+ cheaper on all of the paperwork, such as insurance costs and the Carnet de Passage (should the latter be required).
Basically, cheaper running costs all round.

+ by travelling more slowly, one tends to meet more people; conversely, a faster bike gets there faster and the journey is over, faster.

Near enough!


Yes, +1, every riding report I have seen about the WR250R is very positive about the bike and its' performance/durability/reliability.

+1. Simon G comes across, very much, as a traveller and professional book author who happened upon a bike (125cc) as a means of writing about travel in South America.
Nothing wrong with that; those coming to something for the first time can "see the wood from the trees" and can bring a totally new perspective from those who were weaned on bikes.
- perspective makes a difference.

__________________
Dave

To me thats another misconception ... in places like Tajikistan or Mongolia, or Bolivia, a 650 single is going to be a lot faster than a 1200. Like doing 120-140 km/h while a 1200 does 70-100.

In places like the Old Summer Road or the BAM Road in Siberia, the 1200 with its smaller wheels and much higher weight is basically unrideable ... the 650 is therefore infinitely faster.

I cant think of anywhere I have ridden in the past 100,000 km or so where an 800 or 1200 would have been faster, apart from the autobahns of Europe .. and even then, how much faster? I had a 1200 a few years back and my comfortable autobahn cruising speed was about 85-90 mph on the gps ... on my 650 its 80 mph on the GPS. So there is 5-10 mph speed advantage on 5 % of the journey. And a huge speed penalty for 50% of the journey. So for my routes, a big bike is a speed negative.

__________________

Just to add my pennies worth to this thread, you can circumnavigate the world on any machine these days .
There is never a right or wrong bike it is always a compromise. I went around with a 1200 GS , the reasons 99% tarmac, I am older than some and wanted just that little more comfort, 1st time away for that long and that far so i wanted alot of "what if's" so needed to have a bike to carry all the weight
Besides listening to advice of the guru's like Walter, i done it my way !!

Lessons learnt ,
Walter is right you don't need a big bike , most of the time we ambled along at about 80kmh, fastest was 180kmh for a day in Germany. Most of the gear we carried was not required.
Our next trip hopefully in 2013 back through Siberia and onto South America will be on a single like the G650gs , it's lighter, it can pack into a smaller volume crate for air freight, the tank range is about the same as a 1200 but on less fuel, for old fat guys it's easier to pick up off the floor and it is easier to "dabb" when off road . A small single can carry all that is needed and give you more usable power . A single is less tiring standing on the pegs than a beast of burden, a bit more cramped when seated for long legs but with a few mods I am sure that can be sorted.

__________________
http://2wheelskeeponrolling.wordpress.com

I'm sure even experienced travellers riding well sorted 650's wish they were on a 250 some days (and without the luggage).

Long distance travel on a motorbike is always going to be a compromise as the journey will inevitably involve travelling on many different types of road from motoways to almost impassable unpaved roads and through different climates possibly from arctic to tropical so it's virtually impossible to carry everything you need with you all the time.

The idea that going faster you meet less people may be true but in my experience anywhere you're going fast is simply because you want to get somewhere interesting. The pace at which you travel is not controlled by how fast your bike is but by how much you stop to explore your surroundings - it took us 6 months to travel 10,000 miles from Nairobi to Cape Town (55 miles a day or 2 days a week on the bike and a lot of R&R) and it would have taken the same amount of time if we'd been on a 125cc instead of 1000cc bike.

I can certainly see the benefits of using a small bike for local explorattion in less developed places but for a journey starting in Europe and heading south or east to Asia or Africa a modern 650 seems to offer the best of all worlds.

Exactly. Once a bike in it's loaded condition is capable of using the motorways for hours the miles per week seems to be fixed by the speed of the traffic. Sure, you can ride a "Sports Tourer" like a loon and do 600 km in 4 hours across Germany on a Sunday, but there is no way to keep this up Monday and Tuesday and on and on. I've had GPS since the late 90's and kept records of the moving average. On trips over a week it's always 45 mph there or there abouts for Europe regardless of using a 599cc 40 Hp machine that tops out at 90 mph or a 1085cc, 85 Hp, 140 mph one. My 500cc, 18 Hp, 75 mph Enfield averaged over 35 mph and my 291cc, 23 Hp, 85 mph MZ can average over 40 admittedly the last two were without a pillion.

I think the on-road difference is small, the off road one bigger. I also think that is the ancient tale of the tortoise and the hare, the hare is only 10 minutes a day quicker because he spends longer filling up and getting his neck and shoulders back in working order after running a tank through at full speed.

On my first trip to Morocco we found a track with a lot of loose sand. Nothing silly but everyone was out of practice and fell off a lot. I picked a BMW F650 up maybe ten times and was very much ready for a when we'd done. A guy who picked up an R1100GS at least as many times went straight to bed and woke up 10 hours later with a banging headache from the loss of fluids. Another few days like that and the 650's would have been miles ahead while the 1100 guy needed a rest.

Andy

That's OK, because we are saying the same thing; your 650 is "my big bike", as it is on most of this planet (in an earlier post, Magnon clarified that he started this thread with a small bike defined as sub-250cc).

Over on another thread (light vs heavy), the big bike is the one that you identify:-
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...-heavy-63661-2

__________________
Dave

I'm forever in two minds about this debate. I agree with both points of view (light offers more possibilities off road, slightly bigger might be better on road). One thing I do find interesting is that many commented that 650 might be the best of both worlds; an F650GS is more or less the same weight as an F800; I'm curious as to why some posters lump an 800 with a 1200? Again, it depends on what you want to do. I personally don't want to be too minimalist, so my 800 is excellent for what I do at the moment.

Just curious, though. If you were to look at a new bike, 250 - 650, what would be the best option?

I have a F800GS and I think it's perfect for long travels. But... when travelling alone I can not choose mud roads. When you fall once, ok, just put the bike on the road again and that's ok. But when you fall two, three times... it's too much heavy.

So, travelling alone in rough roads, I think that 250cc or 400c is better.

A 125cc of course.

I was interested to read threewheeledbonnie's mention of his 18hp 500cc Enfield, which is no doubt heavier than my 15hp 125 Derbi. There's obviously a power-to-weight issue which has yet to be touched on.

So for me, small engine, light weight, big frame would be ideal.

__________________