High horsepower bikes does not equal "more dangerous"

[Lovedoc]

ummm, this is how insurance companies feel about literbikes. In 2005, one out every 444 sportbike riders died riding.

Link edited for quote
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr091107.html


Popularity of high-performance motorcycles helps push rider deaths to near-record high

ARLINGTON, VA — Supersports have the highest death rates and worst overall insurance losses among all types of motorcycles, new analyses by the Institute and Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) reveal. Motorcyclists who ride supersports have driver death rates per 10,000 registered motorcycles nearly 4 times higher than rates for motorcyclists who ride all other types of bikes.

Motorcyclist fatalities have more than doubled in 10 years and reached 4,810 in 2006, accounting for 11 percent of total highway fatalities, preliminary counts from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicate.

In an Institute analysis of deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, supersport drivers had a death rate of 22.6 in 2000 and 22.5 in 2005. Death rates for other types of motorcycles were much lower.

Crash characteristics: Speed was cited in 57 percent of supersport riders’ fatal crashes in 2005 and 46 percent of the fatal crashes of sport and unclad sport riders. Speed was a factor in 27 percent of fatal crashes among riders on cruisers and standards and 22 percent on touring motorcycles.

“Supersport motorcycles have such elevated crash death rates and insurance losses because many people ride them as if they were on a racetrack,” McCartt says. Short of banning supersport and sport motorcycles from public roadways, capping the speed of these street-legal racing machines at the factory might be one way to reduce their risk.”

Insurance collision and theft losses: Not only does motorcycle class influence driver death rates but it also has a major bearing on insurance losses. Supersport motorcycles had the highest overall collision coverage losses among 2002-06 model bikes, almost 4 times higher than losses for touring motorcycles and more than 6 times higher than cruisers, a HLDI analysis reveals. Nine of the 10 motorcycles with the highest losses were supersports. The Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R, a 1,000 cc supersport, topped the worst list, with collision losses more than 9 times the average. Five of the 10 motorcycles with the highest overall losses had engine displacements of 1,000 cc or larger.

Claim frequency is driving the high overall losses among supersport motorcycles, meaning that supersports are involved in more collisions in relation to their numbers on the road than other motorcycles. Supersports had a claim frequency of 9 claims per 100 insured vehicle years, compared with a frequency of 2.3 for all 2002-06 models.

Supersport motorcycles are popular targets for thieves, too. Their average theft loss payments per insured vehicle year (a vehicle year is 1 vehicle insured for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months, etc.) were more than 7 times higher than the average for all 2002-06 motorcycles.

“We found a strong correlation between motorcycle class and insurance losses, with supersports showing up time and again as having far higher losses than other types of motorcycles.” says Kim Hazelbaker, HLDI senior vice president.

 

[louemc]

Hey, ZX-10's aren't for everyone

You did note that I only get charged $80.00 a year for my McGraw insurance, didn't you?

 

[GAJ]

Before that $80 makes ANY sense, we'd have to know details of your coverages...which you indicated were minimal.

Also, the SF Metro area is #5 out of 88 metro areas in terms of likelihood of a crash according to Progressive Insurance; 40% more likely than an "average" metro area, more than DOUBLE that of Stockton. These are the latest stats they have:

http://newsroom.progressive.com/2006/february/motorcycle-statistics.aspx

 

[louemc]

That coverage isn't for you So it doesn't matter to you

 

[GAJ]

True; $80 for zero coverage is certainly not for me.

Of course, down here we ride year round and have to have year round coverage; up at the North Pole where you are, you can't so your info would be worthless anyway.

 

[Var]

Before that $80 makes ANY sense, we'd have to know details of your coverages...which you indicated were minimal.

That sounds about right for minimum liability. It's cheap because bikes are a low liability in danger to the public.

 

[louemc]

Right, Var , and I've had a clean driving record, (cage and Alfa Dog bike) for so long, and I have no threat of bike theft, where I live (and how I use the bike here) all it takes is the Minimum to satisfy the state.

 

[Feanor]

Just as many on this board are constantly suspicious of my reasons for apparently trying to justify a literbike, I am suspicious of an industry that goes out of its way to call something inappropriately dangerous when when their revenue is based on that. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous, but quoting the insurance industry to prove how dangerous something is is like watching Gone with the Wind to try and peek up Scarlett O'Hara's dress looking for porn.

Of course a liter sportbike is not practical for streets, but it isn't impractical to the point of throwing the idea out either. I've ridden around on my wife's monster, and it's fun, but I enjoy the ZX more. Some may not believe this, and am sure that I must be keeping hideous back pain a secret, but trust me, if it hurt my back, I would be the first to jump off the thing. Truth be told the Monster hurts my back more. I think it must be the way the shock travel straight up the back, rather than more transversely when you're leaned over forward.

