It's funny that I originally used economy as a justification for purchasing a bike. But that's a myth, unless that becomes you're only transportation and you park the car, don't register it, and drop it's insurance.
The added costs of more frequent tire changes and other maintenance, plus the cost of the vehicle, insurance, etc, etc. Means you really need to save mucho denero on fuel alone before you even come close to breaking even.
Doesn't mean it's not more energy conscience to use though. The ONLY thing that is affected is my fuel consumption, my costs are higher because I still have two vehicles.
I dont know that I agree with it being a myth on saving money. In your case, perhaps. Keep this in mind;
1. You would have a bike anyway, because you love bikes. To factor the cost of the bike in, I don't know
2. Same for insurance. I would have my bike insured, regardless if I rode it to work. It's really not an extra cost for me
3. I will save me well over $1,300 per year in fuel alone based on riding only 3 days per week, and only 45 weeks per year. I was conservative based on weather, vacations, etc. . That's the difference between my Saleen SC getting 15MPG and running Super, and the FJR getting 40+ running regular. It guess I have a longer commute than most, but again I would have the FJR regardless if I rode it to work, so even with buying tires, it saves me money. :bike:
It definitely depends on what you're accounting for. As I said, I originally thought that the economy was a reason for purchasing. That purchase was my other bike, which I only spent $4k on originally, not the $13k+ spent on the FJR.
Prior to that I was sans commutable motorcycle.
My choices in vehicles to commute in (currently) are:
2000 ford Excursion 11MPG no matter what, up hill down hill towing or not, it's 11mpg.
1993 Ford Econoline Van ~17-21 MPG
1999 Chrysler Cirrus, ~20-24 MPG
Certainly my FJR and for that matter the ZX-11 which also runs in the mid 40's in MPG, it could be double to
4x the efficiency of any chosen vehicle on any chosen day.
If you do assume that you're going to have one anyway, so the costs of 'ownership' don't count, then you only have to think about what putting those miles on the bike vs the car costs you.
Tires cost the same or in most of my cases more except for the Excursion, but I only get 6500 or so miles out of a set. I can shoe most vehicles for the cost of two sets of moto tires, and get $50k miles or more.
I also have far more aggressive oil change intervals as well on the bike.
Factor in gear you might need because you commute that you wouldn't otherwise have, etc, etc.
The reality is you could spin this to what ever advantage you want by what you elect to include as the costs of commuting.
It's a wash in my book, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more fun.
Now, if my only choice was the 11mpg Excursion vs the FJR, and I commuted farther and the cost of gas was $5.00 a gallon then it *could* swing the other way.
, I use to take the trusty steed daily 27 miles each way, for the first 1.5 years.
