Seems like the cycle world has gone nuts...

[oldbear]

I was at the dealers and saw one of the new FZ07's (MT07). Nice bike. Caught an article in one of the mags about Yamaha's new "entry level" machine. Looking at the spec's I see 74 horsepower, 397 pounds wet. Entry Level?? WTF? I just checked the spec's on my old '92 750 H2 Kawasaki. It was listed at 74 horsepower, 419 pounds...and, oh yeah, it was advertised as "the fastest accelerating production motorcycle in the WORLD!!" All the magazines at the time called it the "expert's machine" (and widowmaker, etc. etc.), now an ENTRY level machine has the same power, less weight? I know I'm getting old, but it looks to this old boy that the Mark 1, Type 1 Homo Sapiens has not changed a bit in the last forty years, yet the bikes......sheesh. I guess I'm glad I wasn't making my "entry" into motorcycles today. I would have done myself in on my H2 as a first bike, 'cause in those days they only had one speed, as far as the right grip would turn . Weird stuff!

 

[Philistine]

I have been watching the same thing happening in Australia too, I remember in the late 70s Ford and GM were making faster and faster cars for the road so they could be raced in group C racing, ( had to be 200 register in Australia to be allowed in group C ) the Government stepped in and stoped it, saying the cars were too powerful and too easy for anyone to buy, I wonder if they understand the power to weight ratio of these new learner bikes? I think not, which means the will be an over reaction in the future.

 

[GrahamD]

Go and lay the specs of the S10 and a Suzuki Katana 1000 side by side.

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/suzu/suzuki_gsx1000s_katana%2082.htm

Interesting ;D

And yes it is Nucking Futs, when an FZ/MT 07 is considered a beginners bike.

Grom Yes. SR400 yep,

This was THE beginners bike in my day Sonny.

http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_cb_250_g_1975.php

It could hold 100km/h (indicated all day) if you had half a day spare to get there. weighed the same as the FZ07 and produced 24HP at the rear wheel just after being tuned for about an hour and probably 20HP after a month.

I thought it was scary fast and heavy when I first started riding it. ::025::

 

[Roge]

I had a CBR100XX Blackbird in the late 90s apparently only Men with huge balls could handle the thing according to the press 2 years later it waqs a tourer, go figure?

 

[markjenn]

Maybe an FZ-07 and a H2 have the same peak horsepower, but that certainly doesn't make them equivalent bikes from a novice control-ability standpoint. Riding a H2 at the limit took some serious chutzpah, both because of the explosive way it made power and because this level of power completely overwhelmed the chassis and brakes. The FZ-07 is a dawdle by comparison and much easier to ride and control. The same progression of controllable power has occurred with cars.... a current V6 Accord makes 278-hp while to get this level of power back in 1970 required a pretty serious and difficult-to-control muscle car. Is a V6 Accord a good car for a novice? Of course. Is an equivalently-fast 1971 Corvette a good novice car? Of course not.

We're at least making some progress when beginners are being steered to 74-hp 700cc twins rather than 110-hp 600cc inline-fours. An FZ-07 is a lot of bike, but it is a much better beginner's bike than a 600cc sportbike. Or a big-twin Harley which is what many fresh-out-of-MSF-class students immediately aspire to.

Having said all this, I have always thought that the notion that one's first bike should be one "you won't outgrow" to be fundamentally flawed. A beginners bike SHOULD be one you outgrow.... that's the whole idea. When I learned to ride, you started out on small/light bikes and worked your way through a progression of machines. You'd start out on a 175, then a year later get a 350, then maybe graduate to a 500 your third year. This has fallen out of favor for some reason. Much of this was driven by limited finances and I have no idea how young/beginning riders swing $8K first bikes.

The best beginner bikes are the small dual-sports, but most don't like the seat height and want a road bike. The bikes I recommend most to beginners these days are the 500cc Honda twins. They're just very nice, well-sorted, sophisticated, bullet-proof, reasonably light, etc. and 45-hp strikes me as about right.

- Mark

 

[Checkswrecks]

Maybe an FZ-07 and a H2 have the same peak horsepower, but that certainly doesn't make them equivalent bikes from a novice control-ability standpoint. Riding a H2 at the limit took some serious chutzpah, both because of the explosive way it made power and because this level of power completely overwhelmed the chassis and brakes. The FZ-07 is a dawdle by comparison and much easier to ride and control. The same progression of controllable power has occurred with cars.... a current V6 Accord makes 278-hp while to get this level of power back in 1970 required a pretty serious and difficult-to-control muscle car. Is a V6 Accord a good car for a novice? Of course. Is an equivalently-fast 1971 Corvette a good novice car? Of course not.

