Playing top-trumps with the manufacturers spec sheets is pointless IMHO. The only way to take account of the different shapes and seat widths and engine "happy spots" and hundred other factors that please or annoy is to use them. Which would you rather have, 5 litres of petrol or 4.5 Kg lighter or a bike weighed without any oil in the engine? It's all compromise.


My current choice (Moto Guzzi V7) is supposedly under the magic 200Kg at 179 wet. If feels small and light and on gravel roads in third gear it plonks along as well as road shaped bike. My former V-strom was a whopping 14 Kg over the ballpark magic number but listed as "kerb" weight was certainly more capable off road due to the 19-inch front tyre when moving, but when forced to walking pace by how far ahead you can see was a top heavy lump with a seat height and width that made getting a foot down fretful. The Wee's bulk and extra 20HP would actually make it the superior road bike in many people eyes, but if you stick to the speed limit anything over 40 HP is pointless anyway.


I'd try talking to people with similar use and shape to you rather than reading the manufacturers web pages. It's taken me 20 years and 14 bikes to reach the conclusion that a 5'8" bloke doing 95% road use, who needs to take any road at 20 mph in any weather, has a pillion ten times a year and wants to do his own maintenance is better off with a bike that pretty much looks like what Ted Simon used in 1975 and has between 30 and 60 HP (but other choices also work to most of the spec)! Would you believe the only manufacturers who agree with me are Triumph (so long as I ignore their lies about the weight), Moto Guzzi and the odd Kawasaki dealer who knows their product range includes bikes that aren't snot green missiles ;-) The rest think having a bike that looks like something from the Transformers film or that is the weight of my lunch lighter than last years model is more important to me.


Look at the bikes that are doing the job, old BMW's, KTM's, Japanese singles and twins, Chinese 125's, Honda Step throughs..... The published weight figure doesn't coincide with success or failure.


Andy

I have a KTM 690 and a BMW R100GS. My preference for any 'adventure tour' will always be the old BMW. It's much heavier than the KTM but still fine for the unpaved roads, much more suitable for extended road travel and I wouldn't be put off exploring less travelled routes because of the weight.

The KTM would be my bike of choice if the intended journey was almost entirely off paved roads (trans Pyrenees for example) as the bike is much lighter making it a lot less hard work. I always try to travel as light as possible these days but even so the BMW carries the gear more easily.

I'm pretty much the same size I was forty years ago. OK, the leather bike trousers I bought in 1974 are a little tight these days but nothing a week on bread and water wouldn't sort out. Bikes, on the other hand, seem to have been spending the last few decades on a Big Mac and Lard diet and have become huge and bloated, lumbering their way down the tarmac and needing car sized parking bays.

How do I know this? Because yesterday I spent an hour or so wandering round my local Triumph dealer's showroom. They keep a small collection of classic (70's mainly) bikes scattered here and there in between the current stock so it's possible to do a direct comparison. The older stuff - many of which I owned in the past - looks tiny, almost like toys, yet I happily did many thousands of miles on them round Europe and beyond, often with pillions, without worrying about their weight. The current bikes were mostly all physically bigger and a lot heavier (the exception being a secondhand Enfield).

No doubt they were a lot more sophisticated and, despite much bigger engines, were probably just as economical but my point is that I'm just the same size as I ever was but I'm having to manhandle much larger heavier lumps of machinery around. No wonder they're unwieldy off road. There's nothing wrong with 200kg+ bikes that become 250kg+ when they're loaded up as long as you're riding them along smooth endless tarmac. It's when you have to ride them on a cross rutted sandy piste or push them uphill on an adverse camber that the problems arise. And lets not talk about snow.

Lighter bikes do exist - I have three of them under 150kg but mostly they're small capacity (my 125 is 88kg) or crude to the point of needing a mechanically adept (or insensitive!) rider (My XR600 is about 130kg, my CCM is about 145kg). The market seems to have decided though that more weight is an acceptable compromise for more sophistication - or maybe it's just that bigger sells easier. Either way, we now have still normal sized people trying to manhandle bikes that would have been laughed at a few decades ago - even the original Gold Wing looks small now.

I think it mostly depends on what roads you will travel. More offroad means more lighter bike!
As long as it will be graded gravel you can drive one of the big ADV-Bikes like S10 or GS, but my experience says, although on this roads a lighter bike like XChallenge, XT660Z or similar will be much mor fun

I own a S10 and now a XChallenge. I´ve been on gravel in the Alps with teh S10 and its great, what ist possible with such a big bike, and even the backroads in northern Germany could be done with the S10, but after driving the XChallenge on these roads i changed the Tires of the S10 to Anakee 3 because i will use the S10 only on tarmac.
A light bike ist so much more fun offroad, almost on graded gravel an on single trails just funny

My recommendation is to go as light as possible depending on the kind of adventure you will do.

But this ends not only with a light bike, light should be the luggage too

__________________
Greetings
Wolle