What does /o/ think of the Kawasaki Z125. Will it be good?

>>14587733
that riding position jfc

Having a bike under 600cc is fucking pointless

Looks like a tryhard grom, and you could get a much better bike for the money

>>14587868
This. Unless it's a 450 dual purpose.

>>14587868
Being that it weighs fuck all it doesn't need a huge engine but I think if they somehow cram a 250cc or 300cc they could be on to something.

>>14588357
Wheelbase is too short for any sort of power

>>14587868

this coming from a nobike

>>14587733
I think it will make a good mini-racer, like that class for Groms. CC doesn't matter as long as you're riding balls to the wall and having fun.

Well according to the amazingly autistic sticky if you start on anything bigger than a 250 than you will die.

So you should be okay. But as your learning don't even look at litre bikes. Cause memes will kill you as you burst into flames because throttle control won't save you from them

>>14588440
Learners are restricted to 660cc and no more than150kw per ton in my country soo at least we got some good choices

File: eurocucks.jpg (241KB, 1328x747px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1328x747px

>>14587733
Maybe if you are some europoor or using it in lieu of a bicycle.
>>14588363
Not true, you got to lean the fuck forward tho and be careful tho. I will admit it isn't a real comforting feeling when you least expect it.
>>14588608
So like a 100hp bike. That kinda sucks bro, but better than some places

>>14588899
Still a better alternative to a fucking moped. Looks quite fun to fuck about it.

>>14587868
I let a friend of mine with an SV ride my z1000 not long ago. He was so impressed with its rideability but stump pulling power as well. He had been so taught a liter will kill you. Yet let anyone experience and they'll see the fallacy the no bikes preach. This is why the 600cc segment is dead.

>>14587868
Okay

>>14588440
That's pretty much according to the MSF and anybody with good sense, too.

But you know better than everybody else, champ!

File: 1453182769582.jpg (49KB, 402x604px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 402x604px

>>14589119
Don't be a faggot. You can learn on any bike, be it a liter bike, a moped, or an 800lb harley. Unless you are a retard with impulse control it will simply take longer to learn to ride safe and well.

Besides, anyone who doesn't learn to ride in dirt is a shitty rider no matter what.

>>14589152
Again, you know it all, so why even bother.

File: whynotboth.gif (384KB, 250x182px)

384KB, 250x182px

>>14589250
>he can't ride on dirt.

kek. hows it feel to turn around when the road becomes gravel? But hey, at least you got that meme 250 right?

>>14589282
My first bike was a 1200. My first time on the road (a week out of BRC) was on a 1300.

But I'm not an idiot kid who rides to show off to my firends.

>>14589717
>he thinks riding a big cruiser is in any way comparable to riding a 600+cc sportbike

American't are this retarded.

File: photo2.jpg (448KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1296x968px

>>14589755
>he doesn't ride a 110hp/87ft-lb modified 1200cc air-cooled thunderbolt sportbike

But anon, they do make those. Or well, they did

>>14587733
Is that a fucking pocket bike?

Aside its usefulness, would you guys really have the guts to ride that shit around?

>>14589819
>1200cc Buell
>still makes less power than a 600cc four cylinder jap sportbike

I would an XB12 Lightning though, muh dik.

File: photo2.png (2MB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1296x968px

>>14589836
>under 90mph I generally have the upper hand, especially with 600cc bikes. gobs of torque and super short gearing. good city bike for sure.

on the highway past 90 tho it falls apart and by 130 the nakedness kills it. still love it though and will be complementing it with a liter bike or an 1125r this year. Sold my 636 for this because fuck stop and go traffic in that thing. Much more "natural" handling imo. what you got?

>>14589879
Just a 2011 Ninja 250, been waiting for a decent CBR919 or ZX-9R to come up now that I'm off my restrictions.

>>14589886
Not the guy you've been talking to but man, all that big boy smack talk and all you've got is a 250?

>>14589836
It makes less peak power, if that matters. Fuck middleweight super sports. Good for racing, and that's all.

File: IMG_1118.jpg (345KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1296x968px

>>14589952
This. I'd much prefer a larger heavier bike and a smaller torquier bike for city use. 600ccs really sucks cock outside of the track. Worst four cylinder config imo

>>14589976
Roger that. Although it's easy for the lesser experienced "experts" to become preoccupied with numbers on paper, because bench racing is the only kind of racing they've ever done with these examples.
I'll too stick to my long stroke nekkid, even if Troy Bayliss won't be able to win a WSBK championship on it.

>>14587868
>having a bike that will do everything you might ask from a DD, cheaply and efficiently
>a bike that will get to 100 faster than anything short of a focus ST while getting 70 mpg
>a bike that weighs 160 kg
>a bike that you don't mind getting scratched while your Peter sits in the garage waiting for the weekend
>pointless

>>14588899
>100hp
Closer to 60-70.

>>14589152
Throttle control is easy. The problem is supersports are very responsive and aren't forgiving to bad impulses.

Like it or not new riders will almost certainly make a mistake. The difference is a handful of front brake on a 1000 can flip the bike and rolling on the throttle while emergency braking (yes I've seen this happen) due to poor technique turns you into a 80mph missile.