conti tires

[traderpro2003]

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?

[scarysharkface]

Crap. You are NOT allowed to talk to my wife! --- 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? >

[Randy Shultz]

--- 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? >

--- 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.

[jokerloco9@aol.com]

I have a race car that has a sign on the back that says "the gas you save I love to waste" Jeff A20 -----Original Message----- From: traderpro2003 To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:08:37 -0000 Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Are we really saving that much with good MPG? KLR650 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? Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[revmaaatin]

--- 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.

[traderpro2003]

Yep, regardless 50 mpg or 5, it's nice to own a bike or two. Few if any buy one for gas reasons...unless that's the best excuse you can do with the wife. Anyway, this was meant to be a joke when I got to thinking I've taken 2 trips to Death Valley within a month and typically I use 2k miles all said and done. By the time I return, I have to replace the stock rear tire at $70/pop sans mounting. Seems my replacement went faster than the original, too. Anyway...worth a laugh... --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Shultz" 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? > > > --- > > 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. >

[traderpro2003]

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 my 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, 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. >

[traderpro2003]

I think I got everyone's undies in a bundle on this one... Anyway, my brother made this comment this morning and I pondered it a bit before running it up the flag pole. I guess the point was to compare it to an real "economy car" like a Prius or something and have some morning fun. Certainly the Suburban with 10 people jammed in never crossed my mind and a few other scenarios... The point I think my brother was making is he's always getting nickeled and dimed with his KLR (still in the shop by the way...update coming soon...looks like warranty/new engine coming) vs. his late 1980s Toyota that he keeps on life support requires little more than fuel and a 3,000 mile/$13 oil change. But it's no beauty to look at nor survive a ride in it. 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. --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003" wrote:

> > 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

my

> 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,

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. > > >

[hobbhavnklr650]

Compared to my 1988 3/4 ton pickup, which is my other vehicle, the KLR is most efficient. I could trade both in for a hybrid, but what will pull the horses, haul the hay and firewood, and carry the camper and family into the wilds of eastern Idaho and the Yellowstone country. For my situation, the KLR provides great efficiency for commuting to work or hitting a stream to fish. KLR gas mileage, life... its all relative. Keith Idaho KLR --- 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? >

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "traderpro2003" wrote:

>

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