Is motorcyling only for the rich?

[greenaero]

When I started motorcycling many years ago one of my motivations was that it was less costly than a car. Obviously it was a lot more fun than caging it but the saving in money and the reduction in hassles with parking around my school and around my home was huge. Used bikes were cheap and plentiful so my younger brother and I acquired candidates for nothing or close to it, repaired them, rode for them for a while and then sold or traded them for a healthy gain. Motorcyling cost me virtually nothing but time invested. I also learned skills and discipline that have served me well the rest of my life.

Flashing forward to the present, motos are even more incredibly capable but look at the price tags! There are still some good deals in the used market but one has to search pretty hard to really find a steal. Motorcycling has shifted from a cost saving transportation option to a high performance toy for the well-heeled. It is what it is but I still want to advocate for the those not blessed with a lot of financial resources.

So how do struggling young people get into the wonderful world of motorcycling? Study and learn as much as you can through resources like this forum, internet articles, books, you-tubes, experienced motorcyclists, etc. Develop your mechanical skills as well as safe riding skills. If you have to pay someone to evaluate and maintain your moto it will get expensive. You have to be safe, responsible and disciplined to survive on the street. A lapse in attention while ridng can destroy your moto as well as your health. Good safety gear is essential but doesn't need to be hugely expensive, so make the investment. Good tools are worth their weight in gold but start out by buying what you need and adding to your collection as you expand your skills. Buying on credit is an option but for me I encourage people to live within their budget and wait until they actually afford their next desire.

I love motorcycling because of the incredible things they allow us to experience and the wonderful people we meet through our sport. I hope I can help other new riders share our passion while also dealing with financial challenges of modern living. We are here with a forum of many very experienced, knowledgeable, friendly and helpful members. Let us know how we can help.

[Worldtraveller]

Only for the rich? Not remotely. The people would only be able to buy a used car can generally get a motorcycle with lower miles and more reliability for less money, even including complete (if not high end) gear.

The main thing is that there really aren't many places one can reasonably commute year round on a motorcycle in comparison to at least surviving in a decent clunker of a car.

I paid $175 for my first motorcycle back in '86, and it lasted me four years, so I think I got my money's worth. I've put more miles/year on my CBR (I bought it new), but even that's mostly fun rides, and the occasional commuting. Most of my commuting is done by bicycle, and when it's nice enough to ride the CBR, I'll ride my pedal bike.

[shereth]

Hardly. I spent a little under $3000 for my bike, and a little careful shopping got me my basic gear for ~$1000. This was at the beginning of last year.

Four grand is not that steep an entry point, even for a young person just looking to get into motorcycling. Sure, it's more than young college age kids have sitting around in their pockets for spending money, but it's well within the ability to save for within a year or two.

One can go even cheaper by buying used.

Yeah, new bikes can get pricey, and high performance machines can get pricey. But someone doesn't need a $25k Ducati to get into the fun of it.

[alex.s]

dont forget about scooters. they have mostly taken the place of "cheap transportation" here over motos

i think too many people don't know how to drive stick

[adouglas]

Only for the rich? Pfeh.

A quick Google shows me that the average price of a new car is now over $30,000.

I bought both my car new and my bike new, and own both outright. Combined, they cost a grand total of about $25,000. So I'm way ahead of the game.

Used, the cost would be much much lower.

My bike costs relatively little to insure, even though it's a full-on supersport. Fuel costs aren't all that different because my car takes regular while the bike takes premium... so the better gas mileage gets offset. When I'm riding the bike I'm not driving the car... a wash.

I spin my own wrenches on the bike so maintenance really doesn't cost much at all.

So the real impact on me? Minimal when you look at the big picture.

I'm an older middle-class guy... certainly not rich, but far from scraping by.

[crazymadbastard]

Very helpful post, I think a moto teaches you so much about yourself and your limits. I do disagree that its for the rich, certainly the very low income folks should stay away as even a small accident can create total chaos. I sometimes think of motos like pets, many have them that should not have them...

[Alex]

Originally Posted by adouglas

My bike costs relatively little to insure, even though it's a full-on supersport. Fuel costs aren't all that different because my car takes regular while the bike takes premium... so the better gas mileage gets offset.

Tire costs are a big variable. Sticky tires on a sportbike, changed appropriately, even for commuting duty will get 5K miles a set (sure, some outliers get double that, but some outliers get half that, so I think 5K is a reasonable average).

$300/set of tires including labor for swapping them, means that's 6 cents a mile right there. At $2/gallon and 40 mpg, that's 5 cents a mile for gas. A set of car tires can go 40k - 60k on most modern cars, which is a very small fraction of the motorcycle tire cost.

[Ghostt]

Motorcycles are just like everything else, you have the bottom end and top end of the market.

You can either pick up a used 250, or get a brand new H2. All depends on the person whom is doing the buying. Same is to be said about gear, accessories, etc.....

[dcj13]

This is turning into a good discussion!

One doesn't have to be rich to own and ride a bike, but it's not cheap if you want the sticky tires on the bigger bike.

[Ghostt]

Agreed, BITD I use to run Metzler soft compounds on my FJ1100 great tyres, but didn't last too long, and pricey too

Today I run the BT45s on the Ninjette and I have over 4k on them and still plenty of rubber left.

[michvin]

Originally Posted by Ghostt

Motorcycles are just like everything else, you have the bottom end and top end of the market.

You can either pick up a used 250, or get a brand new H2. All depends on the person whom is doing the buying. Same is to be said about gear, accessories, etc.....

Can't agree more!

[Ninjinsky]

What has really pumped up the cost of motorcyling is the price of tires and the speed with which a modern sports bike demolishes them. Also the increasing fuel consumption of mid to large bikes.
When I started riding (the BSA era) 250 to 650 bikes would achieve 50 -90 miles per gallon. By the mid 80s my Suzuki GSX's and big Kawasakis were giving only 28 -35 mpg same as my car.
So in that sense motorcycling was getting expensive and there was no economy benefit in "taking the bike". You certainly didn't ride to save money.
I appreciate that US gas prices are a lot lower than here in the UK so it is less of an issue
The Ninja was a breath of fresh air after that returning good 70 mpg economy and tire life with enough performance to be fun.

[Flying]

Get used to buying used, except for the helmet.
Use the internet.
Go to Harbor Freight.

If you're young, motorcycles are far more accessible than cars if you just compare the cost of insurance.

[Finesse]

nope. totally affordable. if you go with the minimum: 1 bike, basic insurance, 1 set of gear, do the services yourself.

you can spend unlimited amounts of money on motorcycles or you can do it for cheap, it just depends on how determined you are to save money.

I would never ever tell someone they can't afford a bike. but I would say that if you THINK you can afford a bike but you can't afford gear, you have the wrong attitude..

[liberpolly]

It's not for the rich, but neither are cars. I've seen many investigations into comparative costs between commuting on a car vs. motorcycle, and when all the costs are taken into account, it's a wash. If you live in a climate where car is a necessity, then motorcycle is a luxury.

[crazymadbastard]

Don't forget about inflation. Milk was probably $0.50 a gallon from the old days OP was talking about...

[Alex]

It's still 50 cents a gallon, you just have to wait well past the expiration date.

[eddiekay]

What's changed most is how much you can add to a bike.
Besides a luggage rack and maybe an expansion chamber for the ring-dings there just wasn't much anyone but a racer even knew about. My first new bike cost me about $900.....my first new car $3400. My newest new bike cost me $7400, my newest new truck about $28k. The car-bike spread hasn't changed much

[BlackNinja8]

Nope, motorcycling can be done very cheaply if you are armed with skills and information. I just bought an '06 GS500 for $1,100 with only $2700 miles on it. The previous owner wanted to dump it because it was having petcock issues which was flooding the carbs and leaking into the crankcase. Cost me $100 to fix and now I have a perfectly running bike. My insurance is $220 a year, and I get 50mpg with a 5 gallon tank.

These bikes are great and reliable runners, cheap on gas, easy on tires, and about as complicated as a sundial. But they are very finicky when it comes to fueling. If you are capable of maintaining the bike in your own garage you can run 25k miles just about as cheaply as possible.

