Took a CBR500R for a test ride.

It's so the A2 licence holders can say they own a 'sports bike' - much like the CBR300R or the CBR125R. 'tis just a name.

What was so disappointing? The lack of power, handling, brakes? All of the above?
 
It's everything a CBR-R shouldn't be, flat, unresponsive, dull. But the biggest problem by a long way is the engine, that needs a special mention. How Honda can take a 500cc twin and make it so bad is beyond comprehension. It must have taken some serious effort to make it so bad.

The CBR500-R is the modern day CB250, just packaged up as a sports bike. Anyone jumping off this onto something like a CBR600R is in for a shock and I think Honda have made a terrible mistake calling this a CBR never mind a CBR-R. I've ridden 125cc bikes that would destroy this thing.
 
jigger said:
It's everything a CBR-R shouldn't be, flat, unresponsive, dull. But the biggest problem by a long way is the engine, that needs a special mention. How Honda can take a 500cc twin and make it so bad is beyond comprehension. It must have taken some serious effort to make it so bad.
Click to expand...

Bad in what way? The engine was fine in the previous CB500 model, certainly no supersports lump but more than enough power for a middleweight commuter. There's even a race series for them
 
What do you normally ride? Any 46bhp bike is going to feel unresponsive or dull compared to a 600 IL4, or any bike with over 80-100bhp to be fair.
 
No, the RR bikes are slightly more focussed versions of the R. That's not the issue though. This bike is not even in the same league as say a 90s CBR400. Hell even a 90s 250 baby blade would suck this in its air filter and blow it out as bubbles. They might as well call this a RR.
 
I have a 2002 cb500 and it's a great bike, torque at the bottom end and power up top. Not sure what they could have done to the engine to make it so bad? It's certainly not a rocket but it's not underpowered either.
 
Ignoring the misleading name of the bike. The engine has just got nothing going for it, for what on paper should be at least half decent.
 
I used to have a '98 CB500, and found it to be great fun, even when coming off my CB900 Hornet. Perhaps they have messed the engine up by lowering it's output from 58bhp to 47 bhp?
 
jigger said:
Bad as in my first line.
Click to expand...

jigger said:
But the biggest problem by a long way is the engine, that needs a special mention. How Honda can take a 500cc twin and make it so bad is beyond comprehension. It must have taken some serious effort to make it so bad.
Click to expand...

You've said that the biggest problem is the engine, that it deserves special mention and is really bad, but then you don't go on to describe the actual problems with it.
 
Insurance companies like to use the R's to increase the premiums..... Because they can...

What other 500cc's have you tried?
 
jigger said:
No, the RR bikes are slightly more focussed versions of the R. That's not the issue though. This bike is not even in the same league as say a 90s CBR400. Hell even a 90s 250 baby blade would suck this in its air filter and blow it out as bubbles. They might as well call this a RR.
Click to expand...

The cbr400 is a CBR400RR, all the RRs are track focused, road legal bikes in the Honda range.
 
This is what MCN said about the engine, so maybe there was something wrong the test bike.

"There's enough pep in the CBR’s upper reaches to entertain and satisfy.
There’s no real leap in power anywhere, but it does keep building and building.
Low down, around town it’s grunty enough to be practical and easy and in the mid-range it’s impressively smooth
(thanks to the 180-degree crank and balance shaft) and just gets on with it.
And yet, above 7000rpm and up to the 8500 redline, the CB truly revels in having its neck rung."
 
Last edited:
It's got very little low down and in the middle of the rev range. At about 6000 rpm it kind of starts to do something and then runs out of steam. For 500cc it's truly appalling considering Honda twins from the past. It could have had a problem, but I didn't notice any signs and it's a Honda twin possibly the most reliable engine known.

It feels to me that Honda had other plans for this bike, but at some point decided to make it a learner bike. Sitting on it, it feels like a proper bike and looks the part, but it very quickly becomes clear it's not a sport bike in any way and in no way should this be confused with a CBR. The CBR branding on the bike is just doesn't make any sense at all. If the bike was a 300cc, 120kg city commuter for £4000~ I could start to understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom