500 vs 600
#11
04-09-2008 | 07:38 PM
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 807
From: La Costa, CA
1st Gear Member
RE: 500 vs 600
Despite the full 3 seconds between our bike and a GSXR1000 on the quarter mile, here are some things to consider:
~On public roads, a bike that will go 100mph in first gear (like the GSZR1K) is really not that useful. Anything over the speed limit will get you a ticket and anything over 100 will probably get your bike impounded.
~On a tight, twisty road, a decent rider on a 500 can pass a rider on a 600 (or even a 1000 or even a 1400). I love taking my 500 up to Palomar and humiliating guys on literbikes, Ducatis and the occasional Hayabusa, ZX12R & 14R.
~A reknowned bike (like those slick-looking 600 supersports) cost much more to insure, and much, MUCH more to buy replacement plastic for if you have an accident. You pay a lot more money to go only a little faster and look cooler, if that's what's important to you.
You could spend a few thousand dollars trading your 500 in for a 600, OR you could spend a few thousand dollars on leather and a few trackdays, and maybe a track school to learn how to corner more quickly and you'll probably be able to smoke your friend in all conditions, save stoplights.
I've also got a ZX9R, but I enjoy schoolin' foo's on my 500 much more.
Peace!
-CCinC
~On public roads, a bike that will go 100mph in first gear (like the GSZR1K) is really not that useful. Anything over the speed limit will get you a ticket and anything over 100 will probably get your bike impounded.
~On a tight, twisty road, a decent rider on a 500 can pass a rider on a 600 (or even a 1000 or even a 1400). I love taking my 500 up to Palomar and humiliating guys on literbikes, Ducatis and the occasional Hayabusa, ZX12R & 14R.
~A reknowned bike (like those slick-looking 600 supersports) cost much more to insure, and much, MUCH more to buy replacement plastic for if you have an accident. You pay a lot more money to go only a little faster and look cooler, if that's what's important to you.
You could spend a few thousand dollars trading your 500 in for a 600, OR you could spend a few thousand dollars on leather and a few trackdays, and maybe a track school to learn how to corner more quickly and you'll probably be able to smoke your friend in all conditions, save stoplights.
I've also got a ZX9R, but I enjoy schoolin' foo's on my 500 much more.
Peace!
-CCinC
#12
04-09-2008 | 07:52 PM
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
RE: 500 vs 600
I commute on my bike, sofunction kinda overrides looks n speed. Sofar seems like the 500R has a good bit of both though. Im still new to riding soI take it easy on the turns for now, but I can't wait tillI can whip it around (safely of course)
#13
04-20-2014 | 07:42 PM
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 2
Not so much
This response was almost good, but yet so wrong that I feel compelled to comment/correct:
Very correct.
And then SO wrong.
There is great misunderstanding between efficiency and high power output. Efficiency is the ratio of power output to fuel consumption. Power output is primarily improved by getting more fuel into the engine. This is a much bigger lever for higher power than the few points of effiiciency that are available by tuning an engine for efficiency. So, 600's are not more efficient, and engine efficiency is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
The 600 is more powerful because it has a shorter stroke (43 vs. 58 mm) and therefore is able to achieve higher engine speeds. Naturally-aspirated (i.e. not turbo- or super-charged) engines have very common torque per displacement characteristics. However, power = torque x engine speed (with appropriate conversion factors depending on units) so the most straightforward way to more power is higher engine speed. Shorter stroke and higher bore sizes (which allow larger valves which allow the engine to breath sufficiently at the higher speeds) allow good operation at high speeds and that's the primary reason why the 4 cylinder engines absolutely kill the 2-cylinder machines of equal displacement.
Back to good stuff. :-)
Originally Posted by calamarichris
Inline-fours are more efficient.
The only way to achieve a balanced firing order with a twin engine is to have a 360-degree firing order (both pistons rising and falling side-by-side), which unfortunately kills the high-rpm efficiency.
The 500 and 650 have a 180-degree firing order (while one piston is on the way up, the other is on the way down), which gives it a wonky-sounding idle, but terrific high-rpm efficiency. If you've ever ridden a 500R, notice how the engine smooths out so nicely at 3000rpm.
Inline-four engines 'cheat' because they have the both the balance of the 360 firing order AND the constant crankcase pressure of our 180.
More efficiency = more power. IMO, the best illustration of this is to listen to our 500 idle next to a 600 idling.
The only way to achieve a balanced firing order with a twin engine is to have a 360-degree firing order (both pistons rising and falling side-by-side), which unfortunately kills the high-rpm efficiency.
The 500 and 650 have a 180-degree firing order (while one piston is on the way up, the other is on the way down), which gives it a wonky-sounding idle, but terrific high-rpm efficiency. If you've ever ridden a 500R, notice how the engine smooths out so nicely at 3000rpm.
Inline-four engines 'cheat' because they have the both the balance of the 360 firing order AND the constant crankcase pressure of our 180.
More efficiency = more power. IMO, the best illustration of this is to listen to our 500 idle next to a 600 idling.
There is great misunderstanding between efficiency and high power output. Efficiency is the ratio of power output to fuel consumption. Power output is primarily improved by getting more fuel into the engine. This is a much bigger lever for higher power than the few points of effiiciency that are available by tuning an engine for efficiency. So, 600's are not more efficient, and engine efficiency is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
The 600 is more powerful because it has a shorter stroke (43 vs. 58 mm) and therefore is able to achieve higher engine speeds. Naturally-aspirated (i.e. not turbo- or super-charged) engines have very common torque per displacement characteristics. However, power = torque x engine speed (with appropriate conversion factors depending on units) so the most straightforward way to more power is higher engine speed. Shorter stroke and higher bore sizes (which allow larger valves which allow the engine to breath sufficiently at the higher speeds) allow good operation at high speeds and that's the primary reason why the 4 cylinder engines absolutely kill the 2-cylinder machines of equal displacement.
Originally Posted by calamarichris
But the 500 has some advantages over the 600, like ease of maintenance, cost of insurance, fuel economy and perceived weight.
Other than the power differences, which aspects were you looking at?
Peace!
-CCinC
Other than the power differences, which aspects were you looking at?
Peace!
-CCinC
#14
04-20-2014 | 08:52 PM
Nice write up, Welcome to KF slowdave1 and thanks for the thread revival.
I love my EX500 for daily use. The 6RR is track only. Again nice write up and pretty much sums up why I have both of these rides.
I love my EX500 for daily use. The 6RR is track only. Again nice write up and pretty much sums up why I have both of these rides.
#16
04-25-2014 | 02:22 AM
Naw, it is all good. welcome to KF again. lol We all learn from everyones ideas and experiences ie knowledge. Personnally, I love it. Thank You
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BRIGHT
PRIVATE For Sale / Trade Classifieds
2
08-09-2006 10:23 PM
BRIGHT
Ninja ZX-6R & ZX-6RR
0
04-13-2005 06:52 PM
