Make sure you get all of the story – subscribe today!

Story by Roger Parsons and Uwe Wachtendorf

It was the most inevitable comparison of the summer. When Honda unveiled the 2011 CBR250R – surprising many of us who had been expecting a 400 cc machine that would bridge the chasm between the small- and mid-displacement classes – we immediately questioned how it would stack up against Kawasaki’s Ninja 250R. Since its redesign in 2008, the smallest Ninja has been a strong seller, monopolizing the quarter-litre class in part because of the “small and sexy” craze started by the 2007 Honda CBR125R. With two enticing 250s now on the market, it was game on. We pitted our long-term CBR loaner against a Special Edition Ninja distinguished by a pearl-white livery.

The most common misconception regarding the Ninja and CBR is that they’re sportbikes; those who believe this are victims of a carefully orchestrated ruse. Both Honda and Kawasaki have wrapped their beginner-friendly motorcycles with exciting skins for no other reason than to inject some life into the small-bike genre. In reality, the personas of these bikes reflect those of standard motorcycles. Strip the Ninja and CBR of their exotic bodywork and you would find a comfortable – albeit less attractive – naked bike. With pegs under the seat and raised bars, the riding position is almost fully upright, but there is just enough of a forward cant to assist both body and machine to slip more efficiently through power-sapping wind.

That’s not to say these machines are incapable of sport-like conduct. Mojo staffers Roger Parsons and Uwe Wachtendorf started their test of the bikes with an extended day at the track to determine which of the two could claim an edge in outright performance. On paper, the pair of 250s appeared very similar; both featured six-speed transmissions, chain final drives, 37 mm front forks, preload adjustable rear mono shocks, and nearly identical braking systems. And at 775 mm, both had the exact same seat height. If there was any advantage to be gleaned from studying the spec charts, it went to the CBR. With a claimed wet weight that is 8 kg (18 lb.) lighter than the Ninja’s, we asserted it would be quicker, but then again, some of the Ninja’s extra weight stems from its larger fuel tank, which holds an additional five litres. Then there are the riders who would instantly negate any weight advantage a motorcycle might have; for example, just putting Wachtendorf – who happens to be 16 kg (35 lb.) heavier than Parsons – on the Honda is enough to turn the tables in our comparison.

Pushing theory aside, the duo quickly discovered on the track that the real story behind these motorcycles was with their engines. Although both displace 249 cc and are liquid-cooled, they have little else in common. Honda chose to fit the CBR with a 4-valve, single-cylinder unit that has a rev limit of 10,500 rpm. Fuelled by a brain-box and injectors, the engine’s forte was its low- to mid-range torque, which quickly moved the bike forward from a stop. Conversely, the carbureted Kawasaki uses an 8-valve, parallel twin, which rewards riders with ample power providing they keep the engine screaming near its 13,000 rpm redline. Riders not used to small-displacement machines typically cringe at the thought of revving an engine that hard, but will eventually figure out that they were designed to be ridden that way.

Neither engine was intended to propel a GP bike to victory; their primary role – to power beginner machines – dictated that they be able to handle the abuse of ham-fisted riders. As such, their design mandate emphasised longevity and reliability before everything else. Despite this, both bikes proved to be overachievers on the racecourse, and their surprising performance kept us giggling like dental patients drunk on nitrous oxide. After many laps, it was obvious that the Ninja had something on the CBR, especially on the straight sections of the track. Aided by its closer-ratio gearing, it was easier to keep the Ninja’s engine spinning at its claimed peak of 24 kW (32.2 hp). Even with our heavier rider aboard, the Ninja had enough power to pull out of the CBR’s draft and pass on the straights, something the Honda couldn’t manage – even with a lighter rider. Parsons best described the situation: “The long start–finish straight became a source of frustration. No matter how much the guy on the Honda crawled under the paint, it wasn’t enough to pass the Ninja.” Our trackside analysis was confirmed by the data acquisition unit, which showed that the Ninja accelerated harder, had the higher terminal speeds and quicker lap times of the two bikes.

An appealing feature of the 250s was their forgiving nature, which Parsons demonstrated by grinding their various components into a fine powder amidst a shower of sparks without upsetting their chassis. “With my limited track experience, these bikes were a ton of fun,” commented Parsons. “I didn’t have to worry about an excess of power biting at the wrong time because all my attention was focused on improving my technique and finding the perfect line through each turn.”

Wachtendorf, too, was impressed by the pair of lightweights. “These bikes are great learning tools, and not just for beginners,” added Wachtendorf. “Veteran riders are reminded of the importance of finesse and corner speed while riding fast, and rookies can safely explore techniques such as throttle steering and trail braking.” The bikes’ low weights meant that neither bike paid a penalty for being fitted with budget brakes, tires and suspensions. Both handled and stopped extremely well with their stock equipment despite being subjected to the rigours of track use. Even when things went horribly wrong, it was possible to manhandle them back into shape, something Wachtendorf found out after he lost the front end of both bikes and managed to avert disaster . . . (READ MORE)