No such beast, they're just 'bikes' and the 'adventure' bit's simply a marketing tag. If you want confirmation, just consider what proportion of all those 'Adventure Bikes' sold undertake anything more adventurous than 70-miles of familiar roads on sunny Sunday's in summer, stopping off at some scenic gathering spot to allow their owners can talk the talk about the big trip that they're going to make... 'in a couple of years time'.

__________________
BobnLes

Hold on a minute, who said this and where is this set in stone or where has science proved this..?? Conversations like this tend to go round in circles and at the end of the day it's only our individual opinions. If two people want to share the same adventure using one bike then the 'light is right' approach goes out the window but the two said people still go on to have live the adventure on the bike that they chose. There simply isn't a right or wrong here....

You definitely need an appropriate bike. For instance this guy, Gareth Jones, seems to have got it nailed:

https://adventureriderradio.com/adve...e-the-possible

__________________
You will have to do without pocket handkerchiefs, and a great many other things, before we reach our journey's end, Bilbo Baggins. You were born to the rolling hills and little rivers of the Shire, but home is now behind you. The world is ahead.

andn so it goes on ..............
one mans bike is a tarmac thing !!! ( err !!)
another is a very small bike good for not a lot !!
and .............................................. the perfect combination is ... around 650 ish and 70 bhp !. ............................. :...

My answer to that question is questioning myself how much power can I handle and effectively use that these 2wheeled chunk of metal takes me and my luggage to where I want?

There are much more characteristics existing a bike should have to be most suitable to me, to my skills and to the route I want to ride it than power. This is approved by a number of travel reports with a large variety of bikes I know.

I always get a big grin when I read statements from the motorcycle industry telling me:
"Neither the elements of nature nor the borders on the map can hold you back because you are driven by wanderlust and your bike by enduring power and reliable technology."

Sadly my experience proofs that my individual riding skills are a stronger limiting factor than the enduring power of any bike. And Yes, I am aware that for "real adv riding" it is absolutely required that something during the trip must go horrible wrong to full proof the quality of an adventure!

The more I read in forums or watch youtube or listen and read "adventure reports" I am aware that there are as many different rider personality characteristics existing as there are seen adv bikes on travel routes.

So It´s up to me to find a bike what will blend well with my chararcteristic of skills and wishes to the route. In this decision power is an argument which I scale on the last and which doesn`t depend only a certain number of hp.

__________________

I wouldn’t take a big heavy bike, because they become a pain in the arse to ride through sand and mud, being taken up a few steps into your Hostal, to put into the hold of an aircraft, to to be lifted over the side rails of a boat. These are things that had to be done when I did my RTW trip. I would also prefer a bike that isn’t a magnet for any thieves that might fancy a go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

__________________
Charles CCM450, BMW R90/6, BMW R50
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...a/027_27-1.jpg

I rode a heavy cruiser with about 85 HP but most of it between 2-3,000 rpm. went from US to Argentina and not on the PanAm. Nothing like powering up the Andies passes as if you are on flat land. Carries a typical amount of gear as if it's not there and needs nothing but oil, brake and tire changes. If I were designing a proper long distance travel bike I would build a version of that with some more suspension travel and maybe a physically smaller engine.

@Rapax...

Sure there are people who have not only gone arround the world on all sorts of bikes, but also having visited every country in the world. Helge Pedersen took a BMW R80GS htrough the Darian Gap, Emilio Scotto visited every country in the world on a Honda Goldwing, Peter and Kay Forwood did the same two up on a Harley, Giorgio Betinelli on a Vespa... Jenny Graham did an RTW on a bicycle in only 128 days (a healthy human has 1.2 horses)... there are countless stories of people doing it on Honda Cubs, and what not. I have done my share of adventure motorcycling myself - on everything from Classic Vespas to Dakar bikes.

Now, what others have done before does not give testament to what is actually suitable. Capable? - a kickbike is capable! Suitable, that is an entirely different thing. And power is one of the most sought after attributes in terms of "suitability"

There is something as too much power, but in terms of typical adventure bikes - for most, it is not releavnt. Too little power however, that is a totally different matter. In the adventure bike segment, more power and torque is usually better. At what power to weight ratio is the tipping point? It depends on a lot of personal factors. But, for a bike that weighs approximately 200 kgs loaded, I would assume that for most of us, the tipping point is somewhere arround 50 hp. Start creeping below 40, and many will often feel as the bike lacking in power. Come above 60, and many will become delighted. Come below 30 and many will often feel discontent. Come above 70 and many will feel excited. Torque is also factor ofcourse - but one which on most bikes can be significantly altered to one's preferences through a simple and inexpensive change of sprocket in the front and/or rear i.e. (-1 tooth in the front, or +2 to+4 in the rear).

Weight or size on the other hand is not so straight forward. There are just as many merits to having a heavy bike for an RTW as there are merits to having a light bike - it depends on your riding style, your route, what you are carrying, your experience... and a lot of other factors. Saying that an adventure bike ought to be light is simply not valid - it depends.

I hear over and over this argument, which I find kind of ridiculous - that "there is no such thing as an adventure bike", and that the label is stupid - that an adventure bike is whatever bike you take on a trip which is an adventure to you, and that the "adventure bike" label is something which is a marketing gimmic. I think it is a crock of turd.

I can use a rock as a hammer, it doesn't make it one. I can put a plough and other tractor implements on my old Landrover, and plow a field - it doesn't make it a tractor. I can ride my Vespa on a motorcross track - it doesn't make it into a mx bike. When you talk about a trial bike, an mx bike, enduro bike, a dual sport, an adventure bike, a touring bike, or a cruiser - there is a set of utilitarian attributes we have in mind.

When it comes to an adventure bike, we think of something which is somewhere between a dual sport and a touring bike. We assume the enduro bike to be 100% offroad, the dual sport to be 50/50 road/offroad, the adventure bike to be 70/30 road/offroad, and the touring bike to be 100% road. The most important attributes on an adventure bike being:

• high ground clearance
• large wheels
• dual sport tires, usually road biased
• shock travel. Offroad capable, but road biased set up
• good ergonomics for standing up and offroad riding, but road biased
• wind protection
• Implements for electronics such as GPS and phone mounts
• luggage carrying suitability
• low end torque
• long distance riding comfort
• bike protection (crash bars, radiator protection, hand guards, etc)
• Spoked wheels (depends)
• Road biased size and weight (+ 175 kgs?)
• etc

Now, for riders that want a lighter offroad capable bike, they will find themselves shopping in the dual sport market or something inbetween - with the consequent trade offs. To some this may be the ideal compromise. To others it may simply be a budget compromise. To most however, that have the financial means - the adventure bike segment will be most suitable for an RTW or the likes. Reasons for this is that (for most), the predominant hours is spendt on decent roads and terrain, with so much extra weight and volume carried that the benefits of a lighter bike is eaten up - and power and other weight gaining features becomes more valuable.

When I say SUV - you don't think of a sportscar - you have a very particular type of car in mind? When you say "adventure bike" you similarily have a particular type of bike in mind.

That much said - a light weight and kitted out 250 dual sport should put a smile on the face of many RTW travellers. But, for me, and I assume the most of us - if one had gone RTW once on a WR250R, and once on a Tenere 700 - and were to say which made for the most pleasurable trip - I think most would lean towards the T7. If you were to add a Himalyan into the mix, I think that one would come in last (neither bird nor fish).

So, my default advice to most - if I had nothing else to go by - start looking at the "adventure bike" segment and adjust from there - all according to personal preferences and budget. Very few of these have low HP.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

Having just come back from a 5 mile hill training run I'd have been very happy to have 1.2 horses powering me up the slopes. Most of the time though it felt like one of the nags had trotted off somewhere else.

This discussion is a bit like those tyre characteristics diagrams where all the attributes - wet grip, noise etc - are arranged in a circle and each tyre's good and bad points distorts it in or out. Here we have a circle of desirable attributes being distorted in or out by people's preferences and / or experience. Optimising the circle just gives us a jack of all trades but master of none two wheeler.

There's a discussion to be had not so much about which bike best forms your own circle but, in the travel arena, what bikes are for at all. When you travel what is the bike doing for you (other than kicking in a few extra horses when the hill appear). I get the bit about more horsepower = less trouble on hills but if the hills (for example) are what you've travelled to see then then the extra horsepower is counterproductive. You just get through them quicker. There's no doubt I see more in the order: walking - running - cycling - my 125 bike - some 100bhp thing, but I also have more trouble with distance and, in particular, other traffic if I'm using the roads in that order as well.

If the roads were totally empty how many people would take a 100bhp bike if travel was their primary interest. If riding the bike is what you want to do and travel just happens to be where you end up while riding it then fine, but that's not how it works for me. Bigger bike = more carrying capacity is a bit of a red herring. Packpackers manage to stuff it all into a rucksack that their 1.2hp () can manage. Bigger bike usually ends up as more junk I could actually do without but is handy to have. Having said that I'm not actually some kind of hair shirt minimalist but sometimes I think the bikes we choose may be optimal but for something else other than travel.

This made me curious enough to do a Google search:
When considering human-powered equipment, a healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp (0.89 kW) briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp (0.075 kW) indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp (1.9 kW) briefly and 0.35 hp (0.26 kW) for a period of several hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsep...everal%20hours.

__________________
Bruce Clarke - 2020 Yamaha XV250

Funny theory!

A world class rider of the tour de france is able for 20 - 40 min to press a power of 5 or 6 watts per kg bodyweight.

Steven Kruijswijk of Team Jumbo-Visma(2016) was pressing 330 watt at the mountain pass Col de la Lombarde/France (incline 6,7-11%) which means he did 5,16 watt per kg bodyweight(63kg).

These athletes need daily 6000 to 10000 kalories to burn in energy and they drink a minimum of 500ml an hour.

As a hobby summer racing bicycle rider my average cadence is 60 per minute with a speed of 23km/h. This means 67 watt or 0.9 watt per kg bodyweight or 0,09 hp and it burns 250 kcal/hr.

__________________

After 15yrs I guess I count as a 'trained athlete'. I'm just not a very good one.

I teach this stuff - but as it's to the over 60's we're not exactly talking Olympic level performance.

Tour de France riders may well glow in the dark with the energy levels they can expend but comparing them to 'average' athletes, never mind non athletes, is like comparing F1 drivers with the local Deliveroo scooter rider. My rule of thumb has been that we produce about 100 watts as a base level ie when doing nothing (I guess that counts as 'indefinitely), 3-400 watts while aerobically (= sustainably) exercising and maybe double that when you add in anaerobic capacity. But anaerobic output is very short term - maybe 30-40 seconds before it starts to hurt.

So 1/2 a horse on a long run and maybe 1 horse for a minute or so. And that's for people with enough training to be able to exercise aerobically - most people who don't do any training have very little surplus aerobic ability. A glance at the couch to 5k training schedule for complete beginners will show that.

People have gone RTW on that 250/300 watts. Makes my 12kW Suzuki (10bhp) look positively decadent.

It seems that the covid lock down is having terrible effects on my personal power to weight ratio. The recommended body service regime is not being followed, and I am giving it terrible fuel. As a consequence my power continues to dwindle, and the weight continues to add on. I definitely have lost a lot of torque in the low end. As for the mid or high end ranges - I wouldn't know. I have not really tested it much above idle lately.

Personal fitness, as well as skills, plays a major role in terms of what type of bike is most ideal for the individual trip.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

I think you can wing it when you're younger but the more years I see on my personal clock the more effort I have to put in to cope with the rigours of a long trip.

I have to agree with you....( no fun in getting old ! )
I can still do a 250 mile trip in a day, but next day i dont want to even look at the bike !.
any ideas ?