View Single Post
Unread 2017-07-25, 10:26 AM   #13
waphill
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 167
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given):
Thanks (Received):
Likes (Given):
Likes (Received):
Dislikes (Given):
Dislikes (Received):
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keboh View Post
Have you considered a naked bike?

For instance, I have owned a Triumph Street Triple (2014, current bike) and a Triumph Daytona (2007). They have the same engine, sans slightly different gearing and cams. The Daytona is fared, the Street Triple is not.

The streety costs me $67/mo to insure, the daytona cost me $180/mo to insure (same insurance company, same policy with the same deductibles, etc.). It's because they're technically classified as different bikes, even though it's the same fucking thing, for our intents and purposes.

Also, the Street Triple is more fun, more comfortable, better in the city, and is prettier (IMO). Check them out . I'd assume that the fz09, Monsters, etc. would probably be in the same bill. Cheaper to insure because of how they're classified.
This is so true. Insurance companies classify Street Triples, Monsters, FZ's, etc as "standard" bikes, which is the same classification as an old CB750. The Daytona and all fared sportbikes are classified as "high performance," and there is a big difference in insurance costs.

Occasionally, they will make a mistake. A couple years ago Foremost had the Ducati Desmosedici in their system as "custom." Even though it was a race bike with lights, and cost $60k, it was cheaper to insure than the Monster!
__________________
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Likes Keboh liked this post
waphill is offline   Reply With Quote