We are talking realities and not hypotheticals - road legal mass produced bikes purpose built for travels, available today. For a short while, I used to ride trial - and they would be a terrible choice for even the shortest trips or even speeds faster than sprinting.

Now, unless you have both the skill and the traction to pop the front wheel to get the wheel onto or over the obstacle (i.e. a log), then you need a large front wheel large enough to be able to roll over it. If you don't have the ground clearance to make it across, then you also need the skill to wheelie or bounce over it. And, unless you plan on standing all the time, you need a saddle that is tall enough so you can quickly stand up and sit back down again, and one which will actually aid you in sharp turns, not leave your body aching, etc. Add luggage and creature comforts, emission and safety laws, a platform if available engines, etc - and the designers will turn out the best purpose built bike sensible to produce - a tall dual sport or adventure bike very much similar to those which have existed the last two or three decades or more.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

You are so spot on here! And my fellow countryman Wheelie should be the first one to know as this thing about big bikes is VERY present where me and Wheelie lives - Norway.

I remember back 22-23 years ago when I bought my first big bike after having owned 50 and 100 cc bikes back in my teens - the bike was a Honda Transalp 600 cc. A fairly big bike for me, but for my surroundings not so….

I got all kinds of comments, from a tad overbearing like «its probably an ok learning bike but you will soon want a bigger one» to those just plain stupid ones like «hey thats a girlie bike, when are you gonna get a mans bike?» To those who guys with denim wests full of patches riding that brand I wont mention here but you know what I mean - and they wouldnt even comment my bike at all, just silence. When I took off around the world one of theyre female members made some nice comments on my travel page but ended all her comments with «but as we all know he ride the wrong brand of motorbike»

The biggest and tallest bike I ever owned was a Triumph Tiger 955i. It was a tall bike and very top heavy too with a 24 liter gas tank sitting on top of the big triple engine. And I am 180 cm tall and thus realtively tall. But tall and topheavy is not a good combination for a motorbike. Yes when youre up to speed on a good road it doesnt matter. But with unlevel ground, gravel and sand underneath etc - totally different. And that bike I couldnt flatfoot, just toeball. I lost count on how many times I dropped it in parking situations. Ok when the ground was level and firm. But as soon as the ground was a bit unlevel and or had some sand, gravel etc - whoops and down we went. I of course learned to be careful, damned careful in parking situations, especially in new environments.

Yeh Im sure there is a lot of technices that could be learned to master riding a tall bike. But Im also sure all these are aimed at parking on level ground with no luggage to talk of on the bike and most certianly not with a pillion. And definetively not out and around in the hills and valleys far away from asphalt and and level parking.

One thing is to be able to master a tall bike on a fairly level ground in a controlled area. Another thing is to be able to control the same tall bike with 30 kilos of luggage on and 5 liter of water and 5 liter of extra fuel strapped on the back deep into a steep sandy and rutty bad dirt road full of wet red clay in the jungle of Laos or on the altiplanos of Bolivia.

If you can handle a bike in the worst thinkable conditions - then you can truly handle it. If you only can handle a tall bike on a fairly level and firm ground - then you are limited to ride that tall bike only on firm level grounds. Quite limiting your range I would say…

You cannot fight the law of physics, if a bike feels to tall for you - it most probably because it is. If a bike feels to heavy for you it most probably is too heavy for you.

After my 5 year RTW trip I am very convinced that most travellers spend waaay too much money, time ane energy to buy and equip waaay too big, tall and expensive and fancy bikes that in most cases are a very uncomfortable and unpractical rides outside north-America and Europe.

Nowadays I am planning trips to countries and destinations I couldnt visit on my RTW trip. Places like Vietnam, Philippines, Borneo, Myanmar, India and Nepal.
Trips of 1-6 months time. Maybe even a new trip through south America.

But never again will I use a bike north of 200 kilos weight to ride third world countries! Its beyond severe stupidity!

A 125-150 step through scooter for Vietnam. A Honda Xr150 for Philippines, a Royal Enfield of some kind for India and Nepal (I rather prefer a Bullet 500 I think) For Myanmar - I really dont know but not a tall bike…

For south America again - maybe a Honda XRE190 or XRE300. No tall bikes, no big bikes…

Happy trails to everybody.

PS I just came back from a 2200 km ride on my Honda Crf250L here in Thailand with a pillion and luggage for a 10 day trip. Yesterday we rode 600 kms. Without any problems at all - even though its s fairly tall bike….

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

@Snakeboy

Most are in agreement that weight is your enemy. I am however talking about height.

You advocate the CRF - a tall bike. If I remember correctly, the seat height is some 34-35 inches, about the same as a T7. They both carry a 21 inch wheel - as big as it gets. The CRF is low weight, the T7 heavy (but not too bad).

