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.

Easy answer.

Attached Thumbnails

 

@ Mark, I probably should show more respect..., and I do respect the opinions of others on this matter even if it doesn't show... at least most of the people for the most part. I could list a thousand things that makes reach a preferable asset to have. But often those thousand things doesn't stack up against some other single tradeoff.


I guess what bothers me is that too many, that have neither experienced nor observed the extent even noobs can both handle and enjoy a bike that is "too tall", warns against such bikes like it is detrimental. This group is so large that it drowns out the voices of the much smaller group that is far more familiar dealing with reach issues.

There are just so many riders that are so short that the availability of bikes for their purpose becomes extremely limited - if being able to flat foot is a must. For these people, I think that the better advice is to say - yes it makes a difference, but maybe not as great as you might think, and maybe the better bike for you might be the one you can't flat foot - at least consider it.

Maybe you have a limited budget, and need to get a low mileage, second hand, and almost fully equipped bike? There are not a whole lot of those to be found in any given area to begin with. Shave off all the medium tall and up, and you might find that you have to spend a whole lot more or go without. Also, for some routes there is a limit to how much you can compromise on bike height before that becomes a greater handicap than a slight reach issue.

Horses for courses?
--------
Personally I am looking to increase the seat height on my T7 for more comfort and improved ergonomics, fully aware that it will negatively affect my reach.

My GF, even as a beginner and not being able to flat foot her current bike, has on her own come to similar conclusions for her bike - the stock seat is like a narrow wooden board. She is already getting comfortable riding my horse that she can only tippy toe - and is considering getting a heavier and talker bike than the one she's got (probably will in the next two years).

She started learning privately on a tall bike and didn't get to try a bike that she could flat foot until it got close to take her exam. For a while, tall bikes was the only thing she knew, and now has no problems with either tall or short. For her, full reach is an attribute far less important than a whole lot of other bike attributes that she appreciates more - the ones that usually comes in a stereotypical dual sport or adventure bike with more than 50 hp.

Myself I no longer struggle much with reach - on just about any bike. That has not always been the case. My first bike experience started at 6 yrs old, with a 80 cc MX bike I couldn't even tippy toe. My growth spurt came late, and it was not until adulthood that I could enjoy good reach on the bikes I loved. I am by no means a great rider, nor an expert even though I started early. All I know is that I have thaught and inspired my handful of beginners to ride the taller bikes (often mine) - and most of them end up with the bike they fancy, irrespectively if they can flat foot it or not.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

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

I guess it comes down to the old skool of hard knocks, don’t ask questions, just go out and learn for yourself what works for you.

After all it is just an opinion, not gospel.

Sometimes it feels as though "flat footing" is a gospel, and the only "true gospel" handed down by the only real god... and that the religion's deciples conscideres it blasphemous when the tiny minority of heedens (or atheists) voice that there are in fact other considerations, and sometimes more important, to take into account when deciding which bike to get - outright disregarding all and any evidence that is contradictory to their "gospel":

1. Those that are in need of particular attributes that low bikes in their market (or any market) simply doesn't afford them
2. That some bikers simply lacks the means to buy, modify and equip the "proper bike" (one that can be flat footed).
3. All those riders that do really well with a bike that is "too tall" (can't flat foot) - even novices that venture off road and are loving their ride
4. All those who's first bike they ever rode and learned on was "too tall" - because that was the bike that was available to them - many who even did so with a pillion
5. All those riders that keeps on preferring the bike that is "too tall", enough that even their next bike also ends up being one that is "too tall"
6. All those who have gone RTW with bikes that were both "too heavy" and "too tall", and would do it all over again
7. The relative differences in difficulty from fully flat foot with bent knees, to barely flat foot, to balls of feet, to toes, to tippy toes, to only one foot down, to dangling - conscidering anything less than flat foot as insanity (when in fact for many, going from flat foot to balls of their feet isn't much of a problem)
8. And a collection of a whole lot of other evidence, that not too seldom - points to the "too tall" option as being the better compromize for a particular situation

So, if I had to adhere to a gospel of my own, it would be: "don't outright disregard a bike that is "too tall", but conscider all your needs and the collective attributes of each type of bike available to you... and disregard any fanatic that tries to frighten you into only conscidering bikes that you can flat foot".

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

I would like to present the opposite: namely that almost all biker groups (online and IRL), motorcycle media, reviews, videos, replies to comments on Facebook etc, say that people with small bikes are only using them until they graduate to a "real" motorcycle.

The pressure to always upsize your bike feels ever present, especially in areas with more American users, and puts many new riders on unsuitable bikes. The other day I helped two old guys up after they rode their BMW 1200s into the back of a 4x4 who did an emergency stop - neither of them could handle their own bike, and I'd be willing to bet something smaller would make for a better riding experience for them.

To take your case in point, my first bike was a '78 KE100. My Dad swapped the back shocks to shorter ones but it still felt massive to me, and it held back my riding a lot. Conversely a friend got a 70cc stepthrough and she was off and enjoying herself from day 1 ... I later had a stepthrough for a bit and I have to say it was the bee's knees.

__________________
FreeBSD fan since before it was cool ...

There's a lot to agree with in that. I have a range of bikes from my 90kg 125 Suzuki right up to my 1800 Gold Wing and the Suzuki is the easiest and most relaxing bike of the lot to ride. It does however 'not qualify' as a real bike - I've been asked 'why do you ride it' (or words to that effect) more often than all the rest of the bikes put together. I don't (or rarely anyway) get 'brotherhood of bikers' waved at on the road (something I'm quite pleased about) and get ignored in gatherings (or failing that, patronised as a beginner or asked where my 'L' plates are / have you passed your test). If I ride any of the other bikes none of that happens. A 125 is something you ride until you can afford a bigger bike.

There's internal pressure as well. I spent a day riding with a lady on a 125 Honda a few weeks ago and despite the fact that her build was perfect for that bike she kept apologising for the bike - 'sorry I'm so slow. As soon as I pass my test I'm going to get something bigger' - that kind of thing. If she does I suspect she'll struggle with the weight.

And as with small bikes and beginners, so with experienced riders on middleweights - 500cc or so. When I first started a 500cc bike was firmly in the big bike category. Now they're twice the power (some anyway) and entry level in many markets. If you're looking for a post learner 'real' bike you'll find very little under 500cc from any of the big names - a few trail bikes with step ladder seat heights and a few other oddballs, but the glamour stuff is all way up there in capacity - and of course weight / bulk comes along with that. That, I suppose, is marketing - there's more profit in a big bike than a small one and it's an easier sell with brochures / the bike press pushing power, speed, glamour etc - the sizzle rather than the sausage. Unlike cars, we (the bike buying public in general) buy bikes with our hearts rather than our heads and pay the inevitable price.

I guess it also depends on what kind of riding you do and for what reasons.

I do a lot of international travel. I constantly stop on my bike to take quick pictures, ask for directions, put warmer gloves on, stop at borders etc.

Having a tall bike in these situations seems like a huge pain in the ass. Much rather be able to plant both my feat comfortably and keep my hands free without the risk of tipping over.

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