1996 Honda CBR 900 - Power Delivery (Manageable or Wild)? | GTAMotorcycle.com

1996 Honda CBR 900 - Power Delivery (Manageable or Wild)?

Hi all, after 15-year pause, I am planning to return to riding this Summer of 2012 (got my M2 in December of 2011) so this is not a "first bike" type of question.

I had ridden 160kg, two-stroke 350cc street bike for 4 years back in a day and before that a number of smaller bikes and scooters for a couple of years. I had a few minor accidents and injuries and by now realize the risks or riding. This is to say that I am comfortable with bike controls and riding in general. I got my M2 on Humber's 250 Virago which felt rather slow even after not riding a real motorcycle for many years, but I have never tried a true sports bike or heavier bikes than my 160kg first bike though.

After having read multiple posts, articles, etc, my understanding is that the modern 4-cylinder bikes (600,750 and 1,000cc) have very abrupt and thus dangerous power delivery curve which may be considered a major risk (rider's discipline with the throttle is assumed here). My understanding is also that heavier Busa and Kawasaki 14 may be considered even easier to ride for some, but I am not sure I am ready for either of the latter heavier bikes.

I am looking at 1996 CBR 900 for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons is JevCo's 15-year rule to de-classify older SS bikes as "regular". The true reasons are the bikes light weight, moderate for 900 cc power (I assume this fact would make this power more manageable), the fact that Honda seems to receive rider-friendly reviews for its sports-bikes and certainly the Fireblade's heritage and reputation in its days. Can anyone comment on the power delivery and rider-friendliness of this bike (or CBR '92 to '99 in general)?

Is the 1996 CBR 900 would be ok to get back into riding for a 6'1, 180 pounds 34-year old with riding experience on other bikes?

PS I also look at Thruxton, KTM Enduro 650R and Ducati 1000 GT.

Any insight from your own experience would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
I'm a little confused.. the bikes you've suggested span across all types. You've got super sport, cafe racer, dual sport, and that Ducati.. for starters, all these bikes handle very differently. So you first need to decide, what you're looking for.

Super sport bikes have a lot of top end power range, not too much grunt in the low range since they are modeled after race bikes. I've never ridden a dual sport but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they probably lack in the handling department, but are probably really light and great on gravel/dirt.

You need to ask yourself, what type of riding are you going to be doing? Is it a lot of commuting? Track days? Leisure riding or adventure? These will help determine what direction and type of bike you should look for.

Also asking whether or not the power delivery is manageable depends 100% on the rider. 5 years ago, I thought a 800cc was too much to handle, now an 800cc is cake. Experience being the key factor and no one can make that decision but you.
 
Thanks for your reply jay-d.
I guess the last paragraph provides the answer I am looking for: sounds like there is no answer and it is rather a trial-and-error kind of exercise for everyone.

In regards to the different types of bikes. I do realize that KTM Enduro would have to be used differently from Honda CBR 900. I am planning on having some leisure occasional riding that would correspond to the type of the motorcycle I ultimately go with. I see some positive in all of the bikes I mentioned and would go for adventure rides if I decided on KTM and short-term highway cruising trips inside and outside the GTA if it were a Ducati, Triumph or Honda. With CBR, I would go for track days a couple of times a year, not more than that. I am not going to use a bike for commuting at all.

I understand it could have sounded confusing, but I enjoy riding and I would be happy to do any kind of the above at least for the first couple of years before I gain more defined preferences.

Thanks again for your advice.
 
Like any inline 4 it will be pretty docile down low and they certainly don't have the two stroke hit. I do love these bikes, including thier motor. I have ridden a few of them and looked at them for the same reason as you (Jevco). In the end I went with a 1st gen fz1 as I wanted something newer (also not surcharged) and with a few cheap mods it's pretty much a 140whp bike. I don't like how fz1's look stock so I took off the front fairing and put a singel round headlight on it as I love naked bikes.

If you do get the 'blade find a f3 front wheel to swap in to run 17" modern rubber up front.

Good luck!
 
The later model CBR900's had geometry changes that helped with the early model's inherent instability ( inherent instability is what pussies call great turn in,LOL ). The CBR 900 is a basically indestructible bike that is very rewarding to ride, if somewhat uncomfortable. It has lots of torque, and more hp than any sane mortal needs for a streetbike.
I don't now if Jevco has yet included 1996 models in their supersport surcharge exclusion yet...i know they hadn't yet last yr, even though 96 models were 15 yrs old last yr.
4 cyl bikes have a less abrubt power onslaught than many bigger twins in my experience. Even in carbed form, some bigger twins have immense power down low. My own carbed KTM is one such animal, even though it only makes 100 hp, it's instantaneous torque at anywhere above idle should be heeded...my 05 GSXR1000 with more than 155 hp was much tamer to ride....especially in snowstorms,LOL.
 
Last edited:
Thanks KJM and omnivore for sharing your experience and providing very useful advice. This is reassuring to hear about the tame nature of the 4 cylinder engine. At least I can be in control if I am disciplined enough to keep rpm low while getting used to the power.
 
a belated update - I ended up buying a 1997 GSX-R750. My worries re power not warranted. Before 60, acceleration is not impressive and to feel the rush I have to bring it through 2nd over 140-160. It does feel heavier than I expected after reading up. It's all relative. Overall good fun, but I had great expectations.
 
now THIS is the way a "search" should be performed!! :p
 
The poster is considerate about providing closure.
 
a belated update - I ended up buying a 1997 GSX-R750. My worries re power not warranted. Before 60, acceleration is not impressive and to feel the rush I have to bring it through 2nd over 140-160. It does feel heavier than I expected after reading up. It's all relative. Overall good fun, but I had great expectations.

:cheers: He's alive!
 
The poster is considerate about providing closure.

I was on the edge of my seat for 5 and a half years though.

Can finally breathe again. ;)
 
So...odd. I don't remember any internet posts I made 5 years ago, let alone ever gone back and brought a long-dead thread back to life.
 
So...odd. I don't remember any internet posts I made 5 years ago, let alone ever gone back and brought a long-dead thread back to life.

When you have only 6 posts on a forum, searching your own post history is fairly easy.
 
a belated update - I ended up buying a 1997 GSX-R750. My worries re power not warranted. Before 60, acceleration is not impressive and to feel the rush I have to bring it through 2nd over 140-160. It does feel heavier than I expected after reading up. It's all relative. Overall good fun, but I had great expectations.
If you could do it again would you? I myself ride the KTM 690 Enduro R and I love the torque. Was thinking of getting a 2000+ gsxr750. Not sure anymore... maybe i need a vtwin.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app
 
You can find CBF1000s for not much difference ..C-ABS ...more power, later model year...likely same insurance.....very flat torque curve ....gets to ..60 ft/lb at 3k rpm....and pulls and pulls...:D
 

Back
Top Bottom