New EU motorcycle license: A return of the 400cc class?

[mechwira]

I'm just writing this long piece to kill time.

 

For nearly two decades now, we Singaporean bikers have lamented the apparent death of the 2A category of bike models. A little bit of history is in order: our three-tiered motorcycle licensing system was actually a copy of Japan's old motorcycle licensing system which they adopted in 1976. They adopted cut-off capacities of 125-400-open; we adapted it to 200-400-open.

 

And it was precisely because of Japan's 125-400-open system that they produced the 400cc legends like the CBR400R, RVF400 and ZXR400. They had a ready local market, and technically those bikes were local-production only. Some made their way to Europe as 'gray imports', and some found their way to Singapore too.

 

But in the early 90's, Japan changed their licensing system. They now adopt a two-tiered system with a cut-off capacity of 400cc. At age 16, your are eligible to obtain a license for 'Ordinary Motorcycle' (up to 400cc). At age 18, you are immediately eligible to obtain a license for 'Heavy Motorcycle' (unlimited capacity).

 

This totally collapsed their 400cc market in the mid-90's. After all, past 18 you could get a license to ride the big bikes; who would want to buy 400cc sportsbikes? The 400cc Super Four stubbornly remained profitable because there was still a sizeable market for cheap 'no-frills' commuter bikes. In other words, the CB400 is in Japan what the cub-chai is in Singapore.

 

And Europe had always adopted a two-tiered motorcyle license system, with a cut-off capacity of 125cc and 15bhp (Category A) for a minimum age of 17. You can get an 'open' licence 2 years after holding the Cat A license, or directly obtain the 'open' licence at a minimum age of 21.

 

This licensing system gave rise to the 125cc models like the CBR125, YZF-R125 and the new Duke125 and 4-stroke RS4-125. The other bikes in our 2B category are from India, Malaysia, Thailand and other parts of SEA, where the sub-200cc bikes have a market due to income levels of these regions.

 

And so, our 2A category of motorcycles was, for all intents and purposes, a 'dead' category. Until now.

 

From January 2013, Europe is adopting a new motorcycle licensing system:

 

Cat A1: Minimum age 17, up to 125cc 15bhp.

Cat A2: Minimum age 19 (no need Cat A1 prior), bikes up to 47bhp.

Open: Either 2 years after obtaining Cat A2 or Direct Access with minimum age 24.

 

And this is why we are beginning to see new 2A bikes like the CBR250, Ninja300 and upcoming Duke390. And if the new system does open up a big market in Europe for what we term '2A', manufacturers will produce more such bikes in future. Nobody cares about Singapore's market, but Europe? Exciting possibilities for the future, definitely.

 

But truth be told, I'm still disappointed with the current crop of 'new' 2A bikes. To see what I mean, just picture the old CBR400, RVF400 and ZXR400 parked side-by-side at your carpark.

 

http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1992/image/15_38.jpg

http://www.diseno-art.com/images/Honda_RVF400_NC35.jpg

http://www.bikeshop-online.be/images/ZXR400.jpg

 

Then picture the CBR250 and Ninja300 parked beside them:

http://fotosdemoto.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Honda-CBR-250R-10.jpg

http://www.arizonakawasaki.com/imgs/mc/13ninja/13_Ninja_0300.jpg

 

The CBR250 was, to me, a big 'WTF?' moment. I was already expecting it to look like the CBR125, but still, when it came out, it still hit me that it was not a bike 20 years ahead of the CBR400. The Ninja300 definitely looks 20 years ahead of the ZXR400, but I dare anyone in this forum to say that the Ninja300 can beat a ZXR400 if it were available brand new today. And don't bother thinking about a CBR250 vs an RVF400.

 

And that's the problem: why the heck are the manufacturers producing bikes which are not an advancement of their own bikes from two decades ago!? Why don't they just retrieve their templates of the CBR400, RVF400 and ZXR400 and just reproduce exact copies then? The money they spent on designing the CBR250 and (former) Ninja250R, they should just spend a fraction of it improving just the looks of the CBR400 and ZXR400, and sell it to us and Europe. Heck, I'd buy one, seriously.

