1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Prompted by the fact that several members have very recently passed their tests and been fortunate enough to buy a brand new machine. My question is:

Is a new bike better?

For: Guaranteed history, everything works as it should, dealer support if it doesn't, feel good factor.

Against: Brakes need bedding in, tyres too, lower top speed whilst running in, constant scanning of rev counter to ensure you're not overrevving it in the running in period, feel bad factor should you drop it.

In the olden days, some members may remember, you used to have a "Running In" sticker that you put on the rear of the vehicle but in these impatient times I imagine that as you bimble along at 65 (5k in top on an SV) there will be a vehicle inches from your rear tyre pressurising you to speed up. Not good for a newly qualified rider. Also cornering can be ruined, you set yourself up for a long sweeper then hit the RI limit and have to do it on a feathered throttle. Same with overtakes. Of course you can momentarily exceed the RI limit but is it an added pressure that a newbie could do without?

The biggest advantage with a new bike from a riding point of view, IMO, is that it gives you a chance to acclimatise yourself to it and to grow as the RI limits increase with the miles rather than getting on a S/H machine and being able to rag the proverbials off it from the get go.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I had my SV new but purely because my history with buying vehicles used was absolutely shocking and I always end up with complete dogs/money pits.

I think its purely personal preference really buying new or used as a first bike.

Running in could be seen as a good thing for new riders as its (if they follow the factory rules) restricts them initially. I had to take it easy when I passed as I was running in, it probably saved me a couple of times as I didnt go out and hoon everywhere straight away.

At the same time running in doesnt have to be a slow process, with my latest bike I was told the dealer could run it in for me on the dyno within 30 miles or I could pick one of two ways to run it in on the road, the factory 500/600 miles way keeping it under 7krpm which they didnt recommend as its the engine under correct load which works all the seals etc.

Or using all the revs in each gear a couple of times then move up a gear and doing the same, so bedding in can be done in 50miles or so.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Best reason not to buy new = the amount you will lose in the first year

Far better to buy a year old 2nd hand one that you know has been looked after

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

The rev ceiling can be pushed if need be though, if a situation arose. 1000 miles of steady gentle riding on a big bike before you can push it? Sounds like a bonus :thumbsup:

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I bought new after having a second hand CBR600 lemon, being a mechanical moron and not knowing any friendly mechanics in the area to give an honest opinion.
the running in wasn't that bad (I had to do it twice after binning my first one) but it does get you more used to the feel of it before you get let loose on the whole lot, I guess it depends how many miles you do as a necessity or can do for pleasure, if you can only get out for an hour or so each week then the run in period could last ages but mine was only a couple of weeks I think.

horses for courses though, if you have decent knowledge of how to fix stuff and know what you are looking for then second hand is without doubt the best way to go for value but if you aren't familiar with the intricacies and just want to get out and ride then new can be the best way to go.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I'd have to say second hand purely for financial reasons. There are so many mint condition 2nd hand bikes out there for nearly half the price of the brand new machine - I bought my 2005 sv in december 07 for just under 3 grand with only 500 miles on the clock - just run in!

I could have gone and bought one for 4600 or whatever the rrp is and lost nearly 2 grand in the first year. I've got a feeling at somepoint the market will have to re-align itself if too many people buy 2nd hand and not enough new machines appear on the roads each year (but according to bike mag, there were something like 500 2008 fireblades registerred last month so there should be plenty of options in the market)...

If you really want a particular bike in a certain condition, and you can't find it in the 2nd hand market then that's the time to buy new :)

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Ok, you buy a new bike. You then spend another fortune either fixing the stuff the stealer should have done on the PDI, or so called trick bits that serve no purpose beyond cosmetics. (Thinks of neighbour who has carbon fibre wheels, speed changer, M4 system, £3000 spent on the engine, a futher £600 on a Winston paint job etc.) Fast as feck. but does less than 2000 miles a year. Nice blade to buy second hand as all those extras never recoup there value.

Next, your a newbie. Those finely honed skills you got passing your test. Mean Zip. You are going to overcook it. You are going to misread the car at a junction that looked straight through you etc. Now this is where you find the bike has depreciated quicker that you are paying off a finance agreement.

My advice. Buy a good 1-2 year old bike that has been cared for. Take an experienced guy to look at it with you and pay the right price. The money you save, invest in decent leathers, a good helmet/boots. pucker insurance and advanced training.

Or do as I did, stick a old Bell open face helmet on my head, a pair of doc martin boots and learn to ride by falling off at increasing speed (ouch)

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

that sums it up for me - especially when buying as a new rider

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

New rider is going to bin their bike pretty soon.

Therefore it's probably better to have a second hand one. Oh, and depreciation of course!

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I hate the dont buy a new bike because you will fall off argument, yes everyone will fall off at some point but why let that stop you buying a new bike. My girlfriends dad went 27 something years without binning a bike......lots of people do. My time is no doubt coming anytime soon but it wouldnt stop me buyng a new bike I would fix it or the insurance would.

