A serious question for the more experienced riders amongst you.

[vifferman]

A 600 of a certain type, in the wrong hands, can be just as problematic as a 1,000 of a certain type.

As someone else said, you can kill yourself very efficiently on a 50.

I've commuted on two different 500s, a 750, a 1000 and a 800. No real difference, but the 800 (current bike) is better on the open road, and better'n the 1000 for communtering.

If most of your riding is communtering, you don't need many cc's or horsies, and in fact, anything that can travel comfortably at 100km/h is OK. However, if you can have only one bike, and want an all-rounder that you will mostly use for communtering, you should buy something of at least 600cc, that IS a good all-rounder, not a "balls to the wall" sprotsbike.

[Mystic13]

Sounds like you have your answer. Some say yes fine and others are no way.

You mention the rider would be over 30, a commuter and sensible so I'd say...

yep. go for it.

I know a guy who went from a 150cc bike to a Hayabusa. He still rides the Hayabusa around now. He's had the odd off but that wasn't because of the bike size. It also wasn't really due to experience he would have gained otherwise. The offs were minor issues that he walked away from them. Whether he had a 600 or busa... he was going to do the same thing with the same damage.

I would not recommend going to a Hayabusa from an underpowered learners bike. if you've just come off an Aprilia 250 then no probs.

(Oh... and the dealers did everything they could to talk him out of the busa and into a smaller bike and he was just adamant it was a busa or nothing. They sell it to him or he gets one somewhere else.)

[Mystic13]

Now to balance the argument I saw a guy who went from small to a 1200S BMW. He came off numerous times including once while riding in a straight line.

He was a clear candidate for not going to a big bike first off. He just didn't have the riding thing together.

He doesn't fall off much now.

[peasea]

DO you think a 1000cc bike is "too much" for someone as their first "big" bike (ie, first bike on a full license)

I know it would depend partly on the attitude of the rider and where and how they ride etc. but in general terms? For a sensible rider that's been riding for a fair few years and just gotten around to getting a full. Not a child either, over 30 years of age that values their life over impressing other motorists.

to use for a daily auckland commute as well as longer weekend rides.

I'd say go for a balls-to-the-wall large displacement bike. Turbo it (with nitrous to eliminate the turbo lag, coz you're gonna need a big turbo), get the best suspension and brakes you can possibly obtain (steal it all if you have to), paint it flat black, register it in your best mate's mother's name and go bait a cop or two.

Or.... you could just do the muffler, airbox, rubber, brakes and suspension and be done with it. With those five items done you can explore the limitations of the machine. If you do change the airbox and muffler you will need to check a/f ratios. Once you've done all that and you want more, upgrade the internals or perhaps the whole bike. (Often the cheaper/more reliable option. There are plenty of so-called "great" engine builders out there who offer 'performance' packages way more expensive than the next-step-up bike.)

With careful selection some of the good bits (shocks, calipers, rotors) can be taken off and plonked on the next bike.

[The Stranger:Me]

I'd say go for a balls-to-the-wall large displacement bike. Turbo it (with nitrous to eliminate the turbo lag, coz you're gonna need a big turbo), get the best suspension and brakes you can possibly obtain (steal it all if you have to), paint it flat black, register it in your best mate's mother's name and go bait a cop or two.

Or.... you could just do the muffler, airbox, rubber, brakes and suspension and be done with it. With those five items done you can explore the limitations of the machine. If you do change the airbox and muffler you will need to check a/f ratios. Once you've done all that and you want more, upgrade the internals or perhaps the whole bike. (Often the cheaper/more reliable option. There are plenty of so-called "great" engine builders out there who offer 'performance' packages way more expensive than the next-step-up bike.)

With careful selection some of the good bits (shocks, calipers, rotors) can be taken off and plonked on the next bike.

Finally! A voice of reason.

[peasea]

Now to balance the argument I saw a guy who went from small to a 1200S BMW. He came off numerous times including once while riding in a straight line.

He was a clear candidate for not going to a big bike first off. He just didn't have the riding thing together.

He doesn't fall off much now.

I started on a 650, then 750, 883, 1340 and now 1450. Only ever came off the 650. Once, thanks to a dork, once gravel on a tight corner and once thanks to a flying muffler from the car in front. It's dependent on the rider and in the wrong hands a pushbike can kill.

