I don't agree. Yes, they are different bikes for sure ... but certainly NOT Apples and Oranges. They are both BIG TRAILIES, over weight Adventure Bikes, similar engine capacity, close in weight. They are in the same Class. Far from Apples and Oranges.

The Honda is more stripped down / simple ... and to me that does set apart from the Tenere'. But they're still in the same class IMO.

EX: Just because the BMW GS1200L has shaft drive ... it will still be in the class with AT, Tenere', KTM 1290 (or whatever) and one or two more.

The BMW is probably the same weight as the Honda ... will the Honda work as well as the BMW Off Road? Lets hope so ... but don't underestimate the BMW GS1200. It's a pretty amazing bike. Better than it looks on paper.

I'm not sure how you judge a bike "Stationary" :innocent: Perhaps reserve judgement until you take it for a spin. Sitting on a bike in the dealership is just slightly different than actually riding it!
:rofl:

I agree, both are too heavy and too expensive anyway for throwing around (although this is relative). For some maybe it's cheap :)
I think AT is on the verge, manual version at 232kg is not that horrible yet as ST.

IIRC, Yamaha has added some sort of Semi active electronic suspension system to latest 1200 Tenere'. Check it out, I'm too lazy to dig into mag archives but I do believe I read about this? Anyone? In any case, if the Yam doesn't have full system now, it will soon. More money, more complexity, more weight.
But it's what customers want. :mchappy:

Yeah, it's not anywhere near as advanced/complex as the systems on the BMWs or KTMs though... it basically just uses a servo to turn screws to set the preload/damping. So you can adjust suspension settings with a button, but it's not semi-active.

Heh... I knew this topic would be fun :)

Ok, lets bring this back to basics...

Are RTW bike weights black and white, or are there shades of grey? What I mean by this is, once you get over 500lbs are they all as bad as each other? Is saying "this bike is the best off road 500lbs+ bike" basically saying "this one is slightly less terrible than the others, but still pretty terrible"...? In which case, maybe if you're picking a 1200cc bike, making your choice based on 'off road prowess' is pointless, as they're all bad and any gains are marginal?

For example, I've never really considered the Triumph Tiger Explorer because in group tests they always say it's the worst off road. But maybe that doesn't matter? Maybe even the best off road in those group tests is so bad that it shouldn't be a criteria you consider when purchasing those kinds of bikes?

For those guys going RTW on a light/mid-weight single cylinder... if someone put a gun to your head and said you had to take a modern 1000cc+ bike on your next RTW trip, would you buy one of the usual suspects like an R1200GS or Super Tenere? Or would you think it's all irrelevant at that point, as none of them can do off-road so may as well do the trip on a sportsbike or sports-tourer?

of course it is not black and white, all depend on rider physical fitness and altitude :thumbup1: Personally I like heavier bikes off-road, sure it's more risky and tiresome, requires more skills but it is more rewarding as well. It make me go to GYM which is good thing.

Personally I think new AT will end era of 1000cc+ adventure bikes
what I hope happens.

If given any sort of choice within the "large bike" group, I'd probably wait for KTM to introduce a new series of 700 or 800cc twins (I've heard rumors) and hope they actually make a bike capable and light enough to cope in more challenging conditions. They certainly know how to do this if they want to.

But beyond the bike it really comes down to the rider, his/her individual skill and fitness ... and age.

KTM can do this but Triumph might struggle (speculation here) to produce a true off road ADV machine ... might take a few development cycles to do it.

Honda? They can do whatever they want ... but Honda are "treading lightly" now in the off road motorcycle world (have been for at 6-7 years) and
could well pull out all together as environmental/political issues are taken more seriously. (30 years too late! doh)

Honda could come forth with an "all new" version of the Trans Alp. Keep it a 650, make if super light, 21" front, off road touring based and double the power of original TA. It'd be a Home Run, IMO.

But realistically Honda will probably continue to work from the bottom up, building on their 250 dual sport CRF250L. Same with Yamaha, with the WR250R.

KTM will continue at full throttle until they no longer can ... then they'll go back to making Radiators. :rofl:

One of the regulars here used to say that you may ride all day on a big ADV bike and all would be right with the world. But it only takes 100 yards of nasty mud to ruin your whole day. (Been there, done that!)

bier

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-i..._4003.JPG.jpeg

I saw the AT in the flesh. I didn't pay much attention, but it did strike me as just another Starbucks tourer. CCM, the XT660 club etc.need not worry IMHO. Touratech better fire up their laser cutter and logo printer though.

I think you would buy one because you thought the Honda dealer would be more useful than the Bavarian coffee shop.

You can take an Enfield Bullet or C90 through mud like that. It's just a choice between bimbling through at a pace that won't kill you and adding a day to the trip, blasting through like its a MX event or dealing with it like a miserable chore. The CB500 strikes me as weight level where chore ends and a feeling of MX starts, but I'm in the Enfield/C90 frame of mind in most cases, so maybe I'm wrong.

Andy

I road tour on an ST (267kgs and all day comfort) and properly off road with a KTM Freeride (100kgs). Both would be hideous used in the other context. There is no bike out there that will do both well. It's like trying to find a tractor that will race competitively in F1!

My point? There are thousands of people wanting a 'sit up and beg' road bike with power, comfort and refinement (the ST gets slagged for being for being underpowered!). And there are literally tens of people wanting to buy a new true adventure bike to take RTW.

If you were a bike manufacturer who would you build your bike for? Undoubtedly that will have been Honda's conclusion too.

Seems unlikely to me (at least in the uk) anyone is going to build a bike suited to HU user needs - just not commercially viable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

who cares ?
 

<good post really
I will give only my personal feelings , i mean now and here .
1) Some people had made a world tour with a R1 ( read that here before would not had believed iit :oops2:) , a 125 in the seventies, some mopeds, old scooters, Ural with a full-tool-kit, and passed through hard places ...took time and so .
BUT true matter is ; counting with your own abilities and skills, age and fitness, what will be the ratio you want to "endure" in case ?
For example , even with better pilots ( oh yes ) , younger( toom uch except 2) ; the ktm's made also an extra difference in hard hard places during my last trip in oueds full of roads, sliding and tough !

2) the complexity of the big "trailies" ( i like the term :rofl:) .
All the "helper" things , adjustable damper, ABS-new-generation , ATC , and bla bla bla , will they carry even if you battery is weak and weak ?
What if one is errantly working ?
And also, it is not so pleasant to ride a bike with all this assisting stuff ......
and the day , the very day they dont work, badaboum !!! a racing pilot told me that, in a discussion about he mythic RSV4.

But yesterday i took the little path towards my house with my brutale MV and stands up for a while to ride the tracks; going nice ... :mchappy:
and i start thinking
with some modifications ( very expensive, twice the price of the bike ) a 675 ( dry 160 kg ) will be a good engine for an adventure bike ....ah ah
quite light
good traction
..:thumbup1:
so to say , the reason is not the way to answer this matter but it might help :palm:

If you mean at the recent NEC annual shindig, I paid even less attention than you I would imagine.
I felt a sense of deja vu; it was at the same show 12 months previously, albeit displayed out of reach from the public - this time, following all the hype videos over the past few months, I just walked on past and spent more time at each of the RE and CCM stands.
However, I could have sat on any one of the ATs on the Honda display - there were plenty of times on Thursday 3 Dec when that chance was going begging.

I probably spent more time looking at the Suzuki V Stroms, 650 and 1000 (strange how the latter never gets a mention), than all of the Honda offerings.

I am not sure that Aprilia care much for their Caponord either; very little attention was apparent in that corner of the A display, and Yamaha couldn't be bothered to show an XT660Z Tenere alongside their Super Tenere.

Thanks guys, good replies but no one has really answered my question yet.

I get that you can't ride a 500lbs bike through the desert, along the BAM, off-road sections in Baja... Nor would I ever contemplate doing such things on a heavy, expensive, complicated bike. That's not my question.

My question is this: is it worth considering off-road ability as a criteria when picking a 500lbs adventure bike for a (mainly road based) RTW trip? Or, for bikes that heavy are they all so bad that claimed off-road ability is irrelevant?

Reviews starting to come out now saying the DCT AT in particular is great for off road novices. But what I'm trying to figure out is whether saying "my 500lbs adventure bike is better off road than your 550lbs adventure bike" a bit like saying "my Harley 110 is faster than your Harley 103." I mean, that's sweet, but neither Harley is fast so may as well make your purchasing decision based on which one has the shiniest chrome, right? (No offense Harley guys!)

New Africa Twin (I don't get it)
 

IMHO to all intent and purposes irrelevant - certainly don't give up anything you want for road use in order to get off road 'capability'.

[Basis of opinion: I had to ride a hired 1200GS through powdery sand knowing i had a £1k deposit on it once - my bowels have never been the same since :-)]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.....but if you really like the AT more than the ST buy it anyway. We worry to much about "the best bike" - better to get whatever one you really like, enjoy it and stop reading bike reviews 'till you need to change it again - they only spoil your enjoyment of what you have!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I traded a Weestrom for a Moto Guzzi V7. I previously used a Triumph Bonneville and Enfield Bullet.

The road bikes have better manners on the road, comfort, simplicity etc. Faced with off road they do it so long as you don't need to be quick or keep up the resale value.

The off road bikes are the opposite, can do the motorway, can do two up. The off road ability makes them top heavy with hard seats etc. The off road bit however can actually be fun after the first hour.

Charlie bikes are a compromise that seem often to only take features I don't want like seven selectable modes Canbus wireless equipped whatever. They also have features I might like like big fuel tanks, non-racing riding positions and tubeless tyres that so called sports tourers don't. The ones that are just big high touring bikes I compare to the likes of a VFR.

For the road based trip I'd consider all road bikes. You don't need a marketing department to tell you a Goldwing/Harley/VFR is only for one purpose and you must buy "Adventure" to go anywhere the carpark might not be paved.

Triumph Bonnevilles are only for dressing up like Steve McQueen and drinking milkshake:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-u...2/P1000724.JPG



Andy