Kat Stability

[Syndacate]

In a straight line, what makes the kat so stable?

I test drove (and ended up buying) a CBR600 F4I for a friend, when we got it back to his place I did a few "runs" up and down the street with it. It has a bit more power than my Kat 750 (not a whole lot, though), but the ride feels unbelievably messy (ie. rear squirmed a bit in the higher revs, all around shakier ride, rear locks up easier on heavy braking, while my kat is perfectly solid, short of vibration, the rear doesn't squirm at all.

Is this just a product of '97 (kat) vs '03 (CBR) ? Things get cheaper, doesn't feel as solid? Or is this a Suzuki vs Honda thing? Or maybe the power delivery due to FI vs carbs?

Reason being is I'm looking into a CBR 954RR and I don't want it to be like that, I gunned it a bit in the bends like I do with my kat and the rear end slips incredibly quickly.

Could be this [what I consider] huge *** rear tire he has on it, but I thought that'd give MORE stability for the hole shot.

Anybody know what's up here?

[scottynoface]

It's a matter of lightweight high powered race bike vs heavy underpowered touring bike. That's what makes it so stable, it's a tradeoff of performance for stability and user friendliness.

[tejasandre]

agree. its the lbs.

[loudnlow7484]

The CBR's (both of them) have a shorter wheelbase, higher center of gravity, more aggressive rake and trail, less weight, and more power.

[DClark]

Speaking from my kat 1100, I'd say it is the long wheel base. The heavy steel frame doesn't hurt stability either. In fact, I think the Bandit 1250 (and the upcoming GSX1100F) have a steel frame. It might extra weight down low.

[Kreylyn]

I can rule out the "wide tire" having a less stable effect...

Exactly the opposite actually. Wider rim and properly fitted tire on the rear will make it more stable, less "twitchy" on a kat.

I agree with...

The CBR's (both of them) have a shorter wheelbase, higher center of gravity, more aggressive rake and trail, less weight, and more power.

Krey

[Syndacate]

The CBR's (both of them) have a shorter wheelbase, higher center of gravity, more aggressive rake and trail, less weight, and more power.

That makes sense, but wouldn't/shouldn't the CBR have a longer wheelbase and lower center of gravity? Or are they just trying to balance power in the straights vs power in the twisties?

I'm surprised that power is an agreed upon reason. My kat has more hp at the crank (probably same drivetrain loss) than his CBR 600F4I (not RR) stock (and I have jets, header, full exhaust, and intake). This was reflected well when I rode it as although it was smoother, I didn't feel much power difference than my kat - also hit about the same speeds as my kat in a straight line. Probably even a bit lower as he has a sprocket throwing the speedo high.

On another note, his CBR felt a lot less stable under hard braking....I'm gueasing this is due to the weight though..

In short, I'm to expect the same instability and squirrlyness when I test this CBR954RR mostly due to the length and weight? I don't really think everything with that CBR was power simply due to it having about the same as my kat in both feel and numbers, but the dynamics of how it's delivered definitely makes sense.

[curseboy]

proper sportbikes almost always have short wheelbases and steep steering angles, that's what makes them so flickable, if a bit squirrely. Another thing that has a big impact is the length of the swingarm. I would say weight plays a part, but not so much horsepower (look at the busa/zx14 etc....long bikes with lots of power. nobody would call those unstable bikes)

The kats are pretty stable, I am particularly impressed with their abilities in the rain.

[Syndacate]

proper sportbikes almost always have short wheelbases and steep steering angles, that's what makes them so flickable, if a bit squirrely. Another thing that has a big impact is the length of the swingarm. I would say weight plays a part, but not so much horsepower (look at the busa/zx14 etc....long bikes with lots of power. nobody would call those unstable bikes)

The kats are pretty stable, I am particularly impressed with their abilities in the rain.

So am I, my Kat was rock solid in the rain, it was rather interesting when I've conversed with other cyclists (this being my first bike), and they're talking about their horror stories in the rain, meanwhile I'm giving them the "wtf" look because in the worst rain storms hitting here when I was riding home from work, extremely low visibility, cold, etc., that Kat was perfectly happy, no hydro-planing, no squirrly, no bull****.

Closest call I had was because a cager in front of me got scared due to the damn near 0 visibility rain and jammed on their brakes. These things are definitely boss as far as stability goes, rain or not.

It makes sense, the Busa is apparently a pretty stable bike, also, when people put more power into bikes/quads, they typically lengthen the swing arm, so I guess it's really that short wheel base that pulls it all finicky.

If I do pick up this CBR, aside from the added power (CBR 954RR) (not that much extra power, but should be noticeable), I definitely got to learn more throttle control than I have with my Kat. Front will lift easier, back gets squirrly easier, so on and so forth.

This poses an interesting question, which is:
Are the CBRs (or any sport bike less tourings, so R6, R1, GSXR600's/750's, CBR's, etc.) really squirrly and easier to loose control of, or is that simply the way it feels, and realistically it's about the same in terms of stability?

[scottynoface]

None of the bikes are squirrely, you're just not used to how a real sportbike is supposed to feel, even though the 954 is an outdated one. It will be more friendly than any of the newer bikes.

The f4i is honda's version of the katana, just not as detuned.

If you want a real sportbike be prepared to deal with it. My bike is infinitely more stable than my katana was, especially at speeds over 70. But I'm also used to a 110hp bike that only weighs 355 dry.

[Syndacate]

None of the bikes are squirrely, you're just not used to how a real sportbike is supposed to feel, even though the 954 is an outdated one. It will be more friendly than any of the newer bikes.