 

But we can still be hopeful that when the new EU license kicks in, manufacturers will pay serious attention to the 250-400 class, and we might eventually see 'proper' successors of the CBR400 and ZXR400. If they do, I'd stick with the 2A class and abandon Class2 bikes, honestly.

 

Just one teeny-weeny problem left. To meet this new market, Honda is already releasing the new CBR500R:

 

http://www.hondamc2013.com/wp-content/gallery/cbr500f/mcb5r201333b.jpg

 

This bike is a parallel-twin 46bhp, which means it just meets the new EU bhp restriction (remember their mid-tier is based on 47bhp restriction, not capacity). It's strange because a CB400 Super Four is about 50bhp. They could have installed the CB400 powerplant and got a bike with a smaller engine and slightly more power; but then, it would not meet the new EU regulation for CAT A2 restriction.

 

And this CBR500R is, for us Singaporean bikers, utterly useless. It requires a Class 2 license, and is at most as powerful as a Super Four. Who's going to buy this here?

 

And that's the teeny-weeny problem: the manufacturers in Europe might end up maximizing the 47bhp restriction by building 400-500cc models, which for us falls out of the 2A category. And we are never going to change our outdated licensing system for three reasons:

 

1)Our policy-makers are scholars who neither understand nor care about modern motorcycling issues.

2)Our ministers will not care because modern motorcycling issues are never going to be hot election topics.

3)Our general motoring community is largely made up by drivers who only want us out of the way, and will forever mistakenly believe that the bigger the capacity the more dangerous we are.

 

But still, it's still exciting to think about the possibility of newer, better 2A bikes in future. Give me a modern CBR400, please! I'd pay full cash for one.

 

 

The writer is just a nobody with too much free time this weekend. For comments, please email to [email protected]

[revhappy]

Nice article. I think the biggest problem is the class 2b cat is 200cc. It is neither here nor there. I mean a 250cc bike is to me the perfect balance between everything. Think about it a cbr250 or comet 250 costs like 10-12k and is powerful enough then why spend 18k on a cb400? The reason people get used to cb400 is that the mentality that class 2a allows them to ride 400cc so why not maximise it.

 

Luckily now couple of Indian mfrs are coming out with 200cc bikes like Ktm duke 200 and pulsar 200ns. Altough its kind of compromise to the 250cc, it's better than those 150cc cbr or r15.

 

But seriously I would love to see 250cc as the ceiling for the 2b cat, it will be so exciting and 650cc for 2A.

[mechwira]

But seriously I would love to see 250cc as the ceiling for the 2b cat, it will be so exciting and 650cc for 2A.

 

at the very least, our licensing is outdated because it was implemented at a time when 2-strokes ruled the small-bikes world. how can one be allowed to ride bikes like RS125 and TZM150 and yet need a 'bigger' licence for a 250 4-stroke?

 

i think a 250cc limit is better too, but i also think two tiers is all we need. step 1 is up to 250cc (or maybe by bhp is even better), and one year later step 2 open. i definitely don't advocate the idea of immediately jumping on a 600cc first time, but one year experience and 250cc limit not enough? need 2 years and 2 more tests? i jumped straight from 2b to 600cc.

 

but like i said earlier, our authorities will never change it this way simply because they will forever believe "it is dangerous to do so". nobody up there understands or cares that in reality our three tiers make no sense in current biking real world.

[stsoh]

............

 

And this CBR500R is, for us Singaporean bikers, utterly useless. It requires a Class 2 license, and is at most as powerful as a Super Four. Who's going to buy this here?

 

.........

 

sillyporeans still buy nc700 x/s (670cc)..........output 46hp, should have stick a 400cc tat produce 50 hp. lol

Edited December 22, 2012 by stsoh

[stsoh]

........ nobody up there understands or cares ........

 

oh, they do care if it brings in big bucks. eg: casino, ft, coe, erp, etc.

if bike coe went up to $10k, they care n luv sillypore bikers.

local sillyporeans r worthless, the rich r wat gahmen wants.

tats why they allow million of ft n their families as pr n new citizens.

they will take care of us if our cpf have a million dollars each.

