Motorcycle Forums

Fireblade Boring?

Agree with "cdlacey" and "gixercarl".  How can a bike that will run sub 10 second quarter-miles be boring?
 

However, I cannot see any reason for owning a "liter bike" unless one is racing it.  Even on my CBR600F4i, I cannot fully open the throttle in any gear but 1st on a public road without risking going to jail for "reckless driving". :(

As for a practical test of the Fireblade, who would ride it that way anyhow?  If I am riding to go someplace, I end up on either my "hop on and ride Elite (Lead) 110 or my Deauville, with its seat and riding position comfort, wind protection, and storage.  The 2½ extra seconds in the quarter-mile do not matter 99% of the time on the road.  The CBR600F4i is mostly for showing H-D riders how slow their bikes are. :)
 

2012 Blade

The 08 Blade was pronounced top of the pack because it had useable torque and neutral handling. Its power and torque figures weren't actually that much better than the competition and the real benefit was because they'd effectively geared the bike down compared to the competition. This made it more useable on the roads and gave it slightly more stomp on acceleration. Changing the rear sprocket on any of the other 1000cc sportsbikes of the time would have negated that benefit but  higher mph figures used to sell bikes. The earlier blades however were something of a step change in bike development. Mass centralisation has improved bike dynamics for everybody and that's down to the early blades.

Most Honda's I've ridden have had neutral handling. This is great for allowing the rider to just concentrate on where to put the bike through a corner. The engines are generally good but I do occasionally find them a bit insipid. I'm sure however that the 2012 blade will be a great machine and be there or there abouts in terms of racing performance.

Whilst 600cc bikes can have a good turn of speed they don't have much midrange. On the road a bigger capacity bike has SOOO much more acceleration. Some people might say 600cc bikes are enough but 1000cc bikes give you the option of even more. Why settle for just enough when even more is available?

Im not a massive honda fan but it does look like a good bike and most of them are, but I cannot ignore the fact that everywhere I go including this year TT almost every second bike was a blade, so atleast the sales must be looking up.

600cc v 1000cc

I ride every day throughout the year and find the lack of midrange pull from 600cc bikes to be somewhat tedious. On nice sunny days when you want to go for a play on twisty roads without a passenger or on a track they're ok but for commuting, touring, 2 up riding they can be frustrating with their lack of pull.

Whilst 600's can be quick on real roads the bigger bikes are easier to keep at a high pace and often faster (TT course record for example). Speed for me isn't the be all and end all though. I do more than ride on tracks and for road riding bigger capacity engines are a more preferable option for me

600cc vs. 1000cc

Well, I find my CBR600F4i to be plenty fast for "blowing the cobwebs" out.  Midrange is plenty strong for one up riding, and I do not find the lack of lower rpm pull for commuting, touring or 2 up riding to be an issue, as I would be doing those on my NT700V anyhow (with its economy, comfort, wind protection and storage), and not on a sportbike.
 

I suppose if you can afford new rubber several times a year, and like spinning the rear tire, a liter bike is better than a 600cc, but for most of us, we should stick with the 600cc until (if ever) we master it.  But the liter bike does go a lot faster when bench racing at the pub, eh?