Statistically i bet more new riders dont fall off in the first year than actually do.

I dont think depreciation really has anything to do with the new bike/new rider discussion. The depreciation will be the same whether your a new rider or whether you have been riding 40 years. If you dont like deprecition you will never have anything new, but its irrelevant when discussing whats best for a 'new' rider.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

You see I consider anything new to be a money pit - depreciation (and initial high outlay unless 0% APR)

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Agreed apart from the fact that a new rider is less likely to know what they want in terms of type of bike or even biking at all. So more likely to be seeling within a year I would suggest?

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I didnt!

I did buy an old but sound heap just in case I did though - made sense at the time ;)

Luckily for me though my ol man , eats, sleeps and lives bikes, can fix anything, has renovated more bikes than Ive had hot dinners ;) so buying a lemon wouldnt enter the equation. :cool:

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

My money pits have been worse than depreciation most of the time :pale: with depreciation you know its coming and roughly what the hit will be.......a ?500 bill one month and ?250 the next is very unwanted and can be a real pain in the bum.

True, there is that......but once you've tried biking you dont go back.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

If you can afford it and are planning to keep the new bike for a few years then I would say buy new. I have had great experiences on both new and second hand bikes. My SV was 18mths old from a mate so I knew it was well looked after and he wasn?t blagging me over anything. As I knew where he lived.

New is far better, that new bike smell and you know it?s been looked after because you have cared for it yourself. As for the running in yeah you are supposed to do it properly, but TBH I did for the first 300 miles got bored and rode it normally, its been fine (other than the lose connector which has nothing to do with running in) . How do you think I felt on the Kwak 4K limit as per book is 45MPH FFS!!!!!!

I am not bothered about depreciation, yes if I sold in the first two years then I would lose a lot keep it an extra year and its lost all the heavy depreciation and I will still get over 3K for it easy. More than for an equivalent SV that?s for sure.

I think when deciding whether to buy new decide upon how long you are going to keep it for and the type of bike and its depreciation.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I didn't. That is a risk but not a certainty. I actually think I am more at risk now as I start to conciously push my limits.

I thought about this and bought new because...

:cool: I was paranoid about the history

:cool: I could afford it at the time and I got an extra ?200 knocked off the retail price

:cool: I wasn't too worried about the depreciation because I had no plans to chop and change

:cool: The run in period allowed me to appreciate the change from the ER5 I learned on (for about 12 hours)


If I could afford to do it again, I may be tempted to buy new. Having said that, a good second hand machine is always going to be financially better.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

If it's like the one I had for a while it didn't even have any counter from 0 to 3k rpm - just a small gap then the rev counter started proper at 3k :o

Superb machines though when they're spun up but running in must be hellish.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I kept my SV for 13 months, did 4600miles and lost ?1100 in that year (23p a mile), but in my eyes it was still worth it and dont regret it.

Thats ?100 a month which isnt all that much, i bought mine outright for cash but cant imagine monthly fianance payment being much less than that.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I think your history means that for you, it's a sensible option to buy new. However, this is probably not true for most other people - financially. A new bike is often a heart decision, not a head one.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I might buy new if I had Loadsa money - or no money at all (0% finance is pretty attractive)

Actual policy used to be shop around for the cosmetically challenged... the SV put an end to that....was spotless - although the oil was a bit manky.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

they are still like that, dosent bother counting properly till 3K , and as far as i can see they only mark the rev counter below that so you know the engine is spinning and to tell what the idle revs are LOL

and yes once its spun up and going i can get the front to lift by quick shifting to 3rd in the powerband:cool:.

Also i am sure i have hear it whisper to me , im going to make your ar8e pucker today pal!!

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Sold for £3,500 ???? I would suggest you did very well, was that a trade in? i.e. sweetner to lure you into speding even more? as I reckon you could have had to let it go for say £3K, or am I wrong?

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I dont like buying new. Seeing my dad having to run in two bikes has made me think "forget that for a laugh". I'd rather be very careful and buy a good second hand bike, then fix al the bits that need fixing

Much like when i got my SV

Matt

P.S. plus i save dosh, as long as its not a minger

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I didnt and would never pay full RRP in the first place, I got a very good deal when I bought it:D, I got less than ?3500 for it thats for sure :( and it went as a p/x not privately :( so could have been less of a loss if I had abit more patience.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I dont understand how running a bike in can put people off buying new.

For one it lets you get used to it stadily, also it can be done in a few days, go out for a few hours every night to get to the 600 miles first service. because lets face it no one carrys on the run in after 600 miles.

also when i took the Kwak for its first service i was told by the mechanic , it needs losening up a bit more, give it some more revs mate. :confused:.

I had been running it in as by the book pretty much till that point. I took that advice as ride it normally and rag it!! so i did :p

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

If nobody buys a new bike, how are you lot going to get the mint secondhand bikes in the future.

If you can afford new then good luck, go for it!

