I started young with a mini bike, 50cc suzuki then at 14 a 500 TrophyTriumph but I would Recommend around a 125cc to a 250cc

 

Let's say for argument's sake that when you refer to a beginner you mean someone with no prior riding experience. I'd say a 250 isn't a bad idea. If for no other reason than they're forgiving, not likely to scare the hell out of a new rider with wicked throttle response or accelleration and are fairly comfortable to ride. Also, if the worst does occur and the beginner has to ditch the bike, I personally would rather damage a $3000 250 than a $7000 600. On the other hand the 250S are really light, and react to bad crosswinds much like a kite does. My first street bike was a 1973 Honda CB360 with open pipes and a +8 or so rear sprocket from a suzuki. It would go through all 5 gears almost as fast as you could pump the clutch and shifter and topped out full blast at about 62mph. It seemed like the fastest thing ever when I was 17 and even with the weight and poor balance of the bike wasn't too much to handle. A 62 mph top speed helped keep me out of harm's way too I suppose, lol.

 

I started on a GSXR 600. I voted for a 250. Why? I crashed the 600cc in about 4 months and about 3000 miles. I rode a 250 after logging about 20000 miles and can only wish I had ridden one first, cause then I might not have a limp when I walk. Come to think of it EVERYBODY I KNOW personally who started on 600 cc sport bike has crashed, my brother and three friends. Those who started on something else less powerful, not necessarily a 250 though, have yet to crash.

Coincidence?

 

being totally green to motorcycles, ie using a clutch, balance, just start out small and get your gear on.

 

I started out with a 600, same bike i have now, never been crashed, and im getting pretty dang good at ridding it

 

that may be more indicative of the personality of the riders than the bike itself. someone who wouldn't mind a 250 but gets a 600 because its more available or they get a good deal is more likely to be cautious on it. someone who bought a 600+cc because it was fast is going to be more likely to ride recklessly and wreck.

I started out on the zx6r but was cautious, I've been riding almost every single day for the last year and a half with barely a close call even in heavy traffic commuting to work.

 

There's about 2 years and 20,000 miles between thinking you're getting pretty good and being pretty good. The greater the disparity between the two the more the trip to the ER is going to hurt.

Rob

 

milage is not an indicator of skill - cruising down the highway for thousands of miles will not gain you much of any skill whatsoever, but advanced riders courses and time on a race track will gain you a lot of skill in very little time.

using time and milage to assume skill level is just as dumb as saying that a 40 year old is a better rider than a 30 year old. it doesn't mean anything because every person uses their riding time differently and rides under different conditions along with having differentl levels of natural ability and different rates of learning.

 

That's why insurance companies interview people personally and ask about natural ability or how much time you've spent on a track...No wait that's wrong, they ask your age and how many years you've held a permit/license. I wonder why?

 

lmao - lamest argument ever

when you know your wrong nothing like using broad generalization to attemp to win.

In the US insurance cost for riders drops after 1 year, no milage requirement. why? because statisticly 90% of accidents happen in the riders first year while they are learning how to handle the bike. After that year the accident is rarely the riders fault and usually caused by another person on the road.

that pretty much blows your 4 years and 40,000 miles theory out of the water if you want to use insurance companies as the basis for an argument.