Quote:
Originally Posted by John Downs
I can follow the pizza bikes threading through rush hour traffic in the busy capitol cities.
It is easy to hop the curb and ride up the steps of a guest house to park in the lobby.
So much easier to park in a room with outside access through a narrow door for the night.
Easier to lift into a canoe when the bridge is out.
Easier to blend in with the locals and get waved through military roadblocks.
People think you are poor so less gringo tax in Central America when negotiating room rates etc.
Cheaper to buy tires for and easier to find.
Less oil at 5.00/quart doing oil changes every few thousand miles.
Way cheaper to buy.
Easier to sell in the third world and fly home.
Easy to pick up.
Easier to ride down goat trails that a big lardy bike would choke on.
|
Some real benefits there. Getting an airhead BMW in and out of hotel rooms was always testing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walkabout
................. but it is only a day ago since this discussion started up in a different thread.
|
Yes, sorry about that should have looked before posting
Quote:
Originally Posted by colebatch
My experience is that big singles are less cramped than "big" adventure bikes.
When you have a F800 or a R1200, the footpeg to seat distance is FAR smaller than on my Xchallenge or on many other big singles.
Riding an F800 or a R1200 standing on the pegs all day, day after day, is going to give you back problem, because of the lack of vertical space on the bikes. A tall big single is less cramped sitting down and less cramped standing up.
Its certainly not the same with all big singles ... but most I have ridden have a higher footpeg to bottom of the seat measurement than twins - ergo less cramping. I was advising a guy on bike selection the other day ... he was a short guy ... so i told him forget about the 650cc singles, you wont be able to touch the ground. Youre a little guy so you need something smaller, like an 800cc bike. Which again, illustrates that the big singles are less cramped for the bigger gentleman than 800 or even 1200cc bikes.
And I also wonder how these weight things are defined ... For me I reckon that a big single - a 140-180 kg 600 - 650 cc bike is what I would term a mid-weight.
Anything above 180 kgs dry, to me, is a heavy adventure bike. And F800 for example is almost identical in weight and capability to the 1200 ... it wont really do anything a 1200 cant do. Whereas a big single is a very different kettle of fish from a 800 / 1200 cc twin / triple bike ... and a light single (below) is a totally different kettle of fish again. I dont really get the labelling of 190 kg, 800 cc adventure bikes as "mid weight".
And a lightweight would be the sub 120 kgs bikes, be they 250s or even the 570 Husaberg I have been on in South America recently ... 114 kgs, but cruises at 80 mph and tops 100 mph. Goes to show you cant really categorise it by cc ... cause that 570 is lighter than many 250s.
So to me it makes sense to categorise the weights by breaking down what they can actually do.
|
I agree re 1200s and 800s having less height between the pegs and the seat, this is probably due to trying to get the seat height as low as possible to suit a larger number of people.
I use handlebar raisers to avoid back problems but mainly because my knees aren't what they were.
For serious off road travel a 650 is probably the best compromise weight versus usability on the road.
570 cc in a package weighing the same or less than many 250s is a good option but I'm sure there's a downside.
Anyone here done a 20,000km + trip on a 250cc or less?
|