Ninja 650 vs VFR

The ninja 650R is another nice sport touring bike with about 65 HP, and much cheaper than the VFR.

 

Well, I hope you enjoy your new bike!

 

The Ninja is nice and if that is what you want Enjoy!!! I am just a VFR rider, but I still respect other nice bikes - I just like my VFR.

 

I looked at them before I decided on the VFR, really nice bikes and an excellent value for the money. If I can ever talk the wife into her own bike that's the one I'd probably steer her towards. For me, I wanted something with a bit more power, not to mention I just love the way a VFR looks.

 

Hmm, that's a nice-looking bike. I don't think I'd be comparing it to the VFR though.

 

Yeah, definately more of a sporty standard than a Sport tourer.

 

I am going to get the CBR1000RR, this is the bike which honda should change into the new VFR, Honda needs a 1000cc true sport touring bike, I think Honda may do this, the present VFR will be phased out 08.

If you take a CBR1000RR put Heli bars on it , a Corbin seat then you have it all, performance, handling and reasonable comfort.

Honda could change the present CBR1000RR into a fantasic new VFR, I think the reason they have not is because they would under cut the CBR1000RR itself.

Honda is about promoting a product to the young riders first, and the old guy's a distant second, it is the young guy's who buy new sports bikes every two years, not the older guy's, who find something and stick with it.

Don't get me wrong the VFR is a great bike, but it is time for Honda to move on, the question is does Honda think the VFR type market is worth supporting with a CBR1000RR sport touring type bike, so far Honda has said no.

The VFR is too heavy, old technology, under powered compared to the many other sport tourng bikes. The world has moved on.

I have seen this repeated on this forum many times about the 07 VFR.

Honda is setup for pure sport, or pure touring, I think other companies have a much better perspective on the sport touring market.

At least I am sticking to Honda. But I think Honda is missing out on the true sport touring market with no new VFR replacement.

James.

 

that's fine and all but the VFR and the CBR1000RR are very different

the comfort level you get by modifying that, you start with on the VFR, where then with the same type of mods, goes further

The CBR is Honda's all out sport line, the VFR is not. It is more of a long distance sport bike, or a Sporty Sport Tourer. A middleweight gentleman's, or ladie's GT.

Off the top of my head, no one else has a 1000cc Sport Tourer as you say Honda needs

Honda did have, and it didn't really sell in Big numbers at the end, was the CBR1100XX. A fine GT and very capable.

If you are instead talking about say the FJR1300 or the BMW K12 models the GT and the RS. Well yes, they all have more power than the VFR. Unquestionably. But they also are much heavier bikes with at least 50% displacement -- they should have much more power. Honda offers the ST to face them. Having ridden an FJR for something like 8,000 miles, it is very different. It is very capable, beyond maybe what it should be for a bike of its heft, but the VFR is quicker and more fun to me in the twisties. But the FJR would go across country better. Different aims.

I would very much, very much doubt that Honda would meld the CBR1000 and the VFR into one bike. Most VFR buyers wouldn't buy the CBR and visa versa. Very different customers.

You have a hard time comparing the VFR to anything else directly, because to a certain extent there is nothing like it from another manufacturer.

The VFR still sells in very good numbers world wide, I still doubt Honda would phase it out.

Honda doesn't just promote to the young guys. ALL true sport bikes have to change every year or two, it is simply the nature of the beast. Last year's greatest, is an also ran next year. That is much less so in the standard, touring, sport touring, & cruiser markets. And Honda must be doing something right, for years and years they have had either the highest, or the second highest number of unit sales in the US. Tossing it back and forth with Hardley every year. They usually have a HUGE lead over Kaw, Yami, Suzuk sometimes more than twice as much as some of them. So they are doing domething right.

The VFR is typically not "old technology", far from it. It is often a showcase for Honda. The V motor is more to manufactur than the inline. It was the first "sport" bike to offer ABS. One of very few bikes with a single sided swingarm. What you are looking at now though, is just about the end of the current version, so of course it is a little dated in some ways.

