Insurance write offs

[Kittyhawk]

Question: Would you buy an insurance write-off bike, fix it up and ride it, given the state you bought it in?

I see them on trade me, and wonder is it a safe thing to be doing especially with more powerful bikes. I can understand if a biker requires parts to fix their own bike etc, but to buy a whole bike?

Wouldnt this cause more mechanicial failures and increase chances of riders coming off?

I see it like helmets, one decent hit, time for replacement not for repair.

[steved]

I would say you have to know what you are doing. Definitely a large case for caveat empor. It would be easy to underestimate the work required.

[sunhuntin]

if that was the case, most bikes wouldnt get to be older than 1 year.

i would buy a written off virago, simply cos likely as nots its cheaper that way than buying the parts.
as far as buying to ride, it would depend on the damage. if it was mainly cosmetic, then why not? but if theres damage to the frame, no way. but, again, i would remove the parts i can either use or resell, and then take the leftovers to a scrap metal yard.

[slimjim]

its not the failures that's a pro , its knowing that that bikes label is that written off, and too when reselling you must desclose this fact to the next buyer , i think too that alot of bikes get writting off as per manufactor's requirements too, its too costly to get correct parts ,then theres the cert's stating its in a roadworthly condition, humm frame cert checked by an engineer, steering head frame ,bearings, motor strip down, gees the true list can be that a total rebuild including all the new paperwork,cert's just to go to get revinned,

[glice]

depends on the damage, if the frames bent then deffintly not, other wise I would. some bikes get written off really easy and the damage isnt that bad.

[MSTRS]

Depends. If you know the bike and circumstances of accident/write-off, then you can have a bit more confidence as to what you are getting. A strange bike at the other end of the country...different story.

[jim.cox]

depends on the damage, if the frames bent then deffintly not, other wise I would. some bikes get written off really easy and the damage isnt that bad.

I agree, it depends on why the bike was written off

Cosmetic damage can be very expensive to repair - it adds nothing to the rideability of the bike - and I like rat bikes...

Even so, it would have to be the right bike at the right price

[Qkchk]

Yes I would but it would depend on the initial damage/type of crash the bike was in. If there is a chance of chassis damage, I would only by it for parts.

[vifferman]

Yes, I would buy a write-off, depending on condition. I actually regret not buying the last bike I wrote off. When I was considering it, my wife said, "You're not cluttering up my garage for months with motorbike junk!" :rolleyes:
So, I took the insurance payout, and considered buying a car.

As it turned out, the damage (quoted at $6800) was almost entirely cosmetic, apart from a bent main fairing bracket. The big ticket items were that ($1100) and a new zorst ($1200). The guy who bought it (used to be a KBer) got the wreck and did it up, mostly himself, apart from some plastic welding and painting. His total cost (incl. wreck) was around $2400. He saved mucho money by doing things like putting a s/steel sleeve over the muffler to cover the dent, straightening the fairing bracket, buying secondhand parts, etc.
As I'd figured, there would've been enough fat in the insurance quote for me to have fixed the bike up, put on an aftermarket zorst and new suspension, and still had money to buy a present for my wife as compensation for "cluttering up her gargre..."

[The Stranger]

Yes I would but it would depend on the initial damage/type of crash the bike was in. If there is a chance of chassis damage, I would only by it for parts.

Or replace the chassis?

[yungatart]

We bought hXc's bike off the insurance company as a wreck after they wrote it off.
Rebuilt it and it is still a great little runner.

Mind you, we did know the bike!

[Hitcher]

Depending on condition. No if the damage impaired the bike's structural integrity.

[avgas]

case for caveat empor
100%, my current ride is along those lines. but the bastard who fixed her up before i got it put a cheap battery in. Long story short after 5,000 k's i had to replace the charging circuit.
Along with get the engine good as new i have spent just over half of what originally paid.
However even with all my expenses it is still below market value.

[FROSTY]

I think it depends on the mechanical knowledge of the person buying the bike.
Unlike cars most and to a degree all bikes are a series of replaceable components.As such You would have to try very very hard to really wright a bike off.
A large number of bikes are tecnical write offs --that is to say Given the age/milage of the bike the expectation of the customer is to bring it to pre crash condition.
I've rebuilt a number of bikes where the damage has been destroyed fairings/headlight and no other damage.
But then I don't really care if a sidecover has a gark or two or if the front wheel color doesn't match the rear.

[Owl]

I'd have to say no. I've seen the quote sheet to repair mine (cosmetic) and it ain't cheap.
I've also bought an untidy bike cheap and fixed it up. It was a lot of work and ended up owing me about $7000. I could have bought a mint one for that sort of money.

[Skinny_Birdman]

A mate of mine low-sided his CBR1000F at about 120km/h (he was unhurt, I might add), and as it went down the road it dug in and flipped. Broken clip ons, footpegs, all side fairings and w/s f***ed and thermostat casting poked etc ad nauseum. And looking at the thing the sub frame appeared to be bent to shite. Written off, of course.

So imagine my surprise when at the Levels round of the NZ champs this year the same CBR1000F (quite distinctive - definitely the same one) was parked up on the embankment. A definite rat bike, the owner paid $800 for the wreck, and just fixed the essentials, ie the exhausts, thermo casting and put new indicators, pegs and bars on. It didn't look pretty, but he seemed to be getting his money's worth out of it. I wouldn't go near anything that bent except for parts!

[fridayflash]

id say yes for sure,obviously depending on condition of structure etc etc

[Ixion]

Helped put myself through Uni doing that. Probably do it again when I retire, make a bit on the side. 'Fetch the welder, boyo'

[sinfull]

I did it ! Wasn't till i got it home and had it checked out that i found out someone had taken the front end apart and had mixed up all the bolts in reassembly ! Axle bolts were only in by a couple of threads RRRRR not the sort of thing ya wanna find out at 240 ks Kharma is my friend lol

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=71471&highlight=flying+auks

[sinfull]

But i have saved a good 6 grand in doing it this way ! Only reason it was written off is price of parts speedo (works fine) just a crack in the lens, bars bent (straight now) bar ends and grips, side cover scraped (who cares) tanks scratched (ditto) And a few other cosmettics that i dont give a shit about ! Trouble is having only 3 thou ks on the clock the insurers have to replace everything, tank etc back to new cond. price of parts made it not worth it !
$900 to revin it and its in a bike show morra lol !~

[orangeback]

sure would , better than buying a race bike thats been crashed a dozen times or more

[crash harry]

Yes, but only if you know what you're doing.

If you have to pay someone to do it back up again, it's unlikely to be cost effective

[crazybigal]

you need to know all the rules about this before you make coments like this.
Its not a simple job of fixing it up and sticking it back on the road like it used to be.
If a bike is writen off dammaged and dereged with land transport, you need to go through a lengthy process.
The bike will have to get a low volume cert before you can re vin it.
The frame has to be measured and inspected along with forks and wheels.
I have seen frames more out of line new than after they were fixed!!
The spec that the frame and forks have to measure upto is very tight.
Any work that is done is then signed off and then a cert is issued.
Then its off to get a VIN and inspected by the testing station and given new plates.
In short you cant get away with a dogy repair on a dereg writen off bike.
i would be more worried about buying a bike that had had a crash but was not writen off and de reged and then fixed by a backyarder who has no idea.
I have repaired a few bikes and been through all the hoops one has to jump through to do this and would trust all of them.

If a bike is sold by an insurance company and has been checked and not dereged then it is deemed to not have structural damage.


Question: Would you buy an insurance write-off bike, fix it up and ride it, given the state you bought it in?

I see them on trade me, and wonder is it a safe thing to be doing especially with more powerful bikes. I can understand if a biker requires parts to fix their own bike etc, but to buy a whole bike?

Wouldnt this cause more mechanicial failures and increase chances of riders coming off?

