SV vs CBR600F for starter rider

Originally Posted by kwak zzr

in the real world i cant really see anyone wanting more than the lill 650.

For everyday practical use the 650 is more than enough! but after you have been riding a few years you always want that bit more in reserve eh

i dont know because ive done things abit backwards? the sv650s is prob the slowest bike ive owned but the most enjoyable to ride, when i bent my 650 i got the 1000 but after riding it ive alway hanker'd after a 650 again?

[yorkie_chris]

After going from a CG125 to an SV650 (33bhp - bloody EU ) I can say the SV makes an excellent first bike, the power first time out (full power - private road) was great but nowhere near nasty, and nothing like what would land you in someones garden unless you're a total muppet. The engine braking did suprise me the very first time I rolled off, after that was fine. As to blipping on downshifts, we should all be able to do that, if you can't then don't blame the bike.
The forks are cr4p though, mine are getting the hagon treatment soon.

Having never ridden a CBRF im not going to comment on what they're like, but the SV will be cheaper to buy, insure (important at 19 years old!), repair, simpler to service (8valve, 2 carbs/TBs), will look better, sound better and be much easier on tyres and other consumables.

I want a 1050 speed triple next though...

Chris

chris-as for the 'looks btr''bit ,subjective dont you think
as for the less wear n tear on tyres -i totally disagree .i went from a yellow curvy 'y'reg to a 'w'reg cbr600f and my curvy eat through a rear in 2000 mls (conti road attack) and my michelin on the cbr is a wee bit squared off .nothing like the sv though.iv been told its to do with the power pulses from the v twin and a torquier motor (at low revs anyway)so youre more likely to really open the throttle at lower speeds for all out acceleration ,and in the process shred the tire even more ..check the wear on them -sv-front ,barely worn rear -totally shagged ,,,,cbr front worn a bit ,rear worn a bit more ,,what im gtng at is theres not as much of a gulf f/r with the cbr

Had a cbr600f (fi model) for 6 years, sv650 for about a year. The cbr feels slower without a doubt below 7k rpm. Suspension is in a different league to the sv, but as to smoothness of throttle, the sv is much better ( and that's after much cbr tweaking with power commander etc.)
SV much more fun despite suspension, full of character and I enjoy riding it much more.
As a new rider, i'd take the sv. You'll inevitably end up selling it before long to get something more powerful, but if you're enlightened you'll come back to it before long. 600f is just dull.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by jim@55

chris-as for the 'looks btr''bit ,subjective dont you think
as for the less wear n tear on tyres -i totally disagree

Fair point, was just guessing about the tyres as the CBR has overall more power, anywho.
The looks are subjective, but the SV is a distinctive bike, whereas most faired sports bikes don't really stand out apart from lairy colour schemes. UJMs.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Fair point, was just guessing about the tyres as the CBR has overall more power, anywho.
The looks are subjective, but the SV is a distinctive bike, whereas most faired sports bikes don't really stand out apart from lairy colour schemes. UJMs.

Show me a cbr that looks as good.

Originally Posted by jonboy99

Show me a cbr that looks as good.

Shame it's not in focus....



Admittedly, that is an F "sport", but it's the same bike, just with a different tail section. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so while you may consider your SV the personification of beauty, others may not.

.

Originally Posted by Jelster

.

. But then I'm a Honda convert...

.[/quote]

Really?!