If you think the VFR is heavy, don't look at the 12-1400cc sport tourers offered from other vendors. There is some serious pork there by comparisons.

As far as pure sport or pure sport touring, the VFR is what slots in there. What other manufacture has something that does? With Honda you can go CBR, to VFR, to ST, to GW all with the same builder. Amongst other choices of course.

 

Spike, a pretty good summary I think.

 

The VFR does not compare well to the Triumph sprint this is the kind of bike that Honda needs. The sprint usually sells within one week of hitting the dealership. In my local Honda dealership they have had a VFR 06 for 6 months, and are willing to do a great deal, they also have a 07 in the new colors, but very few people are looking at it, most of the motorcycles on the sport side are bought by very young guys, and they usually buy Susuki or Yamaha.The best selling bike in this dealership is the R6.

Honda sport bikes produce less power than other manufacturers.
The Honda 07 CBR600 RR is almost an exact copy of the R6 because this is what sells, the 06 CBR1000RR is much more sporty than the 05 version, Honda is trying to compete with the other suppliers of sport bikes.
And are slowly moving to faster, less stable designs, rake,and trail numbers are becomming more aggressive.

The ST is a very heavy bike.

Honda makes a great bike in the CBR1000RR, I intend to buy one add a corbin seat, and heli bars, and it will much better than a VFR for me.

There is a gap which the ZX-14, and the sprint is filling at the moment.
I think honda has decided it does not want to create a CBR1000 sport touring bike has it would hit the sales of the, CBR1000RR a lot of people buy the CBR1000RR as a street bike, and do modify it as it makes a great touring bike.

Compared to the ZX-14, and CBR1000RR the VFR is very old, and lacking in mid range power compared to these bikes. And is much less stable, with a ZX-14 you can pull from a complete stop in any gear, the CBR1000RR can be put in second gear, and you can go from 20MPH to well over 100 MPH without changing gear, this is very flexible, and makes the bike very easy to ride.

I do not ride like this myself, but these bikes are much better street machines than the VFR. You can be leaned over on a CBR1000RR, and have to change direction quickly mid corner which can happen on the street anytime,and it's stable, the VFR cannot hold the line, it will likley fall. it does not have the suspension to do this, CBR1000RR is a safer bike as long as you keep the right hand under control. Any way each to their own , enjoy you bike.

James.

 

What? Huh? Hmmmm, two different bikes yea 650r has the ability to ride around as does a whole other bikes. like said more in the league of the SV650 VFR is the only one of its kind, many have tried to duplicate it, but when it gets right down to it they can't. only other bike that sorta comes close................. Na forget that.

 

I love my SV650, but the only similarity between the Sv, the 650 Ninja and the VFR is.... that they're bikes!

The Sv and the 650 R are to the VFR as I am to go-go dancers!:biggrin:

 

James -

There is an element here that I think you are missing completely.

The Honda V-4 engine - the soul of the Interceptor - is a smooth, reliable, completely modern powerplant that isn't duplicated in any of the bikes you mentioned. It is this model's #1 feature, and it can't be had anywhere else.

This is what sells Interceptors. Seriously. If an identical bike carried a twin, triple, inline four, whatever...it wouldn't be a VFR anymore. I also wouldn't want it anymore.

I can't make sense out of a lot of what you have said. Particularly stunning to me was the revelation that if a quick midcorner correction was required, VFRs are incapable, and just fall over. One can only be "safe" aboard the latest supersport.

Really?