Remember that the insurance lobby every 7-8 years tries to in some way ban or restrict motorcycles. So be careful whose bed you choose to sleep in

I'm looking at my State Farm policy right now 1m/1m Liability 1m/1m Collision/comp 250/500 UIC 250 ded. My premium is $34.80 a month for a 2008 ZX-10R.

Granted I have two homes and 4 cars insured with them as well. I also have a $2m umbrella liability policy I got specifically for the bikes, that is $234 a year. SO effectively my premium is about $55 a month, but I didn't have the umbrella coverage when I owned the ZX-6R.

Stefan

 

[Psyclotron]

but quoting the insurance industry to prove how dangerous something is is like watching Gone with the Wind to try and peek up Scarlett O'Hara's dress looking for porn.

Sounds like you're speaking from experience

Granted I have two homes and 4 cars insured with them as well. I also have a $2m umbrella liability policy I got specifically for the bikes, that is $234 a year.

Stefan

Well I have all that and whorehouse chlamydia infection insurance through State Farm but they have NO group discounts on moto policies!

 

[Feanor]

Sounds like you're speaking from experience

I am! I think that my original feelings of sexual repression actually began because I could never see her legs!

Well I have all that and whorehouse chlamydia infection insurance through State Farm but they have NO group discounts on moto policies!

Are you certain? My insurance agent went on and on about how much I save on my moto insurance because I have my homes and cars with State Farm. I remember she specifically quoted me savings numbers on the motorcycles before.

I'll talk to her again next week when I see her.

Stefan

 

[Psyclotron]

I am! I think that my original feelings of sexual repression actually began because I could never see her legs!



Are you certain? My insurance agent went on and on about how much I save on my moto insurance because I have my homes and cars with State Farm. I remember she specifically quoted me savings numbers on the motorcycles before.

I'll talk to her again next week when I see her.

Stefan

Strange. My agent in San Rafael, and our regular agent here, Andrew, both insist otherwise

 

[GAJ]

Strange. My agent in San Rafael, and our regular agent here, Andrew, both insist otherwise

Mine too!

I actually am paying $500/year more for my 3 bikes with State Farm but with the umbrella, if I didn't have the bikes with them, that would have been $500 more so its kind of a wash...so now everything is with State Farm.

If I didn't have an umbrella 'cause I didn't have that much to lose, (ie. young with few assets), I'd have stayed with Progressive.

But yes, Feanor, I have heard that for some, especially with back issues, the clip-on position CAN be more comfy.

I'm actually regretting putting convertibars on my TL but I haven't really raised them more than 2 inches above the clip-on height because I have to modify the fairing stays to get the height I likely need. The convertibars are marginally wider than the clipons and it feels a bit weird. When I do mod the fairing stays, and can raise the convertibars more, I might be happier 'cause I certainly preffered the stance of my SM and ST to the clipons.

But really, for experienced riders who are capable of handling most kind of sporty bikes, whatever makes you most comfortable and confident in your particular riding environment is probably what counts most.

For you and Lou it's the ZX10, but for me, the literbike, (far from a ZX10 mind you), is the bike I ride least up here in the Northbay. The others' are just more fun for me now as I slowly put age 50 in the rear view!

Fun is what I'm after...and if that's what you're after and your ZX10 delivers, more power to you.

 

[louemc]

Uhh, it should be noted that Lou's ZX-10 has flat tracker (or street fighter) handle bars.

I sit on that bike like a normal (standard, dual sport, Motard, etc) but with the performance of the ZX-10.

The chassis has been set up for tight twisties, with a steeper (as steep as the forks can be set) fork angle, and 180/55 rear tire instead of the 190/50 that came on it.

The 05 (first gen) ZX-10 is lighter and quicker responding than the other ZX-10's (that was what Kawasaki was calming down, to aid the control on the tracks, with the changes they made to the second/third gen's) and then quicker flick than stock with my set-up. That makes it a Hoot in the canyons

(so Lou's ZX-10 and anyone elses ZX-10, are two different, ZX-10's)

 

[Feanor]

Uhh, it should be noted that Lou's ZX-10 has flat tracker (or street fighter) handle bars.

I sit on that bike like a normal (standard, dual sport, Motard, etc) but with the performance of the ZX-10.

The chassis has been set up for tight twisties, with a steeper (as steep as the forks can be set) fork angle, and 180/55 rear tire instead of the 190/50 that came on it.

The 05 (first gen) ZX-10 is lighter and quicker responding than the other ZX-10's (that was what Kawasaki was calming down, to aid the control on the tracks, with the changes they made to the second/third gen's) and then quicker flick than stock with my set-up. That makes it a Hoot in the canyons

(so Lou's ZX-10 and anyone elses ZX-10, are two different, ZX-10's)

Interesting! And this raises a question for me. When you put the 180/55 on the rear, doesn't that flatten the profile of the 180 because you're putting it on a wider rim then it was intended for? I have no idea but someone was mentioning this to me once. They had said that when you put a 180/55 on a 190 rim you pull the bead farther apart so that you end up with a tire that has a flatter profile than a 190/50-55.

