starboy869
Well-known member
Buy tires from the states. I got a quote for new tires for my vf1000r and what a rear tire would cost me here I could buy front and rear from the usa.
Used bikes, and sellers' ignorance when it comes to tires.
- Thread starter Crom
- Start date
starboy869
Well-known member
also
market value to the OP is $500 to $1000 less than asking with new tires.
Buying a used bike and your going to get used tires end of story.
market value to the OP is $500 to $1000 less than asking with new tires.
Buying a used bike and your going to get used tires end of story.
That is the key right there. Some can nit pick this and that. My HD had original tires on it. Passed the safety just fine. But, somethings I just know I'm going to do right away. I didn't offer they less because of one thing or another or point out what needed done. She ran, I know the cost of brake pads, oil, plugs and tires. I still had to do the rocker gaskets and ignition module as they didn't show up until afterwards.
A seller can say the tires are mint but they still need replacing. As long as the over all price is in line, it's all good. I don't care about their logic. I do use it to form an opinion as to their mind set towards caring for their machine tho.
I don't race or track. I know the composition of the rubber is very important. However, if the rubber looks visually sound and it's just for crusing, I don't mind squaring off some old tires off until a new set is ready. On a bike that tours a bit more and might experience some lean angles, I'd get some new rubber anyways.
If someone has a bike for sale, and they advertise it as Excellent condition, or advertise it to have excellent tires, brakes, serviced etc. And the price they are asking is for a bike in the condition that they described that is one thing. If you drive an hour or more to see the bike, you arrive and it is NOT as advertised, and when you point this out to the seller (So in fact the bike is NOT Worth or Valued what they are asking) They need to understand that the bike is NOT what they are advertising and not take offence when this is pointed out to them.
I own a lot of bikes and have bought and sold many over the years as well. I do my best to make sure that the bikes I am selling are As advertised and if advertised as ride ready, fully serviced and need nothing, then that is what the seller will get or I make it right before I sell it. I am not selling a bike as needs nothing if the tires are 10 years old and I hope the buyers are honest with me. I recently picked up a 1988 Hawk GT and the tires were not checked or cracked, had excellent tread as well, the owner was honest before I drove to the bike and told me that they were old and he would not ride on them. I got it home and as I did what the bike needed I replaced the tires.
I own a lot of bikes and have bought and sold many over the years as well. I do my best to make sure that the bikes I am selling are As advertised and if advertised as ride ready, fully serviced and need nothing, then that is what the seller will get or I make it right before I sell it. I am not selling a bike as needs nothing if the tires are 10 years old and I hope the buyers are honest with me. I recently picked up a 1988 Hawk GT and the tires were not checked or cracked, had excellent tread as well, the owner was honest before I drove to the bike and told me that they were old and he would not ride on them. I got it home and as I did what the bike needed I replaced the tires.
I've never encountered this issue honestly, because I never remember having any tire on my bike that didn't wear down from new within a season or two, at most, of riding. My rides were all sportbikes with sporty riubber, so tire longevity isn't too big a design priority.
If the tires were still on the bike past 5 yrs, I'd have to ask myself, when has this bike ever been ridden? Lack of use and not riding a vehicle is more of an issue for me than one being used on a regular basis. I'd walk away if I felt this bike had been sitting unridden for any significant amt of time (not including usual winter stoarge).
If the tires were still on the bike past 5 yrs, I'd have to ask myself, when has this bike ever been ridden? Lack of use and not riding a vehicle is more of an issue for me than one being used on a regular basis. I'd walk away if I felt this bike had been sitting unridden for any significant amt of time (not including usual winter stoarge).
True but not always the case. I used to only get at most 5,000 miles on the rear tire of my Vmax so less than a season for sure, but as I learned more as a rider, got advanced training, learned to operate the throttle and brakes better and actually ride harder my tires are lasting a lot longer. Now I am getting over 12,000 miles on a rear tire (And I ride the vmax less as I have other bikes to ride as well) so while the tire still has good tread at 12,000 miles it might be older than what I want to ride on (About 3 years for as hard as I push that bike in the turns.) I find that now I tend to change the tires when thee is still life rated by mileage on them and the shops think I am stupid. My Life is on those two wheels so I want to make sure they are good.
This won't necessarily solve the issue either.. i bought my bike brand new from a dealer in Nov 2010... parked it for the winter.. started ridding in the spring of 2011. Had brand new tires.. no km's on them.. hated them from the start.. was my first bike, didn't know any better.. rode them a while longer to make sure they were "scrubbed in" still hated them all season long.. would feel the back end wiggle around especially in the rain.. Read a lot of review.. talked to people on kawi forums about my specific bike.. people loved the stock BT-021's.. put them on again and again.. I couldn't understand it.
First thing this year I put on a brand new set of PR3's.. NIGHT AND DAY difference.. ah inspiring confidence in them.. you can feel them sticking to the road.. so of course I'm thinking PR3's are simply THAT much better then BT-021's..
But I started thinking more about it after.. I didn't think to check the date code on those tired before I changed them.. but I bought the bike at the very end of 2010.. it's possible that it sat at the dealer since the fall of 2009.. it could have sat in the factory another 6 months before it shipped to the dealer, and the tires could have been in the factory 6 months before that.. then I let it sit in my garage over winter.. the tires on my brand new bike could have been 3 years old before I scrubbed them in.. 3 years being used and worked is long enough.. 3 years sitting in a crate they were probably hard as F#$K..
Crom
Well-known member
Murf...
