Talk:Honda CBR600RR

Specification formatting

Anyone have any thoughts or feedback as to how I consolidated and formatted the specifications? Would like to see what everyone else thinks before I start to change other articles to the same format. I like the fact that they don't take up too much room, especially on bikes that existed over a number of years. Roguegeek (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Having just looked at some of the older specs tables, I would say it is a big improvement! On another note, I think we should take this opportunity to thank Honda's PR department for writing the "Racing Roots" paragraph. I am in awe... JZH 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny. Yes, that whole section need a complete re-write. I'll throw an advert tag on it until it's been taken care of. Roguegeek (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reduntant Page? With Junk???

Isnt this page ALMOST exactly the same as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR600RR page? Except for this line? "The new three-spoke cast aluminum wheels are also lighter than those on the '06 bike, which further contributes to definite stink coming off her pussy and the enhanced performance of the suspension." Max 04:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article is exactly the same as the article you listed because they do happen to be the same article. That wording you noted has been removed. Roguegeek (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Newest model photos on top

I think a user that searches for this bike, or any for this matter, will expect the newest model when the page loads. Since the pictures are already located on the page, I switched the location of them. I don't see this as taking away from the overall flow of the page layout. Does anyone have an issue with this? Revisethis (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the project pages for both motorcycles and vehicles. Image quality has been determined to be more important than most current model. See minimum image standards.roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Death of Craig Jones

I think the deaths of riders on a specific bike are not relevant to the article on the bike itself unless it was the result of something related to the bike, where there was a cited manufacturing defect (faulty production brakes lines, clutch, trans, etc...). Since he happend to crash on a Honda bike and it was not a manufacturing defect, I don't see why this paraghraph should be included in the article. It has already been added to his page on wiki Craig Jones (motorcycle racer). Any thoughts? Revisethis (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanstockert (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight

See Motorcycle weight for further discussion on why motorcycle weight can be so controversial. Please do not try to make up your own weight numbers by estimating what you think the oil, battery, etc. weigh. That's WP:Original Research. Just cite the best number you can find, and link to Motorcycle weight where appropriate to let the reader know to take it with a grain of salt.--Dbratland (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

What is so much more "encyclopedic" about the current lead image, a model four years and two major revisions out of date? The 2010 model shows both the current design, and the relatively new direction Honda is taking in their graphics. Yes, the carpet is appalling and it made every bike in their display look like vomit, but I guess that kind of tells you where Honda's head is at right now. I admit, it is cluttered, but if you want up to date photos of new bikes, they're going to come from shows, and shows are cluttered. --Dbratland (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dbratland. I've placed both images side by side on the right so all editors can see and compare. With this article being a part of the transportation wikiproject, we generally follow the same image conventions that are followed here. Having the latest model is not a requirement for these articles, but that's not really the reason why the image of the red bike is more encyclopedic. Unlike the image of the black bike, the red bike is lit well, has no harsh reflections, has no light specks, is on a simple background with no other subjects, has no people in the shot, and is composed and aligned straight. Basically, it's a cleaner and clearer image of the articles subject in ever possible way. This is why it is a more encyclopedic image. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current images, all things considered. Although, as with our discussion on the Hayabusa, I'd prefer an attractive and broadly suggstive image for the lead, followed by more sober and conventional images for the model-revision sections. --Dbratland (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ram air

Quote:

While the new engine is smaller and lighter than its predecessor, it also offers increased performance, to the tune of a manufacture claimed 118 hp (88 kW) at 13,500 rpm. At speed, that figure is increased significantly by the highly efficient centrally-located ram-air duct in the bike's nose.

Is this just somebody hypothesizing? Did they do a dyno run inside a wind tunnel? Doesn't almost every modern sportbike use some sort of "ram air" system? And aren't we sort of left guessing about whether or not it really works? On the other hand, if there is reliable information about the Honda CBR600RR ram air system, and evidence that it works better than the competition -- or that it works at all -- I would be quite interested in learning more that. Sources? --Dbratland (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This mite clear it up for you and help you understand. This is just some, but there has been a bunch on this subject for motorcycles going on 30 years. --72bikers (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2015

Ram air systems are designed to : get more air, and thus more fuel-air mixture, into an internal combustion engine. They represent intermediate steps between a standard naturally aspirated engine and a forced induction system, such as a turbocharger or a supercharger. Provide more performance than a conventional intake with a minimum of additional complexity. So its a way to get more in without the external parts like a turbo or like in the h2 a supercharger. Its even in cars The classic Ram-air intake is that seen on the Formula Firebird,, which consists of one or more forward facing scoops that are designed to force, or ram, more air into the intake manifold.. In many ways, this system is almost a hybrid between natural aspiration and forced induction as it compresses the air before it reaches the manifold. When tuned correctly, this option can provide a significant power increase. The biggest drawback to this system is that because it relies on the car's forward motion, it is only really effective at speeds of 40 miles per hour and above. At lower speeds, it loses most of its effectiveness as the air does not reach the scoop quickly enough to be compressed. These systems are not all created equal having a centrally located inlet on the most forward leading edge is the most efficient. As well as having the straightest rout to the air box some current model motorcycles have there's go rite through the neck also a large air box and sealed mental box like on the zx12r is better than a leaky plastic box. They first appeared on the Kawasaki Ninja ZX-11 model in 1990. --72bikers (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2015

References

Competition section

Seems to me the Competition section of this article is very incomplete and contains a lot of weasel wording with no valuable information. The Awards section does a better job showing what the Competition section is attempting. Also note reference 7 links to the main page of some motorcycle site which contains no information related to the text. I think the entire Competition section should be deleted. Rike255 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dry weight

Sources agree that the 2007 version was significantly lighter than 2006. A link to Honda (which has no mention of dry weight) is used to cite the claim that it went from 361 to 341, dry. However, Motorcycle USA says 381 lbs "empty tank" and Cycle World March 2008 says 384 lbs "Dry weight". Cycle World for July 2009 puts the dry weight for the slightly revised 2009 bike at 386 lbs. Possibly the Honda claimed figures exclude water and oil, and battery, or possibly they are pure fiction or a mistake. But at least the numbers form Cycle World and Motorcycle USA are verifiable.

Or, since we have wet weights from independent sources, it might be worth while to just delete all the dry weights. --Dbratland (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• The March 2007 Cycle World says "tank empty" 385 lb, so their March 2008 384 lb "dry weight" probably should have said "tank empty" too, meaning the Honda numbers *must* mean without all fluids and battery. So we have 3 stats, including a wet weight of 407 lb for the 2007. I'll add those in too. --Dbratland (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Power

Current (2011) 102 hp? I thought it was around 125? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repsolh (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between what the manufacturer claims is produced at the crank, and what a review or test measures at the back wheel. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest model (2013) needs to be added

As of writing this, the 2013 redesign has been put on sale here in the USA, and official specifications been made public...Would someone be so kind as to update the page to reflect this, including, if nothing else, the specifications of the new model, and maybe a small note on the key differences that accompany this new version? Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.193.87 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

BHP for 2006 and other years

At my talk page there's some question about the figure of 101.53 bhp for the 2006 model, cite at Cycle World July 2006. I'm adding what other figures I can find. Right now it looks a little suspicious compared with the tested hp CW published in March 2005; only 1 hp difference, which looks even worse compared with the 118 bhp (claimed) for 2007 vs 99.61 rwhp from Motorcycle Consumer News. However, MCN is known for giving lower (and more trustworthy) numbers than other publications. Sport Rider tends to be the most exaggerated, and Cycle World and Motorcyclist are somewhere in between. But we should try to find a better source for the 2005-2006 bhp to clarify.

Of course, ALL these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt at all times. There's just too many variables in test conditions to expect these magazines to agree with each others, or to even be totally consistent from one year to the next. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The May and August 2005 Cycle World's list 102.6 and 102.7 rwhp for the 2005 CBR600RR, suggesting the 101.53 bhp for 2006 is a misprint. I'll pull that out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you understand when a manufacture makes model changes weights and power can go up or down with these model changes. And different publication use different model dyno machines to measure horsepower. Sometimes they say what kind of machine they use this fact can account for different results. Usually this does not differ by much more than plus or minus a few one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Power output and torque figure inconsistencies

Dennis, I am not familiar with the authenticity or who's stealing what. I am happy to let that go. However, if you are citing a source that says 101.4hp at the rear wheel, then it cannot be 105bhp as well. That would mean there's only a 4hp loss from crankshaft to the rear wheel (this is ridiculous). It is also necessary to understand where it was tested. The USA uses a different sprocket ratio (16/43) to the UK and Australia (16/42). This will have some minor impact on the power outputs.