I was soooo close to getting a CRF300 Rally (better subframe, range, etc), but decided against it for now (maybe for an RTW). The main two reasons is that the suspension is way too poor for my taste. The second is that I wish it had a tad bit more power (40 HP minimum). It is a good thing that Honda chose to keep the compression and HP low to improve reliability, longevity and service intervals - at the expense of HP. At 400 or 500 cc and the bike would have been perfect, and I could have just upgraded the suspension.

As for bikes like the 1200 GS, they are heavy, but still quite agile off road (any surface), and it is actually easier to deadlift lying flat than a T7. But, it lacks height, and is ofcourse heavy - so far from ideal for me. But, if you were to ride two up RTW, it would be a great bike. Riding solo, there are better options... And, yes, we are still talking travel with a fair bit of rough stuff.

A CRF 300 Rally would for me be a better bike than A T7 for going RTW for s year or two (for more reasons I can get into here - including those that deals with things not pertains to riding it). But, I would still take my T7. The main reason is that I sink all my time and money into equipping and tailoring the bike I ride the most, and not my "special occasion" bike - which at the present is my T7. Taking a huge loss by trading in the T7, only to want to get one just like it after the trip, and then taking a huge loss on my special occasion bike? Nope, not for me! Although the CRF is very ideal on all attributes, the T7 doesn't come very far behind, and has many redeeming factors. It's the bike I will take on my next trip to Africa for instance, and the TET, etc.

As for riding a 12 HP step through, I have quite a bit experience, even some serious offroading. It had its charm, and I've had a lot of fun. At the same time, it has felt like a dog on a leash, standing on it's back legs and refusing to venture into anything that wasn't leasurly (grit, washboards, potholes, hills, sand, mud, rocks, etc) - with me tugging the leash bit by bit. With the T7 it feels as though it is me holding the bike back, with the bike wanting to take off full speed into the deepest levels of hell, with me hanging on for dear life!

As for reach, I promise. A little bit of training goes a long way in dealing with reach deficiency - even for riders that have been riding for decades in all sorts of terrain, but never bothered to actually train purposefully and repetitiously in a controlled environment. And, in my opinion, all would be better served by regularly practicing those skills - regardless how long their legs are, how low the bike sits, or how light it is.

As for large bikes in Norway, there are quite a bit. I've never felt the pressure to go big though. Also, the bikes that top the sales statistics are medium bikes like the 600cc bikes I believe. I think the Fazer being number one of all time, and number one for two decades about - I may be wrong though, but not entirely off planet.

As for upgrading. If you have a "learner's bike" of 50 hp or below, then much is to be desired in a country like Norway... With a lot of hills, fast paced roads with Twisties, and a lot of acceleration stretches. And going offroad is almost entirely illegal.

Riding a GS 1200 in a country like Norway is wonderful, if you are competent. But a bike like a 600 Fazer with it's fairly upright ergonomics and smooth and lively engine, is also great - but for both beginners and experienced alike, even shorter riders - especially if you plan to only stick to the tarmac. A crotch rocket on the other hand is far from ideal. A fully loaded 250 is not ideal either. But they will all get the job done (my Vespa 300 GTS and my PX200EFL has been all over the Country - great, but with much still to be desired).

Horses for courses.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

Let me get this right, first one a little too tall, the second too short and the third just right? Do we have Goldilocks as a Moderator?

__________________
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.

I've been outed!

I was out with a friend recently.
He had an excellent Enduro bike.
He is a very experienced rider from moto cross.
The bike was tall and his legs short.

It looks very nice to get on the bike by stepping on the foot peg....
That is on hard and flat surface. With sand or mud....the side stand will sink.
When the surface is not flat...it does not work.

It was all ok as long as we kept on riding.
But we took "wrong" ways and had to turn around.
At what a hassle he had to turn around the bike. On a tiny and bad roads.
He had to get off the bike. Push and... to try to turn it around.
And move it to a place where he could enter again.
I could put down by feet and turn around. Drive the front wheel up on something. And let the bike roll backwards. With my feet down. Job done. Than I had to wait for him. So much hassle so many times. In a half a day only. Due to that the bike was so tall.

And you are not always alone in the forest. You are also using roads with slow traffic in cities. Where the traffic moves very slowly.....

And.....

So for enduro racing, a tall bike is no problem, for a decent rider.
But for normal travelling....
Not for me
=
Exactly what bike is not important.
But it was a Honda XR650R.
Wet weight is only 144 kg.
But seat height is 935 mm

My Honda NX4 has half the power, is little heavier (150) kg.
But has a seat height of 850 mm.
I had an much easier day.

=> normal daily use and travelling is very different from "race" type of driving.

So what is good or less good bike depends a lot of how and where and for what it is used. Without specifying the use case scenario, you can argue for anything.

This feels an important point to this debate. I ride a Husky 701 so tip toes even on the flat, but light. Would i prefer to get my feet flat, especially off road - hell yes, i have those ‘foot down on a camber, sh*t where’s the floor gone’ moments occasionally and would prefer not to……..

But the most uncomfortable bikes I’ve had were a Yamaha Fazer (which murdered my knees) and a ST1100 (which murdered my hips). I realised that for me, tall and slim were the order of the day.

Why that way? Because on the latter two bikes the compromise affected every ride I took. On the tall bikes I ride now, just once in a while.

If you can get both, as per Mark’s KLR rental, happy days

I think we're starting to lose sight of the fundamental difference between "height" and "top heaviness". Height really shouldn't be a problem for a competent rider, unless the bike is also top heavy in which case it's a problem for anybody.

Riding trails on a WR250F and an EXC250 both were tall, but easy to handle and easy to pick up when they got tired On my current bike, a 790 Adventure, the weight is carried relatively low and with the pannier style fuel tanks it stays low even with a full tank. I've had to pick that up a few times and it's not hard. Conversely, when I rode a Tenere 700 I didn't find that particularly tall (32 inch inseam) but I couldn't lift it on my own when it went down - and that was without luggage.

Hello

It doesn't matter how much of your foot touches the ground, only thing that matters is that you are in control and can handle the bike in any situation.

My "highest" bike is the XT660Z, I'm 180cm and unloaded and new I was only able to touch with my ball of the foot.
To me that was enough to handle the bike.
Fully loaded I could touch my whole foot.

If I were only 175cm I might had to choose a different bike.
Size hight and weight of a bike is different to every person, there is no perfekt bike that suits all.
But out on a trip, only you are in the riders seat, only you must have full control of your bike, no one else.

To me the control in situations where you just can't afford to drop the bike is more important than anything else.

Bolivia was one of the more challenging places on my RTW.
But not just the "lagoon route" as much daily tasks:

Ferry with huge gaps in the deck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCn5xbpJV3o

Parking in the hotel lobby:
Jump to 1.50 minute.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF275SEx0ts

sushi

__________________
My RTW:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrXt660ztenere

I'm sure the Mark's can provide excellent advice on this subject. I wonder whether Napoleon would have chosen to lower his bike or not?


Personally, I think it makes sense to buy a bike that suits your height in the first place. If this means buying a 10 year old motorcycle, I think it is worth the sacrifice.

A lot of us ride for 5-6 hours at a time. Like other sports, your risk of injury increases rapidly towards the final hour or two. I have witnessed several broken bones on our dual sport rides. A load bearing injury to one of your legs takes a lot of time and effort to recover from.

I don't think that 1-2 inches of extra clearance nearly makes up for the added risk of a load bearing leg injury. If you haven't broken a bone in your leg before, or torn something in your leg than it is hard to grasp how hard it can be to recover from that.

Bang the bike up and not one of your legs is my motto.

I'm going to trim down my X Challenge seat about an inch. I was riding Lockhart Basin near Moab last year and there were dozens of times where it would have been really helpful to have better contact with the ground.

__________________
http://www.journeyrider.net Latin America blog (07-8)

You are spot on here! Most people have no idea how much trouble a seemingly «simple» fracture can cause. «It was only some fractured bones» some say after an accident, «nothing much to worry about» Fact is that even a seemingly «simple» fracture can take years to heal properly. That is if it heals at all.

I am a nurse by profession and I have worked many years in a orthopedic trauma ward and seen quite a lot of «simple» fractures that turns out to be not simple at all. Patients that are admitted a second time, a third time, a fourth time because fractures havent healed. Bone grafts are needed and many complicated prosedures are needed.

Buy and ride a bike thats suited for your height is a very good advice indeed!

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

Heavy and tall: Watch "Itchy Boots" Panama videos on youtube, or Ed March "C-90" videos. Then watch "Long Way Round" with Ewan McGregor. Answer for yourself; how tall and heavy a moto can you keep vertical in those sketchier situations? In Mexico and South America, multiple times I have had travelers speak of avoiding adventurous roads because they are too rough for their heavy and tall moto. Traveling solo, I have experienced a huge number of situations where a tall or heavy moto would have been a disaster or impassible. IMO, tall and heavy are a liability that limits the best of motorcycle adventuring. Unless you are a Dakar or Baja vet, accept your skill level and choose appropriately.

It might be 'only a broken leg' when you're 18 or 20 and heal quickly but at my (our?) end of the age spectrum it's never as simple. A friend of mine was T boned by a deer about three years ago while out riding. He broke his leg in the impact and while it seems to have healed 'medically' it's still not fully weight bearing. I have a similar issue with a stress fracture in my left foot that happened in 2008. There are still times when I can't put my weight on it - after 14yrs.

