Not forgetting that most people with SS600 bikes have alarms on them.. I know my insurance company said that it had to have an alarm on it, or they wouldnt insure me.. even though its locked up in a garage all night anyway... where as most SV650's do not have alarms... (well from the bunch I know anyway)

plus since when do insurance companies go by statistics ? :lol:
If it looks good, and go's good.. then its potentialy very nickable.. hence higher insurance (plus it costs almost twice as much as an SV brand new) and uglier bikes tend to cost less to insure...

as for me, Im paying less now for insuring the Kwak than when I insured the SV when I had it 15 months ago... all thats different is one extra years NCB and riding experience...

Ever thought biking is not your thing :roll:

I would assume that there is a greater opportunity to nick SV's as they are more likely to be parked on the road than an SS600, less likely to be hidden away for 5 months of the year like an SS600 and more likely to be used for commuting and parked up somewhere in public all day. As high mileage commuter bikes I would have thought the demand for stolen spares to replace collision damage or wear and tear would also be as high as for an SS600.

If anything the SV is harder to ride and more likely to be crashed or at best no more likely to be crashed than an SS600. There reaches a point where the bike is so quick that anything quicker doesn't really raise the danger levels. I'd say the SV maybe has a higher performance to braking/handling ratio than an SS600...

I dunno, I always suspect that the insurance companies are taking the ****. I can't see how they can justify a 50% premium increase.

I have owned or do own 2, 4, 9 and 11. Hmmmmm