600 RR v Fireblade
Discussion
Just watching a video with a comparison of the “new” 600 RR vs Fireblade. What stuck out the most is the difference in price. £10,500 vs £23,500.
Yes Fireblade does have a lot more power and fancier suspension, but is in worth not far off two and half times the 600?
Back in the 90s my first bike was a ZX-6R. I seem to recall prices of 600s was around £6k whilst the litre bikes were around £10k. According to the inflation calculator £6000 in 1997 is more than £10,500 today. No such good comparison for the Fireblade.
Is the 600 really good value or the Fireblade too much?
Yes Fireblade does have a lot more power and fancier suspension, but is in worth not far off two and half times the 600?
Back in the 90s my first bike was a ZX-6R. I seem to recall prices of 600s was around £6k whilst the litre bikes were around £10k. According to the inflation calculator £6000 in 1997 is more than £10,500 today. No such good comparison for the Fireblade.
Is the 600 really good value or the Fireblade too much?
If you look at the fireblade of yesteryear vs nowadays, they’ll almost completely different bikes - think way more complex electronics, electronic suspension etc
Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
Edited by graeme4130 on Tuesday 19th March 18:33
graeme4130 said:
If you look at the fireblade of yesteryear vs nowadays, they’ll almost completely different bikes - think way more complex electronics, electronic suspension etc
Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
Doesn’t the latest RR have TC, rider modes, lean sensitive ABS? Agreed that it has passive suspension. But still it has been updated and on par with base level litre bikes.Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
Edited by graeme4130 on Tuesday 19th March 18:33
graeme4130 said:
If you look at the fireblade of yesteryear vs nowadays, they’ll almost completely different bikes - think way more complex electronics, electronic suspension etc
Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
Indeed, and 10 years ago that was what killed the market because the 1000s were only a grand or so more. Now they've gone mega tech and super exotic materials the prices have skyrocketed, and the new classes of 600s are either much cheaper bases or barely anything new (CBR600RR).Whereas the CBR 600 beyond the digital dash is basically the same bike as 10 years ago
There are the obvious inputs to cost of production but there's an element of consumer expectations/perceptions with regards to the selling price put on things like the CBR1000RR. Honda will profile the market and work the trade-off between units and margin in the context of the market to figure out what works best for them. If you lived in Australia, the CBR1000RR-SP (which is the only model sold there) is $AUD55,536 (£28,500) and the CBR600RR is $AUD29,451 (£15,100). For the same money you're looking at Ducati Panigale SP2 and Ducati Panigale V2 Bayliss respectively.
Honda in Australia know they're not going to sell many so they're going after the people who'll buy Honda at literally any cost, it'd seem. Getting one CBR1000RR-SP out the door in 2024 will probably give them the same gross revenue that selling twenty CBR1000's did in 2014. Even more so with the CBR600.
Honda in Australia know they're not going to sell many so they're going after the people who'll buy Honda at literally any cost, it'd seem. Getting one CBR1000RR-SP out the door in 2024 will probably give them the same gross revenue that selling twenty CBR1000's did in 2014. Even more so with the CBR600.
I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
black-k1 said:
I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Completely agree with the last paragraph. In what appears to be a largely middle/old aged man hobby, many just don’t need to compromise. The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Jag_NE said:
black-k1 said:
I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Completely agree with the last paragraph. In what appears to be a largely middle/old aged man hobby, many just don’t need to compromise. The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
srob said:
Jag_NE said:
black-k1 said:
I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Completely agree with the last paragraph. In what appears to be a largely middle/old aged man hobby, many just don’t need to compromise. The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Hopefully there is a bit of a resurgence in the 600 class. Far more interesting than the R7 etc. Let's be honest, you can enjoy a 600 supersport more on the road than a 1000 superbike (in so far as being able to explore slightly more of it's potential). I rode my VFR12 yesterday for the first time in a month or two and it's barely ticking over before you're into the back of the car far in front, that power is just a bit pointless a lot of the time.....
srob said:
Jag_NE said:
black-k1 said:
I think you are simplifying the process of deciding which bike to buy too much for most people. (Sales figures of 1000cc bikes vs. 600cc bikes supports that.) If all we looked at was cost and usable on the road performance then even the 600 would appear to be a bit of a rip off.
The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
Completely agree with the last paragraph. In what appears to be a largely middle/old aged man hobby, many just don’t need to compromise. The 600 will never be able to "warp space/time" in the way that the 1000 can. I know you can't use that very often safely on the road but the fact that it's there and that it can be used occasionally is very important to a lot of people. (Me included.) Likewise, the higher quality braking and suspension components. While most riders may not find the limits of the less expensive items on the 600, having the better items on the 1000 is still important.
For most people, owning and riding a motorcycle is a hobby and most don't want to buy what is perceived as second best simply because it's cheaper.
We’re drifting off from the original point of the OP which I think he was trying to make.
Is the actual build cost of a 1000 that much more than the 600?
Almost certainly not but then we get into the build price per unit debate where the 600 will sell in far greater numbers than the 1000 and so development and parts supply will be less per bike sold.
Drawweight said:
We’re drifting off from the original point of the OP which I think he was trying to make.
Is the actual build cost of a 1000 that much more than the 600?
Almost certainly not but then we get into the build price per unit debate where the 600 will sell in far greater numbers than the 1000 and so development and parts supply will be less per bike sold.
So buy the 600, fling some K-tech at it with and an aftermarket m/c and you've still enough left to buy another one to cover the power difference......Is the actual build cost of a 1000 that much more than the 600?
Almost certainly not but then we get into the build price per unit debate where the 600 will sell in far greater numbers than the 1000 and so development and parts supply will be less per bike sold.
For me it’s an absolute no-brainer, 600 all the way. I’ve been absolutely smoked on track by 600 riders while I’ve been on my litre bike.
600’s around the £10k mark are a steal when compared to their big brothers. The vast majority of riders would be better off on a 600, myself included.
600’s around the £10k mark are a steal when compared to their big brothers. The vast majority of riders would be better off on a 600, myself included.
Point I was trying to highlight is that the price of the 600 seems to have increased with inflation but the Fireblade is proportionately more expensive. I just checked and the original Fireblade cost £7400 in 1992, which equates to £15,500 in today’s money. So it it 50% more expensive.
Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
Skeptisk said:
Point I was trying to highlight is that the price of the 600 seems to have increased with inflation but the Fireblade is proportionately more expensive. I just checked and the original Fireblade cost £7400 in 1992, which equates to £15,500 in today’s money. So it it 50% more expensive.
Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
Is PCP a contributing factor to this then? Own a new blade for 3/4 years for a few hundred a month then hand it back, the total figure can be what it wants to as long as the monthlies are affordable. Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
Skeptisk said:
Point I was trying to highlight is that the price of the 600 seems to have increased with inflation but the Fireblade is proportionately more expensive. I just checked and the original Fireblade cost £7400 in 1992, which equates to £15,500 in today’s money. So it it 50% more expensive.
Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
A fair question but you also need to ask if what you are getting for the money is comparable with the original blade beyond the sharing of a model name.Perhaps it reflects that fewer are bought and people buying them are less cost conscious.
A better measure of "value" may be against the competition for the same class of bike. If multiple different competing manufacturers are pricing their offerings in the same ball-park then it would suggest that is the cost of manufacture, plus an appropriate profit margin.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff