What year is my bike??

[kerryg]

I've got a bike that was built in Japan in November 2000 and was first registered (new) in NZ in May 2002. It was sold to me as a 2002 bike and the rego papers describe it as a 2002 (under "vehicle year"). I don't care personally, 'cos I knew it was built in 2000 anyway, but someone could be misled by describing a bike as a 2002 (or whatever) model based on its year of registration. Obviously in some cases a bike could be unregistered for years before being registered (eg offroad bikes used on farms or bikes bought by collectors).

I see another of the very same bikes currently advertised as a 2002 model. Which it's not, if you consider year of manufacture (they stopped making them in 2000).

What is the generally accepted practice? I'd like to say my bike was a 2002 model when I (eventually) come to sell it if but it doesn't feel quite honest.

[vifferman]

I've got a bike that was built in Japan in November 2000 and was first registered (new) in NZ in May 2002. It was sold to me as a 2002 bike and the rego papers describe it as a 2002 (under "vehicle year"). I don't care personally, 'cos I knew it was built in 2000 anyway, but someone could be misled by describing a bike as a 2002 (or whatever) model based on its year of registration. Obviously in some cases a bike could be unregistered for years before being registered (eg offroad bikes used on farms or bikes bought by collectors).

I see another of the very same bikes currently advertised as a 2002 model. Which it's not, if you consider year of manufacture (they stopped making them in 2000).

What is the generally accepted practice? I'd like to say my bike was a 2002 model when I (eventually) come to sell it if but it doesn't feel quite honest.Mine was advertised as 2001, and is in fact a 2001 model (it's an ex-UK import).
A previous bike (ex-Japan) was a 1990, but was advertised as a '91, but that was just a cockup, wishful thinking on the part of the previous owner or summat, as it was first registered here in 94 (IIRC). Whatever; I knew it was a 90, and said it was a 90 or 91 depending on who or whom I was talking to (or two). Or too. To-toodle-tutu.

[Cajun]

I had a bike simlar like that was 94 but was rego(nz new) as a 96, it often comes down how the person fulling the form in puts down, if they are selling old models as new they are more likley to put the year they are selling so buying thinks getting and bike, not a 2 year old one.

You just sell it as what rego says. Cause to anyone that does a check up on thats what it is.

[kerryg]

Or too. To-toodle-tutu.

Quite :blink:

[MSTRS]

I've got a bike that was built in Japan in November 2000 and was first registered (new) in NZ in May 2002. It was sold to me as a 2002 bike and the rego papers describe it as a 2002 (under "vehicle year"). I don't care personally, 'cos I knew it was built in 2000 anyway, but someone could be misled by describing a bike as a 2002 (or whatever) model based on its year of registration. Obviously in some cases a bike could be unregistered for years before being registered (eg offroad bikes used on farms or bikes bought by collectors).

I see another of the very same bikes currently advertised as a 2002 model. Which it's not, if you consider year of manufacture (they stopped making them in 2000).

What is the generally accepted practice? I'd like to say my bike was a 2002 model when I (eventually) come to sell it if but it doesn't feel quite honest.
I believe the accepted practise is the year of first registration. Mine is a '89 import, equivalent to the '91 NZ issue, 1st regd here '98. Because it was first regd in Japan '89 then that is what year it is.

[Motu]

Year of manufacter,year of first reg in NZ....you got a problem?

[kerryg]

Year of manufacter,year of first reg in NZ....you got a problem?


Eh? Wot? Problem? Me? Well, only in interpreting your inscrutable reply , Motu :moon:

[scroter]

bought brand new in 2004 but bikes last years model. it only had 2ks on it(thats 2 not 2000) when i picked it up. maybe the model identification will give it away.

[Sycophant]

I believe the year is supposed to be year of manufacture.

On the many of the vehicle licencing forms there are specific boxes for year of manufacture and year of first NZ registration.

My bike is a 1993, first registered in NZ in '95 I think.

[Blakamin]

Mines registered as a 97...but when I looked up the numbers its a 96

the cbr I had said 88 but it was actually the first of the 89's

[TLDV8]

I've got a bike that was built in Japan in November 2000 and was first registered (new) in NZ in May 2002. It was sold to me as a 2002 bike and the rego papers describe it as a 2002 (under "vehicle year").

If the manufacture plate on the frame says Nov 2000 then it is one month into the 2001 build year,so it morally should have been registered as a 2001....being old stock is the catch,good for the seller,not so good for the buyer.

[MacD]

My bike was first registered in 1996, is designated as a 1995 model (S in Suzuki model code) and was built in 1994 according to the manufacturers plate on the frame! :spudwhat:

[Bonez]

My GSX750 was first regoed in 1982, is a 1981 model according to all the research I've done, but was manufactured in 1980. Go figure................

[TwoSeven]

japanese year of sale is usually sept of year X to sept of year Y (as far as I know). The model number has a year code that should match year Y. The bike will have been made up to a year before that.

NZ gets the bikes 6 months later, so you will often see registration happen here from march of Y to march of Z (or later).

Generally you go by the year and country code for the bike.

[kerryg]

If the manufacture plate on the frame says Nov 2000 then it is one month into the 2001 build year,so it morally should have been registered as a 2001.....

That's a point. If built in Nov 2000 it's not going to be available for sale in 2000, is it? And there are ...usually...model changes each year so a bike built in November 2000 will be a 2001 model...usually....although mine was the last of them so far as I know ...I dunno. It's all VERY confusing.... :spudwhat: I'm going to go at it sideways: "NZ new 2002". :2thumbsup

[Coyote]

I think my CBR is a '93 model that was first registered at the end of 1992, so it is classed as a '92 model

[Wonko]

It should be the year of manufacture but normal practice seems to be the year of first registration. Hence my NZ new bike say's it's a '86 but is an '85. Lot's of fun if some of the bike bit's change between the years and your tring to find them before you know the year.

[Motu]

A vehicle brought into NZ has to comply to the relavent regualtions in this country at the date of compliance for this country - that's why we had to have those stick on high stop lamps on cars - it was required after 1990 in NZ,if the build date was earlier it still had to have the 1990 lighting regulations applied.There are exemtions and blah,blah,blah...but your 1992 bike first reg in 2002 was complied as a 2002.