[sunilch]

Originally Posted by payeng

I am somehow more excited with the upcoming Yamaha MT-15 than the CB300R.

The R15 is the best 150 cc according to me: The engine is a gem and the handling was a revelation. Just that the Full Fairing and Super Sport ergonomics never appealed to me. Now with the "Naked R15 = MT-15" makes a very interesting proposition for me.

Never was a fan of the CBR250R, so the Naked 300cc version doesn't appeal to me.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Two different appeals, price points and target market?

MT15 should be a great machine for the city, whereas the CB300R looks to be a more balanced machine for those looking at weekday city and weekend highway use.

I in-fact think that if this CB300R sells well for Honda then Yamaha will be tempted to bring in MT-03 and it will be a boon for bikers here in India. Alternatively they will upgrade the FZ-25 to may be FZ-30 with additional equipment (ABS at minimum )

[payeng]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Two different appeals, price points and target market?

MT15 should be a great machine for the city, whereas the CB300R looks to be a more balanced machine for those looking at weekday city and weekend highway use.

Different Price Points: Agree

But Usage wise: Lets "Keep It Real". These bikes are actually "Glorified Commuters", much like the Royal Enfields.

Also I don't find a "Naked R15" incompetent for our Indian highways. I am a fan of the R15's engine and handling package. Now a Naked R15 sounds so perfect to me.

[ashwinprakas]

Makes sense comparing the MT15 to the CB300R, difference in displacement aside a street machine is expected to make considerable oomph down low which mystically the R15 manages and I bet it would be better with the weight reduction on the MT.

As for the CB300R, well the configuration screams crappy low end, period. Hence waiting for the product to hit our shores to confirm otherwise.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by ashwinprakas

oomph down low which mystically the R15 manages and I bet it would be better with the weight reduction on the MT..

R15 had good low end, which variant and which year? This is new to me.

[aravind.anand]

On the CBR250R, with a 13 litre tank, I get a 'usable' range of about 300-350 kms on the highway. This is primarily because I have to fill up with the last bar blinking at which point the bike still has 3 litres in the tank, but going lower than this, I fear I might run the bike dry and damage the fuel pump!

So with a 10 litre tank which gives me a 7 useful litres, and with lower fuel efficiency from the larger engine + deteriorated aerodynamics due to lack of body work, one might be looking at a tiny 200-220 km range

[ashwinprakas]

Originally Posted by Sheel

R15 had good low end, which variant and which year? This is new to me.

Granted the in-gear acceleration was dud sub 7k RPM's but I'm good as long as it didn't warrant a downshift every now and then.

For intercity riding, you didn't have to keep working the transmission a lot similar to the ZMA, which was an added advantage considering for everything else from the P220 to the CBR you need to play around a bit to maintain pace with the commuters.

[payeng]

Originally Posted by Sheel

R15 had good low end, which variant and which year? This is new to me.

Doesn't actually matter. The R15 is a GEM, its a SMOOTH operator with SHARP and stable handling.

For Low End Grunt, one can't beat the Royal Enfields (Desi Harley's).

[aravind.anand]

Originally Posted by ashwinprakas

Granted the in-gear acceleration was dud sub 7k RPM's but I'm good as long as it didn't warrant a downshift every now and then.

For intercity riding, you didn't have to keep working the transmission a lot similar to the ZMA, which was an added advantage considering for everything else from the P220 to the CBR you need to play around a bit to maintain pace with the commuters.

But this I suppose is more due to the gearing, than the character of the engine. I say this because the CBR pulls without hiccups from anything above 4k rpm, and the pull gets strong from 5k-6k rpm. But unfortunately, thanks to the tall gearing, 4k, 5k and 6k rpms in 6th gear is 64, 80 and 96 kmph respectively. Just by reducing that final drive, we will have a very capable and entertaining city slayer.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by aravind.anand

But this I suppose is more due to the gearing, than the character of the engine. I say this because the CBR pulls without hiccups from anything above 4k rpm, and the pull gets strong from 5k-6k rpm. But unfortunately, thanks to the tall gearing, 4k, 5k and 6k rpms in 6th gear is 64, 80 and 96 kmph respectively. Just by reducing that final drive, we will have a very capable and entertaining city slayer.

Yeah, just go down a tooth on the front sprocket - problem solved and no more essays.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by ashwinprakas

oomph down low which mystically the R15 manages and I bet it would be better with the weight reduction on the MT.

Originally Posted by ashwinprakas

Granted the in-gear acceleration was dud sub 7k RPM's but I'm good as long as it didn't warrant a downshift every now and then.

Now you sound logical to me. Won't pursue further.

