Is the Yamaha R6 a good bike for a beginner?
dj-tripps
riding. I was wonder should I look into something else, say the CBR F4
or something else along those lines. I would love to get a bike but I
am weighting my options.
Any advice would be appreciated.
markjenn
All the frontline 600cc sportbikes (R6, GSXR600, F4i, and ZX6R) are
basically very high performance racing machines designed for experienced
riders. At your skill level, it matters little which you pick - they are
all so far over your head that you're basically asking if you should buy a
Ferrari 360 or Porsche 911 Turbo as your first car.
The standard beginner's bike advice is to start with something used, cheap,
relatively low-performance, and without expensive bodywork. Good choices
are mid-size street standards,, mid-size cruisers, or dual-sports if you've
tall enough to take the seat height. A bike like this will survive the
inevitable beginner tipovers without thousands of dollars of damage, won't
get you into trouble too quickly, and are light enough that you can learn
some of the nuances of motorcycle control rather than being in point/shoot
mode all the time.
But not many beginners who have money want to schlepp around to trailer
parks on the bad side of town to see ratty old bikes and most don't have the
skill to pick a good used bike out of the dogs anyway. So you can either
buy one of the above bikes new and endure a little depreciation when you
sell in six-months to a year, or you can pull the trigger on the sport bike
of your dreams and hope for the best. Some new riders pull off the trick of
riding a bike like the R6 very conservatively until they gradually build up
experience. Most don't and it is luck whether their first spills are truly
life threatening or just expensive. If you want to see the dark scenario
read this: http://www.adriancrook.com/accident/
You can help yourself by backing off a notch and gettting something like a
Suzuki SV650. You might call this an "advanced beginner's bike" - it has a
lot of performance but it definitely a lot friendlier and more robust of
beginner's mistakes than an R6.
Whatever you get, don't swing a leg over a motorcycle without the best
protective gear and proper training. If you haven't taken the MSF course,
register now as some places have long, long waits. I'd rather see a
beginner on an R6 after completing the MSF course than have them have their
brother in law teach them in the KMart parking lot and let them go into
traffic on a GS500.
Good luck,
- Mark
Thomas Waldron
less HP is good too. My first bike was a minibike, then a DT175, 650
Special, Katana 550, 1000R Honda, GSXR750, now a GPz550 and a
YZF600R...hey! I'm going back down in cc's! Must've peaked or something.
tw
2000 YZF600R
1981 GPz550
--
PLEASE REMOVE "SMIRK" TO REPLY.
Andy
:-)
"Thomas Waldron" <twaldr...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:3CBC44A5...@starband.net...
Andy
very unforgiving bike right where your ego and the throttle meets.
New South Wales (Australia) laws do not permit any rider to ride any bike
above a 250cc unless they have had 12 months or two years (depending on age)
of riding experience without losing their licence.
To begin, I got stuck into the dirt (off road) riding a Kawasaki KLX 250.
The KLX was my first bike (if you'd call it that). Wasn't bad, dropped it a
few times as you do off road, it was an on road bike as well. Not bad for
getting around. I think it was a good decision as it was light and easy to
handle, and yeah, didn't have much guts either. If you die on a KLX, you
wouldn't be breaking the speed limit!
My second bike was a YZ250WR (an on/off road version of the YZ). This was a
two stroke bike, ah sorry I mean, bloody powerful bike, that was one of the
most unforgiving bikes I have ever been on (including the R6). I learnt a
lot of throttle control and the rest of it, but more importantly I learnt
how to hold on.
Since buying the R6 brand new, I haven't had any problems adapting, but I'm
really happy to be back on a 4 stroke (but I miss my YZ). The bike is
weighty and very powerful. It takes a little getting used to with the weight
especially if you start off on a lighter bike. For example, the YZ was
around 98kg, the R6 is around 160Kg. Needless to say the weight does make a
lot of difference and you should (whatever bike you choose), take it very
easy to begin with. I find the R6 an excellent 'in between' bike, that's
okay on fuel and easy to manage. It's not awkwardly powerful, but it's
certainly not a pony ride.
The power is sometimes irresistible - be careful.
"dj-tripps" <nbs_ms...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9de1734b.02041...@posting.google.com...
Redwood
bike is a good place to start. Depending on your physical size, either
a 250cc or 500cc street bike would be my suggestion. I started riding @
11 y.o., when I went to buy a new bike, I hadn't ridden in like seven
years. So before I pickedup my new 750, I rode a little Honda 200 for a
weekend. Saved myself at least a little embarrassment.
Joost Smeets
(thundercat) could make a good choice. It's a good looking bike, with
enough power and good drivability.
I haven't had the chance to go for a test drive yet, I've only read reviews
correct me if I'm wrong.
"dj-tripps" <nbs_ms...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:9de1734b.02041...@posting.google.com...
pete
"Joost Smeets" <J-Sm...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:a9mqnp$243$1...@reader05.wxs.nl...
> I'm also looking for my first bike, and I think that the YZF 600R
> (thundercat) could make a good choice. It's a good looking bike, with
> enough power and good drivability.
> I haven't had the chance to go for a test drive yet, I've only read
reviews
> correct me if I'm wrong.
I would consider a dealer who sold an R6 to a new rider with no experience
in the same league as a gun dealer trading at a junior school. In each
case, in inexperienced hands, the products are lethal. Little wonder that
the average life of a sport bike in some states, from out-of-the-crate to
write-off is about six weeks.
Andy
"pete" <fif...@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:Funw8.639$2N4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
markjenn
> in the same league as a gun dealer trading at a junior school. In each
> case, in inexperienced hands, the products are lethal. Little wonder that
> the average life of a sport bike in some states, from out-of-the-crate to
> write-off is about six weeks.