I see it like helmets, one decent hit, time for replacement not for repair.

[FROSTY]

If a bike is sold by an insurance company and has been checked and not dereged then it is deemed to not have structural damage..
Sorry to disagree here dude but safety has little to do with why a bike is written off. Its a question of economics plain n simple
How much to fix Vs insured value is the deciding factor.
Its more a case of Once a frame is damaged then there is usually $$$$$$$ of other damage as well

[Matt_TG]

Frosty's right. It's a write off if it costs more than its worth to fix, using new parts & full labour costs. It's not written off due to 'x' amount of structural damage.

Any damaged bike is repairable, structural or cosmetic, it depends on what skills and money you have. If you can get cheaper parts and do the work yourself you can bag a bargain.

We are required by law to de-register all written off bikes, FYI.

[crazybigal]

well if you talk to any insurance company they will tell you they write them off de reged for safty reasons and so there is no come back on them.
as i said in my post i would rather trust a bike that had been dereged not just sold off still reged.
People like yourself get the words "Writen off" confused.
Writen off is a total loss in economic terms for the insurance company.
A stolen bike can be writen off.
People use the term writen off meaning it must have been damaged and be unsafe.
you could have a new bike writen off becaues someone stole all the plastics off it, it desnt mean the bike is now unsafe to ride.


.
Sorry to disagree here dude but safety has little to do with why a bike is written off. Its a question of economics plain n simple
How much to fix Vs insured value is the deciding factor.
Its more a case of Once a frame is damaged then there is usually $$$$$$$ of other damage as well

[crazybigal]

you missunderstood what i was saying
the topic was about buying bikes that had been wrten off.
yes any damage is repairable, but if its dereged it has to be low volume certed not just re vined.
And you say all bikes are ment to be de reged by law, there is no such law its a rule made by the insurance industry to cover their own arses and so they should.
so you say that but why is star insurance selling some bike on trademe that are writen off with plates!!!
one i recall was a lightly damages rsv1000 that was sold still reged.
now correct me if im wrong but was that bike not writen off!!!!

you need to take what i said in context


Frosty's right. It's a write off if it costs more than its worth to fix, using new parts & full labour costs. It's not written off due to 'x' amount of structural damage.

Any damaged bike is repairable, structural or cosmetic, it depends on what skills and money you have. If you can get cheaper parts and do the work yourself you can bag a bargain.

We are required by law to de-register all written off bikes, FYI.

[Matt_TG]

Ummm, I posted before you :)

[crazybigal]

now your just confusing yourself:bleh::bleh:

Ummm, I posted before you :)

[325rocket]

I did it ! Wasn't till i got it home and had it checked out that i found out someone had taken the front end apart and had mixed up all the bolts in reassembly ! Axle bolts were only in by a couple of threads RRRRR not the sort of thing ya wanna find out at 240 ks

shit that was lucky.
i guess if its only superficial damage its not a problem at all.



223

[Matt_TG]

LOL, yes I'm confused, seeing your avatar I don't know whether the chicken or the egg came first, just call me the egg!

Anyway, it would save a fair bit of time for the office chicks getting rego plates and taking them to the AA if we didn't have to dereg every written off vehicle. It's also a hassle filling in the forms. I'll tell the boss a big yellow bird told me we didn't have to do it anymore - he'll be stoked, it'll save us time and money!

[FROSTY]

Al No mate tiss you getting confused.
Nail on the head though with--The MAIN reason insurance companies deregister bikes is to protect themselves.
Now not doing the my dick is bigger n your bit but I'm "in the system.
(When vehicles actually sell ARGGG.) I comply and recomply roughly 10 vehicles a month.
A low vol is not needed if the bike is back to stock standard -or thereabouts.
Technically for example fitting a replacement front end should require a low vol if you are not using factory replacement parts.
But I've used a gsx500e front wheel and disk on a GSX250
I've used headlights from Yamaha's on honda's etc.
Where low vol gets involved is for example buying a crashed R1 and making it into a FZ1 lookalke

I think back to the origonal question really--If a person hasn't the experience to identify what is structural damage and what is cosmetic/economic damage they shouldn't do it on their own --at the very least consult someone with experience

[Wheeliemonsta]

Thats how I bought my current bike...

I've probably done half a dozen of them over the years...

You need to know what you are doing because the pitfalls are many & varied :thud:

But, I.M.H.O it's definately a viable option for getting yourself on a cheap late model
bike...

A lot of the Insurance companies now offer "Direct Replacement" on there Motorcycle Policies for bikes under 12 months old -using STAR INSURANCE purely as an example, this is why you are seeing alot of near brand new low k bikes, seemingly, with very little damage coming up for auction at some very keen prices...


Cheers

:rockon:

[wickle]

Neither bought a Insurance write off yet,have bought a couple " only good for parts " off trademe. recharged battery thru in some oil, bought 4 in 1 , for example passed warrant. so I would buy one if model I wanted came subject to how much damage

[RSV Boy]

I would if the bike was right, I love turning a wreck into a beautiful bike again, great winter project. As long as you've got good mechanical
knowledge and are prepared to search Ebay for good parts its a pleasure.

:niceone:

[Whytey]

Yep , as long as the frame wasnt shagged and the missus would let me work on in front of the fire , in the lounge , in piece and in my on time . Not to much to ask i think !

[blossomsowner]

a lot comes down to having some knowledge of bikes and mechanics. even better is having knowledge of the bike and/or circumstances.

A past flatmate dropped his gpz750 at about 15 kmh. Was written of due to cosmetic damage and a hole in engine casing somewhere. He bought it from the insurers, had it fixed up and still kept 80% of his payout. so it can work out well.

[trainingwheels]

I worked for an aution house that sold things called DVA's (Damaged Vehicle Auctions) these were the vehicles that were sent to us via the insurence companies and they make sure that 9 times out of 10 the bikes and cars are all DEREGISTED, this even happens to the ones which arent that bad, ie 91' nissan primera 130'000kms written off due to kick in door panel.. go figure??
But the main reason they derege the bikes is... if they are dropped or crashed it is safer to dereg to save their own skins....
bike gets crashed, jo blogg fixes, then has another crash, is this insurence companies fault for second crash? no but they get sued anyway because they didnt dereg the bike or car......

also to have the bike stripped, frame checked, new parts, new plastics, most likely over the value of the bike... dereg then sell at auction.

[AllanB]

Heres one I've been watching. This has 1900 ks on it! A new Hornet is $11k

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=154917936

It started as a $1 reserve. My budget died at a grand :crybaby:

I have added up about $4.5-5 k of brand new parts ex USA (cheaper than NZ) including the entire front forks, wheel, brake disks, triples.

If you need a frame US$1100 plus shipping.......

Could be cheaper by just replacing male fork sliders etc or with second hand.

I'll be interested to see what it goes for.

Parts pricing is weird - a part on the left side may be dearer than the exact replica on the right. ie a left muffler. Weird.

[R6_kid]

Done it twice now, and will do it again when the time is right. Some deals to be had. Depends whether you are buying it as a bike for yourself or a bike to sell for profit as to how much you should/would spend. Knowing where to find parts helps, and knowing where to find good deals is even better. Learn the system, learn some mechanical stuff, and be thorough. Don't cut corners or sacrifice safety for affordabilty and you'll be fine.

[xwhatsit]

Where do you get 'em? Now that I'm going through insurance people with my bike, I keep hearing about buying back your bike from the insurance company after it's been written off for just a few hundred dollars.

Where do you get these sorts of deals if it's not your own bike that is being written off?

[sinfull]

Where do you get 'em? Now that I'm going through insurance people with my bike, I keep hearing about buying back your bike from the insurance company after it's been written off for just a few hundred dollars.