You're absolutely right. How people can own something and know nothing more than "when I twist the throttle it goes vroom" completely floors me. No concept of regular maintenance, proper storage, or anything regarding the bike for that matter.
Giddyup69...
That's what I have been encountering, and my post is just me venting my frustration. Sellers acting like it's such an imposition when I ask questions, or ask for a few snapshots of the tires before I come look if the bike is far away and will cost me $20 or more in gas. Some have been very accommodating and friendly, and others have been downright rude to the point where they don't even want to answer some very simple questions about the bike. Which I just don't understand. An email takes maybe a minute to respond to.
Nobbie48...
If a seller is upfront with me like that, and tells me what he thinks might need replacing (which is above and beyond what most sellers will do), the really obvious stuff like tires, it goes a long, long way towards building confidence in the honesty of the seller. That's a HUGE plus. It's when people starting trying to withhold info, unless you "notice" it... so lame.
Wingboy...
I'm not talking about taking things apart, fluids or brake pads. Those are cheap and simple to replace. And I'm not talking about lowballing. I consider market value as the median price that bikes with similar kms/year/condition/model are selling for at that time of the season. When someone is selling a 6 year old Ninja 500 for around the $4000 mark, unsafetied, no UVIP, with old tires, which has sat around unridden a long time, which they say "needs nothing", and the tires are 7+ years old, then I consider that overpriced and very misleading, and I think anyone here would. It makes you shake your head. If I find a bike I like, and notice the tires are really old, I don't give the seller grief, or play games. I mention that the tires will need replacing after I buy it, and I ask them if there is any room for negotiation because of this. If they say no, I thank them for their time and move on. No sweat. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I'm sure you would probably agree. It's a very reasonable approach. If a seller is put off by this, then I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. A lot of people work hard for their money and it can take a long time to save up for a bike, so they want to make sure they are getting something reasonably priced, well maintained, and that they're happy with. I am more than happy to let a buyer check out whatever will put his or her mind at ease when selling something, because I know what it's like to be in their position, not knowing for a fact how the item has been cared for, etc. I don't consider it a waste of time at all. And I am shocked at how many people have such a "you're wasting my time" attitude when it comes to inspecting and asking questions about something as costly as a bike. It's inconsiderate, and very poor salesmanship IMHO.
My idea of a fair price isn't $500 to $1000 less than asking. That's crazy. Along the lines of what was mentioned earlier in the thread... meet me halfway. You're selling a bike which, contrary to what was stated in your ad, DOES in fact "need something" which will add substantial cost to the bike. If the bike is priced fairly to start, and the price reflects it's condition (tires included), then no problem!
Outlaws Justice...
I could not agree more. I just don't see what people aren't getting. I feel like I am talking in circles! Lol.
You're absolutely right. How people can own something and know nothing more than "when I twist the throttle it goes vroom" completely floors me. No concept of regular maintenance, proper storage, or anything regarding the bike for that matter.
Giddyup69...
That's what I have been encountering, and my post is just me venting my frustration. Sellers acting like it's such an imposition when I ask questions, or ask for a few snapshots of the tires before I come look if the bike is far away and will cost me $20 or more in gas. Some have been very accommodating and friendly, and others have been downright rude to the point where they don't even want to answer some very simple questions about the bike. Which I just don't understand. An email takes maybe a minute to respond to.
Nobbie48...
If a seller is upfront with me like that, and tells me what he thinks might need replacing (which is above and beyond what most sellers will do), the really obvious stuff like tires, it goes a long, long way towards building confidence in the honesty of the seller. That's a HUGE plus. It's when people starting trying to withhold info, unless you "notice" it... so lame.
Wingboy...
I'm not talking about taking things apart, fluids or brake pads. Those are cheap and simple to replace. And I'm not talking about lowballing. I consider market value as the median price that bikes with similar kms/year/condition/model are selling for at that time of the season. When someone is selling a 6 year old Ninja 500 for around the $4000 mark, unsafetied, no UVIP, with old tires, which has sat around unridden a long time, which they say "needs nothing", and the tires are 7+ years old, then I consider that overpriced and very misleading, and I think anyone here would. It makes you shake your head. If I find a bike I like, and notice the tires are really old, I don't give the seller grief, or play games. I mention that the tires will need replacing after I buy it, and I ask them if there is any room for negotiation because of this. If they say no, I thank them for their time and move on. No sweat. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I'm sure you would probably agree. It's a very reasonable approach. If a seller is put off by this, then I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. A lot of people work hard for their money and it can take a long time to save up for a bike, so they want to make sure they are getting something reasonably priced, well maintained, and that they're happy with. I am more than happy to let a buyer check out whatever will put his or her mind at ease when selling something, because I know what it's like to be in their position, not knowing for a fact how the item has been cared for, etc. I don't consider it a waste of time at all. And I am shocked at how many people have such a "you're wasting my time" attitude when it comes to inspecting and asking questions about something as costly as a bike. It's inconsiderate, and very poor salesmanship IMHO.
My idea of a fair price isn't $500 to $1000 less than asking. That's crazy. Along the lines of what was mentioned earlier in the thread... meet me halfway. You're selling a bike which, contrary to what was stated in your ad, DOES in fact "need something" which will add substantial cost to the bike. If the bike is priced fairly to start, and the price reflects it's condition (tires included), then no problem!
Outlaws Justice...
I could not agree more. I just don't see what people aren't getting. I feel like I am talking in circles! Lol.
Ive used the Bridgestone BT003R on the track and after a couple track sessions on the street with no issues. Fantastic tire.
Last edited:
