– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

2019 Honda CB300R: MD First Ride Review

The under-500cc displacement category has seen a lot of activity in recent years, as the manufacturers strive to continue mining the burgeoning Southeast Asian and Indian markets. The latest example of this growing competition is Honda’s new CB300R, a heavily revamped version of the CB300F that it replaces in American Honda’s 2019 lineup. We recently got the chance to sample the new CB300R during a hot summer day in Southern California’s San Bernardino County that encompassed both city riding and mountain passes, and came away very impressed with Honda’s latest global model built at its increasingly important Thailand factory.

Basically the naked version of Honda’s hot-selling CBR300R, the original CB300F was a great small-displacement bike; good performance, comfortable, easy for a novice rider to handle, and cheap to own (hardly any bodywork to replace if you tipped over) and maintain. About the only gripe we had with it was the bike’s styling, which seemed a bit cobbled together and stodgy. Well, the new CB300R thankfully has had a complete makeover in favor of the now more-popular roadster look, with a classic round headlight and seat/tank lines that are more pleasing to the eye. But the CB300R is much more than just a styling change.

The chassis is all new, with the swingarm and preload-adjustable-only rear shock’s top mount now attached to a pressed-steel pivot plate that is bolted to the revised tubular steel frame. Because the pivot plate handles all the rear suspension loads, the rest of the frame’s tubes could be made thinner, cutting weight. The swingarm itself is lighter and stronger, and has a gull-wing design on the right side to clear the new dual-chamber exhaust’s upswept muffler. Wheelbase is an inch shorter than the CB300F at 53.3 inches, and the rear axle now a larger, hollow 20mm unit.

Front suspension is upgraded to a 41mm inverted fork, with a new tapered aluminum handlebar attached to revised triple clamps that provide tighter steering geometry (24.7 degrees rake/93mm trail, versus the F model’s 25.3 degrees rake/98mm trail). The rear shock got a similar update, with separate oil and gas chambers with a larger diameter piston for more consistent damping. Wheels are a lighter ten-spoke design, with the single 296mm petal-type disc up front now mounted directly to the hubless-design center, and the caliper now a four-piston, radial-mount unit (ABS is again available as an option, although now with an IMU to also reduce excessive chassis pitch).

The 298cc DOHC single is one of the few components that remains basically unchanged. There are a couple of minor updates, such as the aforementioned dual chamber exhaust for better flow. A small change was also made to the airbox intake, with the runner now drawing in air straight from the rear section of the bike, allowing the airflow to make a straight shot into the air filter. Honda isn’t making any claims for increased power with these changes, but it is claiming that initial acceleration is four percent quicker, with six percent quicker acceleration from 31 mph onwards. The likely culprit here is a massive weight loss from the F model; Honda says the new CB300R is a whopping 35 pounds lighter at just 313 pounds wet, with the ABS model scaling in 38 pounds lighter than its F cousin at 317 pounds with all fluids and a full tank.

The CB300R’s listed seat height is 31.5 inches, almost half an inch taller than the outgoing F model’s saddle, and you can definitely feel the difference as the seat foam on the R is much firmer. In fact, the seat is one of the few gripes I had with the CB300R; after about 30 minutes of riding, I found myself standing on the pegs to get the blood flowing back into my glutes. The new R also gets a revised LCD instrument panel with slightly different info arrangement and reverse background (light digits against a dark background); like the CBR650F we tested a couple of weeks ago, the lack of a gear indicator was noticeable, especially with the CB300R’s engine spinning at 8000 rpm at 70 mph on the highway resulting in constantly trying to find an extra gear.

With its light effort clutch and short first gear, taking off from a stop is easy for the novice rider, and the transmission action is crisp and positive. Power is easy to access and use, and with around 30 horsepower on tap, non-intimidating for the inexperienced pilot; but there’s enough acceleration available to move through normal traffic flow or holeshot from an intersection easily. Suspension rates are nice … dialed-in to handle nasty broken-up urban tarmac without pounding you mercilessly over smaller stuff like pavement seams on the highway.

