Originally Posted by Xavier6162
But why would the GT cost less to insure over the RT? The GT cost a lot more and has a lot more HP....and a lot faster...of course.
Shh, we don't want them to know that. The GT is a nice, safe touring bike, after all.
Originally Posted by davidk63
It all has to do with the classification of the motorcycle and whatever costs associated to repair/replace it based on what some dumbshit that has never ridden a bike thinks.
My wife's last car was technically a 4-seater because it had an "insurance" back seat, meaning that you could squeeze in an adult, but only if they had no legs. Still, it was cheaper to insure than many two-seater "sports" cars even though the turbo meant that it was much faster than many of them.
Besides, you're only talking $26 difference here. Not that big a deal, really.
As for the S, not only is it classified as a "sport" bike, but it will attract more riders that will want to ride it that way, whereas the GT attracts those with a (slightly) more practical side. Both bikes are extremely capable and not all that different on real-world streets, but I'm guessing that the S will be involved in more accidents than the GT (simple tip-overs not included), simply because more riders will be pushing the performance edge more often. And some of them will find it, with sometimes disastrous results.
The bottom line is that insurance companies are in it to make money, so they will set the rates to cover their expenses, plus whatever profit they can get. If you're OK with the rate then go for it. If not, then shop around.
'13 Dark Graphite Metallic K16GTLD, 24K miles and counting...
'09 Magnesium Beige Metallic K13GT, 60K miles miles and counting...
'02 Mauve Metallic K12LTC, 106K miles and sold
BMWLT#145, IBA# 366, MOA# 111996, SCMA# 24032
All lower 48 states plus Alaska on the K13GT in two weeks . . .
Some people see the gas tank as half empty. Some see it as half full. All I care is that I know where the next tankful is coming from...