1989 CBR250 vs VFR400

[eSOL]

Well ended up with a 250. Only complaint is a farking cold nutsack and the slip and the slide that is called a seat, but both easily fixed problems =D

Have only had diesels for the last decade so it will take a bit to get used to revving the tits off it to get around as there is bugger all torque mid revs it seems. Bloody good fun though and wish I took the plunge years ago =D

Cheers for all the input guys.

Yea buddy! CBRs fuckin own!. Would definitely have gotten the RVF400 if that was available though. Dat dere single side swingarm....

[Tazz]

what model did ya get exactly? pics!!!

Went with the herd and got a clapped out MC22 = D First run was down the Queen Charlotte Drive which was good to get to know the bike at a slower speed, deal with a massive crosswind, drivers on the wrong side of the road, road works, flowing water on some of the faster corners, suicidal birds (nothing big) and a couple of other things to help build confidence. Also discovered how shit the headlights are. Can keep them on high beam and no one flashes lol.

I've always been sweet as cutting close/extremely close to other traffic in the Safari but man it puts the shits up me on a bike if I have to do it without a choice XD

Been to busy riding to get many pictures but I've got one terrible one from out at Omaka

Yea buddy! CBRs fuckin own!. Would definitely have gotten the RVF400 if that was available though. Dat dere single side swingarm....

VFR was the other one I was looking at The only RVF I looked at (just on tardme) was out of my price range.

[Tazz]

Was trying to upload those other pics for something else at the same time, not sure how to get rid of them now XD

Edit: OK, nailed it. Can't delete this now =/

[HenryDorsetCase]

VFR 400 is not learner legal and will be expensive if you drop it.

CBR 250 will have plenty enough power and won't be quite so expensive to drop (parts more common still not cheap though)

really weird innit? VFR400R NC30 no LAMS VFR400R NC35 is LAMS.

I presently own 1.5 VFR400's and they are fantastic bikes. Mine is a trackbike though. They are supposed to have 58-60horsepowers from new.

[tigertim20]

Went with the herd and got a clapped out MC22 = D First run was down the Queen Charlotte Drive which was good to get to know the bike at a slower speed, deal with a massive crosswind, drivers on the wrong side of the road, road works, flowing water on some of the faster corners, suicidal birds (nothing big) and a couple of other things to help build confidence. Also discovered how shit the headlights are. Can keep them on high beam and no one flashes lol.

I've always been sweet as cutting close/extremely close to other traffic in the Safari but man it puts the shits up me on a bike if I have to do it without a choice XD

Been to busy riding to get many pictures but I've got one terrible one from out at Omaka

[ATTACH=CONFIG]attached image removed[/ATTACH]
nice one. now make sure you give her a service before ya get excited and ride her too far. check brake pads, air filter, do an oil and filter change, check/lube chain, and look at ya sprockets, and flush/replace coolant an brake fluid, god knows how long its been since its actually had this stuff done!
Good fun little bikes, but queen charlotte drive isnt really an ideal learner road (I grew up around there). good, fairly easy rides are blenheim - picton, or blenheim havelock, etc, find some open, swoopy roads so you can go get your confidence up without being on a narrow ass goat track with no run off room!


VFR was the other one I was looking at The only RVF I looked at (just on tardme) was out of my price range.

really weird innit? VFR400R NC30 no LAMS VFR400R NC35 is LAMS.

I presently own 1.5 VFR400's and they are fantastic bikes. Mine is a trackbike though. They are supposed to have 58-60horsepowers from new.

Honda fudged the numbers on the RVF400 back in the day for something to do with meeting JDM rules or some shit, thus the RVF = lams compliant even though it has more power than it says on the manufacturers claimed specs, and the humble vfr isnt. fuckin stupid because theyre great bikes

[Glowerss]

I can't be arsed to check, but how close are the vfr 400s to the limit? If they're slightly over, you can make the case that if you filled it with fluids it would be LAMS compliant.

Worked for Coleman's to get shit like the SV400 and CB400SFs lams compliant when they're over the limit. Might require you to be a stealership though

[tigertim20]

I can't be arsed to check, but how close are the vfr 400s to the limit? If they're slightly over, you can make the case that if you filled it with fluids it would be LAMS compliant.

