Death of the 600cc Supersport

Pugzilla

CBR600RR is to be scrapped next year

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2016/june/honda-cbr600rr-killed-off/

CJhaughey

No Surprise really, Supersports are not really flavour of the month any more.
People want Adventure, scramblers and commuters in that size range not race bikes that are capable of being ridden on the road.

Max Headroom

Eurocrats again...they'd love to ban bikes altogether...

CJhaughey

I am no fan of Euro 4 but a narrowly focused track bike is not really practical for many these days, sure I do think you should be able to ride what you want but for many a bike can be practical as well as fun and obviously buyers don't feel that the CBR600RR fills that role very well.
The original CBR600 F/R was a brilliant bike in its day but the RR is nothing like as versatile.

jay48

Had an 08 600rr , it was the best bike I've ridden and was considering going for a new one but it's basically the same bike since 2007 , was hoping for a new model to come out .

slinky2000

Ah man, and there was me thinking of buying a cbr 600 rr after seeing a stunning 161 reg one in the city yesterday

Max Headroom

CJhaughey wrote: »

No Surprise really, Supersports are not really flavour of the month any more.
People want Adventure, scramblers and commuters in that size range not race bikes that are capable of being ridden on the road.

Adventure bikes.....dont make me laugh..only rough stuff these guys see is when they pull into their gravel driveways...:rolleyes:

Wonda-Boy

In fairness of all the bike manufacturers Honda make very dull bikes to look at (personal taste I know) not saying they are bad bikes far from it. But every year its the same old same old.....

Flame away, just my 2 cents.

gerrowadat

Max Headroom wrote: »

Adventure bikes.....dont make me laugh..only rough stuff these guys see is when they pull into their gravel driveways...:rolleyes:

Similarly, the only sport a lot of 600RRs see is beating the lights.

Kev.OC

As a man who was hoping to get back onto bikes next year, and was looking for a 600cc supersport, this is bad news for my budget. Guess I'll just have to get a 1,000cc instead. Damn.

:P

rustynutz

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

In fairness of all the bike manufacturers Honda make very dull bikes to look at (personal taste I know) not saying they are bad bikes far from it. But every year its the same old same old.....

Flame away, just my 2 cents.

I have a cbr600rr race bike but I still agree with what you say, yes they are reliable (the main reason I have one over a R6) but fook are they boring, the blade is a perfect example, the most uninspiring 1000 out there for the past decade.

I'm shocked that the 600 market is disintegrating at the same time though, it's a shame

Pugzilla

If you had experience riding a middleweight naked, would you be mad skipping a 600 supersport and going straight for a 1000cc sportbike?

Wonda-Boy

rustynutz wrote: »

I have a cbr600rr race bike but I still agree with what you say, yes they are reliable (the main reason I have one over a R6) but fook are they boring, the blade is a perfect example, the most uninspiring 1000 out there for the past decade.

I'm shocked that the 600 market is disintegrating at the same time though, it's a shame

Funny thing is they are fantastic bikes and super quick, the new fireblade is actually quicker from 0-60 then the H2 and stops faster too!

listermint

The market has dictated this, for every rider buying a new ss there are six more not.

Younger riders are looking for more all rounders just the way it is.



This is not the EU btw

Pugzilla

listermint wrote: »

Younger riders are looking for more all rounders just the way it is.

More like a lack of young riders. Most new bikers are born again or having a mid life crisis. Sportbikes generally don't appeal to them.

You won't find many young riders with cash for a brand new bike.

listermint

Pugzilla wrote: »

More like a lack of young riders. Most new bikers are born again or having a mid life crisis. Sportbikes generally don't appeal to them.

You won't find many young riders with cash for a brand new bike.

Oddly enough untrue you only have to speak to anyone in the main manufacture dealers. The market is naked touring and adventure. And that's across all age groups.

Manufactures have responded

Pugzilla

listermint wrote: »

Oddly enough untrue you only have to speak to anyone in the main manufacture dealers. The market is naked touring and adventure. And that's across all age groups.

Manufactures have responded

Do you have link for that?

A 50 year old with a bad back is less likely to enjoy a sportbike than a 25 year old.

prunudo

Naked touring and adventure, whatever floats your boat I suppose!

listermint

Pugzilla wrote: »

Do you have link for that?

A 50 year old with a bad back is less likely to enjoy a sportbike than a 25 year old.

Link for what? That young people are buying all rounder commuter focused bikes and older lads are getting 'adventure' bikes...


And sportbikes have fallen in market share year on year for the best part of five years.....


This is known Google it should you want to.