Vibration from the single-cylinder engine is canceled out well, and other than the seat, the riding position is comfortable for longer stints. The engine retains its 70-plus MPG fuel mileage, meaning that despite the fuel tank shrinking from 3.4 gallons to 2.7 gallons, you’re still about 170 miles between gas stops.

Despite the upgraded components, I did notice that the CB300R’s brakes were wooden and high-effort compared to the F model. A lot of lever pressure was required for hard stops, although the power was very linear; I’m thinking that Honda feels that novice riders (who make up more than half of the Honda 250-500cc motorcycle buyers) are better served with brakes that don’t have much initial bite in order to avoid upsetting the chassis in panic braking situations. The fact that the CB300R has an IMU to assist the ABS gives further credence to this theory. Also, Honda’s weight-loss program with the 300R focused on mass centralization as well; while centralized mass is great for easier and quicker turning, a side effect is that the bike is often also more susceptible to chassis pitch fore and aft.

Once novice riders start gaining more skills, they (and experienced riders) will be glad to find that the CB300R works superbly in the canyons and backroads. With its ultra-light weight, agile handling, and decent ground clearance, the Honda can scythe through a set of corners with surprising speed. The suspension does an excellent job of maintaining chassis stability at anything up to 10/10ths pace, and the Dunlop GPR-300 tires (in Honda-specific “M” versions) provide superb grip. The wooden-feeling brakes are the only flaw in an otherwise fun-filled package, and that can easily be remedied with a change in brake pads.

I got the opportunity to ride the F and R models back-to-back, and the difference in handling was noticeable. While the F is no slouch in a series of tight corners, the R’s better suspension, sharper handling, and lighter weight give a lot more feedback and confidence when the pace ramps up.

At just $4649 for the standard model and $4949 for the ABS version, the CB300R’s $300 price increase over the old F model is a steal considering the upgrades you get. For a novice (and even experienced) rider looking for a bike that’s cheap to own and insure, easy to ride, yet provides excellent backroad performance, the Honda CB300R definitely deserves serious consideration in my book.


See more of MD’s great photography:



  1. Wouter Hijink says:

    Hey guys,

    I see alot of you stating that the 300cc honda (286 actually) is not a highway bike. I must say that my GF and I just got back from a trip through the heart of Europe on a CBR300R and on the way home the bloody little bike did 120-130 km/h (what is that 75-80 mph ?) for hours over 600 km in the freeway (400 miles). With a fuel-consumption of 26.5 km per litre of fuel (is what; 62.5 mpg). reving at about 7500-8250 rpm with non-aerodynamica side cases full with luggage. I will say that 10 Littre tank on the new CB300R is smaller than I would like to see but I’m very impressed with the engine (and I have 4 bikes in the garage in total. Still like to take the little 300cc out myself often. It is just fun)

  2. Geoffrey A Hill says:

    I had 2 Cb360’s in the old days. Would pick up a modern one in a heartbeat. 350-400 twin. Looks like the old Cb’s. Flat seat. Normal rear fender. Not the wasp tail crap. Anyone else??

  3. Sparky says:

    A step in the right direction, but would be better with 45rwhp.

    Still waiting for a Honda CB400 SuperFour. You’d think it’d be a cheap and easy decision, since it’s one of Japan’s most popular bikes over the past two decades.

    • Dave says:

      Something has changed about the math because there are several JDM bikes that would be great in the US that never come here (ex. CB400/4, VTR 250). Instead we get the good, but decidedly less exciting, stuff from Thailand.

      • Martin B says:

        The VTR250 is a VERY nice bike, with strong, linear power and great handling. If it was photocopied about 15% larger to a 400cc or 500cc version, it would be the perfect bike. As it is, it’s just a wee bit too small to fit. But it is truly lovely.

    • Anonymous says:

      I looked up the superfour. You right, I want one.