"Heavy" can usually always be avoided in favour of "lighter", with tremendous benefits to offroad riding capabilities. The same cannot be said for height. There comes a point where a bike's lack of ability to clear hurdles and soak up the terrain becomes a far, far, far greater liability greater than riding a bike that is slightly too tall.

It is often the mentality of one needing to be able to flat foot, that ends up in injury in the first place. Your legs should only ever touch the ground when the bike is at complete stand still, and in balance. Sure, there comes a point where you will try to rescue the bike from falling over. But VERY often A LOT of riders are way too quick in trying to do so, when they instead should have entrusted the bike... or otherwise get out the ground's way when shht is about to go down, rather than try to save the bike (better my bike's fairings than my leg). Noobs and intermediate riders (like myself), are often too afraid of the hurdle to just go for it - but rather opts to sit in the saddle and paddle or dab at speeds that are way too slow to avoid trouble - flat out dangerous some times.

And no, I'm not talking Dakar racers, just ordinary riders that in a particular element never bothered to get above a beginners proficiency level - but rather learn as they go along. The problem is, you can ride a bike for decades and still encounter situations where you are a complete noob. For going offroad, A LOT of this relates to a beginners adverse sences of security, leading them to attempt the exact opposite of what they really should be doing (even at their level) . Offroad, reach deficiency issues happens allmost every second - regardless how tall you are and how low the bike sits. Thinking then that one's ability to flat foot over toe balling is more important than let's say a 19" is over 17" - is just a little strange to me.

Of course, if one only encounter difficult terrain once every blue moon, and one has never TRUELY trained (i.e. on reach deficiency techniques), I get why a vertically challenged prefers a low bike they can flat foot. It is still the poorer advice to give someone who is vertically challenged though. The better advice is; to put in some effort to learn how to ride a tall bike in various offroad scenarios - and only after that, decide which bike is most confidence inspiring for that RTW trip (or whatever purpose). I promise, more would opt to go up a wheel size - flat foot to toe ball if need be.

Now, if you can just reach with the balls of your feet on a bike with 19" front, you might not have much to gain to go tippy toeing on a bike with a 21" - you might even stand to loose something (or gain a lot). But, going for a 17" in order to be able to flat foot, you will surely stand to loose more than you gain than if you just put in a tiny bit of time to master the 19" - that is if you plan to ride across anything but the occasional pot holed road. More times than not it is better to just "send" a 21" than to be mucking around on a 17" like it was a cickbike. There are no short cuts to offroading - you need to practice. If sorter bikes really were better, I would have won the Budapest to Bamako Rally for sure.Short simpli sux offroad.

Ofcourse, if you are afraid in the first place, the taller bike will probably install only more fear (and maybe rightfully so). The short bike will on the other hand surely install a false sense of security. Training will deal with both.

If you want to prevent leg injury, get the most capable bike and learn how to ride it. If you want to increase your odds of leg injury, get the tallest bike possible and don't learn how to ride it.

What we shouldn't do, is advice others to follow our own lead, simply because it makes us feel better about our own decision. I really do get why someone in many cases is better off with a shorter bike. But many would benefit going up a wheel size at the expense of flat footing.

What my gripe is about, is this overwhelming group think that flat footing is far, far, far more important than it actually is - and that the fake news is passed around with complete disregard for any other sacrifices needed to be made in it's place - which, when it comes to taking a bike offroad, will for the more vertically challenged almost always involve a significant tradeoff. If you can toe ball a 21", you have many options. If you can't flat foot a 17", you are facing tough decisions.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

You are absolutely right with this statement. One does not need to flat foot, meaning both heels are on the ground. God knows, with my own 29 inch inseam, that will never be the case. Personally, from where I have traveled and my skill level and physical condition at 70+ years, I do want to have the balls of my feet on the ground. Tippie toes on both feet is a formula for disaster in really sketchy situations. That's my reality. With that reality, I have to answer the question, how do I adventure ride, mostly solo? Unless one wants to limit your adventuring, one has to ask exactly that question and come up with an answer.

Height and weight are a personal choice that should come from riding experience, not from reading what others say. Thus the choice will vary from individual to individual. Get training, get a lot of experience on rough conditions, ride a shorter/lighter moto; whatever it takes to be confident when having to ride through those sketchy conditions. Accept your skill level right now and ride what it takes, so you are confident when approaching sketchy conditions. Traveling with adventure in mind, those conditions will present themselves. Otherwise stay on the blacktop, another valid choice.

One important component of this decision is coming up with a way to right your moto when it tips over. This issues needs to have an answer.

There is no one answer. My recommendation is to do whatever it takes to be confident when the worse presents itself. The rewards for getting off the main roads are well worth it!