Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

600 vs 1000?

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by Kurtis_Strange, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. I had the pleasure of re-touching some photos of an R1 and a Fireblade at work today, both very nice bikes (and a bit in topic it seems)...

    My understanding is the new bikes are all about the same weight and often have the same frames, so I got to wondering what are the pros and cons of owning a litre bike for street riding, as opposed to a 600cc model?

    eg a Fireblade vs CBR600rr or R1 vs R6

    Any thoughts?
  2. In the tight twisties a 600 has a small advantage,in the more open stuff the 1000s own imo. :wink:
  3. if they weigh the same and have similar riding positions, i'd take the bigger bike for sure!

    they might be fast around race-tracks but i reckon the 4cyl 600s are distinctly lacking in low-end power (think turbo jap car vs big block V8 )
  4. As GixxersRule said...

    Tight twisties = 600/750.
    Everything else = 1000 :D

    Perhaps i'm just fixated on the 'bigger the better' mentality, but my 'thou sure does put a big smile on my face even if i'm only commuting to work.
  5. Clearly you are speaking from experience
  6. I was thinking other pros/cons as well such as costs, maintenance etc...?
  7. Insurance and initial cost of the bike is where they will differ most.
  8. Could also be some difference in running costs - fuel economy, rear tyre wear (speeding fines) etc.
  9. Dont forget the poser value in the 1000's
  10. I think the 1000 is easier to ride, with the more torque that it has. So more power is available at any rpm, without the need for as many gear shifts, but the 600's do have it in the tight twisties, if your good enough!
  11. Both will put a big smile on your dial......

    the thou's take a bit more self control to ride safely.... but not an awefull lot more of self control... its quite easy to kill yourself on a sixxer....
  12. 1000 all the time ... uses about the same amount of fuel as a 600 and less engine wear because of lower rpm's ... (talking sports bikes of course)

    its just not the same on a gsxr600, r6 or cbr600 etc .. youll eventually want for the torque of their big brothers! : :]
  13. I've ridden a friends 98 R1, and the only real difference i could find, power wise, was that the r1 had (like everyone has been saying) more torque down low. However the R1 was heavier than my little ZX, and in my mind therefore had no real performance advantage. i think that if both bikes had been 2005 models then it would have a different story. The only other thing that comes to mind is top end speed, my 636 seems to run out of steam around the 162ish mph (and before anyone asks, in was on a highway in the NT) where as the litre (and above) bikes that were there were pulling in speeds well past this. However once again this comes down to power.

    So i guess it comes down to what your happy riding, and in my mind, forking out the extra few thousand for a bike that I'm only going to get to take full advantage of once every three years isn't justifiable.
  14. Easier to do wheelies on the 1000's
  15. How do you figure that? A litre bike will have a longer stroke, more valve lift, and larger-diameter big-ends and main bearings than a 600... at a given rpm, the linear speed of the moving metal parts past the stationary metal parts will, thus, also be greater, meaning the wear rates even out, no?
  16. This is the important point. 600's rev much higher than 1000's.

    The mechanical stress of the pistons on both engines is typically about the same, but the 600's valves are working faster (more wear to cams and valve seats) and various internals are travelling greater rotational distances per hour of engine run time.

    Not going to be a HUGE amount of difference, for exactly the reasons you state, but 1000's will be less stressed so long as you don't try to rev them to 600cc engine speeds.
  17. Yes. But, at a given rpm, due to its bigger bearing diameters and longer piston stroke causing the component speed to be higher, the litre bike will have higher wear rates than the 600.

    Meaning, the extra revs the 600'll be carrying will more likely just even things up rather than cause its engine to wear faster.
  18. Are the cam bearings and various shaft bearings all that much smaller on a 600?
  19. i traded my 250 for a 600 and i must say im more then happy with the power on tap
    though i would like to say that i would like to have a 1000cc or bigger one day....
    just to know the difference first hand
  20. It's interesting to keep in mind the evolution of bikes when reading this sort of statement. 10-12 years ago, 1000cc sports-bikes were not that common, well, not like they are today. 750cc bikes were the super-bikes, and 900cc tended to be the realm of the open-class sprint-tourers.

    Today's 600cc sports-bikes put out more power than most any 750cc sport bike of 10 years ago, some now are even achieving 900cc power levels of 10 years back (eg. the 2006 R6 with 133hp claimed), and weigh 10-20kgs less than 600cc bikes of 10 years ago.

    Modern 600cc bikes are a far more significant step up from the 250cc class than they were 10 years back. When I hear you say "600cc is plenty for me", the power-weight ratio is not that different from jumping from a 250cc to a CBR900RR Fireblade of 10 years back. The only real difference would be in low-rev-range grunt.

    I, for one, continue to be astounded at the power levels that modern 1000cc sports bikes are achieving fresh from the show-room floor. It is getting a little worrisome though because it attracts the possibility that safety-crats will step in and do something about it soon, as witnessed by the recent banning of >100hp motorbikes in France.