    • Martin B says:

      I owned one of those a few years ago, but it didn’t really fit well with the type of riding I like best (tight mountain roads, mainly, along with urban racetracks…er, streets) and the variable valve timing gave me the fits. The engine came on strong right around 7,000 rpm, usually just as I was about to exit a tight corner, and it ALWAYS made me run wide out of the exit. It was like the bike was possessed, and failed to obey my commands. The opposite of what I want in a bike. A torquey V-Twin gives much more linear drive out of corners, and suits my particular personality better. I’ll know better if I ever get another chance. The CB400 was weak down low, frustratingly so on hill roads, and then came in so suddenly it was freaky. Not what I like at all.

  4. Wendell says:

    I like this CB300r. I am thinking of getting a Motorcycle.I will look at the used bikes and the Kawasaki Versa 300 caught my eye first. Even though this bike is not in the same league as the Ninja 400 in power for the money, at the moment this cb300r is the one that is speaking to me. I will probably go sit on one of these. One European reviewer said it does tight corners better than any bike he’s tested except the KTM rc390. Going around corners is said to get a lot of new riders into trouble.

    • todd says:

      It’s fairly well understood and well proven that a light bike handles much better than a heavy bike. This is why so many supersport bikes get passed regularly by Ninja 250s on twisty roads. Since I spend most of my time on twisty roads, big heavy powerful bikes do not appeal to me much when I can ride so much faster and effortlessly on a light bike. If this is where you ride and you aren’t trying to impress other riders at the cafe then I think you would be happy with this bike.

    • MGNorge says:

      NOT going around corners is what gets riders in trouble. It’s easy, especially when first starting to ride, to cook into a corner too fast and the very first reaction is to clamp on the brakes, often standing the bike up.The rider is left going straight toward the outer shoulder. Knowing one’s limits, plus knowing all kinds of stuff falls off trucks in corners is a real life lesson. A confidence inspiring motorcycle makes it easier to handle and lean into the turn, coming out the other side. If you ever spent much time on a bicycle as a kid, it’s the same thing but you’ll need more than Bactine and Band-Aids.

  5. Martin B says:

    I like this theme of standard nakeds, just like what was around when I was young. For my money, Honda went the wrong route when they made the 1 litre four. A 900/950/1,000 V-Twin, especially one tuned for mid range torque, would be so much better and easier to ride. I had a Yamaha TR1 which was at the time for me, the perfect bike. Torque everywhere in the rev band, no need to go hunting for it up and down the gear box. Just stay in one gear to ride through a mountain range, maybe change gear once or twice if at all. A narrow engine and frame, to reduce the need for leaning or climbing all over the bike simply to get through a corner. Ride everywhere at part throttle, squeezing mileage from the gas tank, instead of twisting the throttle all the way all the time just to get some power. And arrive with a quiet smile at a job well done, and fun well had.

    • todd says:

      Except engines are more efficient (get better mileage) when the throttle is wide open. Having it part way open is a flow restriction and the engine has to fight against it. This is the primary reason small, low powered engines are more efficient; they spend much more time with the throttle open than a big motor that is always sucking against a restriction.

      • MGNorge says:

        Riding any 1000cc bike, twin, triple, four or even six will produce ample low rpm torque for cruising around. But as cylinder count increases there tends to be a push up the rpm range where peak torque arrives. You don’t have to ride at peak torque to get around. Many variables but generally any bike ridden at lower rpm in taller gears with the throttle open wider will deliver better mileage than the same bike in a shorter gear and higher rpm. Drag from increased rpm comes to bear. You will produce best power at WOT in most cases but not best fuel efficiency, it’s why we have tall top gears, to increase fuel mileage, reduce drag, noise and wear.