Pugzilla

I'm no homophobe, but I can't see the appeal of adventure bikes.

A naked or touring bike does the same job considering they never go off road.

Cienciano

Pugzilla wrote: »

I'm no homophobe, but I can't see the appeal of adventure bikes.

A naked or touring bike does the same job considering they never go off road.

You could also say that there's no point of naked touring bikes, an adventure bike does the same job.

listermint

Pugzilla wrote: »

I'm no homophobe, but I can't see the appeal of adventure bikes.

A naked or touring bike does the same job considering they never go off road.

Homophobe? Are you five?


I like all bikes I don't have a preference. My preference would be the whole riding them part...

Pugzilla

listermint wrote: »

I like all bikes I don't have a preference. My preference would be the whole riding them part...

I'm not a robot. I have likes and dislikes.

I dislike harleys and the culture associated with them. Leather vests and ass-less chaps are not for me.

I'm okay with adventure bikes. I prefer nakeds and sportbikes though.

AgileMyth

Pugzilla wrote: »

I'm no homophobe, but I can't see the appeal of adventure bikes.

A naked or touring bike does the same job considering they never go off road.

Have you tried one?

Wonda-Boy

Difference is years ago bikes did not have the same versatility, if you wanted a fast bike it had to be sports. If you wanted comfort you had to get something heavy and less agile and felt like a barge boat.

There are alot of bikes now that tick all the boxes (speed, comfort, wind protection etc etc) so it makes sense to get the one that ticks the most boxes for you.

Then you have the lads that are phyiscally to big for a super sports either in height or weight but would love one.....

Personally I think sports tourers are the best bike you can get.....but then again I use them for what they are best at (quick spins and touring)

arybvtcw0eolkf

Pugzilla wrote: »

I'm no homophobe.

listermint wrote: »

Homophobe? Are you five?

.

Man that made me laugh :pac:

Cienciano

One of the great things about bikes is the loads of different styles out there. Something to suit everyone. From a vespa to a busa, I can see the appeal of everything. Except harleys

Paulw

Pugzilla wrote: »

I can't see the appeal of adventure bikes.

To each their own. I have an adventure bike. I bought it because of it's ability to carry gear, it's ride position and it's comfort on any road I need. I've never been off-road, and may never be. I didn't buy it to to Paris-Dakar, nor travel across the world. I bought it because it suits what I want from a bike.

It's something a sports bike just wouldn't do for me. I don't need/want great acceleration/speed. The GS is fast enough for anything I'd want. I'm not up for track days and not going to be racing it.

I've seen plenty of bikes out there that certainly wouldn't appeal to me at all, but they obviously have an appeal to others. To each their own. Just ride safe.

listermint

Paulw wrote: »

To each their own. I have an adventure bike. I bought it because of it's ability to carry gear, it's ride position and it's comfort on any road I need. I've never been off-road, and may never be. I didn't buy it to to Paris-Dakar, nor travel across the world. I bought it because it suits what I want from a bike.

It's something a sports bike just wouldn't do for me. I don't need/want great acceleration/speed. The GS is fast enough for anything I'd want. I'm not up for track days and not going to be racing it.

I've seen plenty of bikes out there that certainly wouldn't appeal to me at all, but they obviously have an appeal to others. To each their own. Just ride safe.

I know which one id rather take on a spin to Wexford 2 up.

Cienciano

Paulw wrote: »

To each their own. I have an adventure bike. I bought it because of it's ability to carry gear, it's ride position and it's comfort on any road I need. I've never been off-road, and may never be. I didn't buy it to to Paris-Dakar, nor travel across the world. I bought it because it suits what I want from a bike.

It's something a sports bike just wouldn't do for me. I don't need/want great acceleration/speed. The GS is fast enough for anything I'd want. I'm not up for track days and not going to be racing it.

I've seen plenty of bikes out there that certainly wouldn't appeal to me at all, but they obviously have an appeal to others. To each their own. Just ride safe.

I had a 1200 GS adventure for years. The thing is, it's a better touring bike than a lot of touring bikes. The seating position is more comfortable imho and you're higher up. It has a massive tank so no worrying about fuel. I don't like fairing on bikes and the tank on the GSA acts as a fairing to keep the wind off. All things I wanted on a bike.
A lot of people assume a sports bike is what everyone should want. Well, no, people are different and want different things and make compromises for certain things. GSA or GS is an a great all round bike.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Cienciano wrote: »

I had a 1200 GS adventure for years. The thing is, it's a better touring bike than a lot of touring bikes. The seating position is more comfortable imho and you're higher up. It has a massive tank so no worrying about fuel. I don't like fairing on bikes and the tank on the GSA acts as a fairing to keep the wind off. All things I wanted on a bike.
A lot of people assume a sports bike is what everyone should want. Well, no, people are different and want different things and make compromises for certain things. GSA or GS is an a great all round bike.