Where do you get these sorts of deals if it's not your own bike that is being written off?

http://www.turners.co.nz/Branches/TurnersAuctions/tabid/285/Default.aspx

Scroll down a bit and you'll find all the damaged vehical auctions , its a bit of johnny on the spot , check it weekly to see if any bikes come up ! Stolen and recovered come under the damaged vehical auctions !

[Matt_TG]

I'm at my desk right now after discussing a case where underegistered car wrecks have been sold and used to 'stage' accidents. We were talking about deregistration and I thought of this thread. I didn't say that a BiGal said we didn't need to follow the law though lol.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, Insurers do not deregisiter vehicles to cover their ass. It's a legal requirement. If a vehicle is written off (and that's because it's not worth spending the money to fix it) we deregister them.

Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986 is the relevant Act. Section 27 is appropriate,particularly Sub Section. 1 and 1A.

I have bolded the areas that appply here.

Cancellation of registration on destruction or permanent removal of motor vehicle

(1) If any registered motor vehicle is destroyed, or is written-off by an insurer or the owner, or becomes permanently useless as a motor vehicle, or is removed permanently beyond New Zealand, the owner of the motor vehicle shall forthwith give to the Registrar notice of its destruction, condition, or removal, as the case may be, and shall deliver to the Registrar the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle, and, unless the Registrar considers it is impracticable to do so, the registration plates issued for the motor vehicle and the current licence (if any) issued for the motor vehicle. The Registrar shall cancel the registration of the motor vehicle.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, where an insurer writes-off a motor vehicle, the insurer shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle.

Doesn't stop you fixing one up and re-registering it, but it confirms that deregistration is a legal requirement for write offs.

[Ixion]

Not quite. The intent of the clause is clearly to deal with the situation where a vehicle ceases to exist. So, a 'genuine' write off. Where the vehicle is destroyed . Or permanently useless. They don't want plates floating around without vehicles. for obvious reasons. It is to stop the old trick of stealing a vehicle and fitting the plates form a destroyed vehicle

However, vehicles "written off " are quite often not really physcial writeoffs. They may even be in quite good nick (eg recoved after theft). In which case the vehicle is not destroyed or useless, and the plates will remain with it.

Insurance companies have tagged onto the requirement (which hwas actually in place long before 1986) as a justification for deregistering ANY bike on which they pay out in full. I think the insurance companies call it a "constructive total loss". Which is not really the same as a genuinely written off vehicle.

To put it into simple context.

That clause puts the same requirement on an owner and an insurer. So, if I bin my uninsured bike, nothing major, just some cosmetic stuff and smashed fairings, and decide I can't be bothered fixing it up, (cos I'm pissed off with it), and so I sell it "as is where is", suit streetfighter. By your argument, I would be obliged to deregister it. I don't think so, Cyril.

In fact , that clause is not limited to crashed vehicles. If I blow up my motor and decide likewise that it's not worth my while fixing it, but someone else may wish to, your logic would require that it be dereigistered, then reregistered once the motor is fixed.

Compare that with what the law actually intends, which is if I blow up my motor and sell the bike for parts, to someone who is going to dismantle it. In that case, yes , the bike should be dereigistered, it has been destroyed and ceased to exist.

[Matt_TG]

Nice response Ixion.

The term Constructive Total Loss is a long standing insurance industry term that relates to the cost to reinstate or repair exceeding the insured value of items.

If it's a constructive total loss by nature it's a write off. That's how the legislation applies to the insurance industry. If it's a write off we deregister.

The difference to the owner of an uninsured bike is that it's not insured, and not subject to defining it a write off as a constructive total loss, and therefore the owner can do with it what he likes, keeping it registered if he wants to keep paying for it. Hope the purchaser of the parts bothers to change the ownership name and doesn't put the plates on another vehicle....

We are still deregistering written off vehicles and I don't see it changing in the near future. This decision is not my logic, I said much earlier it would save us time and money to stop dereigistering vehicles.

I best get back to work....