There are simple ways to check what the power output at the crankshaft is when you have the power at the wheel, and vice versa, this is because once a gear ratio is known it's just a matter of simple maths. Assuming the power results are from the USA. Then, squaring the ratio: (43/16)^2 = 7.2226. Now dividing 101.4hp by 7.2226 => 101.4/(7.2226) = 14.04 14.04 is the loss of power through the entire transmission and final chain drive. That means the power produced at the engine is 115.4hp. Which is 115.4bhp. Now since this is a theoretical figure which doesn't include loss of heat and sound in the equation, it means the actual engine power is a bit higher. Which is why 115bhp - 118bhp is an acceptable level. I think it is with this kind of analysis in mind you should evaluate test data, so you know whether some magazine is mixing up terminologies. This is a standard type of calculation between engines and electric motors that have any kind of gear reduction system in between two outputs (engine crank and wheel).

Now, I don't expect people to start editing figures and start placing mathematical calculations as justifications in their edit reasons. However, this was to demonstrate my point. So if some source stated 105bhp, I will have to say no, they do not know the difference. Just because someone does a dyno run does not mean they should know or be familiar with the detailed and engineering technical aspects of it, how many magazines have you seen attempting to workout the crankshaft power (bhp) by working with the (rwhp) figure? None that I've seen so far, even though it's a pretty simple calculation and the manufacturer's claim can be validated. I have done these calculations for the Kawasaki ZX-6R as they are the only manufacturer out of the 4 major Japanese manufacturers that publish their engine power in their service manual (and it is not exaggerated, it falls within a reasonable tolerance of what independents tests show at the rear wheel)

As for this link: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/honda-cbr600rr-428043.html

You are missing my point. I did not claim that was a 2006 model. I was pointing to the proper use of bhp there. There is no 13 hp difference between CBR600RR's of any year. But do you know what? What is 13hp close to? It is close to 14.04hp, the power loss difference I just calculated for you earlier. It is indeed true that the 2006 and 2007 model varies slightly in the power output. The 2007 model had increased midrange and slightly better peak power this is evident in that dyno printout.

As for where that image came from, I just found it here:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=2006+cbr600rr+dyno&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FhquVLnEN4WN8QWY_oLYAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1164&bih=826

Sportrider did indeed test the 2006 model, do you know how I know 100% that dyno printout here is correct for the 2006 models?

http://wallpcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2006-honda-cbr-600-specssportbike-peformance-dyno-charts-honda-cbr600rr-horsepower-photo-88-q46d0sw8.jpg

It is very simple. Kawasaki did NOT release a ZX-6R 636 in 2007. It was strictly 2003 - 2006 until they re-released it in 2013. That dyno graph shows TWO Kawasaki ZX-6R variants as at the time they were releasing a 599cc version (ZX-6RR) for use in competition and their 636 (ZX-6R) model. My point with that dyno print out however was not to claim a specific power figure for the CBR600RR, but to show that those are all wheel horse power numbers and that 105.6 whp is well within the tolerances for different dyno readouts to the 101.4hp figure. I personally think that the SportRider dyno is reading a little high, but that's of the least consequence. As for why Sport Rider have not listed it, I'm not sure? Maybe there was a mistake in linking it properly, it does not mean that the graph is from 2007 or that it's wrong.

I see you have edited the article to include several designations for power, I think that's a much better layout, but I am sorry, I am going to have to start editing all the power figures across the supersports pages. It is clear that until I explicitly pointed out the discrepancies you were unaware of the differences between BHP and RWHP, you undid my edit claiming it was "utter nonsense". You have updated the figures for '06 and '07 with rubbish data. Can you explain to me how the torque at the crank of the '07 is so close to the torque at the wheel of '06?