My last bike was a sports tourer (BMW R1100S) At a push I'd get about 160km from a tank of juice and I'd absolutely have to fill up.

My present bike (Vstrom 650) is up on 330km on the last fill up and I should get another 50km before I've to throw some more fuel into it.

I'd never go back to a sports bike, or even a sports tourer, no way.

Oh, I've taken the Vstrom off road a number of times :cool:

I'd a Dommie 650 a few years back, Jesus I'd great fun taking that thing off road too.

'Adventure' style bikes are so much more versatile.

My old Dommie





Taking your adventure/duel sport bike off road is half the craic

Wossack

hmm, are you implying you cant offroad on a sports bike?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgEl53x7CM

galwaytt

Cienciano wrote: »

One of the great things about bikes is the loads of different styles out there. Something to suit everyone. From a vespa to a busa, I can see the appeal of everything. Except harleys

As someone with an Enduro, a Vespa, an RGV, an 800cc F GS, and who rides a Dullville blood bike then you'd wonder why I do most miles, winter & summer on......my Road King. If you've tried one and not liked it, great. If you haven't, well then, frankly my dear.........you are on the outside looking in.

Not into the chrome/polishing/leather tassles stuff either, but when I am on it I ride the berries of it. Given better service to me in 8+ years than all the BMW's i owned on the previous 20.......go figure.

galwaytt

Cienciano wrote: »

.... It has a massive tank so no worrying about fuel.

....indeed, and that's good. But my wife has an SV650 and one thing she never does is......fill the tank. She finds it noticeably nicer to drive on a half tank or less. The extra few gallons up high makes it uncomfortable.

The one criticism I'd have of many of the bigger adventure bike is that they maintain range by dint of big fuel tanks. What they should do is actually make them more economical, efficient in the first place.

The likes of Varadero are a great bike - but they are alcoholics. And many others too. Really we should be seeing bikes doing 60mpg+ with ease and then you'd have the range with less bulk, less weight......and cost less to run.

Look at what you get out of modern petrol turbo car now: mid 50's + mpg is achievable.................makes you wonder where bike manufacturers are gone astray....

Del2005

The problem is that the super sports bike can't be used anymore, to get the best out of it you need to wring it's neck and out of 1st gear that's too fast for our safety camera invested roads. The sports tourer, dual purpose and naked can be fun at licence friendly speed so that's what people are buying.

galwaytt

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that the super sports bike can't be used anymore, to get the best out of it you need to wring it's neck and out of 1st gear that's too fast for our safety camera invested roads. The sports tourer, dual purpose and naked can be fun at licence friendly speed so that's what people are buying.

Which is one reason smaller bikes are making a comeback ....300's etc.

CJhaughey

I can't understand how bikes are so inefficient compared to cars either, something is wrong somewhere.
The Honda NC7XX series have addressed this to a degree by using half a car engine, obviously the architecture of a standard I4 bike engine is the problem revs instead of torque must be part of it.
I always found twins and singles to be a lot more economical than I4's.

Wonda-Boy

Yeah even the triple I had was quite economical when I had it.

batman_oh

CJhaughey wrote: »

I can't understand how bikes are so inefficient compared to cars either, something is wrong somewhere.
The Honda NC7XX series have addressed this to a degree by using half a car engine, obviously the architecture of a standard I4 bike engine is the problem revs instead of torque must be part of it.
I always found twins and singles to be a lot more economical than I4's.

I have two twins and both are shockingly bad on petrol. But the ones in lower states of tune do better. It depends on the type of bike mostly - inline 4 engines are used relatively more in performance bikes so this will rarely give you good mpg.

On the original topic - it's a shame but they simply aren't selling any more. The fact is non sportsbikes are more useful/usable and most of the time more fun for almost everybody once you get over the whole 'weeeeee it's a sportsbike' phase

CJhaughey

batman_oh wrote: »

I have two twins and both are shockingly bad on petrol. But the ones in lower states of tune do better. It depends on the type of bike mostly - inline 4 engines are used relatively more in performance bikes so this will rarely give you good mpg.

On the original topic - it's a shame but they simply aren't selling any more. The fact is non sportsbikes are more useful/usable and most of the time more fun for almost everybody once you get over the whole 'weeeeee it's a sportsbike' phase

Yeah I can remember a friend getting a Firestorm and not being able to pass a petrol station:pac:
State of tune must affect economy, engines are just pumps so the bigger the flow rate the higher the flow of petrol into said pump.

