Wilsons Sandbox
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=260078
trips> > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new tires all > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just drop it > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted
on> we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to work
> one of those? >
trips> > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new tires all > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just drop it > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted
on> we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to work
--- This is as close to heresy or treason as I have ever seen posted on this board... I think it's a very good question, and I suspect it depends on what tires you're riding and what your insurance situation is, and how many miles you put on the bike. If you bought new, then you should factor in depreciation. If you financed, you would have to include interest. But assuming you took a used KLR, paid cash, and did your own maintenance, and drove a bunch of miles, then I suspect tires and insurance are the biggest variables. I don't pay much to insure my KLR, but some folks do. If you figure that you have to have a car in addition to the KLR, then you're essentially double paying on the insurance side. In terms of tires, if you add it up it's probably the biggest consumables expense after fuel. If you buy inexpensive, long lasting tires, I think you're ahead of the game. But I can see how a softer, higer performing tire could eat up your fuel savings. For many of us, though, I suspect we would own a motorcycle irrespective of any economic benefit, so it becomes a moot point. If you used economic savings as the primary justification to your spouse then you may be walking on thin ice.> one of those? >
all> > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new tires
it> the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just drop
trips> off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted
work on> we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to
Hi Trader, I have been saying this for some time when people say, "Wow, easy on the gas!" When I take my initial cost, figure in the farkle (so far) riding gear, and the poor mileage on the tires, the long term cost is about the same as the 98 Suburban. Figure in the cost/mile/passenger when you carry 4-7 passengers, the surburban wins hands down, (and you still get to drag the bikes on a trailer, if necessary; I did it Monday, and momma/daughter went shopping while the boys went to the ORV park.) However, the bike gets 5X smiles / mile than the cage. Where else can you get a continuous taste of mosquitoes and grasshoppers and still enjoy the ride? revmaaatin. who has (massive) bug stains everywhere, and sometimes on his teeth.> one of those? >
> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003"
tires all> wrote: > > > > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new
drop it> > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just
work> > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted > trips > > we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to
on> on > > one of those? > > > --- > > This is as close to heresy or treason as I have ever seen posted
what> this board... > > I think it's a very good question, and I suspect it depends on
many> tires you're riding and what your insurance situation is, and how
took a> miles you put on the bike. > > If you bought new, then you should factor in depreciation. If you > financed, you would have to include interest. But assuming you
bunch of> used KLR, paid cash, and did your own maintenance, and drove a
variables.> miles, then I suspect tires and insurance are the biggest
figure> > I don't pay much to insure my KLR, but some folks do. If you
lasting> that you have to have a car in addition to the KLR, then you're > essentially double paying on the insurance side. > > In terms of tires, if you add it up it's probably the biggest > consumables expense after fuel. If you buy inexpensive, long
softer,> tires, I think you're ahead of the game. But I can see how a
If> higer performing tire could eat up your fuel savings. > > For many of us, though, I suspect we would own a motorcycle > irrespective of any economic benefit, so it becomes a moot point.
spouse> you used economic savings as the primary justification to your
> then you may be walking on thin ice. >
--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003" > wrote: > > > > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new tires > all > > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just drop > it > > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted > trips > > we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to > work on > > one of those? > > > Hi Trader, > I have been saying this for some time when people say, "Wow, easy on > the gas!" When I take my initial cost, figure in the farkle (so > far) riding gear, and the poor mileage on the tires, the long term > cost is about the same as the 98 Suburban. Figure in the > cost/mile/passenger when you carry 4-7 passengers, the surburban > wins hands down, (and you still get to drag the bikes on a trailer, > if necessary; I did it Monday, and momma/daughter went shopping > while the boys went to the ORV park.) However, the bike gets 5X > smiles / mile than the cage. > > Where else can you get a continuous taste of mosquitoes and > grasshoppers and still enjoy the ride? > > revmaaatin. who has (massive) bug stains everywhere, and sometimes > on his teeth. >
--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003"
wrote:
my> > Hi Rev - Ha ha ha...makes sense. Usually things that make us this > happy come with a premium: time, money, etc. Glad I'm still > single...I wouldn't get away with half this crap. Neighbors joke
wasted> house is a UPS hub...love that farkle. > > > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote: > > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003" > > wrote: > > > > > > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new > tires > > all > > > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just > drop > > it > > > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping,
saving> > trips > > > we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really
to> > > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants
easy> > work on > > > one of those? > > > > > Hi Trader, > > I have been saying this for some time when people say, "Wow,
term> on > > the gas!" When I take my initial cost, figure in the farkle (so > > far) riding gear, and the poor mileage on the tires, the long
5X> > cost is about the same as the 98 Suburban. Figure in the > > cost/mile/passenger when you carry 4-7 passengers, the surburban > > wins hands down, (and you still get to drag the bikes on a > trailer, > > if necessary; I did it Monday, and momma/daughter went shopping > > while the boys went to the ORV park.) However, the bike gets
sometimes> > smiles / mile than the cage. > > > > Where else can you get a continuous taste of mosquitoes and > > grasshoppers and still enjoy the ride? > > > > revmaaatin. who has (massive) bug stains everywhere, and
> > on his teeth. > > >
trips> > Sure we're getting 45-50+ mpg, but after you through in new tires all > the time, maintenance (God help ya if you don't DYI and just drop it > off at the dealer), time tinkering/optimizing/worshiping, wasted
on> we make because we get great mileage, etc...are we really saving > anything compared to a fuel efficient car? I mean who wants to work
> one of those? >
But the way I see it is...the KLR is like a high-maintenance, expensive chick...well worth the $$$ until the breakdown/up. Gotta love that eye candy in the meantime...the KLR, of course.>
--- Sounds like you're describing some Italian bike to me. Certainly not our girl-next-door KLR. If you think this is high maintenance wait 'til you have to maintain some of the high-end european supersports. I have often wondered why, when you could buy VW rabbit diesels and Honda CRX HFs 20 years ago that got 50 mpg, we can't seem to get any better fuel economy out of a bike that has half the horsepower and weighs one fifth as much. But then a trip in one of those econo- boxes is at best uninspired, while anytime I can ride a motorcycle I feel like a kid inside. Randy>