnt matter what bike you ride its how you twist the throttle that matters.

Originally Posted by nick_1871

Why do people say that the RR shouldn't be for new riders?

I think a lot of the reasoning is because of the high insurance costs for a new rider and also the cost of replacing damaged parts. There is also a substantial difference in HP, but usually a new rider wouldn't be inclined to redline it.

Personally i wouldn't recommend a bike to a new rider that costs more than £3000. Its quite likely you will lay it down and at worst have an off. However if someone was after either a new SV or an older ZX6(), i would probably recommend the ninja. My brother is looking to do his DAS and i said an older ninja is a decent option.

I'm in no position to judge as i had a series of 2 stroke 125's as a kid, when the sensible option would have been a CG.

If cost wasn't an issue, then i think a CBR(etc) is as good a first bike as any. The brakes/suspension are nicer than an SV. Also the fact you have to work the gearbox to go fast, means that they can be ridden sensibly/sedately. The SV can also be lumpy around town and requires more clutch control.

In summary....each to their own.

[northwind]

Yep, bend an RR and it'll cost you a lot more to sort than an SV or Hornet, or similiar. Also, while it is just down to self control, a lack of control is less bad news on a slower bike, you can get into trouble a lot faster with 120bhp than with 70 as far as poor throttle control goes.

For me, the big reason is that learning on a great bike has 2 specific advantages. One is that you can let the bike do the work, like I said earlier in the thread- you learn things on a slow bike that you'll probably never bother to learn on a fast one. Why conserve an extra 10mph through a corner when you can go from 40 to 50 in well under a second? It can encourage laziness and bad habits, and can take away some of the impetus to improve.

But also, there's psychology here. If you have a brilliant bike, you have less space to upgrade I think one of the reasons I appreciate the SV so much is that I served my time on a complete nail. I know a few people who've never owned anything but modern race reps, and they don't really appreciate what they have... 600 guys look longingly at thousands, thou guys want Busas or MV Augustas. You've got to eat bitter to taste sweet as the man said.

Originally Posted by kwak zzr

doesnt matter what bike you ride its how you twist the throttle that matters.

Or, as an old bloke in my local pub used to say.

"Well I dont know, I have nivver had a licence but it seems like any silly bugga can get hold 'o' that speed. It's getting shut of it quick that matters."

Originally Posted by wheelnut

Or, as an old bloke in my local pub used to say.

"Well I dont know, I have nivver had a licence but it seems like any silly bugga can get hold 'o' that speed. It's getting shut of it quick that matters."

yea he's right