So you'd recommend that dealers begin making judgments about whether riders
are qualified to buy the bike they want? If I was a dealer, maybe I'd
decide you're not qualified to ride what you have now.
The dealer's job is to sell bikes. They have no qualifications (nor right)
to act as regulatory body deciding who is or is not qualified. That's the
job of the licensing agencies in a state. They do a miserable job of it,
but we're a a country that favors individual rights over governmental
intrusion in our personal affairs.
- Mark
pete
"markjenn" <mark...@NOSPAMflywheelsystems.com> wrote in message
news:aa07dn$d0a$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
from an R6 or similar. After all, the dealers not going to get much repeat
business from someone who's killed themselves, or busted themselves up so
bad they can't ride again. Also, the dealer might consider that, in a
country as litigatious (sp?) as the USA, where macDonalds can be sued for
$millions over a hot cup of coffee, the lawyers could be foaming at the
mouth at the idea of suing a dealer for selling someone exactly what they
wanted, but not what they were qualified to operate.
re my own qualifications to ride: I got my license when I was 15, thats 34
years ago, started with a very slow Velocette 350, then discovered trail
bikes and learned to crash in the dirt. I raced speedway (500 JAP, Jawa and
Weslake) for 16 odd years and currently have an IT400 Yamaha for the dirt,
and a GS1100 Suzuki for the road. An associate has an R6 and even now, I
wouldn't feel totally at ease with it.
John Smallberries
markjenn wrote:
Ah, a wonderfully flawed sense of reality, dripping with an acutely
skewed sense of right and wrong. You don't hold a position where moral
judgements have to be made, do you? Good.
Now, let's all go back to making money and shirking our responsibilities
as humans. All blame must go squarely on the gov't., and of course
anyone who it standing nearby at the time. Let's not leave out the ever
popular "Hey, it's not my job!". Chop, chop!
markjenn
> from an R6 or similar. After all, the dealers not going to get much repeat
> business from someone who's killed themselves, or busted themselves up so
> bad they can't ride again. Also, the dealer might consider that, in a
> country as litigatious (sp?) as the USA, where macDonalds can be sued for
> $millions over a hot cup of coffee, the lawyers could be foaming at the
> mouth at the idea of suing a dealer for selling someone exactly what they
> wanted, but not what they were qualified to operate.
You state this position well, and I would hope a responsible dealer would do
this. What you 've done right here, though, is given fuel to the lawyers by
creating the expectation that the dealer has some legal responsibility to
screen buyers. As soon as this expectation gain some precedent we're off to
the races. The only ones that win are the lawyers.
Dealers sell motorcycles, states set operator licensing requirements.
Legally, we don't want some gray area in the middle.
- Mark
markjenn
> as humans. All blame must go squarely on the gov't., and of course
> anyone who it standing nearby at the time. Let's not leave out the ever
> popular "Hey, it's not my job!". Chop, chop!
Ok, you want to be a dealer then? Do you want the responsibility to have to
someone figure out how to sell motorcycles, make a profit, with the specter
that every person who wheels out the door might be generating a
multi-million dollar lawsuit because you didn't take the proper states to
determine if the buyer was qualified?
I think we're arguing moral vs. legal responsibility. Dealers do have a
moral responsibility to steer buyers to appropriate motorcycles based on
their preception of their skills. But if someone comes in with cash and
meets the legal requirements to puchase a bike, I don't see how they have
any right to refuse to sell it. In fact, if they did and the person was a
minority, I would expect they might be sued for discrimination.
How about this situation: A 17-year-old kid comes in with his dad. The kid
says he's never ridden on the street before, but he's ridden mini-bikes in
the dirt for years and seems mature, level-headed, and responsible. The
father owns an R1 and teachs MSF. They want to buy a new R6, along with a a
$500 helmet, full leathers, boots, gloves, back protector, etc. The kid is
signed up to take the MSF course the following week. The father says he
intends to supervise the kid's riding for the first few months.
Should the dealer refuse to sell the R6 (and walk away from several thousand
dollars of profit)? After all, it is a newbie on an R6. In this situation,
should the dealer be making pronoucements on the suitability of the bike for
the kid they've met for 30-minutes over the judgement of the parent who has
raised the kid for 17-years?
- Mark
John Smallberries
first, so I will give you credit for that. If you compare the two
posts, you will see what I mean.
I think the term that applies here to both "legal and moral
responsibility" is called "common sense". If the dealer relies on the
newbie's common sense solely, are they in potential trouble, or should
they be?
Should there be more training for budding motorcyclists? Yep. Should
there be extra training for high performance bike handling? Why not?
Fact is, the only thing I had to do to get my motorcycle license was
pass a driving test. They made sure I looked both ways and signaled
properly. There was no safety course, period. Was I ready for an R6?
Nope. Would I have bought one if I'd had the money. You betcha!
markjenn
doing the same thing as selling guns in a junior high school. A hard-core
statement requires a hard-core response.
I'll be black/white on my position: Dealers should steer buyers to
motorcycles that are appropriate for their abilities. But, when the day is
done, if someone has the money and wants to buy bike X and they are legally
qualified to buy bike X, then the dealer shouldn't be expected to refuse to
sell it to them. If you believe that the dealer has some kind of
responsibility to screen buyers, then you're expecting a private business to
license and qualify buyers without training or guidelines. If we feel that
we need this screening process, then we should step up to the plate and have
the states do it, as they always have with respect to licensing
requirements.
- Mark