      • Martin B says:

        All I know is that I tried the XV750, but the leaned back custom riding position didn’t appeal, and although the engine was great around town (probably better than the TR1, which I hadn’t yet ridden), it was definitely lower geared and slightly underpowered for open road riding. When I tried the TR1 I knew I had found my perfect match, and that was the one I put my money down on. I had hopes for the Yamaha Sakura show model, but it was never released. Actually the Honda VTR250 blown up to a 900cc level would also hit the spot, should Honda see the light.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone tried gearing this bike way up? I’d be curious to hear about top speed in that case. Every ‘beginner’ bike I’ve ever ridden has had a uselessly short 1st, and pretty short ratios all around.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      Then you’d probably have to down shift to 5th gear to maintain 80 mph, thus nullifying the mod.

      We all know the real cure: Mo’ Powwa!

      • Anonymous says:

        I checked out the CBR 300 forum, and the consensus there seems to be that a 15 tooth countershaft sprocket (14 stock) lowers cruising RPM nicely. 5th gear becomes more useable, and the RPM’s at freeway speed don’t have you constantly searching for 7th gear.

        A couple people mentioned that the stock chain is ridiculously heavy, and that swapping it out really helps the roll on power, even with taller gearing.

        I think the last gen 300 is gonna be my next bike. Sounds like a good little backroads cruiser.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          I’ve ridden one (the faired version that is) with a 15 tooth sprocket (and I would think an aftermarket chain but can’t say for sure.) It is the only Honda 300 I’ve ridden actually. I was still looking for 7th gear.

          Upon reflection, I probably would have accepted that it could never be a highway bike and dropped to a 14-tooth for more acceleration around town. That’s just me though. It was a fun little bike regardless.

          • Anonymous says:

            Thanks for the input, I might have to look into the Kawi 300 in that case. I’d prefer the R3, but those sell for at least $1k more than the Kawasaki and Honda from what I’ve seen.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            I wouldn’t dismiss the little Honda until you’ve ridden it yourself. What the two of us consider acceptable may vary pretty widely depending on what we would need the bike to do.

  7. David Fisher says:

    I bought the CBR300R last year to replace my aging 599. I have never regretted the purchase. I am a smaller rider and the 300 is a real blast around town and on back roads if you just enjoy 55-60 mph effortless carving turns. The only drawback, which has been addressed before, is that this is not a highway machine and that really limits using the bike for any real trips where everybody is running 70+mph. Another 100cc and parallel twin would make this bike really something.

  8. CrazyJoe says:

    Nice looking bike. I’ve said this styling is the new standard. They have a 1000cc bike like this but what’s missing? Maybe a 750? I dunno make it a triple or even a twin. Didn’t they nail it to the church door with their 750 way back when. With these looks why not try it again?

  9. Kevin says:

    This is a nice little bike! I wish Honda would give the “Neo Cafe” treatment to the cb500f, they need to drop the weight of that bike to 350 or so to match the weight/HP ratio of the Duke 390 and the Ninja 400. same HP, Same weight, more torque. t would be another great bike.

  10. Tom R says:

    Seems that many think this bike does not have enough power, and not enough fuel capacity.

    These are important, even grave concerns. I happen to work at an engineering firm with scores of brilliant scientists, and mega-gigiflops of computing capacity. They poured over these issues, and fed the data into a link-up of the latest IMB Blue and Cray supercomputers. It took several hours of computations, but we finally arrived at the answer: buy a bike with a more powerful engine and bigger fuel tank.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      “It took several hours of computations, but we finally arrived at the answer: buy a bike with a more powerful engine and bigger fuel tank.”

      And that is exactly what we do. Nobody needs that advice. 🙂

      Honda clearly needs ours though. 😀

      • Dave says:

        They don’t need our advice. They have this and the 500’s selling all over the world. There isn’t enough volume potential to make something special for the US market. As you mention below, If they were to similarly improve the 500, that could be interesting.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Yamaha, KTM and Kawasaki offer their bigger little bikes here, which also sell in droves all over the world and are big sellers here for those brands, tops for Kawasaki so I’ve read. Perhaps Honda should take advice from those guys then.