[FreelancerMG]

When I see comparisons between motorcycles and cars online and on shows, it always interesting that they never compare two vehicles that are equivalent in their respective tiers. They commonly use a regular economy car that's designed to be efficient and cheap and about as eco-friendly as they can for the price with a sacrifice on performance to get there. Then the bikes they usually compare said car against is usually a super sport or even a super bike and then complain that the car comes out a little ahead. They compare a motorcycle who's closest four wheeled match should be something exotic in the $100k+ range and then complain when the bike isn't as efficient as it should be. Kinda always bugged me. Like the Mythbusters episode where they compared the cars to motorcycles and their cars are econoboxes and the motorcycles are all super sports or sport tourers with after market exhausts then complain the bikes were more polluting by nature. The newest bike was over a decade old and didn't take into account the huge leaps and bounds seen in the last few years for the mini-cats in bikes not to mention that the bikes compared to were high-performance bikes designed to race and not for being EPA friendly.

[crazymadbastard]

Originally Posted by Alex

It's still 50 cents a gallon, you just have to wait well past the expiration date.

then its cheese, and that stuff is $$.

[Panda]

I think it also depends if a motorcycle is your primary transport or if it's toy. If it's a toy I don't think you have to be rich but you typically need disposable income.

[broken neck]

But first of all,

When are you considered rich? When you can put some money aside at the end of the month for your retirement or when you earn twice the average salary?

Up here, it means you need another mean of transportation since it's forbidden to ride motorcycle from mid December till mid April. So It is considered more as a luxury item than a basic need. However, during the riding season, I try to ride as much as possible to use less fuel than our Outback.

But at the end of the season, I'm pretty sure, when all the sums add up, I would break even by just using the Outback year round.

If in winter, nothing can beat the joy of driving the Outback in a snowstorm or on icy roads, nothing can beat the joy of riding my Ninja when the law permits it...

[ninjunk]

The problem with the cost of motorcycling in america is it is seen as a recreational activity. Something to buy along with a car, then ride aggressively on the weekend for thrills.

As a daily commuter rider, I've been doing it for years super cheap. I rarely (never) pay over 500 bucks for a bike. By the time they are back on the road it might cost me 1000 bucks including tax title and licence.

I don't buy sticky tires, and I ride as aggressively as i want to, but well within my limits. Most of my bikes either have cheap Michellin Gazelle or IRC or Kendas.


If you bought a brand new civic SI and put the most expensive race tires on it you could buy, then proceeded to tach out every gear and drive like a total asshat, you'd probably spend a lot of money on your car too.

My last bike cost me $200 bucks, I rebuild the engine on the cheap only replacing the bare minimum components... it was about $100 bucks for that. Hmm maybe 150 because i paid to have everything hot-tanked, but i could have done the cleaning up myself. It has a 35 dollar IRC GP1 Trials tire on the front and a $35 michellen m62 gazelle on the back, both of which are just a little under half-life with 6k miles on them.

It cost me about 200 to get the title, license and all that. I've ridden it over 6000 miles in the last year and it usually gets about 70 mpg. Its a 50cc two stroke so gas mileage isn't that great.


The mythbusters that i saw where they compared a 125cc enduro type thing for fuel mileage had it getting over 100 MPG. Nobody in america buys stuff like that though. Even the ninjas, which as we all know are totally highway capable, have a reputation as being too small to serve as a fully functional go anywhere moto.

It probably hasn't helped that the price of motos has skyrocketed in the last 10 years due to the tigntening up of emissions laws and the declining value of the dollar against international/japan currency. The ninja is a good example going from $3000 (especially if you buy a closeout last year model) to now well over $5000 with EFI and more bells/whistles.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by FreelancerMG

Like the Mythbusters episode where they compared the cars to motorcycles and their cars are econoboxes and the motorcycles are all super sports or sport tourers with after market exhausts then complain the bikes were more polluting by nature. The newest bike was over a decade old and didn't take into account the huge leaps and bounds seen in the last few years for the mini-cats in bikes not to mention that the bikes compared to were high-performance bikes designed to race and not for being EPA friendly.

that's because so few people ride bikes in comparison to cars, at least in the USA.

