Burning1
I'm scareoused!
Sorry, I'm tired and it's been a long day. I misread your post.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
High horsepower bikes does not equal "more dangerous"
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Sorry, I'm tired and it's been a long day. I misread your post.
Lovedoc,
Apologies, I can't quote your post as I'm on my iPhone.
The only horsepower involved in my accident was the horsepower of the car that hit me.
My wife was the one who posted my get well thread.
I didn't realize that I had to post in every rip/get well thread in order to prove I cared. I read almost all of them, and was very vocal in NOT creating a RIP forum where they could be lost or ignored. I think it's presumptious to assert that I don't care because I haven't posted in all rip threads in the same way that you could accuse someone of not believing in God because they never go to church.
Stefan
Apologies, I can't quote your post as I'm on my iPhone.
The only horsepower involved in my accident was the horsepower of the car that hit me.
My wife was the one who posted my get well thread.
I didn't realize that I had to post in every rip/get well thread in order to prove I cared. I read almost all of them, and was very vocal in NOT creating a RIP forum where they could be lost or ignored. I think it's presumptious to assert that I don't care because I haven't posted in all rip threads in the same way that you could accuse someone of not believing in God because they never go to church.
Stefan
aciurczak
slower would be backwards
Just wasn't sure where you were coming from.Mackey,
Potential means nothing unless it is realized.
The potential of a bullet to kill is effectively nil, unless you pull the trigger.
We all agree that literbikes are potentially... No, I'll amend that, they ARE more dangerous, but is there added power being realized in death and destruction. In some tragic cases yes, but in those cases is the power to blame? Is the bike the sole reason? Is it a catalyst? Is it unrelated?
As an expert can ride anything well, an idiot can ride anything poorly. If we could factor out the idiot and clueless factor if you took 1000 average riders and put half on 1000s and the other half on 600's would 5 times as many literbike riders be dead within a year? I think what Mr. Code asserts is that the evidence to the best of his interpretation is, no.
Stefan
Stefan
Potential means nothing unless it is realized.
The potential of a bullet to kill is effectively nil, unless you pull the trigger.
We all agree that literbikes are potentially... No, I'll amend that, they ARE more dangerous, but is there added power being realized in death and destruction. In some tragic cases yes, but in those cases is the power to blame? Is the bike the sole reason? Is it a catalyst? Is it unrelated?
As an expert can ride anything well, an idiot can ride anything poorly. If we could factor out the idiot and clueless factor if you took 1000 average riders and put half on 1000s and the other half on 600's would 5 times as many literbike riders be dead within a year? I think what Mr. Code asserts is that the evidence to the best of his interpretation is, no.
Stefan
Stefan
aciurczak
slower would be backwards
Yet what we keep coming back to, is that if Code's hypothesis were true (i.e. based on actual events rather than remembered anecdotes and his personal feelings), the insurance rates for 600's and 1000's would be at least identical, or even more likely lower for the 1000's. (as their intrinsic $ value isn't that different, and the thinking is that 1000's are crashed less than 600's, and there are less injuries on the larger bikes). Yet we know that's not the case, just call any insurance agent in the land and get a quote for a GSX-R600 and a GSX-R1000 for the same individual with the same terms.
Anyone think they have better crash data and payout cost data than the insurance industry? Anyone think they are more skilled at using that data to set appropriate rates than the insurance industry to manage that risk?
Code isn't saying something that is that revolutionary. And perhaps you and others even can agree with his thought process as you ride a literbike using a small percentage of its capabilities 100% of the time. But extrapolating that thought to the motorcycling public as a whole, (young/old, skilled/unskilled, idiot/total idiot
), his hypothesis is awfully hard to support. It's so much easier to find data showing that his opinion on this is rectally sourced. But it's fun to debate, at least.
Burning1
I'm scareoused!
Are the insurance rates for a liter-bike that much higher than a 600 when the rider has sufficient driving experience and a clean record? Also, how are the statistics being compared?
I'm insured through Farmers, who bases their rates on displacement rather than horsepower or class. The BMW R1150R is noticeably more expensive to insure than the GSXR-600, despite the fact that it's lower horsepower and statistically should be a lower risk (how many guys like me ride BMWs?)
aciurczak
slower would be backwards
I hear you. They have been in my case. But its always hard to make these apples to apples comparisons, as few of us have 3 identical bikes of identical value, identical model year, and identical purpose in the garage at any one time, with the only variable being engine displacement. Since insurance costs go down as we age, comparing over time is hard as well. That said, insurance on my R6 just a few years ago was less expensive than insurance on my 10R is right now. It's only anecdotal, I realize, but we could move it to more usable data if we had the time to actually get quotes at the same time.
As you mention, Farmers has decided that displacement alone is a valid enough indicator to predict loss. Seems silly in some ways, as you demonstrate comparing the relative performance capabilities of a BMW 1150R to a GSX-R600. But perhaps the relative rarity of a BMW 1150 compared to a GSX-R1000, Busa, or any other liter and liter+ bike, means lumping them into one bucket for classification works well enough that the risk / cost is appropriately managed.
Keith Code
New member
Why the article
Just to drop back a notch. I wrote the article not to try and sell 1,000cc bikes but to get riders to think about training in a different light than just mandatory training to get a license. Experience is good but I believe training is better.
The article was indeed based on our 4 year test with the 300+ high risk street riders receiving very thorough training, about half of which ride 1000cc sport bikes. The training wasn't done on the track but in large open, paved areas. The 0 bad crash results of the test do provoke more thought on the matter of big bikes vs small bikes.
Do I really think that big bikes are safer? No, motorcycles aren't "safe" to begin with.
Keith
Just to drop back a notch. I wrote the article not to try and sell 1,000cc bikes but to get riders to think about training in a different light than just mandatory training to get a license. Experience is good but I believe training is better.
The article was indeed based on our 4 year test with the 300+ high risk street riders receiving very thorough training, about half of which ride 1000cc sport bikes. The training wasn't done on the track but in large open, paved areas. The 0 bad crash results of the test do provoke more thought on the matter of big bikes vs small bikes.
Do I really think that big bikes are safer? No, motorcycles aren't "safe" to begin with.
Keith
Thank you for offering your insights in this thread Mr. Code, though some might still disagree with the basic premise, it's refreshing to have you come in and clarify where confusion arises in the general argument. It's difficult often I know to nail down such complex issues in a few pages; Long and complete, people get bored and don't read, short and concise; much more open to interpretation and misreading.
Maybe it all boils down to the simple statement "High horsepower bikes do not have to be dangerous"
This incorporates both the important aspects of proper training, and the emphasis on the rider, and not the machine.
Thanks again, I look forward to meeting you someday, the bikes at your school are all the right color!
Stefan
Z3n
Squid.
My thoughts on this, via the Hurt Report:
Big/small bikes won't always be the cause of crashes.
They do show some relationship in the severity of accidents, though. So that could explain the increase of cost in insurance while sidestepping the "do literbikes cause accidents" issue entirely.
The consequences of getting it wrong on a literbike are bigger. That does't mean that every rider will do something to deserve those consequences, and indeed, people tend to attempt to reduce risk when they know that they're engaging in a risky activity. So that probably contributes in some way to the lower level of accidents on literbikes, despite their increased severity.
So...I think there's more factors out there than people are initially taking into account.
aciurczak
slower would be backwards
The Hurt report was perhaps useful at one time. It is no longer as useful. Or IMO, much use at all. This is one of the reasons the AMA is pushing so hard for some federal funding for a new motorcycle safety study. The motorcycling environment has changed remarkably in 30 years. The data may very well have changed as well. For one thing, a "middleweight" sportbike today has significantly more peak horsepower than the largest open-class machine when the Hurt report was developed. Heck, a middleweight streetbike today has more peak horsepower than most racebikes of that era. (and also has better tires, suspension, electronics, and every other component as well, of course)
Bolded part isn't supported by any statistics I've ever read or even heard talked about. Other than in the editorial that served as the initial topic for this thread, where it was postulated that displacement for sportbikes wasn't the key indicator of crashes in a controlled study of experienced riders, because nobody crashed.
This is an interesting point as well. My assumption is that insurance rates are also primarily driven by things like replacement cost, age of rider and experience, likelihood at being targetted for theft and a host of all other factors that are similar to why certain expensive exotic autos are much more to insure, when they might be just as "powerful" as perhaps a domestic musclecar.
State Farm used to be one of the few insurance companies that based rates on motorcycle engine displacement rather than their "type" (categories that indicated the potential for unsafe use i.e. sportbikes), but now Farmers and others are doing the same; basing the rate on displacement, a very simple formula rather than pouring over tons of actuarial data to try and come up with derived rate. It shows a recognition that motorcycle "power" is worthy of a cookie cutter template, rather than a huge data gathering effort which actually might prove counter-intuitive and thus more difficult to justify than an easy "more is more dangerous" justification to the public.
Another telling indication of their recognition that perhaps other factors are more causal as far as payouts against their bottom line is that my 2005 ZX-6R of 636ccs cost me around $36 a month for absolutely full coverage (over 40, clean driving record for 15 years) and my 2008 ZX-10R costs me $35 ($34.80) a month for the exact same coverage, not exactly evidence that they believe the bike to be more dangerous, but perhaps more telling in that they believe the bike is less likely to be stolen, or that the repair costs have proven less costly in the past or less frequent etc...
On another flip side, my wife's 2007 Ducati Monster 695 is $52 a month to insure with the same coverage and half the horsepower
I was told it is in the "Standard" category of bikes and has a modifier for actually being an "exotic" The wife also has several speeding tickets on record uneraseable by traffic school 
Stefan
Last edited:
aciurczak
slower would be backwards
It's only telling if your agent right now would still charge you $36/mo for the 6 and $35/mo for the 10. You've aged since you first insured the 6, you've been with the same insurance company for longer, and things may have changed in their rating system along the way as well.
You are making a good point that there are certainly additional factors other than simple crash risk in an insurance company's determination of likely repair/replacement costs for a vehicle; but I'm not sure there is really much difference in those other factors between a 600 and a 1000 version of the same company's sportbikes. A fairing, subframe, front end, clip-on, you name it, is the same cost across the board. And the labor to fix it is certainly the same cost as well. The 600 and the 1000 can be thrown into the back of a van just as easily, and spare parts for either are worth $ in the secondary (i.e. illegal) market.
Last edited:
That's actually an excellent point (about what they would charge me now for a ZX-6R) I'm seeing my agent next week about changes to my home policy, I'll be sure to ask them just out of curiosity. They seem to really love to run numbers
Stefan
louemc
New member
The (minimum) annual premium, insurance on My ZX-10 is $80.00
McGraw is confident that the money is only going one way, from my wallet to theirs. And I'm confident that I won't need or use any insurance. I've managed to manage myself just fine, facing the hazzards that the public road offers up.
GAJ
Well-known member
I wonder what would happen to Keith Code's insurance rates if he switched to literbikes as he says he would like to do.
My guess would be they would go up.
I base that on the fact that my $3,500 literbike is significantly more expensive to insure than my more valuable (because they're newer) 400SM and 800ST, (quotes from both State Farm and Progressive all the same coverages).
But I'm assuming that is based on actual payout experiences with these models or similar models not a simple rate guide based on CC's...so I guess it would help if an Insurance Agent would pipe up and set us straight.
My guess would be they would go up.
I base that on the fact that my $3,500 literbike is significantly more expensive to insure than my more valuable (because they're newer) 400SM and 800ST, (quotes from both State Farm and Progressive all the same coverages).
But I'm assuming that is based on actual payout experiences with these models or similar models not a simple rate guide based on CC's...so I guess it would help if an Insurance Agent would pipe up and set us straight.
I'm certain the brand and model type makes a difference because otherwise, they would not need that very specific information when they run rate quotes.
When I was getting a quote on my ZX-10R there was some confusion because they coulnd't find the model designation code in the database and couldn't even come up with a ball park.
My agent specifically told me that because my wife's motorcycle is an Italian "exotic" (they actually consider the Monster an exotic compared to say, a CBR600) This greatly modifies the premium. she had experience that if it had been an Italian sportbike of the same displacement as my ZX-10R, it would have been significantly more.
Her favorite story is of a Ducati sportbike owner whose bike was backed into and knocked over while parked, and they totalled the bike. How many japanese I4's would that have happened to?
Stefan
louemc
New member
Ahh, all of them? If the Japanese I-4 Race Replica Sport bike has the plastic broken on one side, muffler scratched, turn signals broken, Mirror broken lever (or two) broken, maybe gas tank dented, and shop labor & dealership labor added, your talkin Totalled.
Aluisious
Well-known member
Z3n
Squid.
Posting from my phone but...none of those things you talk about change the most common accidents. On the bolded part, look at everything everyone has said in this thread when it comes to riding literbikes.