Edited December 22, 2012 by stsoh

[PolarisX]

Very informative post buddy! Been a rider myself for quite a few years now, I AGREE WITH YOU!

[eyke]

KTM Duke 390

 

[mechwira]

here's some more things to boggle the mind.

 

the Aprilia RS125 two-stroke:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4881055026119865&pid=15.1

Power rating: 34bhp

 

the 2011 Honda CBR250:

http://fotosdemoto.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Honda-CBR-250R-10.jpg

Power rating: 26bhp

 

And you need 2A license to operate the CBR250??

 

 

And yet another boggling thing. Most people would not remember, in 1994 Honda produced the inline-4 four-stroke CBR250RR:

http://classicgp.myblog.it/media/01/02/3200893872.jpg

Power rating: 45bhp

 

Honda made a 250cc engine in a bike called 'CBR250RR' twenty years ago that was more powerful than the current CBR250! WHY?!

 

the story is the same with Kawasaki. The new Ninja300 makes 39bhp. The 1991 ZXR400 makes... 60bhp! Why are the japanese doing such nonsense?

[stsoh]

to answer ur Q is carbon emission std tat were chartered by eu.

20 yrs ago there werent any of carbon emission crap.

[mechwira]

to answer ur Q is carbon emission std tat were chartered by eu.

20 yrs ago there werent any of carbon emission crap.

 

carbon emission laws caused the death of the 2-stroke, no questions there.

 

but the CBR250RR, as well as the legendary 400s, were all 4-strokes. granted, the 1994 CBR250RR engine is possibly 'dirty' by today's EU emissions standard, but the manufacturers have been developing 4-stroke non-stop since the nineties, and they already have clean-emission tech for inline-4 four-strokes because their flagship bikes are all inline-4. the fact that they put in a single-cylinder in today's CBR250, and parallel-twin in the ninja300, has nothing to do with emissions.

[revhappy]

here's some more things to boggle the mind.

 

the Aprilia RS125 two-stroke:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4881055026119865&pid=15.1

Power rating: 34bhp

 

the 2011 Honda CBR250:

http://fotosdemoto.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Honda-CBR-250R-10.jpg

Power rating: 26bhp

 

And you need 2A license to operate the CBR250??

 

 

And yet another boggling thing. Most people would not remember, in 1994 Honda produced the inline-4 four-stroke CBR250RR:

http://classicgp.myblog.it/media/01/02/3200893872.jpg

Power rating: 45bhp

 

Honda made a 250cc engine in a bike called 'CBR250RR' twenty years ago that was more powerful than the current CBR250! WHY?!

 

the story is the same with Kawasaki. The new Ninja300 makes 39bhp. The 1991 ZXR400 makes... 60bhp! Why are the japanese doing such nonsense?

 

Bro, the CBR 250 made 20 years ago was made by Japanese for Japan.

The 2011 CBR 250R is made for India and Thailand by the Indians and Thais.

Although same name but completely different products and completely different target customers

Edited December 24, 2012 by revhappy

[Constructicon]

When I took my 2A years ago, the only choices left are basically the Super 4, XJR4, DRZ and a crop of 1980s 400cc dinosaurs.

Now it's still the same. The addition of the new series of 250 and 300cc motorcycles will not make sense to local riders having the 2A license.

 

The days of 400cc pocket rockets are over, same goes for the 2 strokes.

The newer one seems to focus on looking not too crap (still drab though) and with ok fuel economy. After all, most who buy and ride these bikes dont really ride them in a hardcore matter. The looks and poses forms much of the equation.

 

To the motorcycle companies, its not nonsense when what they make are selling well.

I read somewhere that the $$$ now is not making big cc bikes for the European markets, but selling low capacity commuters.

Well...why spend all that $$$ on R&D or making slim profits with mid capacity bikes when you can flog all the low end stuff and make real $$$.

[stsoh]

carbon emission laws caused the death of the 2-stroke, no questions there.

