Is being able to flatfoot really that important?
 

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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'.

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 -


https://i.postimg.cc/02tDmKQD/GoldWing.jpg


Reverse gear makes going backwards up a slope childs play.

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

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.

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.

Ouch. :( Hope the monocep works OK.

I've pulled muscles often enough to know when to let go. It does not come naturally though (same as not jumping up like a resurrected Pacman and using newly found super strength to right the bike, applying the same ten second rule you might to dropped food). It happens a lot less on a light, lightly loaded, low bikes.

There are always Ural's if anyone really needs a reverse gear :rofl:

I think you can actually have too low a seat, even if the riding part works. The Old Boy had cruisers and the small ones with 26 inch seat height gave a bent leg that's not as strong as a straight one. It is of course very easy to raise a seat unless some nut job fitted the foot boards out ahead of the engine. I was loaned a BMW R1200C that was worse than any GS.

You need to try before you buy. It's about time the manufacturers were forced to include more adjustment too, can you imagine them trying to sell cars 52% of the population can't fit into?

Andy

@ 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.

There's yer problem right there Andy - it's a five second rule! Your stomach will thank me :rofl:


So just how long are your legs then Wheelie?

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".

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.

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.

flat foot
 

I never thought of it but someone mentioned the right hight is being able to back your bike up a slight incline or uneven pavement 30in. inseam and I can do my F700 with minimal effort with the comfort seat the rally seat is even easier I can't image what it is like doing this on a Africa Twin with a full tank of gas. Im sold on this theory although I bottom my suspension quite bit but that's fine the skid plate works good

You mean, with a full tank of gas because returning the rental bike at the end of a trip...on a steep, cobblestoned hill which turns out to be blocked off for a parade...before drinking sufficient coffee and without sufficient sleep? I dropped an AT under exactly those circumstances, and once it started to go on the downhill side I had no hope of keeping it upright.

Fun bike, and I could tiptoe it adequately and rode through some reasonably rough terrain, but that one drop--entirely my fault and definitely preventable had I been more alert--bent some parts and cost me some money. Embarrassing, too, and I needed help picking it back up (since unwilling to spin it around on the cobblestones). Had it been two inches shorter I'd have been fine.

The next bike I rented on that trip was too short and made my knees hurt. The third, in Armenia, was a stock KLR, and its seat height was perfect.

I agree. But I also see a change coming with the new generation - influenced by social media influencers more than marketers. Also, it may very well be more a US thing (the six years I lived there I hardly ever saw a 125 cc, and even less so a moped, whereas in the rest of the world they are all over the place).

"Smaller, lighter and affordable", are often portrayed as the superior choice for just about every "mission". They are also portrayed as being more fun and cooler than "fat" bikes, and also as carrying more status and respect - in a greater number of circles. And in the majority of moto sports, they come out on top. The Farkled out, super premium bikes, with huge engines on the other hand??? These are more and more portrayed as "penis enlargers" - ownership which has more to do with compensating for personality flaws than it does utility. Ofcourse all bikes have their rightful place somewhere - but we cannot get arround that general stigma affects decisions. Wheras the puns were mostly directed at the puny bikes before, I believe the tables are turning. (Personally I love all flavors of motorcycles).

As a result the industry is now giving us an ever growing selection of smaller bikes, especially for adventure motorcycling.


Getting back on track!
For the sake of the discussion. I think it better to separate "height" from "power", "size" (girth) and "weight". They all affect the bike's rideability, but you can have a tall bike that is both light and is of little girth, with small to medium power - i.e. most dual sports and many adventure bikes. For riding in the rough stuff, there are some features that trumps all others - the ones that inadvertedly ends up making the bike tall.

The more offroad capable a bike is to be made, the taller it has to end up - there is a direct correlation. You can have a very capable offroad vehicle, of any sort, of any weight and size, with any engine displacement (all within reason) - as long as it has the following: large wheels, long suspension travel, and a high ground clearance. For every cm you shave off any of these, the performance is reduced exponentially. For someone going on long trips with plenty of rough stuff, this is an important conscideration - and one where shorter people may end up having to compromise.

However, the point I've been trying to make is that many will not need to compromise as much as they think they do. Many make a poorer choice simply out of unjustifiable; fear, wrongful predispositions, or not knowing how much a difference just a little bit of regular practice will make.

At some unexpected moment we will all be faced with reach deficiency - no matter how long our legs are, or how ever low the bike sits. Having practiced regularily gives you more options in terms of dealing with these problems - with less effort. A tiny investment goes a loooooooong way.


My general advice (that entails offroad travel) - is to take the tallest (and preferably also light) purpose built bike you are comfortable riding (aka a dual sport or "adventure" bike). Now, if for lack of experience one has negative predispositions against riding a slightly taller bike than one is used to - then maybe get some practice/training and put those predispositions to the test before making your final choice?