Originally Posted by ninjunk

The problem with the cost of motorcycling in america is it is seen as a recreational activity. Something to buy along with a car, then ride aggressively on the weekend for thrills.

It probably hasn't helped that the price of motos has skyrocketed in the last 10 years due to the tigntening up of emissions laws and the declining value of the dollar against international/japan currency. The ninja is a good example going from $3000 (especially if you buy a closeout last year model) to now well over $5000 with EFI and more bells/whistles.

Dats a bingo! Motorcycle tech is finally catching up to car tech. Keep in mind, the first Fuel Injection was put on cars in the 70's. OBD became standard in 1982. The last carbureted car was the Ford Escort in 1993 I think - don't quote me on that. All that tech costs money. Mechanical/carbs are much cheaper and easier to work on.

So yes, most of the time, a bike is much filthier than a car. That also means it's cheaper.

Having said all of that. I too started riding because I could no longer afford driving (insurance went from $100/month to $600/month after I rolled a car in high school). Bike insurance was $200/year... Medical insurance went up though, but it was still cheaper in the end.

In other less fortunate countries, motos are the way to go, and there are many more than cars.

Also, keep in mind motorcycles started out as rich men's toys in the 1910's and 1920's. Only during the depression did motorcycles enter the market for budget transportation, over motorized bicycles, and then again after WWII with the influx of military surplus Harley's...

As many have said, it comes down to which bike you choose. Even in the US the option for cheap transportation is there, but the temptation to turn that cheap transportation into more fun is much too great for it stay cheap transportation for very long... In the US anyway.

[nickjpass]

Originally Posted by Alex

Tire costs are a big variable. Sticky tires on a sportbike, changed appropriately, even for commuting duty will get 5K miles a set (sure, some outliers get double that, but some outliers get half that, so I think 5K is a reasonable average).

$300/set of tires including labor for swapping them, means that's 6 cents a mile right there. At $2/gallon and 40 mpg, that's 5 cents a mile for gas. A set of car tires can go 40k - 60k on most modern cars, which is a very small fraction of the motorcycle tire cost.

Never thought of it that way. I need to start picking up pennies.

Let's not even start talking about track tires

[ally99]

Motorcycling is only for the rich when you get into track (or racing). Then it can start to eat up some dough.

[Sirref]

Originally Posted by ally99

Motorcycling is only for the rich when you get into track (or racing). Then it can start to eat up some dough.

this, I am willing and able to go broke to get to the track more but if you aren't willing to drop almost everything you make on track then you better be reasonably wealthy

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by spooph

Keep in mind, the first Fuel Injection was put on cars in the 70's... Mechanical/carbs are much cheaper and easier to work on.

I highly doubt that. When mass produced, anything computerized comes down to dollar a piece.

[Ghostt]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

I highly doubt that. When mass produced, anything computerized comes down to dollar a piece.

Like my prom date happy ending was extra

[Daks]

I'm working 9 hours a week in the winter if I'm lucky and make 9 dollars an hour. Adds up to 10-15k a year.

If motorcycling is for the rich, it's news to me.

Bike needs a valve service about 8 months ago. Still cheaper than my car ever was, though.

[greenaero]

Lots of great discussion! thank you! When I titled my thread I wanted to stimulate discussion and it seems to be working. Obviously I know that motorcyling does not have to be expensive and can actually be used as cheap transportation as I have been doing it for over 40 years. Its great to hear from so many others that have used similar strategies as mine to enjoy motorcycling. They are not just expensive toys and are a desirablre transportation option, particularly if one lives in an area without harsh winters.
Before I retired from working a 40+hour job, I would only use the moto for commuting about 10-20 % of the time. Now I ride more than I drive and really appreciate the ability to ride throught the dense SF BayArea traffic congestion.
Everything is more expense and others have made great points about the moto/auto price comparision and that motos still are relatively cheap compared to autos that offer a similar performance.

[JohnnyBravo]

I get Prius gas mileage at a quarter of the cost of a Prius. My insurance is cheap, an my gear wasnt all that expensive compared to some. Lets not talk about farkley bits though.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

I highly doubt that. When mass produced, anything computerized comes down to dollar a piece.

not sure why or how you are doubting this... I just love statements without support...

