nc23 or nc29 question?

[jim157]

^^^
I cant see how you could consider the NC23's to be baby fireblades seeing as they only manufactured them up until late 89 and the original CBR900RR (and with it the Fireblade name) didn't arrive until 92.

At least the NC29 was marketed as a Fireblade after 92...

[Wozza]

Well it's all very subjective isn't it. My point was that since the most widely-recognised Fireblade is the 900/1000RR, one sense of the term 'baby blade' simply means smaller capacity version of the CBR900/1000RR and therefore could be applied to any 250/400RR. The tri-arm and gull-arm are not so wildly different that a gull-arm owner should take offence to a tri-arm owner calling his/her bike a 'baby blade', in my opinion. 'FireBlade' is different since that is an official designation, whereas 'baby blade' is a colloquial term.

Anyway it is not particularly important and I won't be losing sleep over it - I don't use the term 'baby blade' myself as I am not fond of it.

[Davez29]

At least the NC29 was marketed as a Fireblade after 92...

Actually the Type 7 (R) with a Release date of December 15 1993 was the first to be marketed as a FireBlade

[Wozza]

Out of interest when was the 250RR given the FireBlade label, same time as the NC29 perhaps?

[Davez29]

Out of interest when was the 250RR given the FireBlade label, same time as the NC29 perhaps?

Hi, it was released on the 4th June 1994, according to the Honda press release of the time. Thats why I said in earlier posts that I assume the NC29 was the first, I thought someone would pick up on the CBR250 question eventually.

http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1994/2940621b.html

http://uk.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate ... =Translate

[jim157]

At least the NC29 was marketed as a Fireblade after 92...

Actually the Type 7 (R) with a Release date of December 15 1993 was the first to be marketed as a FireBlade

93 is after 92, isnt it?

*Pedantic*

[Davez29]

93 is after 92, isnt it?

*Pedantic*

LOL!

I was going to say that I was being *Pedantic* but couldnt remember how to spell *Pedantic* so started my post with actually. But it is nice to get the facts right as I see it posted on various sites that it was marketed from 92, when clearly it wasn't. BTW, I know the type 5 was a blade colour scheme but it was still marketed as the gullarm then.

I suppose calling them a babyblade as in the original question is something that is a British nickname and helps other biking enthusiasts more than anything else as not everyone knows what an nc29 or 23 is, as thats what I mention them as and never say its a babyblade unless someone else brings it up, usually at a bike meet.

dave

[jim157]

That's fair enough, I agree with getting info like that factually correct. The amount of misinformation on the net (and in certain magazines that seem to make it up as they go along) really does wind me up. And I appreciate when people make the effort to research and get their facts right.

I'm sure that I suffer from some kind of information OCD.

[Davez29]

Yes jim I agree theres lots of misinformation out there, but hopefully we can collect all the correct info for any new owners. I have even wrote to Honda about any info on the 400s but heard nothing back.

[Adrian89]

Depends on the model of NC23.
The RRj was the original babyblade. Twin headlights mirrored that of the 1st real blades.
RRk was geared differently, then came the gulls

In what way was the RRk geared differently then? Just the final drive sprockets? or is there actually a difference in the gear boxes themselves?

Cheers
Adrian