Start the Week Topic

[guest7]

At which point does running an older vehicle become untenable? Or to put it another way, when should you give up maintaining a tired old heap and instead buy a nice new reliable bike?

GC

[guest27]

Some criteria needed

Economic?

Environmental?

Personal?

Familial?

R

[Andy M]

Doesn't that depend on the vehicle and the person?

My MZ is mostly 14 years old although the bottom of the engine is a bit older and I've no idea about the top, it came off e-bay. All this work was done at home, it cost me about 50 hours over last spring. The bikes paper value is something like £300, so depreciation is at worst zero. It's reliable and I can live with the 40 mpg as the cruise speed is up to modern standards. It actually saves me hard cash on the insurance as it brings down a two bike policy. Enviromentally I'd debate that the worst of the damage was done by the East Germans when they made it, but you'd be correct in thinking it isn't exactly green. I'll replace this bike when parts become a problem and i've the time/cash to put a Diesel in a Bullet frame.

The other side of the coin is that BMW R1100R I had. 5 years old, but an unreliable pig due to over complex engine electrics. It was on it's way the third time it died in traffic. Parts weren't that bad, but you can't afford to keep a FI ECU just in case. The value was such it made sense to get shot before it took a huge drop.

If a bike is generally reliable, does what you need it to do and can be kept going without superhuman effort, I'd try and keep it.

Andy

[Steffan]

I'm with Andy on this one. My MZ is over 20years old and still starts and runs nicely, although I suspect Bullet parts may be cheaper now. I think some bikes lend themselves to being like mechano for grown ups and others well when they're gone they're gone.

Personally for me the issue is ownership, modern biking (nice new reliable) has become a bit like lend lease. You pay a wad of cash for the bike and then you pay further installments at regular intervals to have it serviced and there is three parts of bugger all that you can do yourself so in effect the dealer/manufacturer owns you. The sod of it all is that emission laws are facilitating this in a big way.

It comes down to balancing one's affection for a particular machine against the cost and time. Mind you if you fix it, or even bodge it properly in the first place then question hardly arises. For example the problem with my brake disc on the skorpion at the annual rally wasn't a case of unreliability on the part of the bike but one of me not having done the job properly when I refitted it. So it come down to learning about the particular bike in question and not letting little problems get away from you.

Steffan
Who has learned that where Bullets are concerned locktite is the new copperslip

[squirrelciv]

Suppose it boils down to the owners attitude. I think the longer any machine can be kept going properly the greater the reduction in the environmental cost in producing it. But alot relies on the owner. If things have not been properly maintained, the bike will run poorly, break down and cost heaps to keep. However if all has been looked after, no reason for a bike (or any other machine come to think of it) not to keep on rolling for years.
Trouble is, we live in a throwaway society, modern machines are not expected to last and their owners don't want them too, they'd much rather buy the latest model next year.
I think the problem with most older bikes that are getting ready for the scrap heap is it's too late for them to be kept rolling. You can't start the careful maintenance policy after the first 60,000 miles, the damage would have been done by then. The best plan is to buy a relatively modern simple bike (say a 12 year old Dommie) that has a simple, reliable uncomplicated motor with low mileage (say like my 12 year old Dommie) and keep up with regular maintenance (like I do) and keep her till your too old to cock your leg over the seat (as I intend to do ) 

[Bruce]

You are probaly expecting this rant from me.My Norton is now 56 years old and I can now get spares and bits for it easier than when I bought it in 1972.I paid £15-00 (mot d and taxed) for it .The value of it is now about £1000-00.

[guest27]

And Bruce - I am guessing here - but my old Triton used to manage 50+mpg despite the open pipes and carbs, lumpy cam etc.  Seperate gearbox oil meant that gear oil was used for the gears and engine oil for the engine - making the oil in both cases last longer.

So I guess part of the answer is - depends on the bike.  It may be environmentally more sound to 'improve' an old Brit than run a newer Jap?

R

[Andy M]

And Bruce - I am guessing here - but my old Triton used to manage 50+mpg despite the open pipes and carbs, lumpy cam etc.  Seperate gearbox oil meant that gear oil was used for the gears and engine oil for the engine - making the oil in both cases last longer.

So I guess part of the answer is - depends on the bike.  It may be environmentally more sound to 'improve' an old Brit than run a newer Jap?

R

I think it's the old middle technology rule on the green stuff. Bruces Norton was made in a coal fired, asbestos covered, lead painted world, but that damage is done and it now turns in 50+ mpg. Something like that R1100R I had still had it's fair share of chrome and thermoset plastics and turned in 41 mpg regardless. A 2007 model should have every part marked for recycling, be made to meet all the up to date regs and turn in 50+.

Of course, not making the 2007 BM saves even more resources!

Andy

[guest7]

Has anyone thought to factor in the amount of time an owner has to spend keeping an older vehicle running?

What cost do we put on our time?
GC

[guest27]

Ahh but against that cost has to be the cost of the therapy you avoid by tinkering in the shed, the cost of all the stuff SWMBO gets you doing when you are in the house - any chance on that thunderbox BTW? - and the cost of kids toys etc from playing with them.

R

[squirrelciv]

Has anyone thought to factor in the amount of time an owner has to spend keeping an older vehicle running?

What cost do we put on our time?
GC

Ah but if you do it little and often, it remains a hobby, something that always costs (think golf/stamp collecting/photography etc etc). It's only when it's left till things get terminal and the bikes off road for a week that maintenance becomes a ball aching chore.
Keep things up together by popping out the shed once a week (and so escape the demands of beloved wife and screeming children), and the little jobs can seem like pure therapy 

[Steve H]

Has anyone thought to factor in the amount of time an owner has to spend keeping an older vehicle running?

What cost do we put on our time?
GC

Part of the reason for running the bikes that I do is because I like fixing/tampering/fiddling/breaking them, I see it as part and parcel of the ownership thing. A new bike would not be quite the same.
To be fair I dont use mine for commuting every day so my circumstances differ.
I also run older cheap cars, since i hate working on cars I find it a pain when they break, but that said its a damm sight cheaper, and if it takes time to fix I have the bike as a backup.