I've never tried it so I don't really know.

When you say you have a 180 tire on the back, did you change the wheel too?

Stefan

 

[GAJ]

I put a 180/55 on the stock wheel of my TL and it made a world of difference in a positive way; helped it turn in much better.

Maybe next time I'll try a 190/55, but for the street, the 180 has plenty of rubber IMO.

Some say it can't work because of some drawing on paper; for me, on the road, it was a great move.

 

[louemc]

Interesting! And this raises a question for me. When you put the 180/55 on the rear, doesn't that flatten the profile of the 180 because you're putting it on a wider rim then it was intended for? I have no idea but someone was mentioning this to me once. They had said that when you put a 180/55 on a 190 rim you pull the bead farther apart so that you end up with a tire that has a flatter profile than a 190/50-55.

I've never tried it so I don't really know.

When you say you have a 180 tire on the back, did you change the wheel too?

Stefan

I didn't change the rear rim. Someone can say anything (maybe on their bike and where they ride, they had a valid reason for saying it, who knows).

I'm saying that size change, on my bike, and my use, was like a divine revelation of making the bike work right.

Do yourself a favor and don't overthink things based on so called physics and geometry that you don't actually have experience with.

The different brands will have different tire profiles, so that will skew the behavour as well.

Do yourself a favor and have Pirelli Diablo Corsa III's mounted up, so you can experience a neutral profile, and how that works on the public road corners. That will give you a reference base, to understand what is "real" when someone makes claims about their tires, as well.

 

[GAJ]

When you put the 180/55 on the rear, doesn't that flatten the profile of the 180 because you're putting it on a wider rim then it was intended for? I have no idea but someone was mentioning this to me once. They had said that when you put a 180/55 on a 190 rim you pull the bead farther apart so that you end up with a tire that has a flatter profile than a 190/50-55

Here's the pic of the different profiles on the same rim I've seen before; it is on post #20:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282674&page=2

Between my experience, Lou's and Bluenote's, all saying to the 180/55, I'm guessing you're well over 100 years of moto experience if that makes any diff.

 

[Feanor]

I didn't change the rear rim. Someone can say anything (maybe on their bike and where they ride, they had a valid reason for saying it, who knows).

I'm saying that size change, on my bike, and my use, was like a divine revelation of making the bike work right.

Do yourself a favor and don't overthink things based on so called physics and geometry that you don't actually have experience with.

The different brands will have different tire profiles, so that will skew the behavour as well.

Do yourself a favor and have Pirelli Diablo Corsa III's mounted up, so you can experience a neutral profile, and how that works on the public road corners. That will give you a reference base, to understand what is "real" when someone makes claims about their tires, as well.

oops! I got the numbers a bit mixed up... It seems that the article might have been about slapping a 190 tire on a 180 (5.5") rim and how that was considered to NOT be a good thing.

Would a literbike chew thru a 180/55 significantly faster than thru a 190/55? or would it make little to no difference?

Stefan

 

[Aluisious]

Y'know riding around my 600 today got me to thinking...a 600 is really "too much" for the street.

There's very seldom an appropriate time to use all the available torque. Riding around 15-20mph twisties, even cracking the throttle slightly is almost too much in the corners.

I don't really know how a 1000 could be better. It just seems overkill, like hitting a nail with a sledgehammer. I often think I'd have more fun in the twisties on a 400 or a 250, because there's more usable powerband.

Even on the track, I hardly ever wish I had more power than a 600. The only folks who pass me on a literbike are better at cornering than I am and would whup me on a 600 anyway.

 

[aciurczak]

Y'know riding around my 600 today got me to thinking...a 600 is really "too much" for the street.

Your F4 is actually much better suited for street duty than almost all of the ones that followed it. Yours actually has some midrange. Ride a 05+ R6 and you might be surprised what a difference there is in a motorcycle engine tuned excusively for high-end racetrack power.

Modern 600's and 1000's both make much more peak horsepower than any sane individual would ever unleash on the street. By a factor of 4 on the 600's, and perhaps a factor of 6 or more on the 1000's. Of course it's overkill. But in the case of 600's, many of them make almost no power until they get the snot revved out of them. So they feel unresponsive. Nudge the throttle, and nothing happens. Unless you're at 9K+ and really getting on it, and then it turns into a beast. A 1000 doesn't have that issue; at any point in the rev range, nudge the throttle and something happens. It feels responsive, without the need to downshift a few gears. From a powerband standpoint, it's a closer approximation of the rider's brain directly connected to the rear tire via the throttle.

None of this makes 1000's universally better. And by no means does it mean the average (or even skilled) rider can go faster or safer in any street situation. But I can certainly see how some perceive them to be more fun. I do. I greatly prefer a 1000 to a 600 on the street for all the reasons above. I prefer a 600 on track. But if I can only have one for double-duty, the 1000 works better for me; I just know that I'm getting a very small slice of what it can do while on track (or street, for that matter).