[Ben]

Looks like a great list! Time for me to start cranking out some reviews

Ben

[RedFireBird]

i’ll never understand how having 40+ lb/ft down low is ‘more beginner friendly’ than a bike that doesn’t make 40+ lb/ft until nearly 5 digit RPM’s.

low rpm torque isn’t exactly what beginners need. that being said, bikes like the R6 aren’t exactly beginner bikes, but niether are SV650’s.

[eternal05]

Having torque and power available throughout makes a bike more forgiving to a new rider. If they get stuck on an incline, through a corner, after sudden braking, etc. in too high a gear, they aren’t completely hosed.

While an SV650 isn’t a “beginner bike,” it may be perfectly reasonable for a beginner with the right background and requisite skills.

[owlie]

Maybe as part of the workup we should include a more subjective measure: “Recommended for Beginners”, “Recommended for New Riders with some experience” and “Not recommended”

[zeppelinfromled]

There are also different standards of bikes that aren’t recommended. A 600 four cylinder isn’t a great beginner bike in most people’s eyes, but a Hayabusa 1300 is unacceptable in anyone’s eyes as a beginner bike. But since we’re just talking about a list of bikes that might be considered beginner bikes, the worst rating (“not recommended” or something similar) *could* be used as a beginner bike. Basically, I’m just noting that we’re leaving off bikes that are horribly not suited for beginners, so that’s something the keep in mind.

[owlie]

True. However, some of the bikes that are being included are very borderline, and it sounds like some are simply being included because they are asked about often, but not recommended.

On rereading the thread above, Eon basically makes the same suggestion that I made, and Eternal said that the numbers should speak for themselves. I agree, as long as we give a guideline as to what the numbers say (back to my rapidly dimming Brightline. ) Otherwise, we should categorize them somehow.

I guess what I am saying is that for those bikes that we have a fair consensus are good beginner bikes (like the Ninja 250), we note them. For bikes that we spend time debating (some of the ones in the 650 range), we note them. For the ones that shout SQUID, but have included to show how unreasonable they are, we note them.

In the end, we’re hoping for a tool that is easy for people people who are ignorant about motorcycle mechanics to use. I know the word ignorant is probably going to ruffle some feathers, but I’d rather use it than Squid. I’m ignorant when it comes to most things mechanical. I’m not stupid, but I know very little about what these numbers mean. This is a correctable condition, and so I’m here hanging out with lots of people who know more than me.

[zeppelinfromled]

Indeed.

In my mind, I kind of divide into 4 categories. There’s the 250, which is great for a beginner. Then there’s the 650 2 cylinder, which is pretty good for a beginner who has a cool head and did decently in the MSF course. Then there’s the 600 four cylinder, which isn’t good for a beginner unless (s)he has some prior experience. And then there’s the larger four cylinders (R1, Hayabusa, etc), which shouldn’t be someone’s first bike.

So saying which category each bike falls into (maybe additional categories) should be the minimum that a list like this would contain. Obviously the more info the better, as long as it’s not completely overwhelming.

[eternal05]

I disagree with your categories. I think you’re right in that there are people on this earth that can safely learn with a supersport (one of my best friends is one of them: two years and 15+ track days without a drop, crash, or accident of any kind). I don’t, however, think that we should make that possibility known in any literature on this site. If somebody comes by asking about it, we can judge their attitude and give them advice on a case-by-case basis.

The problem is that almost everybody (and I’m as guilty as sin on this) THINKS they’re safe, cautious, determined to practice and develop skills, “man enough,” etc. Whether they think they’re good enough to handle a GSX-R or CBR is immaterial. Those that want the supersport in the first place (*cough* me *cough*) are the same guys who brashly think they’re among the few that can handle it.

If I hadn’t been strongly pushed by friends, MSF safety courses, and various books/websites to start on a 250, I WOULD have purchased the GSX-R first. I’m REALLY glad I waited until I had almost two years and 13,000+ miles on my 250R to bump up to the bigger bike. Not only did it probably save me from some bad experiences (worst case, death), but it gave me an appreciation for smaller displacement riding. As I’ve said before, the latter is true to the point that I’ve not sold the Ninja to this day. I still love riding it around, despite my utter infatuation with my Suzuki

Last thing: I’ve got my work/school crap wrapped up for now so I’m going to try to put in some time on this beginner bike stuff. I’d already gathered some specs for about 10 of those bikes (a lot of the ones I’d originally included). I’ll try to get those for the other bikes and figure out how to present it all.

[zeppelinfromled]

That’s fair. I guess when I think of a 600 cc four cylinder being a good beginner bike, I’m thinking of people who have been riding dirt bikes for years, but I hear you about not wanting to recommend it on a general basis nonetheless.

As for format, I think a large Excel file might be a decent way to do it. You could use colored cells to indicate category (green for the 250s, red for the 600s, etc). I’m not sure how well it would actually work, but my mind jumps to Excel for most things where I need to organize stuff.

Let me know if you’d like some help gathering info, putting stuff together, proof reading, etc.

[eternal05]

I was thinking of making a public but non-editable Google docs spreadsheet. That way people can view it faster and without having to own Excel/Office/etc.

[eternal05]

Sorry for the delay, but v1.0 of the stat sheet is ready to go. If you take issue with any particular spec or recommendation, or if you know the value of a spec that I don’t know, let me know. Here it is:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rU4QBnyJGHjHiCQAtii4KeQ&single=true&gid=0&output=html

[AtlAggie]

Excellent job, eternal. I noticed you were missing a couple of the stats on the Vulcan 500, so I thought I’d share with you what my research turned up.

Power 46 hp @ 8,000 rpm
Torque 33 lb-ft @ 6,000 rpm
Dry weight: 214.1 kg (471.9 pounds)

[owlie]

This is fantastic! I really appreciate that you added in some of the descriptive characteristics such as fuel economy and set height.

The only suggestion I have is to add either a model year column or “last updated” date.

[eternal05]

Because nobody agrees. Some manufacturer’s publish it, but it’s usually not city/highway, but rather some nebulous combined average. Other manufacturer’s don’t publish anything at all, so you have to take some dude’s word for it. And then in the end, they’re all about the same anyway…somewhere between 45-55 for 600cc+, and somewhere around 70 mpg for 250s.

[smokeizfire]

wish it was a reference for me when I was researching…how come the ole 883 sportsters are not up there. I know a few people who started out on the old Sportys… besides Elwood..lol I think it should be considered borderline for a beginner bike. After all…you do have a Duc on the list.

[Author]

Posts