Worked for Coleman's to get shit like the SV400 and CB400SFs lams compliant when they're over the limit. Might require you to be a stealership though

the are reasonably close, but youd be wasting your time making that argument, arguing that they are only xx percent over the limit makes having the limit at all pointless, and we can't be having that now can we?

as I understand, getting something compliany requires a dealership to provide info directly from the manufacturer as to the bikes actual weight / power output. if that info can be supplied / confirmed, then yup, they can be added if they meet the requirements

[Glowerss]

the are reasonably close, but youd be wasting your time making that argument, arguing that they are only xx percent over the limit makes having the limit at all pointless, and we can't be having that now can we?

as I understand, getting something compliany requires a dealership to provide info directly from the manufacturer as to the bikes actual weight / power output. if that info can be supplied / confirmed, then yup, they can be added if they meet the requirements

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough.

The CB400 super four and the SV400 are both over the Power/weight ratio. The SV400 I personally applied to have put on the LAMS list as it was pretty close. The reply I got was:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Thank you for your application to have the Suzuki SV400 & 400S added to the approved LAMS list.

From the figures that you have provided, which I have also had verified by Suzuki NZ, these models exceed the power to weight limit for the LAMS requirements and are not considered as LAMS compliant

Power kW / Tare weight + 90 kg x 1000 = kw per tonne
39 257 = 151.7509728 power (kw) (Limit being 150kw/tonne)

Once again thank you for contacting the NZ Transport Agency.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __

Coleman's were selling SV400s as "LAMS approved!' 4-6 months later. I emailed them about it. 2 days later I got this from the NZTA:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

I have reviewed the information that you supplied for the Suzuki SV400. All of the weights that are listed for the bike are the dry weights, if we take the 16l of fuel into account then we can add another 11kg to the bikes weight and this will make it LAMS compliant (145.5223881 kw/tonne)

The Suzuki SV400 and SV400S will be added to the approved LAMS list in the May update.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

So, if the VFR400 is close, tell them the weight figures supplied by Honda are dry weights, add the fuel and it'll be LAMS approved! I'm curious to see if they'd do that for a regular person, or if they'll only "Bend" the rules for dealerships

[Ender EnZed]

The VFR400 has 44kW and weighs 165kg dry. Plus the 90kg for a rider that makes 173kW/T.

Even using a wet weight of 193kg, which is adding a lot more weight for 15L of fuel than in the SV400 case, it still comes to 156kW/T.

It's a lot further away from the limit than the SV400.

[Tazz]

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough.

The CB400 super four and the SV400 are both....-snip-

Hmm that is very interesting to know. You'd think they'd draw a line in the sand and decide whether they were going to use dry or wet weights from the beginning. I'm sure there are a few other examples out there that are as close as that and not on the list yet

Got some leathers and panniers and spent about 10 hours on the bike this weekend, fanged down to Chch and then out to Southbridge. Ran out of gas at 222kms (on my way to a fuel station =/). Thought I'd get a few more KM's to a tank than that, but I wasn't really riding for economy to be fair.

Comfort wise the bike is not actually that bad longish distance. Just need to give your feet a stretch every now and again and same with the left hand. Wearing something with a decent collar killed a lot of the wind noise I discovered on the way back up, so I could actually hear the Jethro Tull album I had cranked, which is always a bonus XD

Glad the moon was out last night though as those headlights are useless.

Also has anyone who's had one of these adjusted the gear lever to sit a little higher? Might just be the boots I have at the moment but I have to go forward and down from the peg to get under it, which shifts my weight and can throw me off line when under acceleration and a corner is coming up, or when passing on a corner (common sense disclaimer: not a blind corner obviously....)

[tigertim20]

Hmm that is very interesting to know. You'd think they'd draw a line in the sand and decide whether they were going to use dry or wet weights from the beginning.

youd think they would use common sense with that, I mean you cant ride the fucin thing when its dry can you?

we are dealing with a goverment department though . . .

[Tazz]

youd think they would use common sense with that, I mean you cant ride the fucin thing when its dry can you?

we are dealing with a goverment department though . . .

You could almost make a case for the weight of the rider as well.

[Glowerss]

You could almost make a case for the weight of the rider as well.

They add a flat value of 90kg for the rider. It's mostly just fluids they flip flop around on.

[Tazz]

Ahh, I should really read more about it before commenting =/

Cheers for the clarification. 90kg is actually reasonably generous, although the gear most people wear isn't exactly light...