I’ve been thinking, when buying a fresh bike; what’s your criteria with mileage? Do you prefer a good condition bike with average mileage 2-3k a year? Or low mileage examples even if overall condition of the machine isn’t as good? For me reasonable mileage is preferable as long as bike is in very good condition. With an older bike I’m very wary of low mileage, there’s usually a simple reason for low mileage (we all have families!) but I worry if a bike only does a few miles a year what wear does it cause when it does get used? Previously I’ve ranged from doing 3k a year to 300, I’ve bought a bike before that did zero miles between two mots then 25 before the next which was my test ride. Admittedly this bike was 4 years old and had 3500k on it when I bought it. My blade is almost 11 years old (07) and I bought it last month with 23500 on the clock. I could have got a bike with 5009miles in my budget but would have had to deal with cosmetic issues that needed sorting (“storage marks”) Interested in your views/opinions/expert advice etc.
Other thing I look for is corrosion. I’m very much a summer biker winter polisher and any corrosion related to winter riding and externally stored when it’s obvious the machine hasn’t been “loved” is a big big no no for me, over everything else.
I personally don’t wish to have a bike with 35k plus mileage. Probably due to a previous one spitting out a piston at 36k miles. Therefore when I look to buy a bike I generally consider that I may put c10k miles on in my ownership and therefore I tend to look at sub 25k miles. If the condition issue is minor and I can sort easily, then I’d typically go for low mileage. Anyone know how well these bikes cope engine wise with high mileage?
My 2009 bike was a 1 owner from new with 6000 miles on the clock when I bought it. Having looked at the service history (which is complete) and the MOT's I could see that in the last 4 years before I bought it, the bike had only done 300 or so miles in between each MOT. All I could assume is that the previous owner didn't have that much time to ride it and other than minimal furring on bits like brake levers and the rear sets it was more or less like a brand new bike.....I've since tidied up said furyness and now it's just a low milage 1 previous owner minter which I can only see is a good thing. You've got to remember that some people buy bikes and dry store them as investments or buy with the best intentions of riding them but for whatever reason it just doesn't work out that way, It can't do them any harm If they're not getting much use. I'm a big believer in the philosophy of........"what is one man's loss.......is another man's gain" so for me , yeah I'd rather have a bike that's seen as little of action as possible, that way I get to feel that I'm getting the best of what the bike has to offer, rather than some clapped out lemon that someone's smashed the shit out of all its life.......only you'll never know or get to hear about that part of a bikes life!
I agree with both of you in different levels. I guess to summarise; when you are looking for a fresh bike what do you look at first? Mileage or overall mechanical and cosmetic condition? Would a minter with high mileage put you off in comparison to an aged lower mileage bike? Obviously the dream is to find a minter with low miles like you did Paulo. Not all bikes with low mileage don’t come with a less than desirable “hidden” history. I guess it’s a fact of life for what most people use sportsbikes for: speed. Jordan, I’m exactly like that too. I think if resale potential after 3-5 years and add that to the mix. I have a limit I’d ideally 2k a year. Mines slightly over that but for condition I was willing to compromise. In all honestly, mechanical failure can happen at any time and at any mileage somewhat regardless of any preventative measures we take and/or being on top of maintenance. Once a bike is out of warranty it’s somewhat pot luck with whatever you buy. We can take all precautions but in most cases it’s not enough. Reason of my asking is my 07 blade with 23500 on the clock is in better condition and seems to be built a lot better than my friends 12 R6 with 5k miles on. His isn’t corroded but looks somewhat tired. The biggest thing for him was low mileage; not condition (ended biting him on the arse as it’s a cat d). Looking over it the signs are there; homemade extra fairing bracket screwed into back of nose, after market exhaust on that side without standard etc (that’s what you get for not checking and not viewing the bike at all until delivery). Just wondered what the general consensus was.
