My CBR600F
 I bought and rode this motorbike in a period when I was so stressed about my doctor's course and about some walls I felt toward Japanese people, that my motorbike replaced every more expensive way of passing time I had had before (eating or drinking out, rock concerts, bowling, etc.).
Frankly speaking, I would have liked to buy a VFR750 and I also dreamt to have a Super Blackbird. Eventually this fact that I did not really "love" it pushed me slowly to thinking to change it for something else. Nevertheless, in the 21 months I owned the 600F I understood that this was one of the best motorbikes ever made. At the time (Y2K), the new 600F (alluminium frame, 170kg) had just hit the stage, but the one I bought was from 1996 (steel frame, 185kg). Because of that, I always had in mind that the new 600F would probably be even faster and even easier to manipulate at low speeds.
Actually, almost all the time I rode this motorbike, I thought only of improving it and make it a little more confortable for long runs, or selling it for a bigger one. And all the time after I actually sold it for the Bandit and even though afterwards I regretted it and thought all the time about its good points. To begin with describing the 600F, I do not know how professional riders really feel the difference between steel and alluminium, but as for me, I feel that alluminium frame is more "plastic", while steel frame has a degree of elasticity. Concretely speaking,my sensation was that, when banking the motorbike, my 600F's front wheel pointed inwards with an infinitesimal time lag, but after changing its direction to the maximum, it came back with a fraction of a millimeter. This could be due to suspension setting, a technique I still do not grasp enough, but I had the same sensation later when riding the CBR1000F, made on the same concept. By contrast, the VFR or the Bros do not have any time lag from banking to direction change, and still do not have any kickback. My impression is that the steel frame absorbs at first some elastic energy (like a spring) to give it back afterwards, but it took me sometime until I got used to the small come-back angle and stopped trying to straighten the bike immediately after the first direction change. Anyway, after some time I began to get faster and faster on it and during 2002 (until November, when I changed it for the Banditess) I probably rode faster than any time before or afterwards. So, the 600F was almost perfect, but whichever of its good features had some point I could not regard as perfect after all...
- the engine. It was torky and powerful. It started to accelerate even from as low rpm as 3000, it was strong enough until 7000 and after a small decrease at about 7500rpm it grew powerful, perfectly liniar and instantly responding from 8000 until the top end. The only problem is that it was not powerful enough at low rpm ranges and it stopped quite easily at idling speed. Because of that I always had to pay attention to clutch and throttle work when starting from traffic lights or making U-turns.
- the position. It was somewhere between that of a supersports bike and that of a touring bike, but while it was easy to change positions for sporty riding, riding it for many hours continuously in a touring was quite tiresome. The biggest problem was for feet. I am not so tall (178cm) and I have heard that most of the bike-designers calculate the position bearing in mind people from 175 to 180, but after all appearances, the CBR600 was made for a guy much shorter than me, or at least with much shorter legs. Maybe they did not have an Europoid around and tested it on some Japanese, but when I rode on the front of the seat (mostly ever) my knees would hit an edge of the fairing. That edge was exactly the part where designers give up aerodynamics in order to permit a rider on the bike, but as for myself, I would have renounced a few percents of bike's efforts to get a few centimeters more for my feet.