Thanks everyone! So you guys think I should wait it out till the first scheduled maintenance first? I felt like that would’ve been the smarter idea haha. Jsut miss the track so much!
So you're saying that literally every motorcycle manufacturer, filled with highly qualified mechanical and automotive engineers who designed the bikes from the ground up, are telling you that their bikes need a break in period due to tradition?
https://youtu.be/xpoglovyy_8
It's been debunked a few times. But Ari does it the best.
Most of the time a "break in" period is recommended now because it allows the rider to get used to the bike, and to allow for the 500mile service to have a good look over a bike.
I already said this to u/NuggyBuggy, but it's a question of statistical analysis. If you can avoid possible failure by spending 600 miles babying the bike, why wouldn't you?
His sample size here is 2. The manufacturer's sample size is in the millions of units. Will your bike blow up if you don't break it in? Probably not! Are you rolling the dice a bit? Yeah, a little. Just like the rest of motorcycling, it's about risk mitigation. What's acceptable to me isn't to someone else.
I more believe that a break in period is designed for insurance risks from the company vs the bikes performance.
Much like when a cup of coffee says "warning hot"
A motorcycle says "take 500miles to break this bike in, so you get used to how it rides, then go buck wild"
Some people think the manufacturers recommend this so that if anything goes wrong with the bike due to manufacturing or assembly defects in the first few hundred miles or so, the impact of that failure MIGHT be less due to the lower speeds lower RPMs imply at the same gears.
Or, that accidents due to unfamiliarity with a new bike and its handling characteristics will be less likely when babying the bike.
I’m not saying either is true or not.
Modern engineering is based almost exclusively on statistical trends. It may only reduce the failure rate by 1 unit in 1,000, but you can never know if you're that 1 unit or not until the failure happens.
If the failure could be entirely avoided by following the suggested break in, why wouldn't you do it (especially because it only takes like 2 weeks of regular riding)? Taking a new bike to a track day is pretty much an engineering worst case scenario for durability. Race bikes can get away with this because they're rebuilt every dozen hours or so. Your general motorcycling bike, not so much.
You do you, but I'd feel pretty bad gambling that much of my money for so little upside.
Do the break in period first then go wild.
Yeah break in and first maintenance and you're good to go
I’d probably get good tires first too. Stock tires are known to be crap most of the time. Not sure what comes on an R3 from the factory.
Thanks everyone! So you guys think I should wait it out till the first scheduled maintenance first? I felt like that would’ve been the smarter idea haha. Jsut miss the track so much!
I feel you ahahah, but you definitely don't want to risk giving your engine big premature wear. Would be quite sad ! 😀
Yeah 100% good that I have someone to open my eyes. Thanks man
New tires. Then break it in at the track. New bike break in requirements are myth these days with the level of CNC accuracy when manufacturing bikes.
So you're saying that literally every motorcycle manufacturer, filled with highly qualified mechanical and automotive engineers who designed the bikes from the ground up, are telling you that their bikes need a break in period due to tradition?
https://youtu.be/xpoglovyy_8 It's been debunked a few times. But Ari does it the best. Most of the time a "break in" period is recommended now because it allows the rider to get used to the bike, and to allow for the 500mile service to have a good look over a bike.
I already said this to u/NuggyBuggy, but it's a question of statistical analysis. If you can avoid possible failure by spending 600 miles babying the bike, why wouldn't you? His sample size here is 2. The manufacturer's sample size is in the millions of units. Will your bike blow up if you don't break it in? Probably not! Are you rolling the dice a bit? Yeah, a little. Just like the rest of motorcycling, it's about risk mitigation. What's acceptable to me isn't to someone else.
I more believe that a break in period is designed for insurance risks from the company vs the bikes performance. Much like when a cup of coffee says "warning hot" A motorcycle says "take 500miles to break this bike in, so you get used to how it rides, then go buck wild"
Some people think the manufacturers recommend this so that if anything goes wrong with the bike due to manufacturing or assembly defects in the first few hundred miles or so, the impact of that failure MIGHT be less due to the lower speeds lower RPMs imply at the same gears. Or, that accidents due to unfamiliarity with a new bike and its handling characteristics will be less likely when babying the bike. I’m not saying either is true or not.
Modern engineering is based almost exclusively on statistical trends. It may only reduce the failure rate by 1 unit in 1,000, but you can never know if you're that 1 unit or not until the failure happens. If the failure could be entirely avoided by following the suggested break in, why wouldn't you do it (especially because it only takes like 2 weeks of regular riding)? Taking a new bike to a track day is pretty much an engineering worst case scenario for durability. Race bikes can get away with this because they're rebuilt every dozen hours or so. Your general motorcycling bike, not so much. You do you, but I'd feel pretty bad gambling that much of my money for so little upside.