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Ummmmmm :confused::confused::confused:

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

OK, so i did not exactly run in till 60o miles, but it proves its fine do not follow the book.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

Slightly off topic guys although some good points have been made. Not looking so much at the financial considerations but which would benefit a new inexperienced rider best.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

depends on the new bike they get. Over all i would say new, no hassle if anything goes wrong, better support for them.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

my first bike (50cc) was brand new... Big mistake.. couldnt insure it properly it was stolen and recovered left 100's out of pocket

swore never to buy new again... 2sv's a ccm and an xjr later I now have a brand new Tuono..

this was because the price difference between new and second hand was less than £500 at the time i bought... I liek shiny things so treated myself.

I buy new if i can afford it and justify it... never a new car though...

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I keep seeing this reason for getting an old 'disposable' bike as your first but its not a valid reason at all.

Theres no reason at all why you'd bin it as a new rider. Depends how sensible you are, if you are an idiot, you'll bin it whether you are new or not, if you arent, you wont.

When i was 16 and indestructible i binned my DT a fair few times cos thats the way i rode. Now i'm all growed up and got back into biking again, realise i'm no longer bulletproof, i never binned it and theres no reason to assume i ever will.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

i will be looking for a bike in the next two months but will def be getting 2nd hand, you can get a new SV for over 4k or get a 2007 with low milage for about 3200 (maybe down to 3k with some good haggling) and thats fully faired with extras, so its just the case of if 1k+ is worth a year in age

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

The reason is inexperience, which weighs heavily on new riders! It doesn't take riding like an idiot to cause a crash. In fact more often than not I'd say it's just a simple and genuine mistake. Beginners make more mistakes - that's a fact.

It's about time that people realised that because they personally have not done something (like bin a bike when a new rider) does not mean that it is impossible! One case not proving the rule and all that.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

id go second hand first off, if u dont drop it then thats a bonus!

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I agree used is best.
Not every new rider bins the bike but inexperience must make it more likely.Insurance companies have stats on this and charge more accordingly,so Id go with an old but sound curvy for two years after my test.They are easy to service yourself too,so you can learn basic maintenance too.
The fact that all this would save a fortune applies equally to new and old riders.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I passed my test on Tuesday so am certainly a new rider.

I bought a 54 plate with 950 miles on it for £2.5k with a few extras. Never been out in the wet, and absolutely like new. Much better condition than my mates 6 month old one because he's been using it.

I thought about a brand new one, but that would probably make me skimp on clothes, helmet etc. So as I needed to buy everything I thought it would be best to save money on the bike and make sure I get the right kit.

That and I couldn't stomach losing 25% of its value in the first year.

My mate bought his brand new because he was skint and the 0% finance makes it very affordable.

Running in wouldn't put me off at all. I've done 150 miles on my bike since Tuesday without even trying. It would be nice to have the 'control yourself' period as has been said when new on a bike.

How has that been proved? My understanding of running in isn't something that will either work or not work, its about the bores being worn in correctly so that the cylinder pressures are correct for the long run.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

That sounds like a very sensible buy but as its "as new"you will still have to be careful not to drop it.Enjoy.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I's horses for courses. There is no right or wrong. I would of gone 2nd hand but for 4k a brand new bike with 0% finance you can't complain can you?

but a 54 plate with 1k miles on for 2.5k would of worked out about £700 cheaper for me at the time.

If someone had offered me a decent 2nd hand bike and i knew what i knew now i would of gone with it. My SV 9 months down the line and 6k miles might be worth less than £3k but it's my toy.

And as Pete said on WWR4 "If your gonna keep the bike, spend money on it" so as i'm gonna keep the SV for at least 2 years buying new will work out. If you buy new and sell within 2 years it's not worth it as you get a £1500-£2000 loss compared to keeping it for 4 years and coming out with a £2000-£2500 loss.

Re: 1st Bike. New or S/H. Which is better
 

I also believe it's not something you will see immediately, and requires some long-term tests. There's a guide out there that suggests the best way to run in the bike is to use all revs from the start, to seat the rings and get the best seal between piston & cylinder. According to this, after the first 100 or so miles you won't be able to alter the rings, so everything has to be done then.

I can see their point, but there is also a counter-theory to that, that says that it shortens the life of the engine (I am not sure if it means a specific failure, or just that it increases the wear) - and I can also see the point made there.

What I've done is run them in with the rev limits by the book, but making sure there is plenty of hard acceleration up to the "prescribed" limit, as well as then letting it back off slowly too (I'd been told that as a tip, no idea if it's true, but it makes logical sense to me - same thing as the acceleration but the other way around).

I tend to stick to the given limits for one main reason though - guides on the internet do NOT supply your warranty...Suzuki may never find out, but if you had a problem & they were able to find out (bearing in mind I've heard some bikes will record data such as revs used) you might be in for a bumpy warranty claim! I'm willing to trade a few extra bhp for a guaranteed intact warranty - there are plenty of mods that I could do to increase the power anyway.