600's

Discussion in 'UK Motorcycles' started by Linger, Apr 30, 2005.

  1. Linger

    Linger Guest

    Rode a 2003 gsxr600 last night. The one that my 21 year old friend bought.
    He passed his DAS yesterday and gave me the keys.
    Managed to get my kneedown on the first roundabout, not bad considering a
    year lay off from road bikes.

    Anyway, aren't they good now! Last time I rode a 600 inline four they did
    nothing up until 7000 revs. This one felt quite powerful low down. Now I
    know since I sold the blade that I've lost 5 stone, but this little tiddler
    would easily keep up with my old blade and the handling was superb.

    So, modern 600's, still chick wheels, or a modern alternative to litre
    bikes?
     
    Linger, Apr 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Linger

    Lozzo Guest

    Linger says...
    Today I are mostly been riding a 1991 CBR600FM that belongs to my
    brother-in-law....what a horrible bike[1].

    Well, maybe that's a touch harsh. It's not that there is actually
    anything particularly wrong with it, everything does what it is meant
    to do and in typical Honda fashion it does it reasonably well.
    But.....It's dog fucking slow, handling is a bit on the squishy soft
    side and there's no noticeable power step. The acceleration is linear
    and there's not what I'd call any vast amount of torque. When I first
    got on it I thought it was running rough and down on power, but it
    isn't, it's running really well for one of these.

    Maybe my expectations are jaded by the fact that I've had a string of
    bikes over the past 3 years with 130+bhp, torque in abundence and
    better suspension, but I really hope I never have to own a bike like
    this again. I don't think I could get on with owning a modern 600
    either. My daughter has a 2004 R6 that she's finally let me ride
    briefly[2] and I hated it. Too frantic and way too twitchy for the
    road. It was more like riding a high;y tuned 2-stroke that made the
    wrong noises.

    It does have very good brakes though.

    [1] I am very grateful for the loan of it, cheers Gazza.
    [2] If anyone can remember what I did to her boyfriend's NC30, then
    you'll understand what a leap of faith this was on her part. Google for
    "Lozzo down but not out" if you don't already know.
     
    Lozzo, Apr 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Linger

    Pip Guest

    <snip slagging>

    And in what way would you describe a 1991 CBR6 as a "modern 600"?

    There's surely few points of comparison with a two-year-old GSXR6 -
    apart from capacity, number of wheels and cylinders etc.
     
    Pip, Apr 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Linger

    Linger Guest

    That was the point I was making. The last 600 I rode was a 97 GSXR SRAD and
    it was shite. I've also ridden CBR's and R6's of about the same age.
    This is what blew me away. The modern GSXR really does have low-down torque
    and a midrange.
     
    Linger, Apr 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Linger

    dwb Guest

    I always thought the 02 GSX-R had a very friendly engine.

    Okay you had to wring it's neck to really shift, but you could leave it in
    third and ride the revs from 7000 (and 60mph) through to 13500 and
    (110mph) - I know Champ et al will say it doesn't compare to a 1000, but I
    found it very user friendly.

    It was the riding position that got me - not the engine.

    But they'll always be 'chick wheels' to those who can't/won't think beyond
    CC and BHP :)
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Linger

    dwb Guest

    Something it was universally slated for in all the group tests.

    Other 600's neither have the same power characteristics, nor do they have
    the 'interesting' handling.

    You won't change your mind - I know that - but compare apples with apples
    :)
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Linger

    dwb Guest

    Yeah but it doesn't have that much say compared to a big twin (and I can
    directly compare these)

    However they are perfectly ridable on the road IMO.
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Linger

    Muck Guest

    I know that this is only a little related, but didn't someone try
    comparing a TL1000 to a GSXR1000, didn't the GSXR1000 have more torque
    and hp than the TL?
     
    Muck, Apr 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Linger

    dwb Guest

    I'm not saying it doesn't. It most definitely will.

    It's how it develops that torque and where that will be different. Also in
    this case it's a comparison of a 1000 twin with a 600cc four - (making
    similar power but very different torque numbers)

    My statement was that the GSX-R600 has, on the road, more than enough go at
    almost any rev range, to make riding relatively enjoyable - with less
    potential chance of being flung off :)

    The twin OTOH, just makes it all a bit lower and therefore it's a bit less
    'effort' to ride - however the 600 is still perfectly decent.

    I know the 1000cc four brigade will be along shortly to put me in my place
    ;)
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Linger

    Muck Guest

    I like the smoothness of a 4, not that V twins aren't fun, but after
    riding a V twin... I'm glad to get back to a proper 4 cylinder engined
    bike. ;)
    That all depends on the pilot, but I can see your point though.
    Heh, quite.. Yeh another torque / hp / 2 vs 4 thread....
     
    Muck, Apr 30, 2005
    #10
  11. Linger

    dwb Guest

    Well yes - Champ, Bonners etc - who *use* the power of a 1000 - no question
    they will be faster without the flinging off bit.

    The other 99% - I think they'd do exactly the same speed on a 600 they would
    on the 1000. They just won't admit it.

    That said, I suspect it's probably easier to high side a DL1000 then it
    would potentially be a GSX-R1000 - the reason being that different power
    delivery, geometry and crappier tyres - Flip wibble on that really.
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Linger

    dwb Guest

    The same number of leading edge 600's you have?
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Linger

    Muck Guest

    Some less than good riders will actually go faster on a smaller bike,
    mainly due to their own confidence, or lack there of..
    Sometimes having not so good running gear has the added advantage of
    making a bike spongy and forgiving, think Bandit vs ZX10R. There again,
    this is not a rule set in stone.
     
    Muck, Apr 30, 2005
    #13
  14. Linger

    dwb Guest

    Yeah but do you? Isn't this still an impasse? :)

    Anyway, I have a litre bike now (granted a twin) so I'll just agree they're
    chick wheels.

    Happy?
     
    dwb, Apr 30, 2005
    #14
  15. Linger

    Lozzo Guest

    dwb says...
    But 600s suck, no matter how far advanced they are from the old CBRs.
    They just don't have *it*.
     
    Lozzo, Apr 30, 2005
    #15
  16. Lozzo wrote
    Nor does *any* in-line engine. You only get soul if you have
    opposition.
     
    steve auvache, Apr 30, 2005
    #16
  17. Linger

    Lozzo Guest

    steve auvache says...
    Your gob <-------------------------------------------> a clue.
     
    Lozzo, Apr 30, 2005
    #17
  18. Lozzo wrote
    This is hardly new news but it doesn't change my opinion any.
     
    steve auvache, Apr 30, 2005
    #18
  19. Linger

    Pip Guest

    You smell of wee, too.
     
    Pip, Apr 30, 2005
    #19
  20. It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember "Linger"
    That's a bloody good increase in power/weight ratio though. Any bike
    will feel faster with 5stones less on it.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Apr 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.