 

I think I'll stay clear of this one, but it would be very easy to debate some of your points. Being that I'm in the holiday spirit, here is a post from a new CBR 1000 rider who just got a smokin deal for $8400.00 on a new 06...

http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24181

 

The VFR is out of date technology, I 4's are much better power plants for production bikes. The VFR cannot change direction like a CBR under high stress. The VFR is a great bike for modeate riding but does not have top of the line suspension. like the CBR, the CBR provides a greater margin of safety for surprise situations. If you tried to push the VFR as hard as a CBR the VFR would lose control, that is why you do not see the VFR in the AMA pro level, The VFR is a great general riding tool. The VFR is a great bike, but I want something that I can tighen up in an instant if road conditions require it, that makes me feel safe. I ride the bike I feel safe on, the only thing that I am concerned with is how I feel on the bike. Everyone rides, and feels different on abke it is a very individual thing. I am not saying I am better because I like a CBR, and can drag my knee, every rider is different, we all get the bike we feel good on. VFR is a great bike. Enjoy. James.

 

Wise man, great bike, Take that bike put on a nice seat,and some heli bars,and you have the best sport tourer in the world, upgraded Sprint ST man. You cannot beat it.

Enjoy your ride, and take care, you guy's are cool.

James.

 

Actually in back to back testing of the VFR and the Trumpet by respected magazine writters the VFR does do well, and is the pick of many.

Heck, I know I looked at the Sprint, and still bought the VFR. So it isn't a fail safe choice. The prices are pretty similar, and I would guess 90%+ of people who buy a VFR, could easily buy the Sprint if they wanted to. New VFR owners don't tend to be a poor bunch. That isn't to say the Triumph is a bad bike, it certainly isn't. But it doesn't outsell the VFR. Not that popularity is the best guage of quality as you suggest.

You pull the '06 sales to date of the VFR and the Sprint and I will guarantee the VFR out sells the Triumph. Not just one dealer, but nation, or even world wide. Heck their are many who would say the Sprint was designed to go after the long established VFR market. It is probly the closest street bike in mission to the VFR.

So there is an '06 on the floor? Who cares, how many VFRs were shipped, compared to the Triumph. The Triumph was also all new for '05 and greatly improved over the previous version, that certainly drove sales. Talk to me in 4 years, when it is looking a little long in the tooth; as the VFR certainly is now.

Again I know nationwide, and I beleive worldwide, Honda way outsells Yamaha. Not that it makes Yamaha bad.

Sometimes they produce less power, not always, and someone is always the low one. Honda also has a knack for even with slightly less power, making their engines very willing and the chasis very rideable. Power without chasis = crap.

So the CBR is a copy of an R6 huh? You don't think that the R6 even came about because the YZF600 was just getting spanked by the CBRF3? On the track and in the showroom? Just SPANKED No? Really? You don't think much of the current crop of 600cc all out sport weapons can trace things back to that first Hurricane? the F1? Honda is not copying the R6 no more than any manufacturer is in the 600cc battle to win hearts and wallets is copying the CBR600RR. They are all remarkably similar for 99% of their DNA.

and wow the 06 CBR1000 is more sporty than the 05? and I bet you the '05 beat the '03. It has been that way for a long time, with all the manufactures in the ultra competative sport bike wars. Certainly with the 1000cc class, but perhaps even more so in the ultra competative 600cc class, because of its sales volume. They all battle it out in the showroom, in the press and on the race track. To be that year's "it" bike. And it does change hands. Before the R series, Yamaha had been out of the fight for quite a while.

Honda has been known for its sport bikes for a very long time. While in any given year they may not have been number one, they have never, in recent years, not been competative.

Yeah, no crap the ST is a very heavy bike, I think I said that. Nonetheless that is a sport tourer -- by most accounts. That is meant to compete directly with the FJR.

OK, buy the CBR1000. It is a better fit for you. Not for an awful lot of people though. The price is close enough that pretty much anyone here could have bought one if they wanted, it isn't like they are wait listed. But we didn't. Why? I am guessing in most cases the VFR was a better fit for us. I couldn't ride the CBR every day, it just wouldn't work for me. But the VFR I could ride to Tahoe tommorrow and enjoy the heck out of it. The CBR would have me walking hunched over for a week afterward. Would the CBR1000 spank the VFR on the track given riders of equal skills -- of course. It is a more refined sport weapon. But would Reg Pridmore on a VFR, leave you looking like you were standing still on your CBR1000. Oh yeah. Me too for that matter, so I am not bashing you in particular. But I don't ride on the track day to day. I ride on the street, and in traffic. And for most of us the speed difference between the VFR and CBR for daily riding just isn't there.