Why will it be more friendly, is it "less of" a sports bike than newer bikes? Seems it was made for sport to me... IMO it's not "that" outdated, it's simply not new. Make it sound like an antique.

The f4i is honda's version of the katana, just not as detuned.

Not sure if I really agree with that, the Katana was def. made with sport touring in mind, the CBR F4I, while not the RR, was definitely made with sport in mind.

Not to mention saying it's not a sports bike after saying I'm just not used to how a real sport bike is supposed to feel is quite contrary.

If you want a real sportbike be prepared to deal with it. My bike is infinitely more stable than my katana was, especially at speeds over 70. But I'm also used to a 110hp bike that only weighs 355 dry.

What do you mean by "deal with it?"

[scottynoface]

The F4i is not as race oriented the rr, that's all my point was. Banana seat, higher clipons, less aggressive rake. It's a sport bike, just not a supersport.

As to the dealing with it, the handling is twitchy compared to the katana, the seats are uncomfortable and the engines are peaky.

You get used to it, it's just a different ride. It's like going from a Cobalt SS to an S2000. The SS is fun for a passenger car (katana) but the S2000 (gsxr cbr etc) is a purpose built racing machine that makes compromises for high performance.

You just have to get used to it is all. Once you do, it makes much more sense once you get into the twisties.

[thetable]

Never heard anyone describe the F4i as an unstable bike, so it is my guess something is off.

Tires, head bearings, wheel bearings, rear wheel alignment, fork alignment, loose parts in general. I would have to go over the whole bike, before I would really trust it.

[~Btech~]

i think all have a valid point on this one.
imo, the weight, power, length, rake, tire size, and even suspension have a role in the handling of bikes.
each type of bike is set up differently. the katana is set up for sport touring. a different ride compared to a super sport.
heavy, detuned, lower center of gravity, slightly longer wheel base make the katana a well balanced bike at speed or handling.
as i do not own a super sport, i can only speculate that the weight, power, wheel base, ect.. ect ... are set up for more aggressive riding. more torque, throttle response and even weight transfer through the suspension are completely different.
also in my opinion, the sport touring bikes are set up more for comfort especially for long rides. where as a super sport are set up for giving the rider alot more "feedback". i know that racers use this "feedback" to fine tune the bikes as well as their skills. in a sense its like comparing driving a cadilac vs an f-1 maclaren.

[Syndacate]

The F4i is not as race oriented the rr, that's all my point was. Banana seat, higher clipons, less aggressive rake. It's a sport bike, just not a supersport.

Fair enough, definitely not as race oriented as the RR, wouldn't go as far as to say it's a sport touring bike, though. Wouldn't say either of them are super sports, either, though. Not at 600cc's.

As to the dealing with it, the handling is twitchy compared to the katana, the seats are uncomfortable and the engines are peaky.

Yeah, that's probably it, it "twitches" - I actually liked the seat/riding position more than my Kat (it didn't have the banana seat), though . Definitely noticed about the engines being peaky, nowhere near as linear of a power curve as my Kat.

You get used to it, it's just a different ride. It's like going from a Cobalt SS to an S2000. The SS is fun for a passenger car (katana) but the S2000 (gsxr cbr etc) is a purpose built racing machine that makes compromises for high performance.

Yeah, you're probably right there, it just feels a lot different as all I know is the Kat. Lot more twitchy, IMO feels a lot less stable (probably because of how twitchy). A lot probably has to do with the wheel base, rake, and frame. Guess as you stated, two different purposes in mind when being made.

I guess it's hard to rationalize when the CBR feels more finicky under hard acceleration than the Katana, feels to have about the same power (brought me to the same speed - about - as my Kat, on a straight run I do regularly), is a lot more finicky under hard braking. Guess just all around it felt like a more wild ride - when the pay off (speed), was about the same. Though there's no way it would keep up with the CBR through corners.

You just have to get used to it is all. Once you do, it makes much more sense once you get into the twisties.

Yeah, I live in Rochester, not too many twisties here .

Never heard anyone describe the F4i as an unstable bike, so it is my guess something is off.

I say unstable in comparison to my Kat. I guess "finicky" would be a better word, though. Just reminds me of the nut job slamming his head against the wall when I hammered on the CBR - seemed an overly-aggressive acceleration (compared to that Kat) for about the same speed before braking.

Tires, head bearings, wheel bearings, rear wheel alignment, fork alignment, loose parts in general. I would have to go over the whole bike, before I would really trust it.

Unfortunately for me, due to lack of time and knowledge, I end up having to mostly trust it.. :-\.

i think all have a valid point on this one.
imo, the weight, power, length, rake, tire size, and even suspension have a role in the handling of bikes.
each type of bike is set up differently. the katana is set up for sport touring. a different ride compared to a super sport.
heavy, detuned, lower center of gravity, slightly longer wheel base make the katana a well balanced bike at speed or handling.
as i do not own a super sport, i can only speculate that the weight, power, wheel base, ect.. ect ... are set up for more aggressive riding. more torque, throttle response and even weight transfer through the suspension are completely different.
also in my opinion, the sport touring bikes are set up more for comfort especially for long rides. where as a super sport are set up for giving the rider alot more "feedback". i know that racers use this "feedback" to fine tune the bikes as well as their skills. in a sense its like comparing driving a cadilac vs an f-1 maclaren.

While I wouldn't call the Kat a Cadillac, I see your point. I don't get the higher center of gravity on sportier bikes, though, seems kind of inverse. I noticed that as well, I feel that probably played a roll in how I interpreted its stability as well.

You could be right, though, it may just be a TON of extra feedback that my muscle memory isn't used to incorporating.