How Long Before Your Bike SAVES You Money?

[redkow97]

Since I haven't bought a car since 1987, and that car (used) cost more than the new motorcycle I bought last year, I'm pretty sure I can safely say I've saved some money.

You saved money by not buying a car; not by purchasing a bike.

The scenario addressed in the spreadsheet is only relative between the 2 vehicles entered. As noted in the first post, my coworker was trying to claim that his bike pays for itself because it gets better mileage than his F150.

First of all, he doesn't ride more than a few times a month, so he's going in with no chance in hell. Second, he's not saving NEARLY as much as he thinks he is.

I'm not telling anyone their bike purchase was a bad idea - but "it pays for itself" just isn't a valid argument for 99% of the riders I encounter.

[redkow97]

Perhaps I should add in another variable for your bikes current (realistic) fair-market value as well.

Assuming you can sell your bike for $3,000 in relatively short-order, I suppose it is not a 'sunk cost,' and could/should be subtracted from the initial purchase cost.

Does that sound like a necessary change? It would dramatically drop the mileage figure to break even.

[Tpoppa]

Over a lot of miles, I doubt any money saved would be significant.

On a motorcycle you'd save money on gas, but more maintenance is required, tires don't last as long, etc. It would also depend on the car & bike.

Ford F150 vs a Ninja 250 - there is a pretty big gap.

Honda Civic vs CBR1000RR - I'll bet the cost per mile is pretty close, probably a bit cheaper on the car.

[redkow97]

Ford F150 vs a Ninja 250 - there is a pretty big gap.

Honda Civic vs CBR1000RR - I'll bet the cost per mile is pretty close, probably a bit cheaper on the car.

the spreadsheet takes that into account - that's why it asks for the average gas mileage of your bike AND your car.

The entire thing is a function of savings per mile, assuming that you are taking the bike listed INSTEAD of the car listed.

[swingset]

My brother bought a Nighthawk 650 for $900, and commuted every day (80 miles round trip) instead of his truck which got half the MPG. Considering his cheap buy-in on the bike, the almost non-existent maintenance on that particular bike (shaft drive, airhead, rock-hard shitty tires, reliable as hell), he reclaimed that $900 pretty quick and thereafter it was, absolutely, saving him money. Insurance on it was negligible, something like $80 a year.

But, he set out with saving as a goal and the bike was primarily used to do just that. It's possible, but not likely for most people under most situations (as the OP lays out well).

[Bellboy1]

I think the OP has a point in that for almost everyone in Ohio, the motorcycle is "in addition to", rather than "instead of" a car. You are still potentially making payments on both,insurance on both, maintenance on both, etc so getting your money back is totally based on your mileage alone which just won't get the job done in most cases as far as getting your money back by riding. Replacing a car with a motorcycle could work for savings over the long haul. In Ohio, that just does not seem realistic.

[redkow97]

getting your money back is totally based on your mileage alone

not entirely true.

the higher gas goes, the faster good mileage racks up savings. A guy on www.ex-500.com was saying that he saves ~$10/day by not having to pay to park his car in down-town London (or somewhere in the UK) as well.

So $200 per MONTH, plus he's dealing with higher fuel prices than us, which makes his savings per mile higher to begin with.

Huge mileage certainly helps, but it's not the only factor.