We're at least making some progress when beginners are being steered to 74-hp 700cc twins rather than 110-hp 600cc inline-fours. An FZ-07 is a lot of bike, but it is a much better beginner's bike than a 600cc sportbike. Or a big-twin Harley which is what many fresh-out-of-MSF-class students immediately aspire to.

Having said all this, I have always thought that the notion that one's first bike should be one "you won't outgrow" to be fundamentally flawed. A beginners bike SHOULD be one you outgrow.... that's the whole idea. When I learned to ride, you started out on small/light bikes and worked your way through a progression of machines. You'd start out on a 175, then a year later get a 350, then maybe graduate to a 500 your third year. This has fallen out of favor for some reason. Much of this was driven by limited finances and I have no idea how young/beginning riders swing $8K first bikes.

The best beginner bikes are the small dual-sports, but most don't like the seat height and want a road bike. The bikes I recommend most to beginners these days are the 500cc Honda twins. They're just very nice, well-sorted, sophisticated, bullet-proof, reasonably light, etc. and 45-hp strikes me as about right.

- Mark

+1 to what Mark wrote.
I remember wondering if I would be intimidated and humiliated by power when I bought the Suzuki 380 2-stroke in the 70s. LOL

 

[jaeger22]

+2 to what Mark said. Right on the money IMHO. I always recommend a small dual sport as a first bike if they have the legs for it. I started my daughter on a 175 Yamaha and it worked out well.

 

[markjenn]

I remember wondering if I would be intimidated and humiliated by power when I bought the Suzuki 380 2-stroke in the 70s. LOL

I went from a CB350 to the GT550 Indy. Only bike I ever owned that was a complete lemon - gave me nothing but trouble.

- Mark

 

[Don in Lodi]

Having said all this, I have always thought that the notion that one's first bike should be one "you won't outgrow" to be fundamentally flawed. A beginners bike SHOULD be one you outgrow.... that's the whole idea. When I learned to ride, you started out on small/light bikes and worked your way through a progression of machines. You'd start out on a 175, then a year later get a 350, then maybe graduate to a 500 your third year. This has fallen out of favor for some reason. Much of this was driven by limited finances and I have no idea how young/beginning riders swing $8K first bikes.

The best beginner bikes are the small dual-sports, but most don't like the seat height and want a road bike. The bikes I recommend most to beginners these days are the 500cc Honda twins. They're just very nice, well-sorted, sophisticated, bullet-proof, reasonably light, etc. and 45-hp strikes me as about right.

- Mark

Remember the Honda Rebel? I knew of at least one club that had one of those in a member's garage for noobies to get in some parking lot practice on.

 

[oldbear]

Glad it's not just me . I remember my first ride on a Honda 65, then a 90 Bridgestone "rotary shift". Made the jump to a Yamaha YM1 305 CrossCountry. 305 cc's, 32 (I think) horsepower. Scared the CRAP outta me (for a little while ::025:. I know chassis and brakes today are a bunch better, but people are still people. And lets be honest, things happen a BUNCH faster on a 100 horse bike than they do on a 20 horse one. Either can get you in serious trouble, but the more powerful one does it much easier. I'd love to know how many newbies on their 70+ horsepower "beginner" bikes wind up piling it up within the first 5k miles they ride. I'd put some pretty serious money that the percentage is high.

Ride Safe Y'all ::021::

 

[Clevermonkey]

Not sure I would call this bike a starter but it got me thinking about the changes in tires and suspensions since " back in the day" I had a cb750... About 1992 ish. Many years later I had the same bike ... About 2009. My first 750 I was a broke ass kid and only fixed shit when it fell off. In 09 I had some money and bought new tires and rear shocks, then added progressive fork springs to the mix. Late in 2011 I rode around the Olympic Peninsula as I had done many years before on the old bike, and I was amazed at how much faster I would take corners in the new bike vs the old one. It does make a difference! Add to that better brakes... Bikes are far easier to handle than them olden days,

My son is looking at getting his first bike, and as he doesn't want payments is looking I ten under $1000 crowd. Lots of cx500s out there,

 

[GrahamD]

Not sure I would call this bike a starter but it got me thinking about the changes in tires and suspensions since " back in the day" I had a cb750...

On that subject ;D

Dunlop Wobble & Weave.wmv

 

[MurphCO]

The advances in modern medicine require extreme measures in culling the herd

::020::