Yes the ZX-14 is filling a gap. But isn't selling in HUGE numbers. And to a lot of people, myself included, is one of the ugliest bikes out there. Honda walked away from the uber-speed GT market when they closed the door on the CBR1100XX, which for a long time was the fastest stock bike out there. Then there was the Hayubusa and now the ZX-14. In between there was the notion that the EU was getting very annoyed by the idea of these super bikes touting their high speed as a badge of honor, and there was serious talk about if the manufacturers didn't curb the market, the EU was going to legislate it for them. After that, the XX was never really updated and Honda just walked away. So did Triumph for that matter, which had spent some serious development cash to develop their own piece for that market. And R&D money is much more rare at Triumph, than at Honda. I am sure that hurt them. But they decided that their long term interests were best served by forgetting aobut it.

Why would a 1000cc sport touring significantly hurt the CBR sales? And as long as they were buying a Honda, why would Honda care? They would certainly also gain buyers from the other manufacturers as well. It would almost certainly hurt the VFR and the ST13 slightly as well. In some markets Honda has a Sport touring 600 or maybe 650 called the Deauville (sp?) and they still sell the CBR600RR. It also comes with integrated bags and availible ABS. But it is a very different bike, a sport tourer, rather than a sport bike like the CBRRR.

The VFR I am guessing, way way way outsells the Dueaville, and yet they still haven't axed it. Which is further fodder for the idea that they would axe the VFR for poor sales. If it make economic sense to keep that model afloat, when it isn't even offered in one of the biggest motorcycle markets in the world, the VFR is certainly safe. They may make some serious changes, but I think an outright demise of the VFR and all its story is just not going to happen.

the ZX14 is also much more stable than a CBR 1000 or 600; again, so what. The VFR more so than the CBR600RR. Their aims are different. Their geometry reflects that. There are pros and cons to your choices of design. Either of the CBRs would be way more fun on a track or in the twisties than the porky ZX14. I would even still take the VFR over the ZX14 for a fun ride.
I want to go long distance, realatively straight at unreasonable speeds? The ZX14 all the way. But that isn't what I ride.

My BMW K1200RS was super stable at over 120MPH on the highway, much more so than my FJR, which was more so than my VFR. But the BMW was a pig when I took it to the track. More capable than I expected for a 600+ pound bike, to be sure, but a Pig nonetheless compared to a VFR. And my CBR600 would make the VFR look bad. But the VFR was closer to the CBR, than the BMW was to the VFR.

So "a lot of people buy the CBR1000 as a street bike"? As opposed to buying it for what? Sure there are some sales as dedicated track bikes, but very few. Same with the 600, although probly more so. Probly no one buys the VFR as a dedicated track bike. That isn't the best tool for the job. But the instructors at a couple of the schools ride them.

 

And the CBR1000 does not make a "great tourer." It may make a passable one, but not great. But that isn't what it is designed for either. Modifying it up, may make it essentially a home made 1000cc VFR in some ways -- but then the VFR starts there. You want to race, you on a CBR1000, me on a GoldWing or even a ST1300 from Key west to Seattle and back? The ST would spank the CBR. Why, there is a limit as to how fast you can go on the street, and the ST13 can certainly do it, all while being significantly less tiring on the rider. Unless you did major modifications to it. And then why? You have something very different from what you bought.

OK, I don't know if it would do it or not, but I would hate to see someone start my ZX14 from a stop in 6th gear. That person would likely never touch one of my bikes again.

I have no idea what the top speed in 2nd gear is on the VFR, no idea at all. You know why? I shift. I like to shift actually, it is part of the visceral joy I get out of riding a bike. But I would guess if you really wanted to wind it out, it would be pretty friggin high. All things being equal, and they seldom are, a larger engine should put out more torque and Hp, that is a given. You certainly can't start a CBR600RR in 6the gear, nor could you take it to over 100 in 2nd I would strongly guess. Why? It has less displacement and a peakier power band. Again, big whoop, that doesn't make it a bad bike. But if that is all you do, than the CBR would be a bad choice.