 

but the CBR250RR, as well as the legendary 400s, were all 4-strokes. granted, the 1994 CBR250RR engine is possibly 'dirty' by today's EU emissions standard, but the manufacturers have been developing 4-stroke non-stop since the nineties, and they already have clean-emission tech for inline-4 four-strokes because their flagship bikes are all inline-4. the fact that they put in a single-cylinder in today's CBR250, and parallel-twin in the ninja300, has nothing to do with emissions.

 

there arent such thing as clean-emission tech for inline-4 four-strokes.

take 1994 cbr250rr, how it generate its power.......by pumping tons of air/fuel up to 16,000rpm which mean farting a lot of carbon.

same goes for the the rest.....in order to have tons of horsepower, must burnt lots of fuel (means tons of carbon).

tats the reason nowadays horsepower r turning to ponypower. lol

eg. honda cbr600rr (599cc) produce output of 105hp (fart too much carbon, unable to meet 2014 eu emission std) n honda nc700 (670cc) produce output of 46hp (pee less carbon, marginally pass 2014 eu emission std).

in order to reduce carbon means burn less fuel, reduce fuel means reduce energy = reduce horsepower.

there r no technologies tat can use less fuel n generate mass amount of energy.

30% of energy r wasted as heat in the engine, human still cant harness the loss energy after >100 yrs.

turbo-charging may cut the waste energy to 20%, still at 20% inefficiency by today std.

Edited December 24, 2012 by stsoh

[mechwira]

there arent such thing as clean-emission tech for inline-4 four-strokes.

take 1994 cbr250rr, how it generate its power.......by pumping tons of air/fuel up to 16,000rpm which mean farting a lot of carbon.

same goes for the the rest.....in order to have tons of horsepower, must burnt lots of fuel (means tons of carbon).

tats the reason nowadays horsepower r turning to ponypower. lol

eg. honda cbr600rr (599cc) produce output of 105hp (fart too much carbon, unable to meet 2014 eu emission std) n honda nc700 (670cc) produce output of 46hp (pee less carbon, marginally pass 2014 eu emission std).

in order to reduce carbon means burn less fuel, reduce fuel means reduce energy = reduce horsepower.

there r no technologies tat can use less fuel n generate mass amount of energy.

30% of energy r wasted as heat in the engine, human still cant harness the loss energy after >100 yrs.

turbo-charging may cut the waste energy to 20%, still at 20% inefficiency by today std.

 

even going by your argument above, then:

 

1) If the NC700 has a 670cc 46bhp engine and it just meets the latest EU regulations, then it theory isn it also possible to make an updated 250cc 46bhp engine that also meets the regulations? smaller engine same power output is even more energy-efficient isn it?

 

2) Have the manufacturers given up and declared that they can no longer build >1000cc engines that meet EU regulations? If not, and they will continue building >1000cc engines that meet EU laws, that in theory isn it easy to adapt the 1000cc inline-4 to a smaller updated 250/400 inline-4 that easily meets/exceeds the EU laws?

[stsoh]

even going by your argument above, then:

 

1) If the NC700 has a 670cc 46bhp engine and it just meets the latest EU regulations, then it theory isn it also possible to make an updated 250cc 46bhp engine that also meets the regulations? smaller engine same power output is even more energy-efficient isn it?

 

2) Have the manufacturers given up and declared that they can no longer build >1000cc engines that meet EU regulations? If not, and they will continue building >1000cc engines that meet EU laws, that in theory isn it easy to adapt the 1000cc inline-4 to a smaller updated 250/400 inline-4 that easily meets/exceeds the EU laws?

 

u dun seem to understand science (physics n engineering).

 

in order for a 250cc to achieve the 46 horsepower, it has to pump three times tat of 670cc.

nc700 is design with long stroke n low rpm (max 6k rpm).

cbr250rr will have to rev up to 15~18k rpm to achieve about the same horsepower n fart even more carbon.

 

u still dun understand tat the amount of fuel = amount of energy = amount of carbon...simply logic.

any >1000cc engine output 150~180hp x rpm if reduce by half (70~100hp x limited rpm), will greatly reduce carbon (barely at 2014 eu emission std).

engineering-wise, u r not far off, human being luv fantasy with fast bikes or cars, those will still be around with much reduction in power.