Originally Posted by ashwinprakas

For intercity riding, you didn't have to keep working the transmission a lot similar to the ZMA, which was an added advantage considering for everything else from the P220 to the CBR you need to play around a bit to maintain pace with the commuters.

P-220 and CBR-250R, appears both Bajaj and HMSI made two different varieties of bikes.

Originally Posted by aravind.anand

I say this because the CBR pulls without hiccups from anything above 4k rpm, and the pull gets strong from 5k-6k rpm.

See above, a bike exploding from 7,000 revs and above has ok low end, but a bike having its fair share of torque from 4K onwards is not. Appears we stay in different worlds and rode different bikes .

[aravind.anand]

Originally Posted by Sheel

See above, a bike exploding from 7,000 revs and above has ok low end, but a bike having its fair share of torque from 4K onwards is not. Appears we stay in different worlds and rode different bikes .

Exactly! As I hadn't ridden a R15 extensively, I had no clear idea about its torque distribution. But when I saw the post mentioning how well it pulls post 7k rpm, I was rather confused. 7k rpm on a bike with red-line at 10k rpm is almost the end of mid range. So keeping speeds aside, and speaking just of the rpm, the CBR250R is ridable above 3.5k rpm, and is fun between 5k and 9k rpm.

With even more torque and lesser weight, I fully expect the lighter CB300R to be much more entertaining to ride around inside city limits.

[ashwinprakas]

Originally Posted by Sheel

See above, a bike exploding from 7,000 revs and above has ok low end, but a bike having its fair share of torque from 4K onwards is not. Appears we stay in different worlds and rode different bikes .

Pulling hard is one thing, sustaining load without pinging is another which the R15 does lower down the rev-range.

If I recall right the final drive ratios of the CBR, R15, P220 and ZMA are identical at around 0.8x so I guess that will help you comprehend why I say the R15 is mystical in the way it handles torque down low.

As for different conditions, might be. We're still talking about street bikes I presume since its the CB thread.

[Shumi_21]

So I found a list of specifications for the CB300R on Honda's UK Website. Copy pasting here:

. Bore × Stroke (mm): 76mm x 63mm

Carburation: PGM-FI

Compression Ratio: 10.7:1

C02 Emissions (g/km): 72

Engine Displacement (cc): 286cc

Engine Type (cm³): Liquid-cooled single cylinder

Max. Power Output: 31bhp/8500rpm

Max. Torque: 27.5Nm/7,500rpm

Starter: Electric



ABS System: 2 channel with IMU

Brakes Front: 296mm hubless floating disc with radial-mount Nissin 4-piston caliper

Brakes Rear: 220mm disc with single piston caliper

Suspension Front: 37mm telescopic fork, 130mm stroke

Suspension Rear: Monoshock damper, Pro-Link swingarm, 107mm travel

Tyre Size Front: 110/70R17M/C 54H

Tyre Size Rear: 150/60R17M/C 65H

Wheels Front: 17inch

Wheels Rear: 17inch

· Dimensions and Weights

Battery Capacity (VAh): 12V-7AH

Caster Angle: 24°

Dimensions (L×W×H) (mm): 2012mm x 802mm x 1052mm

Frame type: Steel diamond frame

Fuel Tank Capacity (Litres): 10.0L

Fuel Consumption: 30.2km/l (WMTC mode)

Ground Clearance (mm): 151mm

Kerb Weight (kg): 143kg

Seat Height (mm): 799mm

Wheelbase (mm): 1352mm

· TransmissionHide

Clutch: Wet, multiplate hydraulic clutch

Final Drive: Chain

Gearbox: 6-speed

· Instruments and ElectricsHide

Headlights: LED

Instruments: LCD showing speed, engine rpm, fuel level and gear position

Tail Light:LED

Kindly note that these specifications are for the 2018 version. Hence, the front forks are of 37mm diameter telescopic ones instead of the 41mm upside down ones we are getting. Only spanner in the works is the 10L fuel tank. Even my Gixxer gets a 12L tank.

[ashwinprakas]

Originally Posted by Shumi_21

Only spanner in the works is the 10L fuel tank. Even my Gixxer gets a 12L tank.

Pfft! My CT100B has a 10.5 Liter tank.

Though these modern cafe racer type machines are designed with a smaller tank for convenience.

[Nilesh5417]

I think this is a good move by Honda. It's a proven engine with updated mechanicals and thoroughly modern clothes. We really needed something to break the monotony of the dukes on the road.

I see this fuel tank capacity discussion taking so much prominence for every bike that is launched. Our fascination with touring is making us look at every motorcycle from the same lens and seems like we end up grumbling about shortcomings that arent there. But a 250km range in itself isn't bad at all. What are we really expecting from sport or nakeds? Thrill, comfort, range, features.......sigh!