Are you trying to tell me that the torque produced by the '06 CBR600RR at the wheel is equivalent to a GSX-R750 and that the '06 is able to accelerate like a 750 compared to the 2007 model CBR600RR? Because that's exactly what the maths is telling me, a figure of 65.2Nm at the wheel is roughly 70 - 72Nm at the crank! No that 65.2Nm is more likely to be at the crank which is in line with it being marginally lower than the 2007 model. Also, there is no way the 2007 model produced less power than the 2006. The engine was a complete redesign and consistently produced more midrange and peak horsepower.

I have been patient thus far, you first told me to post on your talk page, and then when I posted again you told me to post here, which is it? As for your question about the convert function for rwhp, the error given when I previewed it was that the convert function could not be found in blue square brackets and a question mark.

Veritas Blue (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very hard to read, I feel like I jumped into the middle of a conversatuon. Veritas, could you succinctly describe what you want to change in this article, and why? — Brianhe (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe, this may be hard to read because it was in response to Dennis. I initially made an unsigned edit which he reverted and asked to clarify on his talk page. This "essay" was part of that which he asked me to put here. Also, the issues in question were resolved after I brought up this aspect of clarifying the different designations of power (bhp, whp, etc.) and I didn't see the edits until after I saw his response.

In either case, I'll let it stay as it still addresses a few lingering issues, there are a few errors. For example, 65.2Nm is listed as the rear wheel torque of the 2006 CBR600RR: This is wrong. Unless it was a highly modified CBR600RR with extensive engine work, a full exhaust system and possibly running on race fuel as that kind of torque at the rear wheel is that of a GSX-R750! Look up a dyno run of a GSX-R750. 65.2Nm is the torque at the crankshaft of the engine, not the wheel. Which is definitely reasonable for any of the 600cc supersports bikes. Veritas Blue (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So, if I understand right, you don't like the figure in the table sourced to March 2005 Cycle World. What figure do you prefer, and what is it sourced to? — Brianhe (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe, I think if a figure is wrong it should be removed. Here's an alternative source: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/2006-middleweight-sportbike-comparison-honda-cbr600rr-vs-kawasaki-zx-6r-vs-suzuki-gsx-r600-vs-suzuki this lists the CBR600RR's rear-wheel torque as 44.8 ft-lbs which converts to 60.74Nm. That is a more sensical figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Blue (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The rear wheel torque for the GSX-R750 was 54.4 lb⋅ft (73.8 N⋅m) in '96, 54.0 lb⋅ft (73.2 N⋅m) in '98, 51.24 lb⋅ft (69.47 N⋅m) in '07, and 52.69 lb⋅ft (71.44 N⋅m) in '11 [23]. Those are all quite a bump higher than the 48.1 lb⋅ft (65.2 N⋅m) CW gave for the 2006 CBR600RR. MCN got 45.5 lb⋅ft (61.7 N⋅m) for the GSX-R600 in 2001, two generations behind the 2006 CBR600RR. So it seems incorrect to say that Cycle World is giving a torque value the same as a GSX-R750; that doesn't even account for the RPM difference. The same torque value at 1,000 rpm less is not the same power. But Motorcyclist got 44.8 lb⋅ft (60.7 N⋅m) at the same RPM, 10,750, a difference of 3.3 lbft. Cycle World's number is 7% higher than Motorcyclist's, which is within reason. Just list the figure 60.7–65.2 N⋅m (44.8–48.1 lb⋅ft) in the table, and cite both sources. I don't think it's worth while to spend so much time over small difference in dyno tests between two sources. These magazine tests are not that scientific. We could spend weeks arguing over the different results each magazine published for dozens of bikes spanning 30 years. Why? Simply tell the reader what the magazine printed, and refer them to Motorcycle testing and measurement for the caveats. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, added Motorcyclist 2006 figures to the table. The formatting is kind of ugly; reformat as you please. — Brianhe (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean peak torque figures Dennis, it was in reference to a similar level of torque, remember these are just instantaneous values from a dyno amongst a series of points. A stock CBR600RR cannot output that kind of torque at the rear wheel, a GSX-R750 can, that's why I said to look up the dyno chart for it. In either case, thanks for the edit. I have to read the user-guide on formatting and syntax. I will leave it at that. Regards, Veritas Blue (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