 

electric bikes have proven to be much faster than any fossil fuel burnt engines.

electric bikes have improve traveling range from 80 to 150km, reduce one full charge from 8 to 4 hrs.

when all problems with electric have sorted out will be the future.

Edited December 25, 2012 by stsoh

[mechwira]

When I took my 2A years ago, the only choices left are basically the Super 4, XJR4, DRZ and a crop of 1980s 400cc dinosaurs.

Now it's still the same. The addition of the new series of 250 and 300cc motorcycles will not make sense to local riders having the 2A license.

 

The days of 400cc pocket rockets are over, same goes for the 2 strokes.

The newer one seems to focus on looking not too crap (still drab though) and with ok fuel economy. After all, most who buy and ride these bikes dont really ride them in a hardcore matter. The looks and poses forms much of the equation.

 

To the motorcycle companies, its not nonsense when what they make are selling well.

I read somewhere that the $$$ now is not making big cc bikes for the European markets, but selling low capacity commuters.

Well...why spend all that $$$ on R&D or making slim profits with mid capacity bikes when you can flog all the low end stuff and make real $$$.

 

the commuter bikes have always been the main profit-making range of the manufacturers. the 1000cc sports are considered their flagship bikes, but these models have never been the biggest profit-making models of their respective brands. Its just that there is a market large enough to make them profitable, plus its an advertising tool for their respective brands.

 

and i have no arguments with bikers who want nothing more than a commuter bike. But lets consider every single person who buys the ninja300. i cannot believe for one second that these buyers are thinking "i want a bike that looks hardcore but i really dont want it to perform hardcore, i just want it to commute normally". if kawa would hypothetically take and update their twenty year old 400cc inline-4 engine and put it in the same body as the ninja300 and then call it the ZX-4R, would the current ninja300 outsell the hypothetical ZX-4R coz people dont want hardcore?

 

i dun believe so. except maybe in India. but the ninja300 was first released in Australia, followed by Europe. and i believe those buyers would abandon the ninja300 for the hypothetical ZX-4R. so my question remains: why go to all the trouble of designing a new parallel-twin 250 and then update it to a 300, when you could have just dusted off your twenty-year old 400cc design and update it?

 

of course, everything i say is purely academic. its nothing more than idle biking discussion.

[mechwira]

u still dun understand tat the amount of fuel = amount of energy = amount of carbon...simply logic.

any >1000cc engine output 150~180hp x rpm if reduce by half (70~100hp x rpm), it will greatly reduction of carbon.

 

ok. and if i take that same 1000cc engine that currently passes EU emissions, and reduce it by half to 400cc, with corresponding reduction in hp and rpm, it will suddenly fail EU emission laws?

[stsoh]

ok. and if i take that same 1000cc engine that currently passes EU emissions, and reduce it by half to 400cc, with corresponding reduction in hp and rpm, it will suddenly fail EU emission laws?

 

no, reduce the fuel consumption n limited rpm.

[mechwira]

by the way, correct me if i'm wrong, but with regards to EU emissions, among the restriction compounds in the EU emissions levels is carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. and carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete/inefficient combustion. complete combustion produces carbon dioxide.

 

And the reason why pre-2000 engines will fail today's EU emissions, but equivalent configuration/capacity of today's engines can pass, is because they've improved the combustion process such that today's engines produce less carbon monoxide. whether you want to call it 'clean-emission tech' or whatever, the fact remains that they have the tech to produce engines of the same capacity and configuration as twenty years ago yet with more power and cleaner emission.

 

and my point is, if today's (or future) 1000cc inline-4 can meet EU regulations, then surely they can downscale that same engine to 400cc and still pass the regs.

[mechwira]

no, reduce the fuel consumption n limited rpm.

 

i have no idea wat you're on about.

 

1994 250cc inline-4 engine of CBR250RR cannot pass today's emissions. no argument.

 

more powerful engine burns more petrol thus produce more carbon. no argument.