          These competing bikes aren’t “something special for the US market.” Not at all. They slot into various displacement and horsepower tiers in Europe and many Asian nation’s as well, though they would certainly be considered high performance machines in many of those Asian nations. In the US, they replace the 250 class. They are not a special addition.

          Like I said though, the 500 could be a winner I think. It is a nice, compact, efficient little mill. Honda is going to have to enter the weight loss game to play.

          And maybe rethink their price point. Considering all of the brilliant and fascinating cost saving measures that go into producing the 500s, I can’t believe for a second that Honda would have trouble competing with Kawasaki and KTM on price.

          • Dave says:

            This is Honda’s bigger little bike, which until this year, they offered in two versions (naked & sport).

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            No, this is their little bike with a half-hearted attempt at stroking it so that it could compete with the others on marketing materials.

            Don’t get me wrong. I had the opportunity to ride around on one for a full day, and I had a great time. It is a fun bike. But I’ve also ridden a Ninja 300 and recently a KTM 390, and the Honda is thoroughly outclassed by those machines. It’s no contest, really.

          • Dave says:

            I wasn’t claiming it was better, or even equal. It got to be a 300 the same way the Ninja and Yamaha did, by beginning with a 250 and punching out the bore a little. Bigger little bike.

            It may not sell as well here in our highway market, but it’s reportedly a top seller in Asia where bikes of this size are a massive business. As mentioned above, we know Honda has very interesting bikes in this “bigger little” size range in Japan, but for some reason (presumably volume/cost/profit) won’t bring any of them here.

  11. Jeremy in TX says:

    I love the design. Since the little single isn’t really capable of much highway work and because it gets 70+ mpg, the 2.7 gallon capacity is, I guess, forgivable but still laughably small. I don’t like stopping for fuel whether it is on the highway or in town during the work week. In fact, I probably loathe having to stop during the commute even more.

    But then I’m not the buyer for this bike, so perhaps the target market thinks nothing of the small capacity.

    The engine is just too small. It was too small when first introduced, and it was too small when it was bumped to 286cc. I guess Honda considers its 500s to compete in the “small” bike market while this competes in a market of its own in the developed world.

    • MGNorge says:

      I had a ’72 XL-250 I bought just out of high school. It had a fuel tank capacity of around 2 gallons. While not the same bike it was of the same class. I rode the wheels off it, even doing a few stints down the super slab. I do not recall having to fuel up in less than 200 miles being an issue. That kind of mileage around town took me a long while.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        To each his own of course. I would ride whatever I had wherever I could. But I certainly notice having to stop for gas. It’s just a chore that I don’t like. At all.

        My primary bike will start sucking fumes at about 180 miles. I can go about 220 on the Yamaha. Neither has enough range as far as I’m concerned. The range is just a compromise I have to accept to enjoy the other virtues the bikes offer. Those other virtues are why I bought them after all. But I don’t like having to accept that compromise.

  12. Grover says:

    I have rediscovered the fun of owning a small displacement bike. Compared to my 800# behemoth, the 250 is buckets of fun! When I go to the garage for a morning of riding I usually take the 250 unless it’s over a 150 miles. Glad to see a lot of choices in the market now.

  13. Kevin says:

    What pants is the reviewer wearing? I really like how simple they look and the fit of them. Also, what is the riders height/weight, waist size, inseam for reference? thanks!

  14. motowarrior says:

    Not to complain about receiving well-written free information on a new motorcycle, but it would be helpful with the small bikes to give the uninformed an idea of top speed and cruising speed. Exact numbers aren’t needed, just an idea of what to expect. I did see the 70 mph reference, but is there more? Thanks!

    • MGNorge says:

      I believe it’s Motorcyclist that mentions about 80mph tops.

      • Dave says:

        I was going to hazard a guess of 90-ish mph, based on the 70mph/8,000rpm figure, and the 10.5k/rpm redline on the gauge in the photo.

  15. Neal says:

    I don’t need one but I want one. I regret trading in my CBR250. If my GF actually ever takes the MSF and picks up a Shadow 750, I should pick one of these up so we can have fun riding together.

