i love my Vespa GTS 250ie, but would never take it around the world, let alone up the coast of Australia. I am finding it just dosn't have the juice needed and if the wrong part breaks here it can take up to 3 months to get back on the road (happened before).

I will say though that i came across this on Friday and has i think taken over as the No.#1 contender for my RTW bike:



"The Solo X" by Hammerhead Industries (solo x ural sT by Hammarhead Industries | Hammarhead Industries via Ural Solo by Hammarhead)

Some of the comments below from others alude to the fact that it might be a hardier choice than a Triumph Bonny, has beeter speed range and potentiall less mechanical issues than a Bullet, love the fact that it still looks like the 1940's BMW it was originally copied from and I can see real potential to customise it for my needs before going.

The only issue is that Solo Urals seem to be rare as hens teeth and there dosn't seem to be a great deal of info out there about them.

What do you guys think, star performer or soviet dud?

Get to know the builder/dealer and plan a learning curve where you try and break it somewhere where getting home is just a phone call and a ride on the truck before you head off.

Out of the box these things can still be complete and utter garbage. Some dealers can find obvious issues so a weekend rider won't trash it the first day out. The US distributor takes things seriously, but are still faster at bringing out new paint schemes than getting the factory to use decent materials. Don't know about Australia, Ural UK hide behind two really good dealers but couldn't handle their poorer ones. A good dealer will find every single problem, which could involve some serious time between taking it out of the crate and handing over the keys. If the dealer will engage in meaningful conversations about the performance limits keep talking. If the dealer is some mad foil head who claims it'll cruise at 85 mph for weeks on end and can be made to look like any old BMW you like, run.

Edit: Mis read a bit of the post above here, ignore this.

I don't think they are duds, but you need to go into this with your eyes open, it is real 1940's technology with a part complete programme of modern material introduction. The price is IMHO an issue. For the £10000 the UK dealers want to take an outfit out of the box, check/fix it and send me off with a set of instructions about how to keep it alive, I can buy a Bonneville, a chair, a bigger tank and just fuel and go. I think by the time you'd made a Ural GS (you need to closely involved, the dealers like chrome and fancy paint but probably couldn't wire up a map light that'd be working after a few weeks real use) you could have rebuilt a BMW GS, made a Triumph into a GS or bought a Tenere. At this point I don't see where the Ural wins unless you know a lot about Urals and not much about old BM's and new Triumphs or Yamahas.

Edit: I think the comparison (which I have now read properly) as a Big capacity Enfield is quite close, but while Enfield have now moved on to the aluminium UC engine, Urals major bits are still very much at the cast iron stage. Maybe call it a big capacity late '90's Enfield?.

Andy

If you're still thinking "Royal Enfield" you should peruse this travel report. Man that's adventure!.

I met a guy in Bangkok traveling RTW on a brand spanking new one he'd just brought over from India.
He was having a host of problems already. The best mechanics around here couldn't get him sorted out. The poor thing would bare run!
It didn't look like he was going to get very far.
Definitely a very pretty bike, sadly even new ones appear to be Royal pieces of shit.

You'd really ride around the world with that seat? Doesn't look like a good idea to me.

Yea that seat look like a mid-evil torture device. I cant see riding around the block on that!
I suspect the OP doesn't have much long distance riding under his belt.

I did 500 mile days on a very similar looking seat fitted to the Triumph. You can never IMHO judge a seat by it's looks. The worst seat I ever tried was some plush extra wide thing on an R1100RT. Too wide, too soft and too plush to let you loose any heat, purely designed to look good in the show room and feet comfy for the 20 mile test ride. Sprung leather tractor seats might surprise you. They can of course be **** from the fashion designers like anything else related to current production motorcycles.

Seats of course are very easy to change.

Andy

I don't undestand you don't want to take a Vespa because geting parts is difficult and then you like the idea to do the same on the Ural...

__________________
___________/)____/)___/)____/)/)___/)___/)________
"Cosas que escapan a los que sueñan solo de noche..."

Glad I didn't misunderstand.

I must say, I'd love it if you choose a 2010 Royal Enfield, but that is as far as I'd go in theis matter: the choice is ultimately yours, but Enfields are slowly edging their way into my affections and if I decide to replace my TA600, an Electra EFI (rather than the Woodsman, after all) would be a seeeerious contender.

I will say this about your concerns over their performance in some conditions.

The truth is whichever bike you opt for, there are some terrains it will excel on, others where it will suck and everything in between: unavoidable on a route as varied as the one you are undertaking.

You either choose the one that will be closest to the ideal most of the time, or choose the bike that pings your affections and enjoy it for what it is.

In other words, yes an Enfield may suck in the sands, but has a lowish CoG and is not overly heavy anyway. Then, when you are on more typical terrain and tracks, you'll enjoy the thumping single, great economy and its disarming looks when mingling with the locals.

The question is then which box is most important to tick?

Either way, I am way jealous!
New bike buying and overland riding! Right now I can't really afford either, let alone both!

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

Those tractor seats are actually really comfy!!

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

Only just seen that post. Nice bike, nicely made etc. But a contender...hmmm. Not sure

Performance from a modern Triumph would leave it standing. I recognise some parts. For example the exhausts seems to be the Raceways High level pair. For that price, it would be undoubtedly cheaper to build your own!!

Down side is that, assuming the engine is pretty much the same, consumption is not great, and service intervals are every 2500 KM!! Perhaps more so, given that the lump is not lugging a tub around.

Again, I am not trying to sell the Enfield specifically, but as a peer in tech and power an EFI would be cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, have similar performance, have better service intervals etc, and possibly be lighter.

As a bike, though, that Ural has flare, and owning a Ural myself I can see that they have tried to address many of the issues I have id'ed as weaknesses: the exhaust level, the airbox design etc...

Would be a first!!

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

If you want a classically styled BMW I would suggest buy an airhead, you should be able to get a /7 series for not too much, and them modify it to suit your needs. This will give you what you seem to be looking for with reliability, some would say more reliability than a new BMW.

Fair point from a couple of you since my last post. Bush Pilot is spot on that my long range riding exp is limited, I have taken the Vespa on mid range distances around the Australian east coast, but that was all on reliable top notch highways.

For everyone else I get the hypocrisy in some of my choices, cant find Vespa parts so lets try to get some Ural ones from Mother Russia, truth be told I am so in love with the rugged classic styling of either the Ural Solo, Bullet 500 or Bonneville GS that they have to me come out as the front 3 contenders as bike for the task.

From what everyone is saying however (ThreeWheelBonnie and Warthog especially) the Bonnie seems to be the most mechanically reliable choice of the 3.

Because getting back to the basics of my original post what I really want is a classically styled bike that is capable of handling rough conditions, wont have to many mechanical problems to detract from the experience and if it needs mechanical help is either fixable by me or simple enough that any local mechanic should have a good chance of understanding the mechanics without needing specialised diagnostic tools to fix.

The secondary criteria to this is a bike with enough power to cruise around 100kms on a highway (which the Bullet 500 makes but just I think) and something that lends its self to a couple of simple modifications to make it more suitable for longer trips (ie bigger fuel, better shocks, tires and luggage racks).

It might help you to all know that my inspiration for the (eventual) bike of choice is the British WWII bikes used in North Africa, and if an Enfield is not the best man for the job then I might just trick out a Bonnie for the same purposes.

I did (also on Bike EXIF) come across this beautiful Bonnie mod (think this bike with Tourtech panniers):



So what do you think, A Bonnie GS up for the challenge?

And out of the 3 is it the best man for the job?

The Metal Mule Bonneville rack lets you fit either MM or TT panniers, though goodness knows why you'd bother spending cash beyond the rack (I'd sell you mine if they weren't so bashed in).

Tyres wise, Heidenau K-something knobblies fit easily and make a huge difference on snow and mud and I'd guess sand.

You'll need to make a sump cover (I wouldn't call it a bash plate), as the oil filter is just in a recess in the bottom of the engine. Mine is just 3mm ally held on with P-clips.

The rest is just practice.

To quote that credit card ad, the look on the faces of 250-trallie riders as a Bonneville arrives is priceless

Andy

Edit to add: I'd like to know if the kicker on that green bike is real and why would would do a replacement exhaust system that still blocks access to the back wheel is beyond me, but there are a lot of "dress up" Bonnevilles out there.

There are a lot of imitation "Bonnevilles" too.

Why don't you buy a knackered real one,rebuild it,go round World.

My rebuilt '66 did'nt let me down once in 11 years.

Attached Thumbnails

 

I know, I hate name at times, too much baggage that stops them advancing in the direction I want them to go. A perfectly practical, tough, modern bike with the right technology and riding position and they named it after a range that ran from the first superbike to incontinent old Meriden rattletraps that's took the last bit of the industry down with them, through parts bin specials knocked up in sheds .

Still, after the '60's T100 and '70's SE it'll be a laugh to see what the next one will be. Maybe they can make the starter motor fail intermittantly,charge extra for the indicators and go on strike every fortnight as part of the "experience"! The OC can live without electricity two days a week. Maybe they can do a special Edition: A blue one signed by Norman Tebbit with "On Yer Bike" on the tank and a Red one signed by Arthur Scargill !

Still, could have been worse, Rocket and Thruxton wasn't even a Triumph if the old bike book someone got me is to believed. Scrambler is the only name that makes any sense.

I believe there is some argument that the line does actually run continuously from Coventry to Meriden through the Bloor made from bits bikes to Hinckley? Think I'll leave that one to marketing people, I just like my T790.

Totally agree that if you have the knowledge to use as Meriden bike it would make total sense, but my technology comfort zone starts in about 1985 I believe the OP's does too. There again, Ted Simon made it on a bike built by the "collective". I'd have bought a Honda!

Andy