Counter offroad reach deficiency with training on pavement:
In the first week of every season I go out and practice aweekend or two on tarmac (seasons here are short, and I get really rusty during the winter months).Beyond your typical emergency braking etc, I also practice:

• Walking arround the bike, off its stand- balancing it with only a two finger grip.
  
• Starting and stopping with both legs off to the same side (rather than straddling the saddle) - lifting and lowering the side stand and getting in/out of the saddle as I accelerate or come to a stop.
  
• Riding sharp circles on an incline - mounting and unmounting with the bike facing horizontally across the slope (turning in both directions). It is a difficult, but very useful exercise for both practicing reach deficiency scenarios and for preparing for off road.
  
• Walking the bike with and without engine power - walking on both sides of the bike. I aslo practice walking and turning the bike on an incline, as well as up and down a flight of stairs (up - under power). These are all great exercizes for offroad simulation.
  
• Turning the bike arround on its side stand - fully loaded.
  
• Dead-lifting the bike lying on its side - using a few different techniques.
  
• Starting, stopping, mounting and unmounting on a ridge - simulating an offroad reach deficiency scenario (This reach deficiency exercize is carried out by riding up on a kerb or a series of boards). This exercize is especially challenging because the side stand won't reach. Also, you have to be able to do it all while keeping the bike on a narrow line. I also practice dabbing on a ridge, as well as walking the bike.

It is only after refreshing skills on tarmac that I venture out to play and practice in terrain.



Even with my really light weight step throughs, it is a chore paddling it in any direction when I park in my flat gravel highway. A slight incline on pavement - same thing. Wheras I do get why it is nice to have a bike that is easy to paddle, I hardly think it is an important attribute to impact a purchasing deciscion - only a bonus feature.

For many reasons, I try to make it a habit to man-handle the bike out of the saddle rather than in - and strategize so I don't have to neither in the first place. For one thing, it is both easier and less risky. Also, it plays into the whole thing of training to handle a bike under very difficult conditions - including situations where reach deficiency is a factor.

I do get that you are sometimes left with no choice other than to back up a bike - like when the bike simply can't be turned arround to face the right direction - not even on the side stand (which btw can usually be done with even a fuly loaded 1200 GS without popping a single blood vein). But still, I buy a bike for how well it moves under it's own power - not for how easily I can back paddle it. I don't buy a bike any more than I do a car - for how easy it is to push in reverse. I simply don't think this "feature" ought to be a conscideration at all when buying a bike (except for maybe pizza delivery guys in the inner city... who has to park 20 times a day, with their wheel to the kerb, inbetween cars, with no room to manouver or walk next to the bike).

I don't think you'll ever be persuaded, however if you ever visit Barçelona you'll need to scoot your bike a lot in order to park in most places, lol

As for practice, I used a DR350 that I had to drop off the side of the seat to touch the ground at all for about 10,000km. It got dropped a lot, and I only sold it regretfully, but my XR250R that I could tiptoe both sides on was much better for me.

flat foot
 

dr350 I recently sat on one and the suspension sagged to where I found it comfortable I I would love to have this machine it wouldn't be a issue dropping it or picking it up This moto is perfect for what I like to do
Most underrated bike out there

I disagree that a machine with off road potential has to be tall.

You want ground clearance, so angle or shorten the engine. There is no need for the current stacks of engine-fuel tank or seat-battery.

How high is the seat on a trials bike in proportion to the wheel base and ground clearance?

Current bikes are tall because the designers havn't had an original idea since 1971 and buyers are both reactionary and highly conservative

Andy

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.

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…:rofl:

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….

@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.

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?:D

I've been outed!

Tall
 

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.

Is being able to flatfoot really that important?
 

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 [emoji16]

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

I don't know about "important" but
 

Personally, I'm a lot more comfortable if I am able to do so.

I quickly scanned this thread, so apologies if this video of Jocenlin Snow was posted already. She is a real inspiration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYp1zXyc0fA

Impressive riding skills and physical fitness. That course is a good example of conditions one does actually encounter when off the beaten trail. Boulder field: when more level like that course it often has a stream trickling through it, or those boulder conditions can be found when crossing a river, hidden out of sight by the river flow. Typically, I've run in to boulders like that on steep up or down hill sections of a road, eroded to the boulders because of the excessive grade and past rainstorms. Sand, berms, yes. Even that log; I had to cross a river gorge due to high river volume and flow, crossing on a log bridge that was about the width of a single track, made of two logs with dirt between them. No room to walk the moto, it had to be ridden. The normal river ford was not an option at the time.

No way for me on that big GS, never. My skills, physical fitness, and age are the limitations. However, on a 250cc moto, fun! Even a 650cc moto, yes, with some limits.