 

 

today's 1000cc inline-4 can pass EU. if you downscale it to 400cc, the engine will produce less carbon. so will pass EU laws. no?

 

of course the 400cc engine will have far less power then the 1000cc. thats obvious. but it still means they can produce '2A bikes' as powerful as the nineties 400cc and still pass EU. i'm comparing apples with apples; a theoretical new 400cc inline-4 cleaner and as powerful as the nineties 400cc bikes.

 

so wat are you on about?

[mechwira]

-double post-

[stsoh]

co will convert to co2 by uv of the sun.

regardless of engine cc n configurations, engrs works towards the limit of carbon emission chartered by the eu.

engrs will design n limit engine base on eu emission charter if they want to sell their products in eu.

basic knowledge: more fuel burnt will produce more carbon, less fuel burnt will reduce carbon.

 

other factors to be consider r manufacturing costs.

il4 r getting too expensive, manufacturers r cutting down costs.

yamaha r going for il3 (in-line 3), whilst others p-twin or single.

Edited December 25, 2012 by stsoh

[mechwira]

know what, i give up.

 

the issue of emissions came up because you claim the 1994 250cc inline-4 will fail today's EU emissions. i have no argument there, or on all of your 'basic knowledge' about petrol-carbon relations.

 

my counter-claim is only that if they can produce a 1000cc inline-4 today that meets EU, they can similarly produce a 400cc inline-4 that will also pass. and such an engine will not be any less powerful than the one they produced twenty years ago, but will me much cleaner based on the tech they use on their current engines.

 

but i dont appreciate being talked to like i'm too stupid to understand your basic physics. i have a degree in mechanical engineering but i dont see any need to show off my qualifications because this is not about who is cleverer, i'm just interested in sharing biking views and opinions and increasing my understanding.

[stsoh]

..... i have a degree in mechanical engineering .....

 

 

bike manufacturers can built any engine configurations but too costly n unable to sell.

sillypore gahmen realized they make mistakes......in education system.

Edited December 25, 2012 by stsoh

[Constructicon]

the commuter bikes have always been the main profit-making range of the manufacturers. the 1000cc sports are considered their flagship bikes, but these models have never been the biggest profit-making models of their respective brands. Its just that there is a market large enough to make them profitable, plus its an advertising tool for their respective brands.

 

and i have no arguments with bikers who want nothing more than a commuter bike. But lets consider every single person who buys the ninja300. i cannot believe for one second that these buyers are thinking "i want a bike that looks hardcore but i really dont want it to perform hardcore, i just want it to commute normally". if kawa would hypothetically take and update their twenty year old 400cc inline-4 engine and put it in the same body as the ninja300 and then call it the ZX-4R, would the current ninja300 outsell the hypothetical ZX-4R coz people dont want hardcore?

 

i dun believe so. except maybe in India. but the ninja300 was first released in Australia, followed by Europe. and i believe those buyers would abandon the ninja300 for the hypothetical ZX-4R. so my question remains: why go to all the trouble of designing a new parallel-twin 250 and then update it to a 300, when you could have just dusted off your twenty-year old 400cc design and update it?

 

of course, everything i say is purely academic. its nothing more than idle biking discussion.

 

Well, to take a old 400cc lump and update it probably has 2 ways about it.

 

1. Make it into a screaming pocket rocket that probably wont make it past the euro emission without a damn ugly exhaust, goes 16km a litre, and so highly strung that no one can really make use of it to it's potential.

Like a shrunken 600cc.

Given that the 600cc class seems more or less dead in recent years, its no surprise why there wont be any Rise of the Sports 400.

 

2. The other way is to castrate the 400cc, and make it into a bland commuter with nice clothes. A sheep in wolf's clothing, in a sense.

And the fact is that it sells.

 

Well, if we have a updated ZX4R and a ZX-4F (hypothetical castrated commuter version), then everyone goes home happy.

Perhaps the decline of the 600 sports segment has more than a way to affect any hopes of a 400 sports revival?

 

The 250s and 300s series of bikes. It makes no sense to local riders.

But for other countries where they have a different license scheme, it's a different story.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Constructicon