Yes, compared to the ZX14, which came out starting with model year 2006 (?) the current VFR, which started with what 2002? is old. How very astute.

Oh, how shocking! The 800cc bike, lacks power compared to 1000cc and 1400CC bikes. Really?!?!! That is astonishing. By and large your larger bikes tend to have flatter power bands. Even within the same size, your sportbikes tend to have peakier powerbands, and at the other end is tourers and cruisers with very flat power bands. That is oversimplifying, but you get my point I hope.

Easy to ride is not why I ride. Otherwise I would have a scooter, or an old Hondamatic, or a FJRAE.

OK, your last paragraph kind of contradicts itself. You talk about holding a line, then about flicking it over. Which do you want to look at? The VFR absolutedly can hold a line, without question. It can also change direction rather quickly. As quick as a CBR1000? Likely not. But then a CBR600RR is going to flick over even quicker than that. And the VFR will flick over long before the ZX14.
Look at a track day, where you have so many different styles of bikes on the track at the same time, unlike racing. In the real tight stuff, it is likely the 600s going the fastest, but then the 1000s spank them on the straights. Even in racing, the times for the 600 class, are much closer than you woudl think to the 1000cc races.

The VFR suspension, properly adjusted, is fine for the average street rider. Although I didn't buy an Ohlins by accident. The vast majority of us, myself included, never get close to the handling edge of our bikes. I don't know of any VFR accidents that were caused by a lack of ability on the part of the bike. The rider, sure, the bike, no.

There is nothing to say the CBR is a "safer" bike than the VFR, to even suggest so is utterly insane and frankly I think, shows a real lack of understanding (amongst other comments posted above) of the dynamics of riding. I am not saying the VFR is safer than the CBR, I don't think it is per se. But I would bet $20 that insurance crash numbers would show less crashes per 1000 bikes registered. Even with, as I would be another $20 that the average VFR gets more mileage than the average CBR1000.
I would say that the VFR with ABS, would be safer for the average rider, for a everyday ride than the CBR1000.
And you could make the argument that the VFR is safer simply because it isn't as powerful, and although you can kill yourself just as dead on either, you can get over your head much much quicker on the CBR1000. I wouldn't necessarily ascribe to that, I think ultimately it is what is between your ears taht is the most important, but hey, whatever.
You could also make the argument that on longer rides the VFR is safer, since it is a less tiring bike to ride. And say all you want about modifying the CBR, you could do the same mods to the VFR, and just keep moving that line further outward. Being tired slows responses and dulls the senses -- either of which can get you into trouble on a bike.

It is intersting that your arguments against the VFR use comparrisons to different bikes, for differrent items as opposed to using the same bike(or bikes) thru every field. Taken to the extreme, I could bash the CBR1000 the same way (or any bike really). As a way of example, and again to the extreme I could say:
The CBR1 sucks because it isn't as fast as the ZX14. It sucks cause it is so heavy compared to the CBR600. Why wouldn't Honda make the 1 lighter than the 6? are they lazy? or just afraid of hurting their precious CBR6 sales? I mean the CBR isn't even as comfortable as the BMW K1200LT for crying out loud.
See how silly that gets?
Cause it is faster than the CBR6 or likely the LT
it is lighter than the ZX14 or the LT
and it would be more comfy long distance for most than the CBR6

The idea is that just because a bike fits a different niche than you are after, doesn't make it a bad bike. It may or may not be a bad bike on its own, but not 'cause of the niche it fills.

 

I-4s better for production bikes?

Why? Please explain. This makes no sense to me.

VFRs can't change direction as quickly as a supersport?

Again, why? The ability to change direction quickly isn't related to suspension, James. It's steering geometry - i.e. rake, trail, wheelbase.