The CB500X, although a decent adventure bike, my number one concern with this bike in terms of "hard core" adventure would be the alloy wheels. The smaller wheel sizes, and the lower ground clearance could be an issue also - but may still be a good compromise for the vertically challenged. It is more the cast alloy wheels that I would be concerned about. Smashing one up in the middle of nowhere can put you in a very bad place to say the least, and it is quite probable if you don't take it easy in the rough stuff. The wheels can be upgraded with spoked, but IMHO it will come at a cost which simply isn't justifiable for a bike in this price bracket.

I bought a 390 Adventure, and it shares the same wheel issues as the CB500X. The KTM 390's ergonomics is also a bit aquard for offroading (still quite ok). The bike is quite a bit lighter than the CB500X, and much cheaper. The only reason I bought the KTM 390 and not the Honda 300 Rally was because the Honda had not come to market yet, and I also got a great deal on the KTM. The CB500X would however be the most comfortable ride of the bunch - on the road. Both the CB500X and The Ktm 390 Adventure are great options for the vertically challenged. If you are not vertically challenged, then I think the CRF 300 Rally is the more "hard core" option.

What someone considers "hard core adventure" is of course very different to that of another. To me "hard core adventure" usually involves a very long trip, with some long stages where you are completely left to your own should anyone your group get in trouble - and with a very long distance to walk out should that be your only option (no one to call, no one who will come looking, no one who will come around). Riding highly difficult trails for a weekend, far out in the boonies, and riding them hard - that for me involves a completely different set of "hard core" - to me that is maybe closer to motorsport than adventure.

For me, on a "hard core adventure", I wan't the equipment (bike) that will keep me out of trouble in the first place - a reliable bike that is very adapt to navigate the terrain I will be riding. Further, the bike should be able to take a beating and still be able to carry me out with some bush craft. Also, since "hard core" for me usually involves long distance travel, it also needs to be comfortable enough to ride days at end. Rider fatigue is also a sure way to cause injury to yourself or damage to the bike.

Depending on your skill, and your physique, the weight of your bike could mean a lot, but never nothing - for most it makes more than a little difference to have a low weight bike when getting into the rough stuff.

Most of my riding now is done on a T7 - which is quite heavy compared to the KTM/Husquarna. I'm no professional rider, but the T7's redeeming features still makes it the best compromise for me for the rides I am currently doing the most. For me, that means that when doing anything "hard core", I take more precautions and take it more slow and easy than I otherwise would. That also means, that if I was to be gone for a very long time, I would consider trading it in for a Honda CRF300 Rally.

Tim Cullins knows his stuff more than most - if he says the 690 is reliable enough, I would take his word for it. I also believe that many of the early issues has been ironed out. In the end though, all bike models have some common problems you need to be prepared to tackle. Some may be easy to prepare for - like bringing an extra fuel pump for bikes where this is prone to fail (the 690 reportedly being one), or carry out any preventative measures by upgrading fail prone items (i.e. strengthening the sub frame on the 701 or protect the wiring loom from chaffing on the 690). Bikes that have common issues that you can't prevent from happening on the road, or you cant readily tackle in the bush - those are bikes you really need to steer away from. None of the bikes mentioned so far belong in this category.

I often find myself drooling over the 690/701 - for its low weight, power and offroad capabilities. But like Tim Cullins says - in the long distance adventure department, it leaves much to be desired when it comes to creature comforts. For a much less expensive bike than the 690/701, I would be more willing to live with shortcomings - i.e living with the inconvenience of a fuel bladder over upgrading the tank. But, if I buy a bike in the more expensive price bracket, it is because I am trying to buy myself out of shortcomings. With the 690/701, there is still much that I would need to upgrade before I would have felt that I had ironed out the biggest issues - with crazy depreciation when it comes to resale value.

The KTM 790 is more adventure ready than the 690/701, and is a beast of a bike, but is also in the T7's weight bracket. It is more capable than the T7, but not by much - only a lot more expensive. The weight of either of these two bikes will make them more of a handful to manage in the rough than any of the other options mentioned.

All aspects of a "hard core adventure" considered, to me, the Honda 300 Rally or the T7 Rally are the two most rounded off bikes that would give me the most value for money today - right out of the box. They are at different ends of the same spectrum, but on the same spectrum non the less - each with their own set of redeeming factor where it falls short of the other.

Some good questions to ask - will this be your only bike or can you afford a second special purpose bike? How long do you intend to keep it?

All the bikes mentioned so far are very capable - you can't go very wrong with any of these.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

I agree with most of what you say, but must put my hand up here. Although the T7 and 790 are similar on paper they are very different bikes. The Yamaha is much simpler electronically, arguably a better option for the middle of nowhere, has a beautiful engine, and runs tubes in the wheels. The 790 is a much better bike off road as stock, and carries the fuel weight low in the pannier style tanks (which also act as good crash protection). The low fuel gives it a low CG (unlike the T7 which caries 19L high above the engine, making it more unwieldy and a nightmare to pick up alone). The 790 has tubeless wheels (despite being spoked) which work very well, but could be harder to repair in case of a puncture. With up to 70mpg available, the KTM has a range of well over 250 miles.

Ultimately someone who wants a bike that will do a fairly specific job, they're going to end up modifying it. My 790 fits my needs well but I've spent money on mods regardless. And if cast wheels were the only stopper to an otherwise well suited bike I'd say get them built

A point that havent been mentioned so far is the low octane gas that often seem to be the only available option in Mongolia and «far east/stans» country - and what bike is suitable and compatible with such fuels.

Arent the KTMs/Huskies quite high strung with high compression engines that requires relatively high octane gas? And if so wont these KTMs/Huskies get problems with the 80 octane gas you often get in Mongolia/Stans?

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

Snakeboy that's a very good point and one that has concerned me too. I've spoken to KTM who don't do a low octane map for the 790, though I will ask again before I go. As it stands I'm packing a couple of litres of Silkolene octane booster, and I've invested in a Coober lambda manager so it doesn't run lean (for emissions) low down (were you spend most of your time). I'm cautiously confident we'll be OK, but it's not just a KTM issue - all of the new generation of bikes are designed to run very lean.

Yes it seems all new bikes are set to run lean and are very tall geared too!
However it seems many KTMs have a higher compression than some of the other bike manufactorers/models….?

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

Ajp pr 7 ?

AJP PR7. Period.

If you can grab one, sincere all production is sold in advance. Ticks all your conditions.

I was looking for someone to mention it in the thread. And absolute knocker of a bike!

Ps: I would add in the requirements «*6th gear mandatory*»

In another forum somebody published a screenshot that at KTM US a flash for low fuel is available at the KTM dealer.

So I am wondering what is the difference between a european and a us 790?

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________