This is why the ninja 250 new-gen was released in 2008 with carbs in the US, but with FI in Europe. Tier licensing forces people to start on a smaller bike, so the price point doesn't have to be as low as in the US.

Sure, things do get cheaper with mass production, but at the end of the day you have more parts, arranged in a more complicated fashion, requiring greater understanding, more complicated tools to service, etc, etc and drives costs up...

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by spooph

not sure why or how you are doubting this... I just love statements without support...

This is why the ninja 250 new-gen was released in 2008 with carbs in the US, but with FI in Europe. Tier licensing forces people to start on a smaller bike, so the price point doesn't have to be as low as in the US.

Sure, things do get cheaper with mass production, but at the end of the day you have more parts, arranged in a more complicated fashion, requiring greater understanding, more complicated tools to service, etc, etc and drives costs up...

I am not sure where do you see more parts or more complexity.

Roughly speaking, FI has fuel pump, injectors, and a computer module (not adding sensors to be on parity with carbureted engine). How many parts are there in carbs? How fragile are they? How precise is the assembly? Can it be automated effectively?

How hard is it to tune FI from a computer, vs. rejetting and synchronizing the carbs with mechanical tools? How hard is it to calibrate your mechanical tools before you even begin? Assuming you need to learn both from scratch.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

I am not sure where do you see more parts or more complexity.

Roughly speaking, FI has fuel pump, injectors, and a computer module (not adding sensors to be on parity with carbureted engine). How many parts are there in carbs? How fragile are they? How precise is the assembly? Can it be automated effectively?

How hard is it to tune FI from a computer, vs. rejetting and synchronizing the carbs with mechanical tools? How hard is it to calibrate your mechanical tools before you even begin? Assuming you need to learn both from scratch.

You have to count the sensors because without them the efficiency of FI are all but nullified. The fuel pump is itself a point of failure which carbs don't have. The ECU is a point of failure which carbs don't have. Sure, you can count all of the internal parts of the carb, are you also going to individually account for all the electronic components in the ECU, and the various internal parts of the injectors? I'm not going to waste time building this list, if you can't see it, feel free build that list yourself...

The point being, I can adjust a carburetor with a screw driver, on a car, and only need 2 allen wrenches, and 2 box-end wrenches to do so on a ninja 250. It can be "tuned" well without any instrumentation. Any person who can hear the difference between two notes can sync a set of carbs just by listening carefully.

On the other hand, a computer and software is needed to do the same on FI, not to mention you usually have to buy a cheater box like a power commander, or aftermarket ECU to be able to "tune" FI since factory ECU's are locked down. Factory carbs on the other hand, can be "unlocked" with a drill/screwdriver/punch.

I don't disagree with you in that electronics become very cheap, very quickly because technology develops at such a tremendous rate, but keep in mind, OBD2 was standardized in 1996. FI technology hasn't changed much since then. Even ECU chips haven't changed that much. Why? Because of reliability. This is a computer that must match and beat mechanical reliability. This isn't your smartphone, or laptop computer which will be outdated 9 months from now, this is your vehicle's brain which has to keep working for decades, day in, day out, without a hiccup. Therefore it is big, bulky, old technology which just works. In newer cars, it is largely unchanged, leaving additional tech systems to their own separate computers which have their own separate functions. All in the name of reliability.

Add to that FI is relatively new to motos and has to encompass the retraining of techs and the addition of those specialized tools, like ECU interfaces (laptops or dumber ECU specific) which resulted in the steep price climb from the early 2000's to the late 2000's in 600's and 1000's where new tech was being released.

You are right about learning either tech from scratch though, you'll invest the same amount of time for both. However whether you or I learn this from scratch has nothing to do with manufacturers putting money into newer technology which incurs greater costs (all that R&D has to be paid for by something). Add on regulatory matters and the EPA making things "better" and manufacturers are forced to create new tech to stay current with those regulations.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by spooph

You have to count the sensors because without them the efficiency of FI are all but nullified.

I was just looking at Triumph TT600, FI, no sensors, doing just fine. Could be better, but there is parity in functionality with carbureted engine.

Originally Posted by spooph

The fuel pump is itself a point of failure which carbs don't have. The ECU is a point of failure which carbs don't have. Sure, you can count all of the internal parts of the carb, are you also going to individually account for all the electronic components in the ECU, and the various internal parts of the injectors? I'm not going to waste time building this list, if you can't see it, feel free build that list yourself...

Sure. The point is that fuel pumps have zero need for tuning, and reliability much higher than carbs. ECUs reliability is several orders of magnitude above that. All I hear from moto crowd how they clean curbs, shim needles and rejet all the time. I don’t hear any of this from FI owners. It just works.

Originally Posted by spooph

The point being, I can adjust a carburetor with a screw driver, on a car, and only need 2 allen wrenches, and 2 box-end wrenches to do so on a ninja 250. It can be "tuned" well without any instrumentation. Any person who can hear the difference between two notes can sync a set of carbs just by listening carefully.

Well, I don’t possess such skills, which require a lot of practice, and you will need much more than that if you need re-jetting. Since we’re talking about cost, it would cost more in time of a mechanic to fiddle with screwdriver and wrenches than plug in a computer and adjust stuff. And they wouldn’t do it by ear, they’d have to have tachometers and carb synching tools.
I grant you point if we assume either a) post-apocalyptic world or b) some extremely remote area. In modern industrial computerized society, computer tuning is easier and cheaper than turning wrenches and listening to sounds.

Originally Posted by spooph

On the other hand, a computer and software is needed to do the same on FI, not to mention you usually have to buy a cheater box like a power commander, or aftermarket ECU to be able to "tune" FI since factory ECU's are locked down. Factory carbs on the other hand, can be "unlocked" with a drill/screwdriver/punch.

Point. But it’s not inherent in FI, it’s just bad practice by manufacturers – much like that brass plug that prevents me from adjusting the idle mixture and needs to be drilled out (yet to do that, cannot overcome fear of drilling into my motorcycle).

Originally Posted by spooph

I don't disagree with you in that electronics become very cheap, very quickly because technology develops at such a tremendous rate, but keep in mind, OBD2 was standardized in 1996. FI technology hasn't changed much since then. Even ECU chips haven't changed that much. Why? Because of reliability. This is a computer that must match and beat mechanical reliability. This isn't your smartphone, or laptop computer which will be outdated 9 months from now, this is your vehicle's brain which has to keep working for decades, day in, day out, without a hiccup. Therefore it is big, bulky, old technology which just works. In newer cars, it is largely unchanged, leaving additional tech systems to their own separate computers which have their own separate functions. All in the name of reliability.

Sure. And with all that reliability and stable design, it costs now less than a dollar a piece to make. Try to produce a good set of carbs for a dollar.

Originally Posted by spooph

You are right about learning either tech from scratch though, you'll invest the same amount of time for both. However whether you or I learn this from scratch has nothing to do with manufacturers putting money into newer technology which incurs greater costs (all that R&D has to be paid for by something). Add on regulatory matters and the EPA making things "better" and manufacturers are forced to create new tech to stay current with those regulations.

Yes, but R&D is amortized among the motorcycles produced. Besides, I would guess that after initial switch to FI, now more R&D would have to be spent on carbureted engines if they had to keep with performance of FI competitors – for a manufacturer it’s even easier to try many mappings on ECU, than many configurations on the carbs.

[Ghostt]

Not for nothing, ladies and gentlemen but this is an old argument I remember back in the day when F.I. made it debut on cages.

First was the mechanical F.I. , then the first electronic ones started to come out on common cars, who here remembers GM cross fire injection???

Now a days it's just there and reliable, it's a natural evolution of the beast, so to speak of.

There's no doubt that F.I. Will eventually take over the motorcycle itself, it's evolution. As electronics get smaller and more reliable, it's enviable.

I wonder what Darwin would think about this?

[liberpolly]

I'll continue to own at least one motorcycle with carburated engine, so in a post-apocalyptic world I'd have one leg up

[dcj13]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

I'll continue to own at least one motorcycle with carburated engine, so in a post-apocalyptic world I'd have one leg up

You'll want that bike to have old-fashioned points & condenser if you want to be sure of riding after the sort of electromagnetic pulse you're referring to.