[FROSTY:Me]

Dude if ya still want cool looking then ya might wanna have a look at some of the euro/jap twins. (euro frame /styling Jap motors)
Theres some pretty sexy 650's out there that are only 70 ish HP but handle really nicely.
Um the TRX850 yamaha also looks sayxy

[bully]

some thous have slipper clutches too now, a good saftey thing i think. but if you think your guna redline a thou like ghost rider, best get a pine box too.

[zzzbang]

for commuting.. especially in the city with traffic lights and stuff, its the biggest pain. uncomfortable and annoying, the end.

[Despatch]

Yes. Its actually best to gain your riding experience on a smaller bike. The temptation is to use the throttle of a bigger bike to compensate for lack of riding ability. Even a 200cc is powerful enough around town for a competent rider, and should be able to keep up with any other bike. It teaches you to not over-use your brakes and to maintain your momentum correctly. You still need good disc brakes on the front.

Moving to a bigger bike later is more for comfort, and for having that extra bit of power when you need it.

[tonyg26]

wat about a 600cc you can still get fast 600

[90s]

I'd say go for a balls-to-the-wall large displacement bike. Turbo it (with nitrous to eliminate the turbo lag, coz you're gonna need a big turbo) ... paint it flat black

To balance my earlier post, in the late 80s a friend did exactly this - bought a big ninja as a first bike, bored it out, nitrous injection, stripped it naked, powder coated the frame blue and sprayed the rest back and impressed the hell out of us young men riding liddle two-strokes, mopeds and farm bikes.

He's still alive, but I did nearly see him kill himself - almost daily at one point - and even drop pillions whilst wheelstanding.

However, that was a clear case of rider rather than bike. It seemed all great fun at the time.

And look at me now, lobbying for sensible 600 commuters ...
(although my '88 commuter at its launch was still faster to 60mph than either the Ferrari Testostarona or the Lamborghini Countcash ... slow is as slow does as they say ...)

[vifferman]

To balance my earlier post, in the late 80s a friend did exactly this - bought a big ninja as a first bike, bored it out, nitrous injection, stripped it naked, powder coated the frame blue and sprayed the rest back and impressed the hell out of us young men riding liddle two-strokes, mopeds and farm bikes.

When I was at school, and before the 250s rule for learners came in, a guy at our school had a Kawasaki 500 triple as his first bike. I don't think it was so much the power that was the problem as the weight, but rumour had it he dropped or crashed it at least once a week. Eventually he ended up in hospital.

When he recovered, he replaced it with a Kawasaki 900.

[jim.cox]

a guy at our school had a Kawasaki 500 triple as his first bike. I don't think it was so much the power that was the problem as the weight.

Not the weight - they were pretty light.

But the frames were made of flexy cheese (technical term), the engine had a wicked powerband, and the brakes were typical of the period (ie shitty)

When he recovered, he replaced it with a Kawasaki 900.

That was a much easier bike to ride

[FlyingDutchMan]

I just recently got a CB900 Honda Hornet (8 weeks ago) after 5+ years on the CBR250. After the first 10km which were a bit wobbly getting used to it, I now find the Hornet fantastic. It is quite a jump going from 45hp to 110hp, esp with the responsive throttle, but I got used to it quite quickly. I've done 6,000km on the Hornet so far with out issue - it is far more comfortable and stable than the 250 ever was. It has got a flat torque curve between 2k to 10k rpm that makes it very easy to ride. The hardest thing to learn was to not to give it too much throttle for over taking!

If you're sensible and have ridden a reasonably powerful 250, then something like the hornet is a fantastic step. I definitely wasn't keen on a 133hp 600cc sports bike.

A few reasons I went for the Hornet:
It is a relatively cheap bike (<$7k for an '02 that had done 15,000km)
Wasn't a sports bike (i.e. sensible power curve)
918cc - 110hp - decent amount of power.
Not much in the way of fairings (they're expensive to fix)
No bad reviews - except by biker mags - everyone else seems to love them
Suited to the touring stuff I like to do, but also commutes well.
Fuel economy - 19km/l for open road or commuting.