A challenge to the "lead sled" ADV bikes offered today

[Scott Brady]

Wish you were closer Mike. You should take a ride on the Stelvio. Super short seat height (about 32") and a low seat option too. Plus shaft drive and an 8.5 gallon tank!

 

[abruzzi]

I was pondering it briefly, and I couldn't think of many other product classifications where about three-quarters of the population is, for all practical purposes, eliminated from purchasing the expensive, high-performance stuff because of being too frikkin' small. (Then again, I suppose being comfortable on a GSA1200 pretty much means a career as a jockey isn't readily available to you. )

This may be true, but there are a few things to keep in mind:

1) motorcycle buyers are overwhelmingly male. In the ADV bike market I suspect it is more pronounced. As a result motorcycle design overwhelmingly favors male taste and male physiology. Since men are on average taller than women, that means most adv bike manufacturers have less incentive to appeal to the under 5'7" crowd.

2) from the various bits of data I've seen, height follows a bell curve, and for a U.S. male, the peak is 5'10", and female peak is 5'4". Now I can't speak to others comfort at different seat heights, but I'm 5'10", middle aged, with bad knees, and I'm comfortable up to the 37" seat on my KTM 640 Adventure. My R1150GSA has, I believe, a 35" seat, and my 950 Adventure which is something like 34". Now maybe I'm more adaptable, but I'm not a 20 year old kid. I'm 43 and started riding adv bikes 8 years ago. So I'd bet that a bike with a 34" seat could be reasonably handled, with some practice, by more than half of US males, which would end up looking like close to half of the potential buyers.

3) any manufacturer will weigh the design benefits against the potential market, and who is excluded because of the design decisions. That's when the 950S was an option. It would probably have excluded too many people. But ADV bikes are no the only class that this impacts. I'm overweight (240lbs) like a very large number of people my age, and I simply don't fit on most sport bikes. Riding one for more than 20 minutes is a recipie for pain. But the benefits in performance that come from forcing the rider into a tight fetal crouch are apparently worth never selling a motorcycle to a person shaped like me.

I don't mean to sound like "tough ********", because that's not my point. My primary point is one carried over from a discussion over on advrider, specifically there are generally real reasons why bike manufacturers don't make short adv bikes. It is truly unfortunate for those who want an adv bike but can't fit one. Fortunately there are some manufacturers who have managed bikes, like the F/G650GS that can be easily handled by shorter riders, and there are always mods that can lower a taller bike.

 

[agavelvr]

I don't know much, but I sure like my 690 Enduro way more than my old KLR. Dirtbike performance, light enough to hammer it, heavy enough for the highway, too much power:sombrero:

I got to take a WR450 out this summer in Montana...with it's long service interval, powerful engine, cost of ownership, and lightweight feel due to engine placement... it may be one of the best highway dirtbikes available. It felt flickable like a 250, but a whole lotta twist available.

Big bikes? Don't work for me in the places I ride w/my skill level...too much work/risk and too little reward.

 

[mhiscox]

From the various bits of data I've seen, height follows a bell curve, and for a U.S. male, the peak is 5'10", and female peak is 5'4". Now I can't speak to others comfort at different seat heights, but I'm 5'10", middle aged, with bad knees, and I'm comfortable up to the 37" seat on my KTM 640 Adventure. My R1150GSA has, I believe, a 35" seat, and my 950 Adventure which is something like 34".

A well written reply, and a bit my point . . . I'm at the median height for US males but, in spite of a long and credible dirt riding resume, I have a heck of a time handling the modern giant trailies off-pavement. You and I are the same height with the same suboptimal knees, but through wimpiness or whatever, whereas you're comfortable and confident, I'd fully expect to break an ankle dirt riding a GSA and could not, regardless of the prize offered, get my leg over the seat of a 640 Adventure without looking ridiculous.

That said, the problem seems to be mine, so I'm off to the gym for thicker calves, and/or the psychiatrist for a manliness discussion. And also off to find a Stelvio . . . Thanks, Scott.

 

[mkitchen]

Not just height, but weight too

I have done everything that I could think of to lower my wife's Suzuki DR 650. I got the seat height down to 31 inches and we still have a well functioning bike but we found that even though it is lower, she is still very intimidated with it. For an example, we were in the mountains a while back and stopped to talk to some campers and when she stopped, the ground was sloped a bit and when she put her foot down, the bike overwhelmed her and down she went. When the bike was just slightly tilted one way or the other, it would be too much for her. She got to where she no longer wanted to ride because she was afraid that she would fall again.

I borrowed a friend's Yamaha XT 250 for her to try (something I should have done to begin with) and even though the seat is the same height, she is much more confident with it. I wish that I had started out with the 250, I would have saved a lot of money and time. A bit of background is probably warranted here; We are both 60 years old with no motorcycle experience so we are starting from scratch but we both really want to be able to tour on our motorbikes.

So I guess that it will be me on my KLR 650 and Mo on her XT 250 and I think we will be fine with that set up. Neither of us are looking to tear across the country, we just want to travel back roads and enjoy the scenery and have a bit of a challenge. Really no different than when we are travelling in the Tacoma or my 71 Ford. It's just different on the bikes. So if anyone is interested, I do have a very nicely lowered Suzuki DR 650 available, ready to go to a good home.
Mikey

 

[Buliwyf]

I doth protest.

The WR is a fine bike with many advantages, but if you would really like to contribute, you might consider doing a project bike that can be comfortably ridden by inseam-challenged people, people with trick knees, women, and so on. Whether modified personally, bought off the ADVRider Flea Market, or purchased straight off the showroom floor. there's zero difficulty finding highly-capable bikes that people with height, expertise and/or flexibility can roost around on. What you can't find are minimally-compromised performance off-roaders that don't have towering seat heights. There should be some alternative to sending the less-manly of us off to the world of Super Sherpas, TW200s, DR200s and the like.

I used to run enduros on Pentons, Ossas, and other bikes that had reasonable seat heights only because they had just a few inches of fork and (dual) shock travel, so I fully understand that current crop of off-road performance bikes have 36+ inch seat heights so they can have awesome suspension travel. But life is not all, or even principally, about crashing around the woods at warp speed, and for running fire roads, desert trails and pavement, we could get by with less.

As Dirt Rider wrote about the WR250: "Immediately, the tall seat height of the bike is apparent when you get on, putting anyone shorter than six feet in tippy-toe land at stoplights." Why do yet another project bike for tall people? These bikes are everywhere. Rather, perhaps contribute to the general good by mashing up a capable, decent-performance off-road moto that can be ridden comfortably by the short, old, and unlimber.

If you only want olde school low travel bikes, you're in tons of luck. You can buy and rebuild those anywhere for under $1000.

I just got my ******** kicked by a Dwarf on a Wr250. He just hops off at every traffic light. Does just fine off road as well. There's no need for regular short riders to get both feet down. Just use one. If anything, it's often better to be smaller. Moto GP, even F1, doesn't have any Nigel Mansell sized racers in it for a reason.

Still, this seems like a DRZ400 thread to me.

 

[YetiX]

the funny part about that article his that he's already riding the bike he describes, maybe he's tired of the 690?

Noah still loves his 690.:bike_rider: His point is that he had to heavily modify his 690 to get it to where it is. It would be nice if someone would make a bike that was closer to his, i.e. higher fuel capacity, more wind protection, etc.

For me, a lot of bike choice comes down to where you're going and for how long. In the US, my 1150GSA is great. I can ride forever on freeways to get where I want to ride, and it's very capable on the types of dirt I'll ride it on. Something like Noah's bike or my my 625 Adventure would be much better for less-developed countries without the Interstate system we have here.

My last thought on this issue is that rider skill has a lot to do with which bike is best. For me, my 1150GSA is not very challenging off road, mostly because I've been riding a long time and I know its limits and mine. For less-experienced riders, a smaller bike would definitely better.

 

[1stDeuce]

I've pondered this very thing, and come to a simple conclusion: Physics prevents a sub-300lb bike from riding well at 70+mph on the freeway. If you want a bike that does highway riding, it HAS to be heaver to do it well and not get blown all over, and there are plenty to choose from. If you want a light bike that is easier to handle in technical terrain, it really needs to be no more than 300lbs (before gear). Again, there are quite a few to choose from, and they do well offroad. (KLX250, CRF250L, WR250X...)

There are a few light weight 400-500cc factory dual sport bikes. BMW made one. KTM made a few. Husquvarna did too. They were all very expensive, and nobody much bought them, and they still don't ride well at higher speeds, even though they're capable from a power perspective. I would love a factory dual sport version of the CRF450X with a wide ratio six speed and a small fairing, and more oil. But I'm not going to buck up for one even if they made it today.

I think that reveals the problem: Those of us interested in the style of riding that works for an intermediate bike are not willing to pay for a new bike that would fit that description.

I looked for a replacement for my XR400 last year. My budget being sub-$5k, I ended up right back at my XR400 as the best bike for me. I'm adding TRX400EX first and second gears as soon as I can manage to tear it down, which will widen the trans out nicely. On paper, the WR250X and CRF250L seem to fit my requirements, but at no real gain over my XR, and lots of extra expense. I straddled an XR650L and it was HUGE. I'm not a big guy, so DR and KLR 650's are way too big for what I like to do.

At OE15, I heard some great advice from Danell Lynn, who is currently riding around the country on a Triumph Bonneville. She said the best bike for the trip you're on is the one you're riding. That's a pretty interesting take on it... But it works for me.

Ride what you've got, go where it goes. Have an adventure!!

 

[Cole]

I've pondered this very thing, and come to a simple conclusion: Physics prevents a sub-300lb bike from riding well at 70+mph on the freeway. If you want a bike that does highway riding, it HAS to be heaver to do it well and not get blown all over, and there are plenty to choose from. If you want a light bike that is easier to handle in technical terrain, it really needs to be no more than 300lbs (before gear). Again, there are quite a few to choose from, and they do well offroad. (KLX250, CRF250L, WR250X...)

IMO I think you are traveling wrong if you are on 70mph+ roads or terrain so technical that you need a sub 300b bike.

The roads that are 70mph+ are designed to move cargo quickly, not to see the world and meet the the locals and their culture. Can't think of many/any places where the only choice is a 70+ freeway.

The dirt tracks so difficult to require a sub 300b dirt only machine, don't really go anywhere. They are often just trails for recreational purposes.

There are a few light weight 400-500cc factory dual sport bikes. BMW made one. KTM made a few. Husquvarna did too. They were all very expensive, and nobody much bought them,

Except for the thousands of KTM EXCs, DRZ400s, etc. that can be found all day long for $2k and will both do tight trails and 70mph.

I think that reveals the problem: Those of us interested in the style of riding that works for an intermediate bike are not willing to pay for a new bike that would fit that description.

Thousand upon thousands of quality, reliable used bikes out there. And plenty of people that have ridden around the world on things like the DR350, Scooters, etc, etc.

 

[T.Low]

IMO I think you are traveling wrong if you are on 70mph+ roads or terrain so technical that you need a sub 300b bike.

The roads that are 70mph+ are designed to move cargo quickly, not to see the world and meet the the locals and their culture. Can't think of many/any places where the only choice is a 70+ freeway.

The dirt tracks so difficult to require a sub 300b dirt only machine, don't really go anywhere. They are often just trails for recreational purposes.







Except for the thousands of KTM EXCs, DRZ400s, etc. that can be found all day long for $2k and will both do tight trails and 70mph.




Thousand upon thousands of quality, reliable used bikes out there. And plenty of people that have ridden around the world on things like the DR350, Scooters, etc, etc.

Plus one. Unfortunately, you're more right than wrong regarding single track. However I still like a sub 300 lb 450 to excell on single track when we find it. There are some amazing loops that can be linked in the pnw.

 

[Cole]

Plus one. Unfortunately, you're more right than wrong regarding single track. However I still like a sub 300 lb 450 to excell on single track when we find it. There are some amazing loops that can be linked in the pnw.

Yeah, most "single track' in the world got there from hiking or animal trails. So *most* of it doesn't actually *go anywhere* other than the top of a mountian or to a river bed, etc. (of course its not *all*, but most).

Trails that *go places* tend to be at least double track. Even the historical old mining or trade routes were designed to get a wagon or cart on.


I personally don't see the attraction of simply riding a single track trail 5,000 miles from home that isn't really any different than the single track trails in my back yard. The people, towns and cultures are what is different. You only need to get *far enough* off the commercial routes to enjoy the ride and meet the people.



*FWIW, I've got 2 sub 300lbs bikes and one 450lbs bike

 

[1stDeuce]

Cole, I think we're actually on the same page...

And I did forget about the DRZ400. That bike is what I'd be riding if i didn't already own the XR. I traded my buddies back and forth a few times for their DRZ S's and E's, and felt that they were fairly similar to my XR. A little heavier in the dirt, but better on the road. All about what suits you better. I still like to ride some singletrack, and I hate riding faster than about 55mph, so the XR fits my bill a little better. I don't think I've ever gone 70mph on a motorcycle for more than a few seconds, and I have accumulated a total of 7 miles of freeway riding in the 12 years I've been riding.

If freeway is your thing, go big and go. If tighter trails and exploring is your thing, then a lighter bike works. If you want to go distance, cover ground, meet people (Overland) via the bike, sub-300lbs doesn't work for most people. (Though I do know of a few traveling the country on TW's...) The "middle" bike that everyone wants sorta already exists, and doesn't do either of the extremes well... And you're right, there were thousands of them made, but go up or down the scale, and there were tens of thousands made... My point being that the unicorn bike that everyone wants doesn't really work as a "do it all well" kinda bike, so we gravitate toward a bike that does what we like, and we ride it.

But that's why the bike you're on is the best bike for your adventure... If I was on a 650, I'd just be having different adventures.

 

[jnelson4x4taco]

1stdeuce, i like that last part of your post about if you had a 650, you'd just be having different adventures. I experienced the same thing, going from an XR250 to a Vstrom 650, very different bikes and I was worried about what I would be missing on the Vstrom. The fact of it is, im having more fun on the strom by experiencing different types of adventures. Its all very personal but for me, I see myself being a 2-bike (or more) owner someday. Ill keep the strom for those times when I want to burn up some 2-lane roads and get to some mild fire trails, and then probably end up with something like a street legal WR250 that can do some pavement if it must, but is more for the tight technical stuff, and just playing around in the dirt.

As a photographer I often hear, "the best camera is the one you have with you" so it makes sense that the same goes for bikes. But lets be honest here, isnt part of the adventure getting a big bike into places it SHOULDNT be Thats when the real fun starts lol

 

[jnelson4x4taco]

1stdeuce, i like that last part of your post about if you had a 650, you'd just be having different adventures. I experienced the same thing, going from an XR250 to a Vstrom 650, very different bikes and I was worried about what I would be missing on the Vstrom. The fact of it is, im having more fun on the strom by experiencing different types of adventures. Its all very personal but for me, I see myself being a 2-bike (or more) owner someday. Ill keep the strom for those times when I want to burn up some 2-lane roads and get to some mild fire trails, and then probably end up with something like a street legal WR250 that can do some pavement if it must, but is more for the tight technical stuff, and just playing around in the dirt.

As a photographer I often hear, "the best camera is the one you have with you" so it makes sense that the same goes for bikes. But lets be honest here, isnt part of the adventure getting a big bike into places it SHOULDNT be Thats when the real fun starts lol

 

[red EOD veteran]

I don't know much, but I sure like my 690 Enduro way more than my old KLR. Dirtbike performance, light enough to hammer it, heavy enough for the highway, too much power:sombrero:

I got to take a WR450 out this summer in Montana...with it's long service interval, powerful engine, cost of ownership, and lightweight feel due to engine placement... it may be one of the best highway dirtbikes available. It felt flickable like a 250, but a whole lotta twist available.

Big bikes? Don't work for me in the places I ride w/my skill level...too much work/risk and too little reward.

Haven't ridden the KTM yet but had it's older competitor, the kawasaki KLX650. Loved that bike, very angry bike as well with the power/weight ratio haha.