And if the price difference between an '07 and a '10 was, like, a grand then I could definitely see it. But in the real world you're paying double for the bike so you can delay going onto the "maintenance schedule" for a year or something (judging by the way people burn through parts). It seems to me that it would just make a lot of sense to grab a slightly worn bike, go on a brief replacing spree until you get the warm fuzzies going, then pocket the savings so that you can then mod your bike just how you want it to make it better than the stock new one could ever be.
Honest opinion, I think buying a brand new example of a model that hasn't been updated in a few years, is just a waste. I've used this example before, but take the 2010 Charger, which is near-as-makes-no-difference identical to a 2006. I can't imagine why anyone would buy the 2010, in the year 2010. It's the same car as the '06 or the '07, but the difference in cost (and I looked this up) is $15,000 vs $32,000. I can see the new one being more, and it should be, because you're not going to have to replace major components for a longer time, but I can't see any amount of "warm fuzzy factor" being worth $17,000 in that segment. If you really want warm fuzzies, buy a pair of '06s and then you'll really be set for life, and still for less than the "new" one.
I guess the point of this rant is, thanks to depreciation, I personally think that unless you're going vintage, living three model-years in the past will allow you to live 99% as well as the guy who has to have everything new, but do it on 50% the budget. Or to look at it another way, spend just as much as the other guy does, and live twice as well.