Carole Nash being used for comparison purposes: ZX9R and ZX12R - both are £563 TPFT for me... but the ZX9R is coming out at over £1200 fully comp, and the ZX12R is coming in at a mere £791? Is the ZX9R that much more of an accident risk than the ZX12R? ZZR1100... nigh on £900 FC, £293 TPFT... one of these *surely* isn't statistically more of an accident risk than the ZX12R??? I appreciate the brakes are probably a bit lacking by comparison, mind... R1 and Blackbird - same prices as a ZX9R at £1223 fully comp and £563 TPFT, yet wouldn't have thought a Blackbird was significantly more of a risk than a ZX12R or in the same risk league as an R1? Thunderace - £744 FC, £293 TPFT - this one is the worst one, as the price seems to change on a weekly basis! Fazer 1000 - £933 FC, £364 TPFT Fireblade 918 - £1223 FC, £389 TPFT And finally... VFR800FI - £326 FC, £204 TPFT - it's not *that* bloody slow, it has plenty of plastic to break if you drop it, yet it's nearly half the price of a same year, same value CBR600 which rolls in at £599 FC and which I know for a fact is no quicker off the mark and has less outright top end. It can't even be to do with insurance companies favouring linked brakes, else the Blackbird would be a lot cheaper to insure than an R1? Bring back the old Norwich Union 'CIHAGM' Rider policy - like a lot of things in my life at the turn of the 1990s, this was a lot simpler than the apparent insurance minefield I've stumbled into this evening, I don't give a shit about the cost... I'm just intrigued as to what statistics / logic they're using when pricing up bike policies today. 'Sensible polices for a happier Britain' please, if anyone from the bike insurance industry happens to be reading this. TIA