|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|08-02-2002 04:25 PM|
it's interesting on how the bike is perceived today, especially when people say it is not designed to replace a car. At the end of WW2 in Europe, people had little choice but to use a bike. Bikes needn't be expensive to run, but current bikes are not like the average econobox car..they are more highly tuned/stressed machines in the Italian supercar class. Would a Ferrari be a practical, economical daily vehicle?
If no freeway driving was involved, I think a Honda 250 (maybe a second hand GS500?) with top box/panniers and for the rider an aerostich suit would be a pretty economical package. Convenience is a definite strong point of a car, maybe one of those giant scooters would be a closer compromise (good grief..what am I thinking <grin>)
|08-02-2002 03:43 PM|
Car is the more economical and convenient vehicle (depending on the car you get).
With regard to clothes: most motorcycle accidents happen in town and frequently commuting. Commuting because you are riding at heavier traffic and you are rushing to get to or from somewhere. You will be tempted not to wear your protective clothing and you will have an accident and you will be injured worse than if you are just recreationnally or sport riding when you will naturally wear your gear.
Stay safe, commute by bus or car and stick to sport riding.
|08-02-2002 02:30 PM|
Over here in the UK the Government are trying to deter car use as our towns and cities are clogged with the dirty, dangerous, polluting contraptions. Bikes have been exempted from proposed congestion charges to be levied on car drivers commuting into our city centres. The majority of car commuters seem to be office types so I don't understand why they have to drive in the first place - all they do in the office is type at keyboards and answer telephones, tasks that can be done at home - this is the 21st Century after all. Over here at long last the obsession with the business suit is fast waning, in fact the word "suit" has become a term of derision. So the problem of wearing so-called "smart" clothes is disappearing to some extent. As far as groceries and other goods are concerned, our major supermarkets and other shops will deliver to your home. As far as not biking in inclement weather, while the UK is notorious for it's dreadful wet, stormy weather, we don't get all that much icy or snowy weather. In fact in my area there was no lying snow at all last winter. Probably down to the global warming caused by all those four-wheeled pollutemobiles. And yes, I know motorbikes pollute as well, but only about a tenth as much as a car over a given mileage. Finally, UK riders do hang on to their bikes. My steeds are an '85 GSXR750 and an '83 RG250W Gamma.
As a 52 year old with nearly 40 years and well over 1,000,000 miles of riding under my belt, I wouldn't have a car for all the tea in China.
|08-02-2002 02:01 PM|
Without question a CAGE is the proper means of transportation.
A m/c is for fun riding even if one uses it to & from work quite often.
In the long run the cage will require far less in servicing, repairs, etc.
I have a '91 Mazda 2600 4X4 & will pobably be driving it 10 yrs plus from now. Doubt if to many have 11 yr old m/cs & feel another 10 yrs from now, or more they will still be riding the same as their prime machine..
Crumbs four winter snow tyres (which I never change) cost me what one m/c rear tyre will & last four times as long PLUS I am always with a spare in case I have a puncture.
|08-02-2002 01:57 PM|
If you work in a place where nice dress is required, riding a motorcycle is going to make things difficult. Some people will buy riding suits that go over office clothes, others will have a set of clothes to change into once they get to the office. Either way it's fairly inconvenient. Especially if you commute in the summer in a hot place, you'll perspire a lot under that suit.
You could also attach saddle bags to the bike and carry things that way, still more inconvenient than a vehicle. I couldn't NOT have a car. My life isn't simple enough.
You can lock your helmet to your bike but there's always the chance the helmet will get ripped off.
People have mentioned tire cost. Yes, they are expensive but you don't have to get 207's, Pilots etc. There are touring or sport-touring tires that last far longer than the 3,000 miles mentioned. And as always, tire wear depends on how hard you ride your bike.
If you get a well treated used or brand new motorcycle and if you keep up on maintenance then you shouldn't have many issues. Bikes are more maintenance intensive than a well treated used vehicle, but IMO are still cheaper than maintaining a cheap car.
The key is: are you going to save up for a decent car or some $3000 POS? A $3000 motorcycle has a good chance of being a reliable bike whereas a $3000 car is kinda scary.
|08-02-2002 01:31 PM|
As far as cost of up keep goes, I'm finding my car and bike are neck and neck. I have a 2000 Trans Am with aftermarket wheels and replacing two front tires (Toyo T1s 255/40 ZR17) cost me ~$400. Just put Metzeler M1s on my bike which cost me ~$300 however they will only last 3000 miles compared to a good 12-15K for the car. Insurance fully comp is only slightly cheaper for the bike too. However the bike sips the gas compared to the LS1 V8 ( which will still get near 30 mpg highway with 6th gear).
If you can afford it get both or a small car for the groceries and the bike for when you have the need for speed.
|08-02-2002 01:15 PM|
I would say its a tough choice - depends on what your needs are.
Personally i communte with my bike everyday. The only bitch is the grocery shopping and the occasional snow (like once a year)
Bikes are harder/expensiver to maintain but i dont mind its all about the S-P-E-E-D and not sitting in traffic everyday to work.
~~~drive safe people~~~~
YEAH for me.. i just became the proud owner of a 1998 GSXR1100.
|07-17-2002 09:25 PM|
Bikes may be cheaper than cars, and insurance is probably less, but you will likely be kicking yourself in the butt if you try to make it your daily driver.
My advice, get the car for now, and save up for the bike later.
|07-17-2002 08:01 AM|
|YZF600R Guy||One word.... Groceries.|
|07-15-2002 06:40 PM|
A bike is not meant as a replacement to a car, just as a compliment to it.
A motorcycle's main purpose is to provide speed, fun, freedom, looks and excitement. That's what it's specifically built for and made to withstand the rigorous workout that this kind of activity entails.
A car, on the other hand, is made for getting people from place to place, space for multiple persons, space for groceries etc., protection from wind, sun, rain, snow, heat. all in relative comfort.
By having a bike for the nice days, and a car for the days when it's not so nice or you need to carry something, you have the perfect combination. Both vechicles will be used for the purpose they were made for and you'll be much happier and spend less money in repairs in the long run.
A lot of people buy performance cars to try and get their speed rush and day to day driver in the same package (ahem, me. ) Doesn't end up working too well. High speed & performance breaks parts on cars, and there goes your transportation, so you're screwed both ways. And you'll have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the same speed as a bike would provide.
The plan is so simple. Buy a car AND a bike. Be happy.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|