Starter bikes

>>17576921
My first bike was a 650 and I did fine, but it was a cruiser.

>>17576921
500 is fine, 650 is fine too but only Vtwin, Parallel twins and I4's are too peaky for newbs.

>>17576921
500-650 parallel or v-twin is fine

70hp or below is best

Take the MSF
post on /dbt/
then get out, nobike

I rode quads/dirtbikes since I was young and my first bike was a cbr600rr. Granted I learned on a friends R3 for a week first. 300s are the most common starter bike cuz of how forgiving they are but a 500 or 600 is fine if you just dont floor it for a few months

>>17576921
>I rode Dirtbikes for a long time

you mean ones with engines, right?

you'll be fine

>>17578471
This.

There a big difference in performance between a CBR500 and a CBR600RR, so don't be fooled into thinking that the 600 will be fine because of it's displacement.

600cc sportbikes are not good leaner bikes, they're meant for people who know what they're doing.

My choice would be an SV650 desu, CBR500's are bland, have an uninspiring engine and super low footpegs so you can't even lean them that far before scraping.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 8.36.57 PM.jpg (70KB, 748x452px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 748x452px

>>17576921
A starter bike?

>>17578329
Don't know about others, but honda's p-twins are pretty linear.
Overall, it's a good choice. I've seen cb500f at dealerships for as low as 3500 USD.

File: IMG_5451.png (807KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 750x1334px

Get this pussy

power you can deal with by learning to be gentle on the throttle.

weight and brakes are the other major issues.

no one should start on an ABS equipped bike. you need to learn to panic stop with out locking up the tires. which is also why you should avoid linked brakes. my first bike was a suzuki st250 in japan, with a mechanical rear drum built into the hub. i locked that brake up a few times.

the heavier the bike the harder it is to control in panic situations. also harder to pick it up off the ground. because you will drop your bike.

>>17576921
you can start on a 600 if youre not completely retarded

they have no power until you pull the throttle for 2 whole seconds

>>17578329
noob quit talking out your ass

>>17582599
this. they make as much peak torque as an sv650

just short shift for the 1st week or so

File: TomahawkMotorcycle.jpg (100KB, 936x702px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 936x702px

>>17576921
You can start on a 500 or a 250 or a 300 or a 650 twin or even an inline-4 if you aren't retarded. You already rode dirtbikes so you shouldn't be dumb just don't be an asshole and you'll be fine. Have fun and take you time getting used to throttle control, chassis, brakes, etc. The bike only does what you tell it to do so pay attention to what you are doing an don't be a retard,

>>17580782
He's probably referring to parallel twin 600+ Supersports. They're far from linear

>>17576921
Make sure it has direct injection. That is the most important thing.

>>17576921
i think so. I have a 250 cruiser and love the fuck out of it. sure its slow but saves gas and only use it to go to and fro work and the occasional cruise. a few times i wish it was bigger but can allways buy another.

>>17583400
>parallel twin supersports

u wot?

File: Suzuki-TL1000R_mp51_pic_31378.jpg (249KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1600x1200px

No liter, no peter.
Get this, OP, the TL in name stands for Tolerant Learner.

File: 1500152309805.jpg (455KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1920x1080px

>>17583619
she got a FAT ass hnnnggg THICC

>>17583390
>noob quit talking out your ass

nobike giving advice

>>17583694
>a complete degenerate attracted to a Suzuki
As expected.

File: tiller.jpg (108KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 720x540px

>>17583710
tillers are titties...only fags don't like them

>>17583704
>500 is fine, 650 is fine too but only Vtwin, Parallel twins and I4's are too peaky for newbs.

Please show us how parallel twins are "too peaky" noob. And inline-4 can be argued to be a good starter bike because they make power so high in the revrange...where the rider can easily stay away from the power until he is ready...and even then can help alleviate too hard of a learning curve by rolling into the powerband in higher gears instead of banging through them. A smaller inline 4 like say a 599 can be easy to manipulate because they are so docile in the lower revs. Faggot.

What bike do you even ride?

>>17583834
>600cc sb's are docile

you need to stop listening to motovloggers

File: 10_ssHP.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>17583918
Have you never even ridden one noexperience nobike? Look where they make their power in the rev range. This isn't me listening to people like you are, this is experience. I owned a 600. I have ridden probably a dozen of them from gixxers to the R6 to CBR's to kaws. They make great power sure but you need to wind them out noob. Am I going to have to post a dyno plot of some 600's to show you how dumb you are? OK I will.

murawa jackson

Ohh would you look at that? in the lowe rev range they are docile...kinda like what I said. No, strike that, EXACTLY like what I said. Do you even ride bro? I'll ask again, what do you ride?

File: 10_ssTOR.jpg (50KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x480px

>>17583918
And here comes the torque plots: Do you even know what a plot is noexperience nobike noob?

>>17583957
>sperging out so hard you type the captcha into the post field
Calm down my man.

>>17583918
Gee look at those plots...in order to make even about 80whp you need to rev a 599 to like 10 grand. And look...peak torque is between 10-12,000rpms for these 599's. So yes if you stay out of the revs you can stay out of the power...these bikes are literally Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde.

Hmmm. But how can this be? A noexperience nobike noob told me something dumb and didn't back it up? I am surprised.

>>17583965
not sperging bruv just multitasking this is hardly a blip on my radar. But yes I get sick of nobike faggots waxxing like they now shit when they don't.

My first bike was a cbr600rr.
You control the throttle...

>>17583996
>This defensive
>Call everyone else no bikes

Me thinks, the one who doth protest the most is the one who is without.

>>17584029
I am not defensive. I am irritated. A guy has a legitimate question and is asking for advice only to have nobike fags with obviously little to no experience regurgitate some bullshit they heard/read somewhere. Why exactly is a V-twin ok but not a parallel twin? Tell me that answer succinctly. I know for a fact that some V-s would not be as user friendly as some parallels so why would a person even make this statement? But I already know the answer. Because they are noobs. But they want to talk shit that they have no experience with like we get in here.

I have owned all kinds of bikes, including 600's and liters and 650 twins. I have ridden a huge array of bikes over the years from superhawks to RC-51's to R6's to gixxer 600/750/1000's to Wee-stroms to 650 ninja's to CBR1000RR's to ZX-10R's to Triumph Explorers to single cylinder 250 two-strokes to 250 supermotos to 1500cc meanstreaks to 883/1200 sportsters to 1800cc VTX's to older goldwings to Aprilia twins to KTM 450's to 919's and on and on and on.
It is readily apparent to me that people who say stupid shit like, "sure a V but not a parallel" are FNG's. So you want a pic of my ZX-10R? How about the DR650 sitting behind it? Or maybe the Triumph Explorer next to that?