  16. DP says:

    I can observe thru last couple of years that Honda is running out of ingenuity. They keep fiddling with small bikes only because they do not want to vacate field for others. Instead, they should devote themselves to leads-wings and Advs. What is needed is upped replacement for 500X.

    Times when 250 and 350 Supersports were king are long gone.

    • Dave says:

      “Times when 250 and 350 Supersports were king are long gone.”

      True in America, but most other places in the world, where many times the number of units are sold, Sub-350cc is everything.

  17. DP says:

    I sense thru last couple of years, Honda is running out of ingenuity. They do small bikes just because do not want to leave space for other. They should get out of this class and devote themselves to large tourers and ADVs. Time when 250 and 350 super-sports were king is long gone.

    • MGNorge says:

      I disagree, motorcycling is experiencing a dearth of new riders. This is exactly why other manufacturers offer bikes for this class also. This class and other relatively smaller bikes are Honda’s bread and butter around the world.

      I see the motorcycle business, perhaps mostly in the US, as being especially tough. How do you profitably produce bikes for the shrinking ranks of motorcyclists already out there and willing to buy while offering bikes to those who are just starting out? I’ll agree that Honda has yet to fully awaken to its former self, if that will ever come to be, as evidenced by the lack of rapid fire product announcements as seen in the past. They’re obviously playing it cautious here.

  18. Steve says:

    Honda really missed the boat by not replacing the engine with a 2-cylinder. I owned a 300f for a year, a Ninja 300 for a year and have ridden Yamaha’s R3 several times. The 2-cylinder bikes are in a different league compared to the Honda. I suspect that, like me, anyone buying a 300r won’t own it for long!

    • Kevin says:

      This is a nice little bike! I wish Honda would give the “Neo Cafe” treatment to the cb500f, they need to drop the weight of that bike to 350 or so to match the weight/HP ratio of the Duke 390 and the Ninja 400. same HP, Same weight, more torque. t would be another great bike.

  19. Frank W says:

    A rather alluring bike from Honda, almost a modern version of the CB350K from the seventies, light weight and just enough power to do most things reasonably well, along with good frugality. No mention of whether its single cylinder set-up gives the bike a relaxed, laid back feel?

    • Anonymous says:

      “…with the CB300R’s engine spinning at 8000 rpm at 70 mph on the highway…”

      “Vibration from the single-cylinder engine is canceled out well…”

      Take that for what it is worth I suppose. “Laid back” probably isn’t the right word if you get on the interstate much. But it sounds like it is pretty agreeable for anything else.

  20. Anonymous says:

    298 cc? Wasn’t the old 300 a 286cc

  21. Peter says:

    It easily the best looking small displacement Japanese bike. Actually, I think it looks better than the KTM as well. Good job Honda….you’ve been asleep for a decade or more it seems. The bigger 1000cc brother looks good too.

  22. WSHart says:

    As with the Leadwing, Honda has decided to claim losing weight by giving a bike less fuel capacity. I suppose if Honda were to remove the front brake, it would claim that as a weight saving measure too. No one uses the front brake because it’ll throw you over the bars if you squeeze too hard. Riiiiight. Stupid Honda reducing capacity to fake overall weight loss. No one is going to carry their bike on their back and still they do this. Well, when they run out of fuel, they can push their “lighter” bike. Honda can claim a new feature, “Dynamic Weight Loss”! The more you ride and use fuel, the lighter the bike gets! When your run out of fuel, Honda’s engineers via DWL have made the bike even lighter and easier for you to PUSH! Thanks, Honda! Oooooo…Butt WAIT! This CB300 gets 70 mpg, so who needs more fuel? Riiiight.

    Speaking of the Leadwing, I have yet to see one (1) on the highways of the Left Coast and the desert regions of the Amurican Southwest. Still see plenty of the previous version of the GL1800 along with lots of Harley touring rigs but not a sighting of Honda’s Great Blight Whale.

