A rethink about travel costs
 

Just over a couple of months ago we bought a replacement "shopping" car for my wife. A Citroen C3 1.4 diesel. Since then we have done a mixed bag of journeys and it has averaged just over 72MPG.
Not so good as my Enfield lean burn which can do around 95MPG
But much better than the Triumph thunderbird which comes in at a little over 50MPG

Here is the kicker, Diesel is 30 cents a litre cheaper than petrol in France. This means cost wise it is half the price per mile on fuel of the Triumph and nearly the same as the Enfield.

So when we want to go two up, with camping gear what would you choose, the Enfield or for the same money a comfy car, which keeps you dry when it is wet, and cools you with the aircon when it is hot. can pull over for a nap whenever you want irrespective of the weather. Can leave all your gear in it and go exploring without worrying about your gear and has a range of 700 miles on a tankful and has 20,000 miles service intervals?

Me, I'd take ANY motorcycle every time, but I think you have answered your own question in your last sentence :mchappy::thumbup1:

On paper the answer seems obvious but on the road there is what will give most pleasure to consider which for me is a motorcycle.

What about the ToC? Here in the Netherlands a bike is cheaper in insurance, road taxes are less (especially if you drive a diesel you're in trouble!), no annual mandatory checkup, only 2 tyres to replace after a long trip instead of 4. No parking permit (I live in the city, parking is expensive as hell! a second car, which I think this is, is 550 euros parking permit per year alone). Perhaps maintenance? You can probably replace a chain on the bike but have you serviced a car?

My old car - vw t3 Westfalia - drank like a sailor but because no road taxes and an insurance for 100 a year or so ToC was ok. And I only used it for essential drives, not groceries or anything.

Alex

Depends on the trip. And the bike/car.
 

If you intend flying the vehicle .. a motorcycle will beat a car. A bicycle is even better.

Running costs ... will depend on the place and the vehicles. In Australia the compulsory third party personal insurance is more on a motorcycle than it is for a car. Car tyres last a lot longer .. so tyre costs are actually more than a car - provided it is not an expensive car. You can get a 'cheap' reasonable car that will be cheaper than a BMW motorcycle .. and the running costs for the car will be cheaper too.

So ..
where and what vehicles will set the winner in terms of money.
In terms of experience? Personal preference here. Oh with a bit for weather.

In short I would take the car. Done trip's like that. In the end took the car and hitched a trailer on the back for the bike, best of both world's.
John933


P.S. When are you going. As I may have a trailer standing empty. I will be using it mid Sep until the end of Oct.

For two people i would prefere the car. For me alone and for difficult routs/countrys the bike as it can be loadet easily on any truck in case of problems: Adventure experience - motorcycle trip riding across Africa

I'm not really sure you can rationalise this. I take a bike on a trip because I want to go by bike, not because it is cheaper or more convenient or any other reason that would stand up on a spreadsheet. There are also times when I don't want to or can't go by bike so I drive or fly or take a train. Just regarding a bike as a cheap version of a car and only justifiable in economic terms is the first step to giving up riding - in my opinion.

There's no doubt that small diesel hatchbacks are phenomenally good on fuel these days and probably better than any bike over about 200cc (slogging singles excepted) but unless money is really tight there has to be more too it than that. Otherwise nobody would put up with rain, wind, cold, stupid service intervals, minute service life, verging on criminal dealers, legal obstacles, insurance costs, theft, vulnerability, public perception and all the other downsides of life on a motorcycle. And that's not even mentioning fuel. I'm sure one of the big manufacturers could produce a 100+mpg diesel bike without too much effort but who's going to buy it (in sufficient numbers to make it viable anyway)? Not many of the people buying 70mpg diesel hatchbacks.

Perhaps it is less about the cost and more related to the "old" part of "oldbmw"?
Certainly, that has occcurred in my case; for solo travel I will resort still to the 1000cc behemoth on two wheels.
When the wife comes along for the ride, 10 years ago it would have involved the bike but more often nowadays such travel is done using 4 wheels; so the latter has evolved into a "day van" with a light weight bike in the back - that deals with the circumstances you describe as the advantages of 4 wheels, but the two wheeler is ready to go at any time.

Incidentally, the diesel fuel price in the UK has dropped below that of petrol.
This is not yet at the pricing available in France but there is a "price war" taking place because demand for diesel fuel has fallen, allegedly.

You may well be right. For some years now I have tried to avoid riding in very adverse weather and have taken the view it is better to go by car than not at all. Usually I pack for a trip but choice of vehicle hangs in the balance until it is near time to go.
Taking wife with me is another can of worms and I find it near impractical for us to ride two up with camping gear. plus for long journeys (over two hours) she prefers the car.
I do find it difficult to choose which bike to ride, often it depends on which one is nearest the door or fuelled :) ( Enfield or Triumph) very different rides with different appeals. Mind you, as we are both pensioners ( I am coming up to 72) I guess there is nothing wrong with that. Although when I visited Colditz on the Enfield it was very difficult to explore the castle and leave the loaded bike unattended.