Honda CBR250R.

[GotMojo?]

Originally Posted by sebastianp

Good, you're a good rider and driver. It isn't an argument against ABS, which at the rate industry is taking it up, will be universal in about 5 years.

Yup. I think, as with most drivers, most riders are not very skilled. They simply get on their bike, ride in a straight line most of the day, come home and park the bike. So, ABS would be beneficial to those riders for situations they aren't used to, like rain or panic stops. The really skilled guys won't have much need for it.

I know I could have used it once or twice myself... a couple deer spooked me a few weeks ago and I instinctively grabbed the brakes and locked them up. ABS would have prevented that.

And yea, I think we are going to see ABS (and traction control) on a lot of bikes here in the near future.

[markjenn]

Dammit, this is about the fifth or sixth thread on Advrider right now which is cluttered up with this silly ABS debate. Take it elsewhere!!!!

- Mark

[Terrytori]

Originally Posted by markjenn

I doubt a WR (or any SM-oriented bike) would be able to stay with this Honda at speed. There is a reason that sport bikes have fairings and aggressive riding positions besides style - they work a lot better at speed.

Agree with you about the newbie drop problem.

- Mark

During last fall's cross continental run, my Friend, Bob aboard his WR 250 X pretty much ran away from friend Charlie and I and our wee Ninjas whenever the grades got steep. This probably had as much to do with gearing as anything. When things went downhill or flattened out on the plains, the X bike
couldn't keep up .

[mr openroad]

Originally Posted by Terrytori

Yeah... It probably sounds like that.

Truth is, I have a genuine affection for that little scoot.
The fact that it took me coast to coast without incident may have a lot to do with that.

Equal truth is that I tend to like my power coming on down low (look @ my other scoots) and I have to rev the crap out of my little Ninja.

Oh yeah... I forgot... I'm also a scooter slut.


Time will tell.

your Vespa might outrun the little Honda too! either way it will be interesting to see how the CBR will do against the Ninja.

[tremor38]

Originally Posted by Terrytori

Maybe...maybe not.
Although the wee Ninja can acquit itself reasonably well at interstate speeds,
most noobs don't buy a 250 for that purpose.

The downside of the Ninja is that the party doesn't get underway much below 9000 rpm. My Vespa 250 GTV is quicker off the line.

The Honda should have a clear advantage down low and may well prove to be the better sporting tool when things get real twisty.

If it has anywhere near the punch of Yamaha's Wr 250 X, it will replace the Ninja in my garage.

You've pretty much hit the mark with the low-end torque argument. I have a KLX250 that is slightly modded, and while the Ninja250R's pass me on roads with not much uphill grade to speak of, the story is reversed when we're climbing though the mountains. The Honda's thumper engine should clearly have the advantage in that situation or they're doing something wrong.

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by tremor38

You've pretty much hit the mark with the low-end torque argument. I have a KLX250 that is slightly modded, and while the Ninja250R's pass me on roads with not much uphill grade to speak of, the story is reversed when we're climbing though the mountains. The Honda's thumper engine should clearly have the advantage in that situation or they're doing something wrong.

I don't think the Ninja's advantage in high-speed mountain roads has much to do with torque and has everything to do with its horsepower - nothing so far in a 250 has come close to the Ninja's high RPM and resultant high horsepower. Assuming the CBR250R is down on HP as you'd expect from a lower-RPM single, the Ninja will still be a lot faster bike on mountain roads simply because it will be a more powerful bike.

If the Honda has any advantage, it will be around town where the extra power isn't needed and the single may require less rowing of the gearbox in traffic.

- Mark

[Snapper]

Disappointed Honda didn't use a V-twin.

I lived overseas for few years in the early 90s and had a couple of these:



Loved it... it was bullet proof and ass-kicking for a 250 and would leave my former BMW R65 in the dust, in any type of comparo, and if I can recall correctly, perhaps even roll-on torque.

Have a WRX in the garage right now. It's fun and versatile, can cruise the slab at an honest 75 two-up, but it just doesn't impress me the way the old VTZ250 did. However, I'm sure it largely has to do with owning liter+ bikes since then.



And yeah, wind resistance increases with the square of speed, so the sit-up and beg supermoto riding position really taxes the modest engine at speed.

[CBBaron]

Originally Posted by Commuter Boy

Canada gets the 400cc version that weights 20 lbs less this year.

I thought the 400R was the same weight as the 650R as its just a sleeved down motor?

Craig

[Gryphon12]

I'm confused in the comparison of real world preformance (and the power & torque) between the Ninja 250R and the WRX-250R (which is one cylinder from a high-rpm R1). I hope my question is relevant to this thread if the CBR-250R motor is similar to that of the WR.

I believe that the US version of the 2009 Ninja 250R (carbs) has a peak HP of 32 (@ 11,000? rpm) at the crank, and peak torque of 22 Nm (16.2 ft lbs) at 9,500 rpm. (The FI European model has a peak HP of 37.4)

My research shows the WR-250R has a peak HP of 30.7 (@ 10,000 rpm) at the crank and a peak torque of 24 Nm (17.7 ft lbs) @ 8,000 rpm.

It seems to me that the performance difference uphill and downhill (or on flat ground) must be gearing and not HP / torque. I believe that the WR tops out at about 85-90 mph, and the Ninja at 100-105 mph. With the WR torque peak 1,500 rpm lower in the rev range, it might have a slight advantage going up hill, but if it is a long grade, I would think the only reason the Ninja couldn't keep up would be its top gear ratio. What am I missing?

[vander]

Originally Posted by GotMojo?

And yea, I think we are going to see ABS (and traction control) on a lot of bikes here in the near future.

The EU is going to legislate on the ABS for ALL bikes (=100%). A new homologation law is being discussed right now and obligatory ABS and 100hp limit seems like a real possibility.

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by Gryphon12

I believe that the US version of the 2009 Ninja 250R (carbs) has a peak HP of 32 (@ 11,000? rpm) at the crank, and peak torque of 22 Nm (16.2 ft lbs) at 9,500 rpm. (The FI European model has a peak HP of 37.4)

My research shows the WR-250R has a peak HP of 30.7 (@ 10,000 rpm) at the crank and a peak torque of 24 Nm (17.7 ft lbs) @ 8,000 rpm.

These numbers seem off to me. I recall RWHP dyno figures in the 30-33 range for the Ninja and 23-25 range for the WR.

Going up a steep mountain pass at speed, gearing isn't going to factor as both riders are going to have the engines pinned, in whatever gear is necessary to keep the engine at its power peak. Aero and weight may play some small role, but basically the bike with the most hp is going to get to the top first.

- Mark

[Sparkytoo]

Originally Posted by Gryphon12

I'm confused in the comparison of real world preformance (and the power & torque) between the Ninja 250R and the WR-250R (which is one cylinder from a high-rpm R1). I hope my question is relevant to this thread if the CBR-250R motor is similar to that of the WR.

No need for confusion -- just specify a single specific performance comparison you wish to understand, e.g. top gear (6th) acceleration time from 50 mph to 70 mph. Given the higher torque at lower RPM of the WR250R single, the WRR will surely get there faster than the Ninja 250 with stock gearing on both bikes regardless of uphill, flat or downhill.

As mentioned by Lateral G in post #187, "wind resistance increases with the square of the speed", thus a bike such as the Ninja 250 which has a very "slippery" shape will go much faster than a bike with the shape of a brick like the WRR given the same max HP and that both bikes are geared for maximum top speed. Thus, given the HP results you state, the speed of 85 mph (GPS) for the WRR and 100 mph (GPS) for the Ninja is exactly what would be expected.

As to predicting the winner of a specific acceleration test from X mph to Y mph, there are way too many unspecified variables, e.g. shape of torque curves, spread of gear box ratios, weight of riders, weight of bikes, wind speed, road slope, type of tires and on and on, to be able to make any useful prediction. Somewhere around 60 mph, wind resistance becomes a serious factor governing acceleration. This is why magazines do performance tests and why drag strips and race tracks exist.

As to whether the Honda CBR250R engine is sufficiently similar to WR250R engine to draw any useful conclusions, until bore and stroke and valve sizes are published, we are all guessing. All we know now is that both are "250cc" single cylinder water cooled engines with 4 valves.

... Sparky

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by markjenn

These numbers seem off to me. I recall RWHP dyno figures in the 30-33 range for the Ninja

- Mark

You recall incorrectly. 28~29rwhp for the 1988~2007, 26~27rwhp for the 2008+ is pretty common for a stock bike, or even a stock bike that's had the jetting "fixed". I've been a 250 owner (3 different bikes) since 2003 and love the little things.

The older engines can get up to about 35rwhp reliably with a good bit of fussing, but I don't know of anyone offering the service anymore since G-Force stopped. 30~31 is realistic with bolt-on crap/for under $1000.

Brian

[markjenn]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You recall incorrectly. 28~29rwhp for the 1988~2007, 26~27rwhp for the 2008+ is pretty common for a stock bike, or even a stock bike that's had the jetting "fixed". I've been a 250 owner (3 different bikes) since 2003 and love the little things.

Thanks for correction. In any event, I'd still think the WR-R is down 4-5 hp, apples to apples on the same dyno.

- Mark

[Snapper]

Originally Posted by Terrytori

During last fall's cross continental run, my Friend, Bob aboard his WR 250 X pretty much ran away from friend Charlie and I and our wee Ninjas whenever the grades got steep. This probably had as much to do with gearing as anything. When things went downhill or flattened out on the plains, the X bike couldn't keep up .

Originally Posted by markjenn

Going up a steep mountain pass at speed, gearing isn't going to factor as both riders are going to have the engines pinned, in whatever gear is necessary to keep the engine at its power peak. Aero and weight may play some small role, but basically the bike with the most hp is going to get to the top first.

Actually I think aero and weight are the determining factors in Terrytori's comment. Seems that HP & Torque between the WR250X and Ninja 250R are just about close as you can get. However, the WRX is about 60 lbs lighter than the Ninja explaining how it can out run the Ninja uphill, at slower speeds. Flat and downhill, where aerodynamics count more than weight, makes all the difference on top speed. I know the WRX is not geared too low for top speed.... it can not hit redline in 6th - it simply runs out of steam (around upper 80s) against the windforce. Over 60mph on the WRX and you better start watching your rearview mirrors for minivans

If I recall correctly, these stats are from the same Cycleworld article - biggest difference being weight and top speed:

WR250X

Ninja 250R