< There are simple ways to check what the power output at the crankshaft is when you have the power at the wheel, and vice versa, this is because once a gear ratio is known it's just a matter of simple maths. Assuming the power results are from the USA. Then, squaring the ratio: (43/16)^2 = 7.2226. Now dividing 101.4hp by 7.2226 => 101.4/(7.2226) = 14.04 14.04 is the loss of power through the entire transmission and final chain drive > A cite for this remarkable claim would be useful. (Suppose the sprockets are the same size: so that 'gear' ratio = 1?)

86.135.129.109 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A review of the recent updates to layout and new power and torque citations

Dennis has updated the layout to a more easier-to-understand manner. He has also updated the specifications data. However there is an issue here. Until 2008, the US variants of the CBR600RR had similar emissions regulations to EU and Australia, except Californian models.

2009+ models were subject to emissions regulations, the ignition timing was retarded to meet those regulations, as a result peak horsepower and peak torque figures were lower than in previous years unless buyers circumvented these by installing a Power Commander or Bazzaz fuel control units.

This link here:

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/technical/2013JanPerfIndx.pdf

Is cited as the power figure for 2007 - 2008, this is wrong. It clearly states it was tested in issue 7/09, and it also states it's the C-ABS model. The 2007 - 2008 models did NOT have C-ABS. Therefore I propose we discuss which country's/region's power figure we use. An EU or Australian model will have a higher power output, however due to the sheer volume of bikes and motorcycle magazines in the USA, it's much easier to come across US specifications than any other variant.

Regards,

Veritas Blue (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you just wrote a 1,500 word essay on an issue that was resolved before you started writing. I removed the data in question but you still want to discuss it more? Why? I can't understand what you are asking me to do. The part about the 7/09 date for the C-ABS model makes sense, so I moved it. I can't really respond to your other comments because I can't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe someone else can help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ABS Tone Ring Image

The image entitled "2009 Honda CBR600RR ABS sensor" is actually an image of someone pointing to the ABS tone ring, not the sensor. This should be edited for clarification or the image removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoave (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neoave: Have not heard the terminology "tone ring" before but it is well known as a reluctor ring. It may be close enough to call it part of the ABS sensor apparatus for general readership. I'm going to change it back for now pending further discussion. - Brianhe (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The term tone ring is (usually) used for a toothed ring gear found on cars that serves the same purpose as the ring (usually) called a pulser or pulse generator on a motorcycle wheel. In either case, it signals the speed sensor. So it's probably better to clarify that the ring is not the sensor, but it's a slightly different term. I added a cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, with respect I don't think your edit summary "the source of the magnetic field" was correct. The ring is not magnetized; the sensor detects a change in reluctance (in rough terms the inverse of better known magnetic permeability) when the ferrous metal passes by. Variable reluctance sensor has some details but doesn't mention ABS. I still am unaware of the term "tone ring" but don't claim to know all about auto tech. ETA: this source [24] says "The toothed ring can also be called the reluctor, tone ring, or gear pulser." I'm fine leaving the edit as-is now. Maybe we want to add the terminology at Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles. Brianhe (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I added the picture because of the large confusion of people online, not knowing whether or not their CBR had ABS. When purchasing one of these bikes, almost 50% of the bikes that say ABS in fact don't, because I don't think most people actually know how to tell if their own bike has ABS or not (scary). Even the dealerships sell the bike with a default description that says the models have ABS, so when you search CBR600RR with abs, it shows it all of the non-abs models. I'm hoping it helps future CBR600RR people to understand their bikes better. kazisdaman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.42.77 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Honda CBR600RR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918175809/http://powersports.honda.com/preview/ to http://powersports.honda.com/preview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128123700/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/97/releases/3709 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/97/releases/3709
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023154714/http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0807_middleweight_cbr600rr_zx6r_gsxr600_triumph_675_yzfr6_600cc/index.html to http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0807_middleweight_cbr600rr_zx6r_gsxr600_triumph_675_yzfr6_600cc/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)