    For those “thinking” Honda needs to put this motor in the dual spit CRF250L, I suppose that as soon as they do, they will make a CB400 and then fence sitters will be axing for that motor to be dropped into the CRF300L.

    The USA is not the MAIN market for this bike, rather we’re the “after market”. As in after the burgeoning Asian markets get what they clamor for (and buy) we might get the same bike(s).

  23. John says:

    Looks like a great around the town bike, but too bad this engine isn’t dropped into the CRF250L, let alone the Rally. Help make up for the weight. Or put those two on a damned diet like this one.

    • Tim says:

      ^^^^ I approve of this message

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      It is irritating that they have the engine but won’t drop it in. My brother owns a CRF set up very well for dual sporting and loves it, but the power just isn’t there for the open road. He usually trailers it if he goes far from home with it, particularly if he has to cross the big mountain passes.

      The 286cc really isn’t enough for highway work either, but better than what’s in there now. And it would be better offroad as well

  24. Zuki says:

    Awesome. I’ve been wanting one of these since they were announced.

  25. Bill says:

    I’m disappointed in the gradual shrinkage of gas tank capacity. My two bikes combined capacity is 10.6 gallons. I wouldn’t want to go any lower. Just my opinion.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is Honda’s beginer streetbike, so they don’t want to intimidate newbies with a bike that feels bigger than it really is.

      I think their formula works. The 300F was already lighter than all the competition, and now it’s a lot lighter.

      A small displacement bike like this is not what you wanna be riding on the interstate all day, anyway.

      • DP says:

        With fork at below 25 degree/ 93mm this is hardly a beginner’s bike. It will need full attention as this geometry is in field as full-on sports bikes. Also, in other source I read its seat is uncomfortably hard.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          The author here also mentions that the seat is very uncomfortable.

          As far as the geometry goes, I’m sure it is fine for this bike considering the light weight and the limits placed on top speed and acceleration that sub 30hp imposes.

    • bmidd says:

      Because 170 miles between fill-ups on a single cylinder bike is just not long enough…

  26. Anonymous says:

    So this is the new 300R, and Honda no longer offers a version with sportbike bodywork? Were they comparing this bike with the last version of the 300F, or the current one? This review is kind of confusing.

    • Anonymous says:

      Nevermind, the article does mention that the 300F has been replaced by the 300R. That’s what I get for speed reading.

  27. Mike says:

    Could Honda create a 700cc single version to rival the Vitpilen 700, with all the quality that comes in their CB1000R?

    • Dave says:

      Why not just get the Husky?

      • David Owen says:

        You saw the part about ‘quality’, right?

      • Onto says:

        Agree with Mike. I like the Husky, but it’s overpriced.

        • Dave says:

          Niche bikes aren’t big enough sellers to be profitable at the prices we wish we’d see. Small bikes like this can be cheap because they’re sold in high volumes globally. This is why, despite Honda’s gigantic profile, their street legal CR450F isn’t appreciably less expensive than KTM’s, and KTM’s small asian made bikes are competitive with small Japanese brand bikes.

          • MacSpoone says:

            Maybe not a 700cc, but Honda’s no stranger to 600cc thumpers, and THAT would be an excellent bike, combined with a 4-5 gallon tank.

            Hell, if they built one in a 600cc flavor, I’d be all over it like white on rice…

          • Dave says:

            Perhaps. Does anybody know if the XR650’s engine is Euro4 emissions compliant?

            May be a reckoning for Honda. Develop new or vacate..

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            Nope. I don’t even think it was Euro 3 compliant. KLR isn’t either. DR gone as well unless I am mistaken.

            Those big air-cooled, carbureted thumpers are history over there. Should be history here too, IMO.

            Now if they could stuff that little 500cc twin of theirs into this light weight chassis, that would be the bike.

    • Half Baked says:

      Yeah it was in the trx 700.

wordscape cheatgun mayhem 2 unblocked games