reasons to buy a bike...continued,with a twist

[Guest]

It's because of your age.

I am amazed your saying 2k a year for a 1.0 Micra.

My 18 year old neice has just passed her test and bought one of those.

She pay's about £500 for insurance.

The bottom line though, is that cars are cheaper to run on the whole.

I'll use mine as an example.

I have a Honda Civic.

It costs about the same as my 2003 BMWR1150RT to insure.

The BMW however costs about £300 everytime it goes to a BMW workshop for a service.

Even small independants charge nearly £200.

I bought a five year service package with my Civic that cost me £500, so no contest there.

It's cheaper to tax.

What else.

Oh yes, the Civic on a run gives me 45mpg.

The Beemer on the same run at similar speeds, struggles to get 40mpg.

Don't even get me started on tyres.

 

I'm afraid, you're wrong there mate. Cars are not cheaper to run on the whole. Not at all. You're just comparing the wrong things. You've bought a low performance, cheap and easy car, and then compared it to an expensive BMW (super?)bike. How about you compare a BMW bike, to a BMW car?

I however, compared a cheap, 1.0, K reg 1993 car, possibly the cheapest to buy and run... And then compared it to a decent enough motorbike (500cc, 0-60 in 3.8 secs, 1998 R reg).

As far as tyres go, correct me if i'm wrong (i'm sure you will as you seem the argumentative type, no offense) on a bike, we generally buy the really good ones? £120-£200 to buy and fit a decent set of bridgestones, right? On a car, yeah, you can spend £120 and get four tyres fitted, but they're cheap and crap, as we know. If you buy a set of decent Bridgestones for your car, its MUCH more expensive.

My insurance is high, as i'm a 19 year old male, living in Manchester. Not quite city centre, but not far off.

I just don't think you're making fair comparisons here!

EDIT: I didn't actually read Ingah's post until now, and he makes the same points as me, but obviously made them in more detail...

Nice one matey!

[Guest]

I'm afraid, you're wrong there mate. Cars are not cheaper to run on the whole. Not at all. You're just comparing the wrong things. You've bought a low performance, cheap and easy car, and then compared it to an expensive BMW (super?)bike. How about you compare a BMW bike, to a BMW car? !

 

No I'm afraid you're way off the mark.

You consider my 95bhp BMW to be a superbike

Well here's some facts for you.

Honda Civic 1.6i V-Tech = 108bhp, making it about the same as my bike.

So in terms of power, the two are comparible.

Can you explain how a 95bhp twin, can't match the mpg of a 1.6i car with 108bhp when driven in the same conditions and at similar speeds.

If you're interested, the bike get's about 40mpg and that's mainly on the open roads.

The car spends most of it's time in city traffic, but still beats the bike by between 5-10mpg.

 

I however, compared a cheap, 1.0, K reg 1993 car, possibly the cheapest to buy and run... And then compared it to a decent enough motorbike (500cc, 0-60 in 3.8 secs, 1998 R reg).!

 

Indeed, but you're bike is not faster than a Micra by some miracle of science.

It's a simple matter of power to weight ratio.

In fact, if you compare your bikes mpg to that of a micra, it's pretty rubbish.

Yes you get more out of the bike, but not much and certainly not in proportion to the relatively low weight of the bike.

 

As far as tyres go, correct me if i'm wrong (i'm sure you will as you seem the argumentative type, no offense) on a bike, we generally buy the really good ones? £120-£200 to buy and fit a decent set of bridgestones, right? On a car, yeah, you can spend £120 and get four tyres fitted, but they're cheap and crap, as we know. If you buy a set of decent Bridgestones for your car, its MUCH more expensive.!

 

I just fitted a set of Bridgestones to my Civic, which are good tyres.

They cost as much for two rears as I pay for one rear on the bike.

Oh yeah, and they last a hell of a lot longer.

 

My insurance is high, as i'm a 19 year old male, living in Manchester. Not quite city centre, but not far off..!

 

But I really can't believe you've been quoted 2 grand to insure a Micra.

I mean, if I were to go online posing as a 19 year old in Manchester, do you think I could beat that or not.

 

I just don't think you're making fair comparisons here!

 

The whole thread is about cars v bikes, and so making comparisons is perfectly legitimate in the context of the thread.

I'm sorry, but bikes are rubbish compared to cars in terms of running costs.

In the case of cars, you have engines that are just as powerful and complex as some state of the art bike engines, and despite carrying a hell of a lot more weight, they are more fuel efficient and cost less to run.

Once you start owning and running cars, you'll be in a much better position to make the comparisons yourself.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Anonymous

[rennie]

It really does depend on so many things!

we all do whatever suits us best

or whatever respective spouses/bank managers will let us get away with

this thread is in danger of turning into a meaningless arguement!

we are all entitled to express our opinions but it doesn't automatically mean

we're right

[techno]

I have to agree wi devon rider for me a car would be cheaper to run if i had the same ncb as i have for the bike, i wouldnt buy decent tyres for a car as i dont depend on them as much as i do on the bike, i wouldnt service a car as much as a bike and the car doesnt need chain lube or chains or sprockets!

[rennie]

my car is cheaper to run than my bike!

but you can't blanket statement that cars are cheaper

or the other way round

[Ingah]

but you can't blanket statement that cars are cheaper

or the other way round

 

Agreed.

[techno]

There are always extremes but thats not whats been said, these are comparative the only thing that isn't is performance

[Guest]

my car is cheaper to run than my bike!

but you can't blanket statement that cars are cheaper

or the other way round

 

Unless you're talking about Ferrari's etc, yes you can.

The engine in my car is a 1.6V Tech.

Pretty much state of the art, and just as advanced as the V Tech Honda use in their VFR.

I paid for 5 years - 62,000 miles dealer servicing in advance, which cost me £500

I wonder how much it would cost to service the VFR over that period and mileage.

This is one example of many.

[rennie]

yes! but!, if you factor in smiles per mile which is the cheapest then?

no need to answer! I'm going home!, in the rain, in my car!

[Guest]

yes! but!, if you factor in smiles per mile which is the cheapest then?

 

That would be the bike, provided it's warm and dry.

If it's howling down ith rain, who's got the biggest smile then.

That'll be you of course, because you'll be in you nice warm dry car

[techno]

Actually i find driving boring and yet been piss wet thru on the bike and strangly laughing my tits off lol

[nman1]

Has to be bike for me. I`ve not driven or sat behind the wheel of a car in three years now and I get by. Shopping is a bit of a pain in the aris and when I`ve taken out a lady it`s had to be taxis but would still be e a bike for me. Wish I`d done it years ago.

[Guest]

BIKE!!

Because i love being wet and cold and i just love how i put my life on the line every time i get on!!

[Guest]

Where I live, it doesn't rain very often. I'm still young and don't have children or a wife to worry about. So for me, bike all the way.

[Guest]

Deffo be the bike, for 22 years bikes were my only form of transport and i managed OK, TBH the only reason passed my car test was to quieten down the ear ache I was getting off the girlfriend.

[cruz]

Actually i find driving boring and yet been piss wet thru on the bike and strangly laughing my tits off lol

I don't like being cold and wet but I prefer that to being stuck in a car.