Cienciano

galwaytt wrote: »

As someone with an Enduro, a Vespa, an RGV, an 800cc F GS, and who rides a Dullville blood bike then you'd wonder why I do most miles, winter & summer on......my Road King. If you've tried one and not liked it, great. If you haven't, well then, frankly my dear.........you are on the outside looking in.

Not into the chrome/polishing/leather tassles stuff either, but when I am on it I ride the berries of it. Given better service to me in 8+ years than all the BMW's i owned on the previous 20.......go figure.

I've driven one for a weekend, not for me. But I like taking the piss out of them, don't mind me. Strangely enough, if I did have one, first thing I'd get are tassels just to annoy people like me.

galwaytt

Cienciano wrote: »

I've driven one for a weekend, not for me. But I like taking the piss out of them, don't mind me. Strangely enough, if I did have one, first thing I'd get are tassels just to annoy people like me.

.....that's good, I ended up with the F800cc BMW after renting one in Germany for a long weekend, and was very impressed. It's a great way to actually try a bike - a 5 minute spin around the block isn't enough.

Tassles, lol. :pac::pac:

HardenendMan

CJhaughey wrote: »

I can't understand how bikes are so inefficient compared to cars either, something is wrong somewhere.
The Honda NC7XX series have addressed this to a degree by using half a car engine, obviously the architecture of a standard I4 bike engine is the problem revs instead of torque must be part of it.
I always found twins and singles to be a lot more economical than I4's.

Bike engines have poorer thermal efficiency due to the need to rev higher to produce the power. More revs = higher friction = more heat

Hotblack Desiato

Juliet Freezing Ponytail wrote: »

My last bike was a sports tourer (BMW R1100S)

A sports tourer has to have decent tank range, decent pillion seat, and luggage options, no way was that a sports tourer!

galwaytt wrote: »

The likes of Varadero are a great bike - but they are alcoholics. And many others too. Really we should be seeing bikes doing 60mpg+ with ease and then you'd have the range with less bulk, less weight......and cost less to run.

Look at what you get out of modern petrol turbo car now: mid 50's + mpg is achievable.................makes you wonder where bike manufacturers are gone astray....

Well as has been pointed out the Japanese manufacturers started the more revs = more power game decades ago, if you wanted economy they would have told you to buy a Honda 50!

Fuel consumption hasn't been a consideration for most riders for decades and it still isn't, really. (Tank range is, but that's not the same thing.) You could buy a diesel Enfield in the 90s. 120mpg but nobody wanted one. You could make a bike tyre which lasts 30,000 miles too, but nobody wants to give up that much grip to gain that much life.

Bikes have terrible aerodynamics compared to cars too, which becomes a big consideration at out of town speeds which is where cars tend to be the most economical.

The_Chap

Fuel efficiency is not something I've ever considered when choosing a bike, but then I've never used a bike just for commuting - defeats the reason for owning a bike in my mind, but horses for courses

Hotblack Desiato

You don't live in Dublin I take it, then.

The_Chap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't live in Dublin I take it, then.

County Dublin yes, but fortunate enough to have never needed to work in a city centre, in which case there would be 2 bikes in my household, one for the mundane and one for fun

The_Chap

Back on topic anyway, I was bitten by the bike bug after going pillion on a CBR600 over 20 years ago, it's a shame the next generation will not have this option, and hopefully the other sports 600's don't follow as flat twins just aren't the same, I remember coming from a gpz500 and getting my own cbr6 and thinking it was a rocket ship in comparison, had a grin for weeks

Hotblack Desiato

The_Chap wrote: »

County Dublin yes, but fortunate enough to have never needed to work in a city centre, in which case there would be 2 bikes in my household, one for the mundane and one for fun

Right, so why slag off people who do need a bike for commuting then? not everyone has the time or money to blow on weekend jollies even though they'd like to

The_Chap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Right, so why slag off people who do need a bike for commuting then? not everyone has the time or money to blow on weekend jollies even though they'd like to

confused as to where you think I'm slagging anyone, no one allowed opinions around here anymore no?

Hotblack Desiato

The_Chap wrote: »

confused as to where you think I'm slagging anyone, no one allowed opinions around here anymore no?

You are yes, so here's mine - commuting does not defeat the reason for owning a bike in my mind. 1/3rd the time of bus or car with no parking worries. So what if that's all that some people do, it's still way better than another cage clogging up the roads.