Very good question for debate. As one who has recently 're-entered' the bike scene, I can easily contribute. In November I purchased my 2011, based INITIALLY on appearance. The tri-colour is (to me) striking, so I guess first impressions always count. (Some months earlier I had declined an orange/silver 2011 with 5,000 miles on it) The tri-colour had 15,000, which is a bit high, but not dangerously so. (In saying that, I have seen nice-looking 60,000 milers - but wouldn't buy one.) Since then, I have purchased a 5,000 miler MV F4 and a mint 5,000 miler 04 Blade. (Please don't see this as bragging or big-noting. It is MY 'warped' form of a Pension Plan - enjoy fruits of life while we can). My view is that any low mileage bike will have been well cared for. Whilst many of us are not true 'collectors' we see value and prestige in a low miler. This can be verified by the common statement: 'Look at my bike; it's done ONLY XXX miles. We know the bike will be in great condition and offer reliability. So far as 'age damage', there was once a train of thought that when a bike is started after a long time sitting, the cylinder bores would 'score' because all lubrication had drained to the sump. Fair enough point. However, with today's superior oils, that is not so much of a problem, although while a couple of mine are rarely used, I still like to run them on a 10-mile loop at least once a fortnight. Then we have to put up with the 'why don't you ride it instead of pussy it' brigade. Each to their own, I say. In conclusion, high mileage wouldn't put me off if I saw evidence of the bike being cared for. Your 23,500 miles is no concern for you, and as a careful owner you're doing the right thing. A bit of OCD never hurt anyone - except those who don't have it!
Very true Nigel. In all honesty I wouldn’t buy something with over 25k unless it was immaculate. For me condition comes first but the lower the mileage the better. You done very well to get such a good rr4 with the mileage!
A lot of it is about the 'right place at the right time'. A collector had it, and the story goes that he bought it from a police auction after it was seized as proceeds of drug funds. Was apparently in a police compound (indoors) for 5 years. Mileage substantiated through MOTs. You might recall this thread: I'd actually recommended the bike to another member! https://www.1000rr.co.uk/threads/looking-for-a-blade.34844/ . . . and then temptation got the better of me
I do a lot of miles so ideally look for something with as lower miles as possible to start with, My current bike was nearly 3 years old when I bought it with only 300 miles on the clock and as you could imagine, As new condition. Admittedly suspicious at the beginning Especially as the bike was 500 miles away but after speaking with the guy over a few weeks didn’t have any problems doing the journey, I didn’t even get to ride the bike as it was thick ice when we got here but it was as he discribed and brand new. I have put 30k on it since and it’s still going strong without any issues.
Current bike was brand new in 2013, and it is only at 7,100 miles. It's not been intentional either. I'd have loved to have done 20 odd thousand miles on it. I'd be more wary of the likes of the more expensive bikes (ducati eg), having known a guy who went to the TT with us who turned his clocks off when there so as not to run up mileage.
When buying a bike i tend to go for one that has sub 10k miles on her. Make sure it reasonably clean bodywork wise and no major mechanical issues. Not to fussed about the other stuff as i'm fairly confident at servicing my own bikes. Lets face it just cause it has a bit of paper saying it has had this and that done. Can you be sure it has without proof or delving in deeper?? I bought my RR9 in April 2014. It had 3 owners from new and had done a pitiful 3409 miles. When I picked her up she looked great no obvious issues. After a few months I begun doing mods and came across things like both seat bolts been chewed to buggery, the RHS middle fairing bracket was missing and was built up of scrap pieces of plastic. The bottom bellypan showed signs of melting in places, the front discs had been replaced because the previous owner used a heavy duty chain through the discs and they were bent, and the front wheel bearings were a little rough. These jobs were all easily rectified by myself and i've now got her up to a more respectful 8352 miles. I have also changed the coolant and the fork fluid, fitted HEL lines front & back, fitted an LV GP Pro exhaust with PC 5 and O2 eliminator. She's got bonamicci rearsets with HM Plus QS, ASV long levers, R&G tail tidy and rad guard, re greased all the shock linkage, fitted GB racing covers, PAIR mod block off, Sprint air filter, two oil changes, oh and a Gear indicator ;-0
Many owners seem to think gear indicators are a bit woosy. Whilst not essential, I believe they are a great 'riding aid'. Sure, we usually know what gear we're in, but it certainly saves going for sixth when you're already in it. Have a PZ Racing one on my 2011, and the 2018 has it standard.
