Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Channel 10 News' Amazing Discovery - On Now

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by matt232, Sep 7, 2005.

  1. Looks like Channel 10 news is about to screen a story about how much cheaper it is to ride a bike with the petrol price hike.

    Glad they worked that one out...would have never known.
  2. Actually, it's more expensive to run a bike than a (low powered) car. Even with the increase in price, a bike will still be more IMHO.
  3. Bloody squids.....nothing but tshirts....and a 5 second mention of safety concerns in the story.

    Scooter sales are up (same trends as the last few years) but they have spiked in the last week due the fuel prices.

    I guess that means there will be even less people on bikes returning 'The Wave' but you never know could have a good impact on getting rid of the Bike tax and improving conditions for riders.
  4. 1000cc bike definately, but a 50cc scooter would be a different story.
  5. bike != scooter. You mentioned a bike.
  6. so I did but the story turned out to be solely about scooters. :moped:
  7. Still I'd say a 250cc bike would give even a small car a bloody good run for its money.
  8. Insurance, tyres, servicing .. not even close.
  9. Don't forget the cost benefit of the bike keeping you sane rather than stuck in a cage at either end of the day.
  10. My bikes initial cost was a lot less.

    My bikes comprehensive insurance is less.

    My Bikes Rego and CTP is less.

    My bike uses less petrol.

    My bike costs less to park.

    More frequent servicing and more often it needs new tires.

    How can you call this not even close? The bike is out in front for me.
  11. Ford falcon GLI

    70 litres X $1.38 = $96.60 in pertrol
    400km (city running)

    VTR1000 F (gas guzzler)

    23 liters x $1.38 = $31.74
    400 km (city riding)

    Differance $65 dollars
    (not counting parking for the week)
  12. Yep true. My bike runs out the same for both of our cars. Big myth about bikes being cheaper.

    Glenn ya comparo is a med/large car mate :wink:

    Cheers 8)
  13. Hehehehe Love those sweeping generalisations.

    This of course depends greatly on the bike in question. Our current bikes would definitely cost more than your average car to run (taking into account tyres, reg, servicing, insurance, etc). The CB250 and GPX250 we have owned were definitely much cheaper.
  14. OK.. Lets compare large bike vs small car.

    If you look at the Lancer 2 litre (2004 model) vs my (large) bikes then cost of operation actually favours the Yamaha Diversion or the Moto Guzzi Le Mans rather than the lancer.

    Sure if you had a sports bike with gumball tyres it might be different... but even many large bikes are cheaper than small cars.

    9 litres per 100 kms fuel
    tyres every 40000 kms - $400
    Service $120 7500km.
    Service $220 15000km (these 2 alternate)
    Comp insurance $450 per year
    depreciation 50% over 5 years.

    Moto Guzzi Le Mans 1100
    6 litres per 100kms fuel
    Tyres every 10000kms - $550
    Oil change 5000kms $60
    Service 10000kms $140 (these two alternate).
    Comp insurance $650 per year.
    Depreciation 40% over 5 years

    Yamaha Diversion 900
    5 litres per 100kms fuel
    Tyres every 10000kms - $450
    Service every 6000kms $160
    Comp insurance $450 per year
    Depreciation 40% over 5 years

    Kawasaki ZRX1200R
    5.5 litres per 100kms fuel
    Tyres every 7500kms $550
    Service 6000kms $160
    chain and sprockets every 25000km - $500
    Comp insurance $500 per year.
    Depreciation 50% over 5 years.
  15. The new item was really cast against the background of fuel costs, but you make a very valid point that fuel is not the only cost! It's TCO (total cost of ownership) that matters, and these figures show the true picture; thanks for the time and effort compiling them.

    Maybe some guru could put them into a spreadsheet, plug in some formulae and post the result so we can all do our own calculations??

    (Don't look at me, I can add up 2 and 2 three times and get different answers!)
  16. I posted a similar analysis a while back - my SR500 v my Daewoo wagon. For me, it was a no brainer - the bike is a winner. But if the costs/mile were plotted as a linear programming exercise, I suspect that small shifts in the capacity of the bike and car would have a big influence on the point of intersection, because the insurance and registration costs are not finely titrated against capacity, nor are they linear.

  17. *thinks* Something like this might work.

    Colour code the various insurance age groups.

    18-25, 25-40 and over 40 (as an example).

    Plot distance travelled yearly (averaged over 5 years ) on the vertical axis.

    Plot estimated owndership costs per year (averaged over 5 years) on the horizontal axis.

    Use a fixed number of cost items for this 'ownership costs estimation' estimation and have a simple formula people can plug thier figures into to get one horizontal graph coordinate.

    Include in the formula things like "depreciation, loss of income from the money being invested elsewhere,
    insurance, registration, servicing, parts (tyres, chain & sprockets, filters etc)., fuel, oil" etc.

    It could work *shrug* :)
  18. i know have compared my car and bike (when i first got it), and like others say at the end of a month, i save myself almost $150.00 (i do my own services to the car + (bike hasn't had one yet) I also factored into this time spent travelling to and from places (time is money). So yeah the bike is a clear winner once you are setup (mind you it still hasn't paid it's self off if you include all the expenses to get into biking ie. buying all the safety gear + bike itself

    just my 3 cents
  19. I gotta say that, in my family, it would probably be the bike that wins. It's not a great deal more economical than the car fuel-consumption-wise, but insurance is a lot cheaper (over 50's rates) and servicing is cheaper.

    Having said that, bike tyres are hideously expensive compared to car tyres....aside....why is that? economies of scale or what???
  20. yeah ummmm, if your gunna make a comparo, dont compare a 1000cc sportsbike to a 1.3 litre commuter :LOL:

    a fair comparison would more likely be:

    a 250cc commuter (GPX/ZZR styles) Vs that 1.3 litre bubblecar
    a 1000cc sportsbike (R1 etc) Vs a turbo sportscar
    a big bore (GSX1400 etc) Vs a big bore (Monaro etc)

    and so on.....

    theres too much diversity out there to say "a car is better than a bike" as a general sweeping comment, if you've got a little barina and a big GSX1400, then thats a no brainer. but it'd work the other way too if you owned a Monaro and a GPX eh, shit, i think the GPX would even win on the tyres stakes there :LOL: