Discussions regarding low bikes or lowering options creep in to all sorts of discussions related to the vertically challenged. Many shorter bikers take it for granted that getting a low bike is the best choice. They therefore head straight for what they think is the optimal solution - namely how to get both feet firmly planted. They usually do this without questioning the merits of this "truth". Worse is that they are seldomly met with any opposing views by others - just more people eager to help them find a sloution closer to ground. Some end up making the poorer choice.

I think this is such a common and very important topic that it deserves thorough debate in a dedicated thread of its own.

How correct is the general consensus?
The general consensus among bikers is overwhelmingly that a rider should steer clear of bikes that they cannot flatfoot, or have them lowered. It is often spewed out as being allmost mission critical or detrimental to having a good and safe time.

Although I agree that being able to flat foot a bike is in general very advantageous - I think this only applies if there is no greater price to be paid for having such a benefit. For tall people, there is no such price to be paid - they can reach ground on all bikes, with both feet planted. For shorter people however, life is not so simple. They will often be faced with the choice of; an inferior bike they can flatfoot, or a superior bike that they can't flatfoot.

It is my belief that the advice of "flatfooting" has been reverberated by so many people, so many times, that it has taken the form as "the only truth" - fuelling the echo chamber even more. Hardly ever do I see anyone questioning the merits of this perspective what so ever.

I suspect that the origin oft his advice, stems from riders and whom themselves have never truely ridden offroad, or riders that have never done so with a bike that they themselves have not been able to flatfoot, - which saddly will ammount to 99% of the riders out there. So, would it be so strange if we are potentially dishing out the wrong advice here, even though most are seemingly in agreement

Lowering most often come at a price (other than money)
Lowering the seat will change your knee angle, making it more of a chore to stand up and sit down again. The seet will likely become more uncomfortable, as may your general posture as well. Further still, your instruments height, controls, etc, may lead to other things you have to deal with (i.e. reduced visibility, a change in buffeting points on head and torso , etc).

Lowering a bike by changing the preload will change your suspension dynamics - and it is a poor strategy for going about lowering a bike. If you need to lower - do it properly.

If you are so lucky to have link bones in the rear, they can easily and cheaply be swapped out to lower a bike a centimeter or three, without too much conswquence other than ground clearance and a sidestand that now might be too long, and a centerstand which is now so tall that getting the bike up might be a chore. Now, just remember to lower both the front and rear equal.

The taller bike is better offraod
Bigger wheels, greater ground clearance, is eksponentially better to have off road - end of discussion. A bike with a 21" inch front wheel isn't 110% better offroad than one with 10" front wheel - it is many hundred percent better! A differnece between a 19" and 21" is far more than 20% when it comes to performance. So, getting a low bike to traverse terrain, because one thinks it is easier for a short person if hte can flatfoot it - may not be the better choice.

You should "never" let both feet touch the ground anyways
When coming to a stop, only one foot should touch the ground. The other should cover either the gear shifter or the rear brake - all depending (but usually the brake). Reasons include; being able to give your hand a rest, prevent uncontrolled rolling and easier hill starts. Actually it also gives more control in preventing the bike from toppling over (more on this in a bit). Covering neither controls isn't really a riding strategy at all - it is shit practice!

Sliding the bum off the seat - best for short and tall alike
In order for short people to be able to flatfoot one foot, they will need to slide their bum off to the side of the seat. In terms of preventing the bike to topple over, this is massively more secure compared to having both feet flat-footed. It doesn't take long to get used to, and it requires less energy than you might think (you want to chill, get a chopper, an automatic scooter or a Goldwing).

When you slide off to the side of the seat, your leg will be planted further away to the side of the bike's center mass - which will make the triangle between both wheels and your foot larger and more stable. In addition, your own center of mass will be off to the side of the bike, adding more stability still. The combined effect will give you enormously more leverage when acting against a bike leaning towards the foot that is planted - than would be the case if both feet where planted close to the bike (only one leg supports the bike at any given moment - better make it a strong one)..

Now, should the bike start to lean in the opposite direction, then this becomes easier to deal with as well. With your leg "hooked" over the saddle, and your body mass of to the opposite side, very little effort is required to get the bike leaning back in the other direction - simply lean your body a fraction and your leg will pull the bike no effort at all.

Now, shhould your bike actually topple over to the opposite side to the foot you are standing on, you will not get the bike over you (as you likely would if both legsstraddled the bike equally). Should it conversely drop to the same side that your foot is planted (unlikely) - you will be better off as well. With your planted leg further away from the bike, and the other leg allready half way over - your odds for being able to get out of the way is greater. If it cant be helped, chances are that you will be able to reduce the impact more. I've heard arguments that the bike would hit the leg lower down, and that this somehos would be better - of this I'm not so sure.

"Dabbing" vs planting
When riding on difficult terrain, many will agree that you are offered more control by standing than sitting. Now, how do you get from the standing position to both feet on the ground in a quick and controlled manner? Well, you shouldn't teven ry to! You better slide off to one side and put one foot down and keep the other on the opposing footpeg.

Now if you are moving, trying to support your bike with your feet, or walking it in any way - makes for a very likely injury. If your bike is about to tip over, the point is not to control the bike's lean trough supporting it with your legs, but to get enough body weight onto the opposing side of the bike. If you at slow speed feel the bike is starting to lean uncontrollably over, you can quickly "dab" your foot onto the leaning side to help your body bounce over to the other side with some speed. It will reduce your weight momenterily on the leaning side, reducing the leaning forces. At the same time it allows you to "spring" over to the other peg, immediatly transfering weight and regaining control. The point here is having the foot touch the ground only for a millisecond to just "bounce" - not to support the bike on the ground.

Now, the "dabbing" technique is so closely related to the sliding off the saddle technique , or having just one foot down at a stop - that mastering the latter two will help you master dabbing. Ergo - don't get in the habbit of putting both feet down to begin with - it should never be done, ever! Both feet down is about as good of a practice as driving a car with only one hand on the wheel - comfortable, yes, better control, no!

Traversing rough terrain is better done with both feet on the pegs
Trying to to paddle a bike over rough terrain is usually allways a piss poor strategy. It usually greatly reduces ones control over the bike. It increases the chances of injury wrom getting your feet knocked arround. It reduces ones ability to get clear of the bike should it topple over.Further still, if you rely on your foothold to keep your bike uptight - what happens when you loose your footing (which is sure to happen if you paddle enough steps)?

Riding with your feet dangling inches off the ground, ready to catch . is even worse. You really think your odds of catching a moving 200 kg piece of metal are good, having virtually no stride? Do you really think your odds of injury are low? In short, flatfooting is over rated.

Under some condititions it seems counter intuitive to get both feet up on the footpegs and entrust one's bike to forward momentum and gyroscopic effects - i.e. crossing a rocky riverbed with some current in it. The truth is that your feet will never have the traction or power that the bike offers, and speed is your friend - and going paddling pace is your enemy

In other words, being able to plant both feet is not really a requirement even here.

Being able to flatfooting has its uses - just not that many
The only real condition I can think off where flattfoting is a reuirement is when one rides on surfaces with absolutely no traction - like wet polished ice. On other poor traction surfaces like snow and sand, one will usually sink into it anyways - leaving ample leg length. But even here, paddling is usually a poor strategy.

Being able to backpaddle a bike can truely only be done on really smooth and plane surfaces. In all other conditions we have to get off the bike and either push or turn it arround on the center stand.

The greatest benefit from having relatively long legs is the fect that every milimiter of leverage counts. Also, it makes it easier to get on and off the bike.

If one plans to spend a lot of time in traffic with lots of traffic stops, then sure, being able to rest on both balls of your feet can be nice. But then again, maybe an aotomatic scooter is the better bike choice?

All our legs will be too short - sooner or later
Anyones legs will sometimes be too short to be able to plant both feet on both sides even on smooth surfaces - i.e. turning on a hill and having to do so across a slope. Offroad it happens all the time.

My advice
It doesn't take much practice to learn how to master a bike they can tippy toe. They can learn both the offroad and the onroad bits not much harder than a person who can flatfoot can. By getting used to sliding off the saddle from the get go, they will advance as offroad riders far faster than someone who has gotten used to planting both feet. The required techniques will make them safer and more effective in soooo many more ways than someone who puts both feet down every chance.

With all other things equal, the rider with longer legs will have an easier time - that is an unchallengable fact. That is not the same as to say that a rider is better off chosing the bike they can flatfoot over one that they can not. Because when we enter this domain, all other things are usually far drom equal.

It is generally true, that independent of the rider - a bike's offroad suitability increases exponentially with the bike's height. A rider whom has overcome fear of altitudes, will have opened themselves up to so many more bikes to choose from - and not just for offroad riding.

So, before dispensing out warnings or advice, let people see the whole picture.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

My simple answer to the question in your title is yes, at least getting the ball of your feet on the ground is important to me and that opinion is based on many thousands of kilometers of riding on dirt and gravel roads often on a fully loaded bike sometimes carrying a passenger.
What consititutes a superior or inferior bike is totally subjective especially for overland travelling and I for one would sooner ride a Harley-Davidson that I can flatfoot rather than a jacked up KTM I cannot reach the ground on making the H-D a superior bike for me in those circumstances.
I will continue to use my piss poor strategy which has got me across every motorable continent in more or less one piece often on bikes that I have lowered.

Writing as a 'partially heighted' rider, on my favourite KTM 690 R Enduro 'tourer' I have a choice between being able to touch with the ball of one foot or tiptoes on both. i'm happy with this as the 690 is a very light and well-balanced bike, but I wouldn't like to be doing this on a 200+kg bike, and most definitely not with a passenger.

And then there's the problem of deep ruts. On one trip I was riding the centre of a dirt track to avoid the worst ruts, but of course when I stopped and tried to put a foot down, the ground in the tyre tracks was much lower, so over I went. I was a slow learner and toppled over a second time just 10 minutes later.

Some years ago I was at a HUBB UK meeting intending to then go on and tour the Outer Hebrides, and in a moment of madness I bought an Airhawk inflatable mat to go on top of the 690 seat. This made the seat so high I found the only way to mount was to stand on the left side of the bike with my right foot on the ground and my left foot on the footpeg, then as I opened the throttle to swing my right leg over to mount. My practice attempts at the HUBB meeting left many in stitches.

A couple of points... the person's height is not a good guide, their inseam (inside leg measurement) is a better indicator. And secondly, someone with muscular or weighty legs will have more of a problem than someone with thin legs of the same length, as the more flesh that's involved, the more their legs will be splayed.

The attached photo from 2004 shows Dakar Rally competitor Nick Plumb demonstrating the 'one tiptoe plus bumshift' position (with Si Pavey in background).

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

I didn't conisder riding with a pillion
You make a very important point here.

A passenger can shift the weight uncontrollably to the rider, often leaving them to have both ready, often having to shift weight from one foot to the other in an instant - and also need to have the strength to hold it. Further, sliding off to the side of the saddle with someone hugging you from behind, isn't as easy.

The "best" is subjective???
We can argue which is the better means of transportation - a boat or a car, and never see eye to eye. Its only when we add which element is to be traversed, that all but the crazies will agree on which mode of transport is the most suitable. So, when we are talking about riding a motorcycle offroad, some may prefer the Harley over the KTM , but most wouldn't.

When I wrote the original post I presupposed an element of offroad beyond nice gravel roads. Harleys in this regard would be better than a boat, but not much.

If most of what someone will contend with is nice roads and twisties, a tall bike is probably not the most suitable - even for a tall person. In that case, if one is vertically challenged, there is no point in even discussing it.

Most people that raise the question on their own behalf does however face a problem where they have a desire for some of the attributes that only the taller bikes offers - atleast to the extent they would be happy with. Whenever someone pops a question if they will fit this or that bike on a froum like this, I assume somewhat that they might really desire some of the very features that makes the bike tall. I am therfore careful about talking anyone here into taking a tall bike off the table, simply for being tall. I tend to reccomend the best tool for the job first, then size second - not the other way around.

So, when a rider is faced with the prospecto of buying the bike they really desire, that they can afford, that has the performance attributes that they are looking for, etc - but that they can't flatfoot - what should the rider do?

My first point is that being vertically challenged is a challenge I've seen many overcome without too much problems. So with that, why should they deny themselves the bikes that they truely need?

My second point is that we can all benefit riding as if we were vertically challenged - it simply gives better control and increased safety.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

The more extreme the offroad the more you need a low seat, otherwise how can you turn the bike sideways under you when you're off-camber?

__________________
FreeBSD fan since before it was cool ...

I have a 29-inch inside leg and have enough off road experience from mud to snow to sand. I have used bikes from a 28 inch Triumph Bonneville to a 34-inch BMW GS to a 32-inch Weestrom.

Thoughts:

Seat width matters. A 34-inch XT600e is easier than the GS and Weestrom lumps because less movement gives a straighter leg.

Weight matters, a flat foot will stop a 450 lb Bonneville going over, a toe can support a 350lb CL350, a toe will not enjoy a 550lb GS tottering at 30 degrees.

Sliding on the seat means the bike can slide from underneath you. If the lean angle is too great you are trying to pull against the seat with a bent knee and raised foot off the peg. Either it goes or the load is into a shoulder straining motion via the bars. Bum down, feet down, everything upright and symmetrical is way more stable.

How is a "dab" any use at a road junction? Keeping moving means going under the logging truck you've just seen through the trees. The "dab" is fine on the Dakar where you have no traffic and notes on every gradient. Planning the dab will eventually go wrong if you do it enough.

Rim size changes tyre choice, but pretty much anything other than 17-inch has some possibility.


If you struggle with an over height, over weight bike, that's what you learn to do. If I practice basketball it will never get me into the Harlem Globetrotters because I'll still be 15 inches too short. It won't make me a better snooker player.

Andy

With the best will in the world I'm not going to use Moto Cross riding techniques on a loaded up bike with another 5000 miles stretching out in front of me. And, having done long trips on a bike (a few of them actually) where reaching the ground was an issue, I'm now older and wiser via my own experience - and that experience - as I posted before - involved having to master tippy toe techniques. With that behind me I try to avoid it for all the reasons I gave before. If that means my off road adventures are going to have to be curtailed for lack of ground clearance or because I haven't graduated from the Latest Dakar God Off Road Riding School, then so be it.

You're right that sooner or later there's a good chance everyone will come a cropper even if they can plant both feet. I did it a few years ago on a bike where I can plant both feet when I stopped on a flooded road and put my foot into a submerged pothole. And many years ago on a long Euro trip I was following someone on a GoldWing when he missed a gearchange on a hairpin turn. His leg was too short for the (extreme) camber and the bike ended up upside down in a ditch. Both of those incidents could / should have been avoided but I don't want to head off somewhere on a bike where it could happen at every set of traffic lights. If there's no other alternative and that's the bike I'm stuck with I'll take messing up the steering geometry by lowering it over hoping there's no sand of gravel under the tip of my boot every time I just manage to get a toe down.

Your post leads to the question about why we travel on motorcycles - whether it's for the buzz of the ride itself, or whether it's the travel experience that matters.

Is it nice to be able to flatfoot both sides? Yes. Is it necessary? No, if you're a reasonably competent rider.

I think you are all making good points.

Now, there are various degrees of handicap. Someone who can plant their heels with bendt knees, or just their heels with straight legs, or just their toe balls, or just barely their tippy toes, or have both feet dangling high up in the sir - it is different. If you actually were to ride comoetetive MX and intend to win, then you will ride the best bike - feet dangling or not.

HU is about travel. To some it is about riding a decent amount of pretty difficult terrain, with a light load. To others it is riding two up with all their creature comforts and self reliance gear onboard - avoiding the knarliest stuff. To those that lean more to the latter category they will be able to find plenty of superb bikes that won't cause any fear of heights. Those that lean more towards the prior category might have a much smaller selection, many which will be tall. The question then becomes how tall relative to their reach and to what extent they ought to compromise on bike height. I would assume that few woul need to make a compromise if they could plant both toe balls, while just about all that could barely tippy toe ought to.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

I don't know why I didn't mention it, but the above reminded me. I was trying so hard to stop a 1200GSA from toppling over on Salisbury Plain that I tore my bicep. The arm was black and blue.

What I hadn't realised was that one of the tendons had detached. There's a 24-hour window to reattach this before it's too late so by the time I saw a doctor when the swelling wouldn't go down a week or so later I was told there was nothing to be done. So one arm is a 'monocep'.

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

I work on the theory that I have to be able to move the bike fully loaded while seated on the bike.

If I can’t manoeuvre the bike out of a parking spot when seated on the bike then it is a bit pointless, even lifting the bike off the side stand on uneven ground can be a chore.

I have a Yamaha T7 and a DR 650, both have similar seat heights but the T7 is heavier and wider at the seat and I struggle to move the thing a few inches and if trying to push it backwards on a slight incline it becomes near impossible, the DR on the other hand is lighter and narrower and that is a lot easier to move.

In the real world when things are not always predictable I prefer a bike I can manoeuvre when seated, there are times when having good grip with both boots is a very handy thing especially on dirt and gravel.

Personally.....on a fully loaded tourer or road bike with wife , luggage , kitchen sink etc I would say flat foot on st least one side is a defo . Off road solo use not so as u can move around the seat . Having very long legs it isnt an issue for me.....until I went to ride the works demo AT adventure sport thing on high seat............er no way ta

Get yourself one of these -





Reverse gear makes going backwards up a slope childs play.

Going forward up a (dirt) slope however, that's a different matter

With even the slightest incline, the tiniest protrusion or indentation in the road, or a soft or slippery surface - will make it difficult to move a heavy bike while seated - no matter how long your legs are. Sure it is easier with longer legs. But, more often than not, pushing the bike or using the engine is the safest and easiest way to move a bike anyways. Suggesting that a rider will benefit greatly from having long legs, because it makes it soooo much easier to move the bike around, holds very little truth to it . Being able to move a bike by straddling it, should not be an important purchasing criterion for most buyers.

If it is very important to be able to move your bike around under your own power while straddling it - get the lightest and shortest bike you can find, and spend a lot of time in the gym. A Vespa with a walk through frame would be best. But before you get any misconceptions, even a 140 kg Vespa can give even a giant a fight. A short legged person will quickly find out that moving a bike straddled is the worst way to move a bike under your own power - for a long legged person it might take a bit longer to come to understand?

It is true though that it is safer and easier in having longer legs, and that every cm counts. It is also true that both the perceived control, and actual control, increases exponentially through all the stages of reach limitations (flat foot, to balls of feet, to toes, to tippie toes, to both feet dangling). But, ones perceptions of reach limitations is usually also far worse than how things actually prove to be in real life, with just a tiny bit of practice.

So, when you can flat foot you feel sooooo much safer and in soooo much more control than if you could only get the balls of your feet down - and faaaaar more so than is warranted. In fact, without having proper reach techniques engrained, you are probably riding around with a false sense of security - and in a big way.

Now, when the bike gets so tall that one has to slide sideways in the saddle to reach on just one side, things are getting challenging for sure. For most but advanced riders, it will be a poor choice of bike.

Now, if you get to the point that you have to slide so far out of the saddle that your foot can longer operate the brake pedal - then things has goten extremely more problematic. Bikes this tall should be reserved for offroad racing only, and should not be ridden on the street.

I simply cannot see any strong arguments as of why "anyone" should opt out of a bike solely on the argument that they can only get their toe balls down and not their heels - as general advice, it is a poor one in my opinion. In fact, I don't even see how such an insignificant vertical handicap justifies even altering the bike's dynamics (through either lowering the suspension, or sacrificing seat comfort through a lower seat).

It simply takes so so so very little getting used to having your heels a few centimeters off the ground that advicing agaibst such a bike can't be warranted, even for a complete beginner. In fact, the handicap often inadvertently ends up giving the shorter rider a strength that the flat footer never develops. The one who is used to a vertical handicap if a few centimeters, can easily deal with a sudden need of many centimeters. The one who is used to flat foot can struggle even at the point where the heel is just off the ground by millineters. The vertically challenged are far better prepared to deal with situations that require an unexpected extra bit of reach, infinitely more so than the guy that flatt footboth feet 99'9% of the time.

Now, if we are talking tippy toes, I get why most want to alter the bike or change the bike completely - especially if they are to ride with a pillion. But even here, I think many solo riders would end up being happier if they did not compromise by getting a lower bike - especially if they were to ride some rough terrain.

I believe that many who has encountered a sudden situation where they end up struggling with reach (falling over or almost), accredits the problem to bike height rather than own technique. So, rather than practicing the proper technique for a couple of hours, and maintaining the principal of "only one foot down at any time", they get a lower bike. And then, they ride around comfortably and reassured, with a false sense of security - thinking "problem solved"... until they end up in trouble again - and once again think they need an even shorter bike, or lighter bike...

The only impactful way to attain a real sense of safety and control, is through practicing technique - not by getting a bike you can flat foot. If riders came to understand this, they would feel just about as confident on the bike they could flat foot as the one they could get their toe balls down on.

Someone who is experienced in riding with a vertical handicap, and who doesn't require the increased height attributes, can enjoy a shorter bike in ways than no one else can.

It's nice to be able to flat foot, but just not that important.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

Whilst I can accept that as your opinion and if that works for you that is fine you also have to accept that there are some here with many years and millions of miles/kilometers of experience between us who disagree with you.